Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[Donnie Brasco]

Global climate warming change made Al gore one of the richest men in the World

Got anything that's not an argument ad hominem?

Actually, while this allegation is very likely an over-statement of Big Al's capitalization on the man-made warming scare it is NOT an ad hominem rebuttal. It is a mere statement of fact.

Big "Upset" Al's mediocre grades (C average at University) and the fact that he is not a geophysicist and that he is indeed deeply vested in this warmist panic play are more ad hominem. As is Al's choice to go with a sensationalist tabloid journo style in "An Inconvenient Truth"

I lost all respect for this dweeb Gore when he backed away from Bush.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[BlackJack]

bring it on

[attrayant]

Ad hominen is attacking the person (Al Gore, in this case) instead of the argument. In fact not only is it ad hominen, it's also a non sequitur.

[Donnie Brasco]

Ad hominen is attacking the person (Al Gore, in this case) instead of the argument. In fact not only is it ad hominen, it's also a non sequitur.

So FACTS as cogent as they may be to bringing Al's motivations into the focus are not admissible to this conversation ?

Al is not a scientist he is a politician.

David Suzuki is not a geophysicist he's a geneticist. (Says WAY more about Fukishima these days than about climate change ;-)

Sorry, but your ad hominem thingie is specious and tangential.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[canuckamuck]

The US also lists CO2 as a pollutant. Let that sink in.

Co2 is one of the building blocks of life along with water, sun light and oxygen, and it is a pollutant? We really are living in an Orwellian nightmare.

It's not just the US, every country on the planet with at least a 6th grade science education knows that CO2 is a pollutant. There's no need to let it "sink in" if you understand what the word 'pollutant' means. According to our friends at Merriam Webster, a pollutant is:

a substance that makes land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use.

What's next? Is water a pollutant because sometimes it floods?

Please check the above definition of pollutant again, and you should be able to answer your own question.

How does CO2 make air dirty? Without CO2 in our air we would lose all the plants. It's needs to be there.

You might as well call Oxygen a pollutant too because too much of it can be dangerous.

[Donnie Brasco]

Hi Bommerangutang,

I'd just like to thank you for your sensible posts on this thread. Also I'd like to thank those others who base their replies on scientific data. I fear that it is a losing battle, however.

Thai Visa is full of people who are total nutcases: climate change deniers, supporters of Suthep, believers in conspiracy theories (irrational beliefs such as: Japan will become uninhabitable due to Fukushima, mobile phone masts cause sickness, the US government caused the twin towers to collapse).

As you know, there are some people who understand science and logic and rational argument, and there are others who do not. It has always seemed to me that, if in doubt and if you are not an expert in the field, then check what most scientists from reputable institutions believe, and then tend to follow their conclusions. In the case of climate change, where some 95% of scientists think that climate change is anthropogenic, that might suggest that one should agree with their conclusion. And yet many people on ThaiVisa seem to think that, they ThaiVisa members, albeit uneducated in any sciences remotely connected with meteorology or atmospheric science or physics in general, can give their 'opinion'.

Uneducated opinions are worthless.

Good wishes to you, Bommerangutang. You have the patience of Job.

In a post that is at once his disingenuous claim to understand "what is science?" and his oleaginous paean to Bommerangutang's citation of some scientific data, Khun Tilac2 proceeds to group any and all who would shake the foundations of his fantasy world into the "total nutcase" category.

Tilac2 cites "(climate change deniers, supporters of Suthep, believers in conspiracy theories (irrational beliefs such as: Japan will become uninhabitable due to Fukushima, mobile phone masts cause sickness, the US government caused the twin towers to collapse)."

He then welds this thing of his to a massive paragraph containing nothing more than opinion and rhetoric and flies the whole thing under the radar to score points with anyone else who may be slightly concerned about some of his nutcase issues but is too lazy to do any research.

