(206) 949-5683, Top Rated Plumber, Seattle
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 167

Thread: Global Warming, now Water Shortage

  1. #31
    Forum Admin, Expert Plumber Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Bothell, Washington
    Posts
    14,199
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    BrooklynJon,
    If you are saying that the places they record temperatures don't count, because they have been urbanized, then isn't that the whole point?

    It's getting harder to see stars at night, for all the lights from cities.
    Already, the things I grew up with over 50 years ago, I can't share with my grandkids.


    http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
    I just watched this film, Maybe my first statement above is wrong.
    After watching the film at the link above, I'm sure I was wrong.
    Last edited by Terry; 11-09-2007 at 01:45 PM.

  2. #32

    Default

    Florida Orange,

    For the record, I'm a Prius-driving Democrat who lives in a heavily insulated house three miles from work. I walk the environmental walk, and talk the environmental talk. However, there's a lot more to being an environmentalist than buying into the whole anthropogenic global warming movement. In fact, the hoopla surrounding global warming is causing virtually every other environmental concern to be ignored. If you don't believe me, check out what's happening to the tropical rainforest so that massive sugar cane plantations can be built in the bizarre belief that burning one fuel is substantively different than burning another. We will stop recycling our corn stalks into topsoil in this country so that we can turn them into ethanol; in a hundred years, we'll have a permanent dust bowl.

    As a published scientist myself, I know how easy it is to manipulate studies, and how biased researchers get when you dangle money at them. Right now, climate researchers who toe the party line about global warming can get grants, and those who don't don't. What's worse, they get derided as "shills for industry", which is tantamount to permanent blacklisting for academic scientists. And last I checked, scientific truth was not based on how many people vote for one theory over another. I can bore you with a long recitation of how many hypotheses had widespread support and turned out wrong, but I choose not to for now.


    Terry,

    Yes and no. If I put a thermometer in Nassau County, just outside New York Ciy, in 1930, it will give a rural reading. If I check it again in 2000, it now gives me an urban reading, which is roughly five degrees more than the same location would be if it were rural. Nassau County is hardly representative of the Earth's surface. Of course, most of the Earth is covered by water, and the portion that is land is mostly minimally developed. But the Nassau Counties of the country are disparately overrepresented in the temperature data because people in 1930 wanted to put their station outside the city, but not so far outside that they couldn't get to it easily. So they put the stations in the suburbs.

    It is an extrapolation to assume that a number of local readings constitute a "global" phenomenon. The readings have to take place that are representative of the globe, and there has been no attempt made to do this.


    Finally, the statement that the rate of rise in the temperature is unusual is just not correct. We are comparing it to data from ice cores that compress long periods of time together, resulting in averages that change slowly. But we are measuring temperature much more frequently now. When you increase the frequency of your sampling, you are necessarily going to see more variation (so-called "noise"). This does not mean that the rate of change has increased. It means that you are now seeing the trees rather than the forest you were looking at before.

  3. #33
    Plumbing Designer FloridaOrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    1,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynJon View Post
    but I choose not to for now.

    That says alot to me. I work with and for engineers, I'm fully aware of how numbers can be manipulated. I was leaning this way looonnnggg before the scientific consensus was that way. How could you not believe that 6.6B people, most part of industrial nations is not effecting the planet? At the rate things are going (and most numbers I look at are accelerating) we're gonna be in big trouble. Deserts are expanding, subtropical areas are slowly becoming tropical and so forth.

    I am fully aware of how much woodland and tropical forest we're losing. It's all tied together.....

    9.5M hectares this year so far
    5.2M land loss through soil erosion this year
    18.5B metric tones of carbon dioxide emissions this year
    12.3M acres of new desert this year
    Matt
    Semi-professional plumbing designer
    Enjoying life in SW Florida

  4. #34

    Default How about this?

    What about satellite temperature measurements?

    Evidence from satellite and weather balloon soundings suggests that the atmosphere has warmed considerably less than greenhouse theory suggests. These measurements, which cover the whole atmosphere and show only a very slight warming, show a disparity with the surface temperature measurements, which cover only a small fraction of the Earth but show sustained warming.

    What donít scientists know yet?

