Last edited:
its gonna be a lil different in iowa...
- Thread starter j0ez0r
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,211
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 4,571
- Location
- The Burrow
- Podiatry Student
sayin the weather here today in dallas got over 80 degrees....
YEAH! It was 80 here in Tampa as well. Philadelphia...not so much...I need to go buy a coat and some boots. 🙁
If I tried to count the number of days it doesn't reach 80deg here, it'd be a very short list.
I don't really mind the cold since I grew up in one of the coldest states there is (north MN), but I sure don't miss the boredom factor and time delays snow and ice cause. It's nice to be able to do other stuff in the winter than just sit inside (or freeze outside for awhile then hurry back inside). Most of all, it's good not to have to dread doing even simple things like shoveling, walking the dog, spending 10min scraping the windshield and warming the car (if the doors aren't frozen shut), wondering if you'll be late to work due to bad roads, etc.
I don't really mind the cold since I grew up in one of the coldest states there is (north MN), but I sure don't miss the boredom factor and time delays snow and ice cause. It's nice to be able to do other stuff in the winter than just sit inside (or freeze outside for awhile then hurry back inside). Most of all, it's good not to have to dread doing even simple things like shoveling, walking the dog, spending 10min scraping the windshield and warming the car (if the doors aren't frozen shut), wondering if you'll be late to work due to bad roads, etc.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- North Chicago, IL
- Podiatry Student
51 degrees in Phoenix right now...brrr!- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Pre-Podiatry
14" of snow in Iowa City which means...SNOW DAY!!!!!!! We have had 2 snow days this year. That is more than the last 20 years combined. For all of you going to DMU next year, don't worry we only get a crappy winter like this once every ten-ish years. Not too bad temp wise around 30.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,211
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 4,571
- Location
- The Burrow
- Podiatry Student
Are you serious? -15? Hmmm...I might actually die.
Sounds like old Utah weather. Glad I left that hovel and high-tailed it to The Sunshine State!
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 819
- Reaction score
- 107
- Points
- 4,701
- Location
- Philadelphia
- Attending Physician
Actually, we are in the mid 60s today here in Philadelphia. It has been unusually warm winter here in Philadelphia.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,211
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 4,571
- Location
- The Burrow
- Podiatry Student
its the global warming. i miss cold snowy Philadelphia winters
D
Dr_Feelgood
Global warming is a bunch of b.s. Iowa has more snow and colder temps this year than a long time. I'm going to by a gas guzzling SUV and I'm going to burn more coal if the weather stays like this
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 288
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Podiatry Student
That's why the scientists look at the averages for the entire earth, not just one place.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Pre-Podiatry
Agreed! I love my gas guzzling 4WD SUV!
D
Dr_Feelgood
I hope you are well read in this issue if you want to debate it. The climate is cyclical. Did you know that we were in a mini-Ice age until the 19th century? So of course we are "warming." I'd suggest a reading/knowing a few things on the topic of global warming.
1) Look into the UN-IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the key word is intergovernmental. Most of the "experts" are politicians and environmentalists. They are appointed the position and need to have not qualifying credentials, i.e. their leader Al Gore. If you look on the website there are only two Drs in leadership positions are Dr. Leo Meyer in Working Group III and Dr. Simon Eggleston in Gas Inventories.
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm
2) Most of the recommendations that are made are not based on scientific evidence. Many scientist that have been part of the IPCC are now trying to get out.
http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13971
3) Many of the other claims come from the Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming another politician run panel.
http://globalwarming.house.gov/
4) A good review on the topic was written in the Washington post and it is worth reading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501676.html
If you want to get excited about pollution, you should look at water pollution. It is real and has killed more people, flora, animals, and environments than global warming ever will. But it is not popular b/c most of the pollution comes from business that pay politicians to ignore it.
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/nspills.asp (Just be happy that you are not from NC)
P.S. Did you know that the great global warming fighter Al Gore is the #1 energy consumer in Tennessee.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,211
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 4,571
- Location
- The Burrow
- Podiatry Student
It's funny how things on here evolve into debatable topics.Global warming is a very real fact that we must contend with in our lifetime!
How much human activity has caused this increase in temp? I would say somewhat.
We can't ignore the fact that before the industrial revolution, CO2 in ppm was around 290. With the IR, CO2 is very close to 380 ppm. [NOAA]. With the CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas, we have contributed.