These days there is NO excuse for failure to research the events of our times. I actually concur on one or two of these things but to cobble them all together into a farrago of treacle in the guise of laying this cloying concoction at the feet of another poster is a non-starter.

Just who do you think you are fooling there, Tilac2. ??

Dooon at poob are we then ;-?

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[FiftyTwo]

Ad hominen is attacking the person (Al Gore, in this case) instead of the argument. In fact not only is it ad hominen, it's also a non sequitur.

If you care about the world so much, why are you still flying?

Aircraft cause considerable pollution and environmental damage, nobody disagrees on that.

But you continue to use them for a bit of personal fun.

What's wrong with you?

[boomerangutang]

Would everyone just take a moment to click on this, please.

FIRSTLY

Of course, there's climate change.

Climate has ALWAYS "changed"

Sometimes it's hotter than other times.

There have been whole AGES of radically different weather.

SECONDLY

There is no evidence supporting man-made global warming.

THIRDLY

We are about as important to the planet as fleas are to an elephant.

We are NOT the crown of creation.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

Sometimes little things have big impacts. A tiny un-seeable virus killed the leader of one of the greatest military machines the world has known: Alexander the Great.

I agree, our species is not the crown of creation. We're clever, that's about it.

I agree with your 1st point, but not your 2nd.

[Donnie Brasco]

That's fair enough, boomeranutang but let's not leave out THIS part.

FACT: CO2 comprises less than .0397 % of the Earth's atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

I've been following this for a couple of decades.

While it may at times occur parallel to perceived changes in temperature and may be co-incidental with changes I do not see a causal relationship between ANY human activity short of nuclear catastrophe (Fukishima to be specific) and drastic changes to the way our planet works.

We are just not that bloody important.

A Mt Penatubo or a Mt St Helens or the sub-Antarctic fumerols blow out WAY more CO2 than we humans do. The Earth just does its thing and WE have precious little to say about it.

Grants and research funding for the warmist community ABOUNDS. So quick they are to impugn those of us who question this new belief system. (We get oil money, apparently ;-)

Yet THEY (the warmists) get massive support from Nuclear energists. Lovelock does anyway.

And there's a million other ways for Big Nuclear to support the ones they love.

I have had thousands of URLs fired my way but after painstakingly sifting through their data have NOT seen the science.

And by science I mean *The Scientific Method* as evinced by Lord Alfred North Whitehead of the Royal Society over a hundred years ago. You have to go from the data. All the data.

One does not start with a pronouncement or theory and then SELECT only data that support it. One must account for ALL the data and the exercise must be repeatable.

Not in a computer model . (How fun it must be to add and withdraw variables until one arrives at the desired result)

Proof by cartoon is NOT admissible.

It is NOT serious science.

I invite you to post your data that connects (not coincides) CONNECTS human activity to global warming. Or even climate change.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[attrayant]

So FACTS as cogent as they may be to bringing Al's motivations into the focus are not admissible to this conversation ?

That's correct. Check the thread topic again: Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

You're suggesting that if somebody gets paid to do a job or perform research, their findings are automatically suspect because they made money doing it. In that case, nobody who gets paid can be trusted. Rethink that and get back to us.

How does CO2 make air dirty? Without CO2 in our air we would lose all the plants. It's needs to be there. You might as well call Oxygen a pollutant too because too much of it can be dangerous.

I'm really getting tired of answering gradeschool science questions. CO2 is a poisonous gas. A little bit is beneficial for plants, but too much can kill you. Do you dispute that?

Gas Chamber:

A gas chamber is an apparatus for killing humans or animals with gas, consisting of a sealed chamber into which a poisonous or asphyxiant gas is introduced. The most commonly used poisonous agent is hydrogen cyanide; carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide have also been used.

In fact it's so effective, it's used in slaughterhouses to kill pigs and chickens. Now can you understand why we don't want too much of it floating around in the air that we breathe?

