Interesting Weather Record Set Today

[Chief Grey Bear]

Thank You Wayne!!!!! or as the Libs on this forum and Emril would say.....BAM!!!!!!!!

Wayne, I'm starting to like you more and more......thank you stating what most want to say without getting pissed by the Liberal tripe spewed by some here.

Thank You and I hope you are really hitting some fish this summer.

You lable people as "libs" as if it is a bad thing. It was those crazy hippie liberals that started the anti pollution causes back in the '70's. And thank God they did. I remember what it was like too. Litter was everywhere not to mention the uncontrolled amount of waste dumped everywhere by manufacturers . I wear the badge liberal as an honor. The very term liberal says that you share. Better than being a tea bagging, stingy conservative. Which has nothing to do with conserving, only hoarding. MINE, MINE, MINE seems to be the mantra.

[OzarkFishman]

This was just a thought I had last night, don't know that it is brilliant but it sure puts a spin on things.

I do believe that we are hurting ourselves with the mindboggling emmissions that happen daily (no matter how the numbers are or are not skewed).

I also believe that our beautiful, wonderful planet cycles as all life does (Earth in my mind is alive, the violin is playing in the background).

Tweener is what I call myself (on most HUGE subjects, not that I can't take a stand, but who has all the variables on these HUGE problems).

Back to my thought ...

What if the real problem with this WORLD is that we were smart enough to domesticat animals .... no, I am not talking about animal farts. As a result of domestication more and more people could fit into smaller and smaller areas. Before this, most humans were nomadic hunter/gatherers. This was simple. Humans and animals could only live off of the plants and other animals that they (themselves) could kill/harvest. Knowing how to grow crops helped, but it was the animal domestication (in my mind) that led to HUGE population booms for the world. There is essentially no limit to how big a society can get (disease and such can happen, but we all know that). As a result, humanity had to grow and in its growth came deforestation.

This leads me to the meat and potatoes of the thought, could at least some of the increased "greenhouse gases" be due to an increase in animals and humans and a decrease in plants (that is elementary science).

Am I saying that this outways the emmision problem ... hardly, but it is a thought that doesn't get discussed much.

Those 500 years of data could help me do some research ... hint. hint ...then I could look at the CO2 levels (computer models, likely found online) and cross-reference it with population charts and de-forestation charts from the last 500 years. Of course, deforestation and domestication happened well before 500 years ago BUT everything these days is BIGGER and FASTER.

500 years is a lot of data ...

WARNING: This thought may be pointless

[eric1978]

Of course deforestation is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect...at least according to those crooked scientists out there just making up data to turn a profit. Google it.

[OzarkFishman]

No, that isn't the thought. It is the combination of Massive human population growth combined with deforestation.

Another variable that would have to be looked at would be ... are there more eatable sized-animals on the planet today or in the past. Many would say this is stupid and it must be in the past, but we can fit a lot of animals in a small area these days.

I would venture a guess that there are more crooked people of the cloth than scientists ...

[ness]

But wait OF -- when I said it was an infinitely complex situation, you laughed it off. As if it was so obvious from the single graph that global warming was causing the CO2 levels to go up -- or was it the other way around? Didn't the discussion end there? Look -- when you make a two-axis graph, you can stretch or squeeze an axis to make any generally upward sloping line fit another. That is clearly what was done on that graph. If I had the data for global temperature handy, I could probably fit the DJIA to it.

There surely is slight rise in temperature (1.75 degrees over 130 years on that chart), and CO2 levels are definitely up -- by a much larger percentage. But nobody is burning up or suffocating. It almost always requires a pretty major problem before humans get off their duffs and work on fixing it. That applies to conservatives, liberals, and the other 100% of the population that don't strictly fit into those categories.

I think if we could get off the labeling, calm the heck down, present some hard data (without denigrating the other 'side' in the process), we could get somewhere. But skim through this thread and see how many snarky comments are thrown in. Then there are the generalizations and hyperbole. When you can rid the discussion of this nonsense, there can be some progress. Otherwise, it's just another OA clusterfrack.

[OzarkFishman]

Ness ...

First, I didn't laugh anything off about the graph (don't know where that came from).

Second, I TOTALLY agree with your thought on getting past the snarky comments and actually that was my first point (other than a stupid post I made about a badge).

All I want is adult conversation, without "snarky" comments in almost every post. AND hard scientific data, which I already stated.

But TV and Radio and Politicians and what seems to be everyone these days wants to say these words and only these words ...

I AM CORRECT, YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU ARE STUPID FOR BEING WRONG. YIPPEE, I AM AWESOME!!!

I do my best to steer clear of those thoughts, but we all fail daily ...

[ness]

Ness ...

First, I didn't laugh anything off about the graph (don't know where that came from).

I guess I got the laughed it off from here:

Complex? LOL

But TV and Radio and Politicians and what seems to be everyone these days wants to say these words and only these words ...

I AM CORRECT, YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU ARE STUPID FOR BEING WRONG. YIPPEE, I AM AWESOME!!!

I do my best to steer clear of those thoughts, but we all fail daily ...

But, I've read a lot of what you've said here, and I think you're a reasonable guy. I just wanted to point out that oversimplification of a big issue is kinda dangerous. That chart doesn't prove a darn thing all by itself.

I agree with everything you said above. We should all be open to discussion and new, quality information. Doesn't happen here much though.

I quit watching cable news. Haven't watched a minute of it since April. It was a habit, I wasted a lot of time, and it didn't do a darn thing to make life better. I would argue it made life worse. It's BS, it jades you and it makes you stupid. It promotes arguing, not discussion. And that's kinda become the norm. I'm not gonna join in.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Tim you keep moving me around like a target. I accept global warming, at my age it is hard not to. That's not where my denial lies however. My problem is with how much of it is attributed to mankind, because that should be the focus of the strategy to cope with it. If we find that we have been barking up the wrong tree, it could get as ugly as starving people can get.

We keep seeing this graph that is said to explain all, yet the lines don't really start to stay in sync until about 1970, about the same time we started to attacked this problem?

One might conclude that if we have nothing to show for 40 years of effort we might be on the wrong track!

[OzarkFishman]

It's all good ness, can't fault a guy for name recognition problems (I forget students' names daily).

i also quit watching cable "news". Research on the internet CAN BE so much more objective (at least if you cross reference your sources).

[ness]

It's all good ness, can't fault a guy for name recognition problems (I forget students' names daily).

oops.

i also quit watching cable "news". Research on the internet CAN BE so much more objective (at least if you cross reference your sources).

Agree -- do your research, keep your BS detector turned on.