However, many other factors contribute to the warming of the surface of the planet. Like Feelgood proposed, the temperature flux of the Earth is cyclical. So you have to consider other factors; such as negative and positive feedback.
As the Earth heats, suppose just naturally, ice melts. Ice reflects more solar radiation than liquid water. With less ice, less radiation is deflected warming the Earth. This is ice-reflectivity feedback. [EPA]
However, negative feeback is linked to this. The warmer the Earth gets, the more evaporation is occurring. This increases low clouds around the planet, which reflect radiation and decrease the temperature of the planet.
However, I think that just to blow off the Greenhouse Effect, from human activity, is bypassing the fact that what we do as a species will change our surrounding environment. Although the Earth will heat up naturally, we should be doing our part to slow down the burning of fuels.
Except for the next four years when I have to leave the equator and head to that cold, cold city. After those four years, we should scrap our Expeditions. Until then, BURN IT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
D
Dr_Feelgood
Global warming is a very real fact that we must contend with in our lifetime!
How much human activity has caused this increase in temp? I would say somewhat.
We can't ignore the fact that before the industrial revolution, CO2 in ppm was around 290. With the IR, CO2 is very close to 380 ppm. [NOAA]. With the CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas, we have contributed.
However, many other factors contribute to the warming of the surface of the planet. Like Feelgood proposed, the temperature flux of the Earth is cyclical. So you have to consider other factors; such as negative and positive feedback.
As the Earth heats, suppose just naturally, ice melts. Ice reflects more solar radiation than liquid water. With less ice, less radiation is deflected warming the Earth. This is ice-reflectivity feedback. [EPA]
However, negative feeback is linked to this. The warmer the Earth gets, the more evaporation is occurring. This increases low clouds around the planet, which reflect radiation and decrease the temperature of the planet.
However, I think that just to blow off the Greenhouse Effect, from human activity, is bypassing the fact that what we do as a species will change our surrounding environment. Although the Earth will heat up naturally, we should be doing our part to slow down the burning of fuels.
Except for the next four years when I have to leave the equator and head to that cold, cold city. After those four years, we should scrap our Expeditions. Until then, BURN IT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please quote me a study that ties climate to greenhouse gases that does not come from a government agency or a UN agency.
I'll give you one that refutes your facts.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0419_060419_global_warming_2.html
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,211
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 4,571
- Location
- The Burrow
- Podiatry Student
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,211
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 4,571
- Location
- The Burrow
- Podiatry Student
I'm not saying that Greenhouse gases are the sole cause for the heating of the Earth, I understand that the flux is just that - a flux.
But we know that the release of the carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years, into the atmosphere, refracts solar radiation in random directions. Some of those directions are right back onto the surface of the planet.
There is a lot of active research by universities and private companies. Additionally, government funded programs, with the current administration, should be able to hold their ground. Our president and EPA are not so concerned with global warming. So, if we do get an agency, such as NASA, which does publish pro-greenhouse gas - climate change papers, they, in my opinion, are not pushed as propaganda, but in fact the opposite. The propaganda is the EPA interfering with some state's tough emission standards, and telling the general public that those rigorous standards are not needed and the fed's will work it all out in a few years time.
But we know that the release of the carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years, into the atmosphere, refracts solar radiation in random directions. Some of those directions are right back onto the surface of the planet.
There is a lot of active research by universities and private companies. Additionally, government funded programs, with the current administration, should be able to hold their ground. Our president and EPA are not so concerned with global warming. So, if we do get an agency, such as NASA, which does publish pro-greenhouse gas - climate change papers, they, in my opinion, are not pushed as propaganda, but in fact the opposite. The propaganda is the EPA interfering with some state's tough emission standards, and telling the general public that those rigorous standards are not needed and the fed's will work it all out in a few years time.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,211
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 4,571
- Location
- The Burrow
- Podiatry Student
Boer, G., N. McFarlane, and M. Lazare, 1992: Greenhouse Gasinduced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model. J. Climate, 5, 10451077.
I really liked this study because I think it highlights my point. See if you can get your hands on it.
Although the Earth can balance itself, that balancing act between tropical, temperate, and colder conditions will change the way we live on this planet. Local areas around the world can suffer, even though the world as a whole may be balanced.
I really liked this study because I think it highlights my point. See if you can get your hands on it.