If you don't understand what 'pollutant' means, then your argument is with the people who write encyclopedias and dictionaries, not with me.

[attrayant]

That's fair enough, boomeranutang but let's not leave out THIS part.

FACT: CO2 comprises less than .0397 % of the Earth's atmosphere.

You've said this twice now but it doesn't seem connected to the rest of your post, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

I'll guess that you're trying to say that the amount is so small as to be negligible, but please clarify if I've misunderstood that point you're trying to make by bringing up this .04% number.

[RickBradford]

I'm really getting tired of answering gradeschool science questions. CO2 is a poisonous gas.

Good, because you're not qualified to answer gradeschool science questions. CO2 is not a poisonous gas.

It is a largely inert gas which has virtually no effect on the body. The way that CO2 can kill is if there is so much of it that you asphyxiate due to lack of oxygen, as happened at Lake Nyos.

To stun animals, they use CO2 at concentrations of 800000ppm (80%). It's thought you can start to feel a bit woozy from lack of oxygen from CO2 as low as 100000ppm (10%). The earth's atmosphere currently holds 400ppm (0.04%). Plants die at under about 150ppm.

Far from being a "poisonous gas" CO2 is one of the safest gases imaginable.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is, by contrast, one of the deadliest gases around, 700ppm is enough to kill you in a short time.

[attrayant]

I'm really getting tired of answering gradeschool science questions. CO2 is a poisonous gas.

Good, because you're not qualified to answer gradeschool science questions. CO2 is not a poisonous gas.

Stop playing semantic games. Poisonous, deadly, hazardous, toxic, use whatever term you like. It doesn't change the facts: the central point that we're all dancing around is that CO2 is a harmful pollutant (scroll back a dozen posts or so where a poster was incredulous about CO2 being a pollutant), and we don't want to have excessive amounts of it hanging around in the atmosphere. Do you dispute that?

Edited February 21, 2014 by attrayant

[attrayant]

Oh, and you should edit the wiki entry on inert gas asphyxiation, especially the part that says

At high concentrations CO2 gas is a narcotic/anesthetic and a poison, therefore it is not a physiologically inert gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation#CO2_stunning

Don't forget to cite your sources.

[canuckamuck]

Oh, and you should edit the wiki entry on inert gas asphyxiation, especially the part that says

At high concentrations CO2 gas is a narcotic/anesthetic and a poison, therefore it is not a physiologically inert gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas_asphyxiation#CO2_stunning

Don't forget to cite your sources.

By your thinking there isn't any compound or element that isn't a pollutant so why not say everything is a pollutant and be done with it.

The real point being made much earlier is that CO2 is being called a pollutant in order to vilify a gentle and critically important life sustaining compound.

At 0.0397% I don't think will be seeing anyone asphyxiated by CO2 nor will it happen at 100 times this amount.

This is about control and taxes. We have arrived at a time in history where our politicians have found a way to tax the air we breathe.

You can pound drum for them, or you can spend some time in critical thinking.

All their models are wrong, they have been caught fudging the results, warming can be explained through assorted other processes (sun activity, a weakened magnetosphere, the ozone hole...) and the earth has been warmer and colder, without the addition of industrial CO2. For example, not that long ago the Northwest Passage was open. So obviously the earth can and does warm on its own, so there is no reason to eliminate natural process as the most likely suspect for warming.

The earth gets warmer or colder, it does not stay the same. It was very very cold, and it is still warming up (fact). Why should I be concerned. As a Canadian I say it's about time.

[RickBradford]

Poisonous, deadly, hazardous, toxic, use whatever term you like.

CO2 is neither poisonous, deadly, hazardous or toxic under any sensible definition. Any substance is potentially hazardous if it is present in sufficient concentrations, even water and oxygen.

Benign is the term I would use, or possibly beneficial, or a key building block of life.

