 |
| |
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm waiting to hear your solution to the foreign oil problem, oh wise one. Please don't try to side track things. |
Look at you guys trying to be all macho. Sad. But amusing.
Maybe you missed that whole recession thing that occured during the 70s because of energy shocks or the last one that was influenced by high energy costs.
But anyway, here is the answer for you amateurs. You are trying to point out a bunch of aggregate states put together that aren't problem states. We have Canada, Mexico, Venezuala, and Saudi Arabia as our largest sources of foreign oil. Those places are our buddies, right? Riiight...
You probably think I am thinking that all the oil must come from those crazy towelheads who are all bent on killing whitey and blackmailing him with overpriced black gold!!!!
But, hey, don't look to me for why dependence on foreign oil is a problem, you can read the testimony from the President's own cabinet:
http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-gl0389.html
In which he sums up the obvious. Key points:
quote:
A number of hard facts must be factored into the formulation of an energy security policy. These hard facts include:
-- Two-thirds of proven world oil reserves are in the Middle East. In contrast, the United States has 2 percent of proven world oil reserves;
-- The United States, as well as Europe and Japan, rely on imports to meet a large and growing portion of our oil needs;
-- Because markets are global, energy market disturbances that initially affect others will transmit aftershocks to us through prices and other economic linkages;
Significant amounts of oil are controlled by problem States |
Man, you really are clueless old wise retarded one!!!
OWN3D
Last edited by Ted Striker on 15-12-2004 at 15:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
|
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Can you back up that China statement, Ted? |
I don't have the RECENT figures, but here is part of the trend.
quote:
China's overall carbon dioxide emissions fell by 7.3 percent between 1996 and 2000, and its methane emissions declined by 2.2 percent between 1997 and 2000, it said. |
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssu...s/ChinaCuts.asp
quote:
China's emissions of carbon dioxide -- the main contributor to global warming --have declined 17 percent since 1997, despite economic growth of 36 percent over the same time period. China has achieved these impressive results principally by restructuring its economy, switching to cleaner energy sources, and improving energy efficiency. By 2020, China's CO2 emissions are projected to be lower than U.S. emission levels in 1990. |
http://www.global-warming.net/china.htm
quote:
Unlike other developing countries such as India, South Korea and Brazil, both the amount of energy and carbon consumed per dollar of GDP have decreased dramatically in China over the past two decades. With average annual GDP growth rates around 7-8% over the last decade and energy consumption growth rates somewhat lower, China has been reducing its energy intensity. |
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html
DOUBLE OWNAGE
Man, you should at least Google it first dumbass before trying to do macho posturing.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
1. glaciers are melting now, but have been melting for the last 300 years, and the speed of melting has increased in the last 300 years |
That directly coorelates to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Since we haven't been measuring glacier melting speed for 300 years, how would we know about that?
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
2. From 1986 to 2000, central Antarctic valleys cooled 0.7 C per decade |
Need a cite for it, but... Global Warming does not mean it gets warm everywhere. In fact, it is predicted that hot places will get hotter and some cold places will get colder.
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
3. West antarctic ice is increaseing at 26.8 gigatons/yr, reversing the melting tred of the last 6,000 years |
That appears to be in contradiction of reports of large Antarctic ice shelves breaking up at unprecedented speeds.
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
4. temperatures around the world (large cities are adjusted for urban heat island' effect. underadjustment is what is given)
a. Punta Arenas 1888-2004: a decrease of 0.6 C
b. Pasadena 1930-2000: an increase of 3.5 C
c. Berkeley 1930 - 2000: an increase of 0.6 C
d. Death Valley 1933 - 2000: an increase of 0.3 C
e. McGill (NV) 1930-2000: a decrease of 1 C
f. Guthrie, OK 1930-2000: decrease of 0.5 C
g. Boulder 1930-1997: decrease of 0.4 C
h. Truman (MO) 1931-2000: decrease of 2.1 C
i. Greenvile (SC) 1930-2000: decrease of 2.3 C
j. Ann Arbor 1930-2000: decrease of 1C
k. Charleston (SC) 1930-2000: increase of 0.2 C
l. New York City 1930-2000: increase of 0.8 C
m. Syracuse (NY) 1930-2000:decrease of 0.9 C
n. Albany (NY) 1930-2000: decrease of 1 C
o. Oswego (NY) 1930-2000: decrease of 0.7 C
p. West Point (NY) 1931-2000: decrease of 0.5 C
q. West Point (NY) 1900-2000: increase of 0.5 C
r. West Point (NY) 1826-2000: increase of < 0.1C
s. New York City 1822-2000: increase of 5 C
t. Albany (NY) 1820-2000: decrease of 0.5 C |
Anything on the average surface temperature?
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
5. CO2 levels
1957: 315 ppm
2002: 372 ppm |
quote:
In 1958, the concentration of CO2 was about 315 ppmv, and the growth rate was about 0.6 ppmv/yr. This growth rate has generally been increasing since then; it averaged 0.83 ppmv/yr in the 1960s, 1.28 ppmv/yr during the 1970s, amd 1.53 ppmv/yr during the 1980s. In 1994, the concentration of CO2 at Mauna Loa was 358 ppmv. The concentration in the spring of 2001 was about 375 ppmv, the most recent month for the which the data were available. Data from Mauna Loa are close to, but are not precisely the global mean value. The Mauna Loa record is due to Prof. Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. |
It appears that the data quoted is relatively accurate. What's the point here?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Viking
|
 |
of the Great White North
Feb 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
Got this far, had to wade in...
shawnmcc - hope you are feeling better.
I liked your post until the part I have quoted...
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Fourth, global warming. It IS happening. Glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates for what is probably human history. This is admittedly a very short time reference geologic history, but it's changes like this than can initiate an extinction event, and create rapid evolution, i.e. punctuated equilibrium.
|
Sorry, ridiculous claim.
Human "history" is about 7,000 years. We have been keeping reasonable climatic records for just over 1% of that.
People are making sweeping generalizations based on infintesimal amounts of data.
quote:
Conclusions? Do we have the worst global warming in RECORDED human history. |
Global warming in human history is an oxymoron.
Human history represents .0000001 of the global history.
quote:
Is our contribution significant? We don’t know. Are there other problems, possibly more significant caused by modern human population levels, lack of concern for the long-term considerations, etc. (i.e. like desertification)? Possibly. Do we need more data? Yes, yes, and YES. |
Agreed. But lack of data is not the problem. The problem is mass hysteria based on fallacies causing harmful decisions to be made with the best of intentions.
Sounds sort of like Iraq, doesn't it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Thucydides
|
 |
Screw you guys, I'm going home.
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Agreed. But lack of data is not the problem. The problem is mass hysteria based on fallacies causing harmful decisions to be made with the best of intentions.
Sounds sort of like Iraq, doesn't it? |
What harmful decisions have been made? As far as know the responses so far have mainly been to twiddle our thumbs and maybe think how it maybe possible some time in future to reduce carbon emission. As a said earlier, I really don't think it matters what evidence for global warming is found, politicians will refuse to make any harmful decisions because there's no money in them for doing so.
As for global warming, just because we have a small sample size, doesn't neglect the fact that the sample size shows an increase in temperture. Thus, global warming is real.
Last edited by Thucydides on 15-12-2004 at 22:56
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-12-2004 11:17
|