Although the Earth can balance itself, that balancing act between tropical, temperate, and colder conditions will change the way we live on this planet. Local areas around the world can suffer, even though the world as a whole may be balanced.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 288
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Podiatry Student
I didn't post that to start a debate about global warming but because I always find it amusing when people take one extremity and make a case for it rather than looking at it as a whole. And the other side (Al Gore) does it too. I am well versed in this subject but don't really care too much except for one aspect of it. I have heard all the different arguments for and against it.
But this is where I stand: I care more about what can be done to get us off foreign oil rather than the planet warming or cooling. If everybody gets freeked out about global warming, it is possible that this can move us further away from oil as a source of energy. I just hate sending my money to psychos like Hugo Chavez and those people who hate us in the Middle east. I would rather have us develop a new source of energy that would stay within our economy and be fairly priced. The Iowans love this idea with respect to ethonal. And if the idea of global warming is a major contributor to get us there, I'm cool with that whether it is real or not. This is just a different way to look at it.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,669
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 4,641
- Location
- Southwest
- Attending Physician
I can't believe we're debating global warming! Oh how threads digress
That's pretty easy^... we could just up the price of our wheat exports to pay for the oil.
It might not be as convenient, but we can live fine without foreign oil. On the other hand, many other countries simply cannot live without eating our grains. US and Australia are to wheat what Saudi Arabia or Kuwait is to oil, and fortunately for us, not being able to drive a Hummer kinda pales in comparison to starving to death.
http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/top_ten_wheat_countries
I was not really joking around when I quoted Feelgood about water pollution. It's real. Overcrowding, global warming, or the planet running low on oil are relatively small issues IMO. There is only a finite amount of fresh water, and when it's all used up (or too polluted to use), then people will starve. There is no flexibility to that rule. It's already been evident for awhile now; China's major rivers don't even reach the ocean anymore because they are all drained dry long before that. The one child per family rule and importing tons of grain wasn't because they are low on fuels or space to live... they are out of water to drink and grow food with. If their grain imports were cut off, over a third of their population would starve. Unfortunatly, we will probably see many other countries also reach that critical water supply juncture in out lifetime.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/110958?g=1
Oil is fairly small in the grand scheme of things.
But... but... Feelgood started it. 😎I can't believe we're debating global warming! Oh how threads digress
D
Dr_Feelgood
I think that you and many scientist forget about what was keeping greenhouses gases in check: one, aerosols (the block the suns rays) and two, vegetation. Feli mentioned a major player in this which is the population boom and civilization expanding. You replace a forest or field with a city and you increase CO2 in the air and decrease the things that removed CO2 from the air.
Also, don't forget about the largest trapper of CO2 is aquatic vegetation, i.e. algae. It still goes back to water pollution.😀
I thought you were jumping on the global warming bandwagon which I hate. Half of the idiots who scream about global warming know nothing about geology, meteorology, history, chemistry, or biology. As for as they know, the universe was created 5 minutes ago and revolves around them.
I love this solution. One thing that cracks me up about oil prices is that they are the only commodity that a business gets to set the production. I have said for awhile that farmers should say we can going to only release X amount of corn and Y amount of soybeans. Once the world freaks out and tries to sue them and stop them, they say we only want to be treated like OPEC. If they can do it, we can too.
No I didn't. MOOOOOOOOOM.😱
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 170
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- North Chicago, IL
- Podiatry Student
Plankton are actually a huge source of carbon sequestration as well. And on that note, there is really impressive research being done on creating fuel from algae all across the US right now. This would serve to not only sequester carbon, but the oils from the algae can be made into a type of diesel fuel.
I also heard on NPR last week that a huge study was done on the environmental friendliness of ethanol, and it gave it very poor marks. The fuel itself is a good alternative, but changes in land use that have resulted from farmers trying to grow more corn has been really hard on local ecosystems, and also the environment as a whole.
I also heard on NPR last week that a huge study was done on the environmental friendliness of ethanol, and it gave it very poor marks. The fuel itself is a good alternative, but changes in land use that have resulted from farmers trying to grow more corn has been really hard on local ecosystems, and also the environment as a whole.
D
Dr_Feelgood
Yeah ethanol should be made from switch grass not corn. Soy diesel is good though b/c soy actually sequesters nitrogen into the soil.