    Scientists do not agree on whether: 1) we know enough to ascribe past temperature changes to carbon dioxide levels; 2) we have enough data to confidently predict future temperature levels; and 3) at what level temperature change might be more damaging than beneficial to life on Earth.

    taken from globalwarming.org

  5. #35
    Master Plumber master plumber mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    indianapolis indiana - land of the free, home of the brave....
    Posts
    4,243
    Blog Entries
    1

    Talking population explosion

    you can all beleive what ever you want to....
    we need to collect more data......whatever....

    at this point it really dont matter....


    the big oil companies and other pollutors all want more informaiton..... to stall and stall makeing the changes that are already too late........

    we are slaves to oil and our cars... and their is absolutely nothing that can be done about it .....

    the whole populatioin is not willlingly going to bo back to the horse and buggy... and cannot......

    their are simply too many people on the planet wanting the same oil driven lifestyle

    so you might say that all of humanity is on a huge roller coaster ride....
    and like on every ride you have ever been on you can
    feel the rollercoaster comming to the top of the first
    great drop into the abiss....................yeeeeeee...haaaaaaaa!!!!! !

    In my opinion ......its just a matter of how much time before things really become exciteing........


    So , just try to be good, honest and decent to each other and

    you should try to live like it could be your last day on earth

    anyway....because it always could be.


    or you can collect some more data on this issue before you decide
    to embrace this course of action I just proposed....

  6. #36
    DIY Member theelviscerator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Elkhart, IN
    Posts
    72

    Default

    America and Europe can all put their cars on blocks, but if China and India don't play by the exact same rules, well you get the picture.

    two skinny kids on a seesaw do not balance out two fat ladies.
    The world is a grindstone, whether it wears you down, or polishes you up, is up to you.

  7. #37

    Default

    All too true Mark. Don't let one day go by without making it better than the day before for someone.

  8. #38
    Plumber Cass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    5,984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookie View Post
    All too true Mark. Don't let one day go by without making it better than the day before for someone.

    Just a smile and holding a door open for someone goes a long way.

  9. #39
    Aspiring Old Fart, EE, computer & networking geek Mikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,686

    Default

    Somehow, today's Dilbert seems relevant:

    Name:  Bitter scientests-dilbert2002444471031.gif
Views: 97
Size:  24.1 KB

  10. #40
    Master Plumber Dunbar Plumbing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati Area
    Posts
    2,943

    Default I got so overwhelmed by this thread

    that I accidentally let my turbo diesel run for 9 hours in the driveway.


    Make room for my carbon footprint! Don't forget that garbage I burned


    tonight either! Name:  fire3.gif
Views: 111
Size:  7.5 KB Got a permit for that? No


    Thanks for the info Cookie; I was aware of that treatment but 4 gallons of water

    passing through my kidneys fixed me right up. Kind of a "non-insurance" treatment

    if ya know whadda mean.
    Read what the end of this sentence means.

  11. #41

    Default

    Sometimes the stones are too big too pass, no amount of water will push them thru--insurance is really important since, procedures and hospitals can be very expensive. You can buy direct thru Highmark Blue Shield. But, now that ( stones) will probably be subject to a one year (look back 5 years) pre-existing clause. Sometimes, you can be caught between a rock and hard place.

  12. #42

    Default

    Florida Orange,

    I didn't want to elaborate on my statement about popular hypotheses being false not because I was being evasive, but because I had to join my trick-or-treating kids.

    Anyway, the most prominent one from the medial literature was the lidocaine-after-myocardial infarction fiasco. People with MIs (heart attacks) often have arrhythmias. Lidocaine treats arrhythmias. At some point someone had the bright idea that everyone should be put on lidocaine routinely after an MI. 20 years later, someone suggested that it should be studied in a randomized, placebo controlled study. They were roundly criticized for being unethical (withholding the therapy that everybody knew was beneficial in the name of science). Of course, it turned out that the lidocaine was increasing the mortality from MIs. To the tune of 2500 excess deaths in the USA per year. Over the 20+ years that it was the standard of care, it resulted in around 55,000 excess deaths, even though EVERYONE thought it was the right thing to do.

    Electronic fetal monitoring during labor was also accepted widely as proper medical care without any adequate prospective studies. When it was finally studied, it turned out to have no effect on babies, but only increased the c-section rate.

    Relativity? Widely mocked and derided.

    The sun as the center of the solar system? Widely mocked and derided.

    The Big Bang? Widely mocked and derided.

    The expanding universe? Widely mocked and derided.

    Quantum Electrodynamics? Widely mocked and derided (by Einstein, no less! Remember, "God doesn't play dice with the universe!")