If CO2 were in the slightest bit poisonous, deadly, hazardous or toxic, I doubt that concert halls would regularly spray hundreds of litres of the stuff over their patrons (dry ice).

In any case, at trace quantities like 400ppm, the argument vanishes -- you could survive carbon monoxide at that concentration.

The argument is really whether such an inert trace gas can affect global temperatures. The best answer we have is Yes, but in a very mild way which is more likely to be beneficial than otherwise.

[Scott]

Continued off-topic, hair-splitting posts will be deleted. Particularly those concerning CO₂

[boomerangutang]

CO2, in the climate change debate, is not about whether it's toxic. Its relevance is whether it's a greenhouse gas (it is), and whether significant amounts are being pumped in to the atmosphere (there are). GW deniers keep trying to change the goal posts, and talk about things like; "Climate has always been changing" (yes it has) or "CO2 is toxic" (not unless in high concentrations) or "Arctic ice is spreading not lessening" (the opposite is true),

To me, one of the biggest factors proving GW is the dramatic reduction of glaciers worldwide. Not only are they receding dramatically, they're becoming thinner in breadth and height. When deniers twist themselves in to fizzle sticks trying to slough off shrinking glaciers, ....that's when it's clear they're desperate to not acknowledge any proofs of global warming.

[RickBradford]

GW deniers keep trying to change the goal posts, and talk about things like; "Climate has always been changing" (yes it has) or "CO2 is toxic" (not unless in high concentrations) or "Arctic ice is spreading not lessening" (the opposite is true),

Please show one instance where a "GW denier" has tried to "change the goal posts" by declaring "CO2 is toxic".

[Donnie Brasco]

Once a field of enquiry leaves the rigours of science and the scientific method this field of enquiry becomes a belief system. At one point in its development, the anthropogenic global warming crowd bounced off the ropes (the Infamous University of East Anglia emails, and onto the mat) next came a series of US warmist frauds: the famous "hockey stick graph and then this stuff.

http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/211-global-warming-fraud-exposed-under-oath

Adopting Pascal's "better safe than sorry" philosophy became (for a while) the warmist fallback position as they continued to preach that our annoying little species had the power to change weather.

At this point climate change is accepted as fact because climate change has always been a fact.

If changing the movement's scare-mantra from "warming" to "change" isn't moving the goal posts, I couldn't tell you what IS.

The *MAN MADE* aspect of climate change is a fraudulent corollary of that change.

MAN MADE climate change and belief IN it have become a religion. A cult.

Like L Ron's Scientology "MAN-MADEism "uses* the trappings of science to promote BELIEF.

But it is NOT science. It is like the Creationist who uses science to promote belief that Gawd created the Earth in six days.

The huge ongoing following among warmists proves little.

Merry Christmas, Al.

Glad you could make it.

BTW, Where did you park your jet ;-?

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[Gulfsailor]

CO2, in the climate change debate, is not about whether it's toxic. Its relevance is whether it's a greenhouse gas (it is), and whether significant amounts are being pumped in to the atmosphere (there are). GW deniers keep trying to change the goal posts, and talk about things like; "Climate has always been changing" (yes it has) or "CO2 is toxic" (not unless in high concentrations) or "Arctic ice is spreading not lessening" (the opposite is true),

To me, one of the biggest factors proving GW is the dramatic reduction of glaciers worldwide. Not only are they receding dramatically, they're becoming thinner in breadth and height. When deniers twist themselves in to fizzle sticks trying to slough off shrinking glaciers, ....that's when it's clear they're desperate to not acknowledge any proofs of global warming.

"To me, one of the biggest factors proving GW is the dramatic reduction of glaciers worldwide"

So if new data available shows that there is no dramatic reduction in glacier size worldwide, would you change your position in regards to GW?

The reason that I ask is because yes it's true that glaciers are decreasing in Alaska and other near Arctic areas, but increasing in many other places, including Antarctic, New Zealand, Europe and Himalayas...

[chuckd]

Cutting through all the scientific BS being tossed around, here is a sure fire way to find out what the weather is doing.

[canuckamuck]

CO2, in the climate change debate, is not about whether it's toxic. Its relevance is whether it's a greenhouse gas (it is), and whether significant amounts are being pumped in to the atmosphere (there are). GW deniers keep trying to change the goal posts, and talk about things like; "Climate has always been changing" (yes it has) or "CO2 is toxic" (not unless in high concentrations) or "Arctic ice is spreading not lessening" (the opposite is true),

To me, one of the biggest factors proving GW is the dramatic reduction of glaciers worldwide. Not only are they receding dramatically, they're becoming thinner in breadth and height. When deniers twist themselves in to fizzle sticks trying to slough off shrinking glaciers, ....that's when it's clear they're desperate to not acknowledge any proofs of global warming.

Do you know why the glaciers are smaller. It is because it is warmer now than 100 years ago. This is not even interesting. No one in this debate should be surprised that warm air makes ice melt. You cannot take the leap from glaciers are melting to, WE DID IT. This is not a sensible connection. Glaciers have been receding for the last 12,000 years. It didn't start in our lifetime.

[boomerangutang]

CO2, in the climate change debate, is not about whether it's toxic. Its relevance is whether it's a greenhouse gas (it is), and whether significant amounts are being pumped in to the atmosphere (there are). GW deniers keep trying to change the goal posts, and talk about things like; "Climate has always been changing" (yes it has) or "CO2 is toxic" (not unless in high concentrations) or "Arctic ice is spreading not lessening" (the opposite is true),

To me, one of the biggest factors proving GW is the dramatic reduction of glaciers worldwide. Not only are they receding dramatically, they're becoming thinner in breadth and height. When deniers twist themselves in to fizzle sticks trying to slough off shrinking glaciers, ....that's when it's clear they're desperate to not acknowledge any proofs of global warming.

Do you know why the glaciers are smaller. It is because it is warmer now than 100 years ago. This is not even interesting. No one in this debate should be surprised that warm air makes ice melt. You cannot take the leap from glaciers are melting to, WE DID IT. This is not a sensible connection. Glaciers have been receding for the last 12,000 years. It didn't start in our lifetime.

You're trying to lump several concepts in one ball of wax.

Sometimes deniers claim there is not warming. Other times, when, when convenient, they admit there is warming, but say it's not interesting (as mentioned above) or relevant. I don't think there's contention over whether warm air melts ice. Similarly, muddy shoes shed mud on a carpet. Yes, glaciers have been melting since the end of the most recent ice age. That's not being contended by anyone. The issue is; how much human activity is accelerating warming? Most people, like myself, agree with a majority of scientists - that human activity is accelerating melting of glaciers. graphic proof\

glaciers thinning since 1970

summary from Wikipedia link above:

The effective rate of change in glacier thickness, also known as the glaciological mass balance, is a measure of the average change in a glacier's thickness after correcting for changes in density associated with the compaction of snow and conversion to ice. The map shows the average annual rate of thinning since 1970 for the 173 glaciers that have been measured at least 5 times between 1970 and 2004 (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). Larger changes are plotted as larger circles and towards the back.

All survey regions except Scandinavia show a net thinning. This widespread glacier retreat is generally regarded as a sign of global warming.

During this period, 83% of surveyed glaciers showed thinning with an average loss across all glaciers of 0.31 m/yr. The most rapidly growing glacier in the sample is Engabreen glacier in Norway with a thickening of 0.64 m/yr. The most rapidly shrinking was Ivory glacier in New Zealand which was thinning at 2.4 m/yr. Ivory glacier had totally disintegrated by circa 1988 [1].

[boomerangutang]

CO2, in the climate change debate, is not about whether it's toxic. Its relevance is whether it's a greenhouse gas (it is), and whether significant amounts are being pumped in to the atmosphere (there are). GW deniers keep trying to change the goal posts, and talk about things like; "Climate has always been changing" (yes it has) or "CO2 is toxic" (not unless in high concentrations) or "Arctic ice is spreading not lessening" (the opposite is true),

To me, one of the biggest factors proving GW is the dramatic reduction of glaciers worldwide. Not only are they receding dramatically, they're becoming thinner in breadth and height. When deniers twist themselves in to fizzle sticks trying to slough off shrinking glaciers, ....that's when it's clear they're desperate to not acknowledge any proofs of global warming.

"To me, one of the biggest factors proving GW is the dramatic reduction of glaciers worldwide"

So if new data available shows that there is no dramatic reduction in glacier size worldwide, would you change your position in regards to GW?

The reason that I ask is because yes it's true that glaciers are decreasing in Alaska and other near Arctic areas, but increasing in many other places, including Antarctic, New Zealand, Europe and Himalayas...

Wrong. If you want to believe glaciers are increasing in size, that's your choice, but facts prove it wrong. Look at the best scientific evidence, of scientists actually at those sites, and you'll see clearly (unless you don't want to see) that nearly every glacier worldwide is receding and declining in mass. An interesting phenomena in Antarctica, appears to be large amounts of water flowing under some glaciers there. As you can imagine, it's difficult to measure such things, but if true, it could contribute to large amounts of ice slipping in to the sea. But if a person doesn't want to see any evidence like that, then that person can shut their eyes and insist it's impossible.

[canuckamuck]

CO2, in the climate change debate, is not about whether it's toxic. Its relevance is whether it's a greenhouse gas (it is), and whether significant amounts are being pumped in to the atmosphere (there are). GW deniers keep trying to change the goal posts, and talk about things like; "Climate has always been changing" (yes it has) or "CO2 is toxic" (not unless in high concentrations) or "Arctic ice is spreading not lessening" (the opposite is true),

To me, one of the biggest factors proving GW is the dramatic reduction of glaciers worldwide. Not only are they receding dramatically, they're becoming thinner in breadth and height. When deniers twist themselves in to fizzle sticks trying to slough off shrinking glaciers, ....that's when it's clear they're desperate to not acknowledge any proofs of global warming.

Do you know why the glaciers are smaller. It is because it is warmer now than 100 years ago. This is not even interesting. No one in this debate should be surprised that warm air makes ice melt. You cannot take the leap from glaciers are melting to, WE DID IT. This is not a sensible connection. Glaciers have been receding for the last 12,000 years. It didn't start in our lifetime.

You're trying to lump several concepts in one ball of wax.

Sometimes deniers claim there is not warming. Other times, when, when convenient, they admit there is warming, but say it's not interesting (as mentioned above) or relevant. I don't think there's contention over whether warm air melts ice. Similarly, muddy shoes shed mud on a carpet. Yes, glaciers have been melting since the end of the most recent ice age. That's not being contended by anyone. The issue is; how much human activity is accelerating warming? Most people, like myself, agree with a majority of scientists - that human activity is accelerating melting of glaciers. graphic proof\

glaciers thinning since 1970

summary from Wikipedia link above:

The effective rate of change in glacier thickness, also known as the glaciological mass balance, is a measure of the average change in a glacier's thickness after correcting for changes in density associated with the compaction of snow and conversion to ice. The map shows the average annual rate of thinning since 1970 for the 173 glaciers that have been measured at least 5 times between 1970 and 2004 (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). Larger changes are plotted as larger circles and towards the back.

All survey regions except Scandinavia show a net thinning. This widespread glacier retreat is generally regarded as a sign of global warming.

During this period, 83% of surveyed glaciers showed thinning with an average loss across all glaciers of 0.31 m/yr. The most rapidly growing glacier in the sample is Engabreen glacier in Norway with a thickening of 0.64 m/yr. The most rapidly shrinking was Ivory glacier in New Zealand which was thinning at 2.4 m/yr. Ivory glacier had totally disintegrated by circa 1988 [1].

Once again you are arriving at an unsubstantiated conclusion. If you have an ice sculpture in a fridge and you set the temperature to +1C. The sculpture will lose some of its mass. through evaporation or melting. if you turn it up to +10 it will melt faster. and if you turn it up to +20 it will melt even faster.

On this I hope we can agree.

One other factor in the melting is the duration that the temperature remains high. if the sculpture is at +10 for 20 minutes it will melt more than it did in 10 minutes, and quite probably it will have melted more in the latter 10 minutes because of heat absorption.

Do you agree with this as well?

What does not effect the melting of the sculpture is the process through which the temperature regulator was turned up. If it was set to increase electronically, if it was turned up by a monkey, or even if a tree fell on the switch and tuned it up; the results would be the same.

Your glaciers are not melting faster because of humans. your glaciers are melting faster because it has been warmer and it has stayed at a higher point for many years. This has created the condition for faster ice melting.

We do not see through the melting of glaciers any indication of what has made it warmer out. All we can see from their evidence is that their melting is consistent with warmer conditions. All you would have to do is look at the global temperature increase in the last 100 years (0.8C) to make the assumption that glaciers must have been getting smaller. But looking at the glaciers tells you nothing about the cause, no matter how much quicker the change has taken place.

.

[boomerangutang]

Pardon me, for taking the 'monkey' reference and tweaking it a bit:

Various hairless monkeys crank up the coal-fired electricity plants - to quench the wasteful usage of most other hairless monkeys. A listing of the wasteful ways they use electricity could fill a book, small font. Someone needs to throw a monkey wrench in to the spindles. Humans produce over 6 billion metric tons of CO2 annually (source) that's about 1 ton per person, on average. A rich person probably produces closer to 30 tons/year. It's not all (not even most) of worldwide CO2 emitted annually, but it's significant. How much of that is wasteful/unnecessary usage? Your guess is as good as mine. I'd say around 70%.

A personal spin: I just met a young man who is captain of a mid-sized pleasure yacht for hire. He told me how they just did a special 10 day tour around some islands - for a few very rich guests. Guess how much they spent, just on diesel fuel? 32,000 Euros!

Edited February 24, 2014 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

A brief addendum to the glacier discussion: You'll notice that, in current times, when glaciers lose mass (as most are doing now), they don't gain it back (the opposite of dieting American women).

[canuckamuck]

Pardon me, for taking the 'monkey' reference and tweaking it a bit:

Various hairless monkeys crank up the coal-fired electricity plants - to quench the wasteful usage of most other hairless monkeys. A listing of the wasteful ways they use electricity could fill a book, small font. Someone needs to throw a monkey wrench in to the spindles. Humans produce over 6 billion metric tons of CO2 annually (source) that's about 1 ton per person, on average. A rich person probably produces closer to 30 tons/year. It's not all (not even most) of worldwide CO2 emitted annually, but it's significant. How much of that is wasteful/unnecessary usage? Your guess is as good as mine. I'd say around 70%.

A personal spin: I just met a young man who is captain of a mid-sized pleasure yacht for hire. He told me how they just did a special 10 day tour around some islands - for a few very rich guests. Guess how much they spent, just on diesel fuel? 32,000 Euros!

I totally agree that things need to change. Where we disagree is on how much these things are related to warming and whether mankind's contribution to environmental CO2 has anything significant to do with it. Or if indeed warming is not actually one good thing, just before we are plunged back into colder averages.

[canuckamuck]

A brief addendum to the glacier discussion: You'll notice that, in current times, when glaciers lose mass (as most are doing now), they don't gain it back (the opposite of dieting American women).

I think we would have to see a long cooling trend before that would happen. Maybe glaciers are naturally thin.

Edited February 24, 2014 by canuckamuck