    Essentially no scientific journalists understand the difference between prospective data and retrospective data. That's why we get pronouncements about how diet soda causes obesity. Frankly, most scientists are less than clear on the subject. I know, because I have to explain this all the time to scientists. Bottom line: prospective data can show causality. Retrospective data cannot. They can only tell you that tw things go together, but not which is causing which, or whether either is causing the other.

    6.5 billion people affecting the Earth's temperature? Sure it's possible. It's also possible that they're affecting the Earth's gravitational field or magnetic field. Possible? Sure. Likely? Nuh-uh. But, any scientist would say "Show me the data." That's not what happens now with global warming. If you dare to question the orthodixy, everyone gets shrill and resorts to ad homineim attacks, which is the ultimate reason why I strongly doubt the theory. It's not science. It's religion. People stay pretty calm about scientific disputes. They get bent out of shape about religion.

    So here's a little experiment you can do. Make up a little sign that says "I'm skeptical about anthropogenic global warming via carbon dioxide" Stand on a street corner with it, and see how calmly people express their disagreement with you. Now do the same with a sign that says "I believe that RNA is the original genetic material, not DNA." Think there will be a difference? I do.

  13. #43

    Default

    Jon,
    You will love this question. I am just asking for your opinion on the relationship between genetics and the big C. What do you think?

  14. #44
    DIY Member Bosun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    89

    Default So, to sum up...

    The idea is that since there is no scientific proof, it cannot be? THAT is what drives me nuts.

    I think the comparison between religion and warming is simplistic.

    And people who get excited about China and India not "following the rules?" Yep, that's life. But why shouldn't we?

  15. #45
    Master Plumber Dunbar Plumbing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati Area
    Posts
    2,943

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookie View Post
    Jon,
    You will love this question. I am just asking for your opinion on the relationship between genetics and the big C. What do you think?

    causes...

    I believe having a genetic predisposition to cancer means activities like smoking will attribute to the onset but are not the root cause.

    If you want to be technical, the one and only thing that causes cancer is your body's immune system failing to get rid of defective cells.

    That's it, that's cancer in a nutshell.

    And that's also why if you get cancer you're likely to get it again, because if your body failed to get rid of the cancerous cells last time, it will fail to do so the next time you get defective cells.

    The average person gets cancer several times in their lifetime, but gets over it naturally long before any symptoms actually show up.

    HOWEVER - in the case of cancer....the DNA gets messed up. Some think that it maybe an unknown virus that invades the cell, or the code of the DNA its self somehow gets twisted.

    There is a phenomenal amount of code within a DNA strand. There's a lot of redundant code, duplication code as well as recessive code.


    So, a cell divides with this code.
    Instead of it dividing ONCE......it divides like 6 times. And it continues to replicate in this multiple fashion. Each time it replicates, its more and more.

    That's why, if you can catch it early enough - you could destroy those cells before they actually BECOME the organ that they were supposed to be renewing.


    That's a really simple way of describing it.
    I had a doctor tell me once that if we lived long enough, we'd all die of some form of cancer.

    Sounds about right.
    genetics plays a big role in whether someone gets cancer or not....after all, we're all born with cancer cells...dormant until something activates them


    or so I've been taught.
    These were all opinions formulated from a discussion on another forum of the validity of whether or not smoking during pregnancy is harmful. Ridiculous to even think that smoking is safe.

    I've cast the die for being a candidate for lung cancer by being a former smoker from years ago. The choices you make before can land you in the situation you're in today.


    I have 2 older women that are my customers that were just diagnosed with breast cancer, one is far worse off than the other and I feel so sorry for her. Stage 3 and numerous surgeries, lymph nodes were involved. << That involvement is a timeline set you cannot change most times.

    It's getting too common and I have 2 male customers that were diagnosed with prostate cancer as well. None of us are oblivious to this and I guess we should expect it from the way things are going.

    In my area, it's considered the cancer belt region and I'm sure the water and the treatment of which (getting back on topic) is what is causing this maybe? There is only so much you can extract from water down to its base formula and I believe certain levels of radiation and chemical residues are partly to blame.

    Northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati is notorious for having the most cases of brain tumors and kidney stones (heh, score!).

    The kidney stones due to the gypsum plant and numerous rock quarries that emit levels of limestone into the air. This in turned creates a higher level of ability to create deposits/stones. < Told to me by a ER doctor and nurse present.

    I know of a child and a former customer that had brain tumors removed that were non-cancerous. I know of both of these people and met them in the last 6 months.

    Too common but there's no stopping this now...
    Last edited by Dunbar Plumbing; 11-01-2007 at 07:59 AM.
    Read what the end of this sentence means.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •