At least, some cities in the USA are working on the issues of climate change, even "doing a pretty good job":
Quote:Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Duke City Goes For The Green
copied/pasted from
pages D1 & D2
Walter Hinteler wrote:copied/pasted from
pages D1 & D2
Make that "frontpage and page A2"
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
Walter - paleogeology and paleoclimatology aren't taught in geography class at most schools, so the good people of Albuquerque don't realize we live in a historically very cold period.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:copied/pasted from
pages D1 & D2
Make that "frontpage and page A2"
Walter, if I was an Albuquerque city taxpayer, I should sue the city for misappropriation of funds. Don't the city have better ways to use their money than suing the Bush administration, and isn't that a waste of energy in and of itself if it likely requires trips to D.C. to carry on such a stupid lawsuit? If I lived in Albuquerque, I would be embarrassed.
I love Albuquerque its without doubt one of the finest places I never visited.
Steve 41oo wrote:I love Albuquerque its without doubt one of the finest places I never visited.
I've been there - though it's totally different to anything in Europe outside Spain, their policy re environment is nearly European standard.
From the frontpage of today's (27.12.2006) Wasgington Post:
Online report:
U.S. Wants Polar Bears Listed as Threatened
Welcome to A2K HighSeas. I don't know that we're living in a historically cool period though certainly the climate in this area is far cooler now than when this country was under the ocean or when it was all tropical rain forest. The climate is quite temperate (and dry) in New Mexico now.
I have lived in Albuquerque since 1984 and in New Mexico off and on for most of my adult life. Yes Albuquerque does its share for the environment and was doing so before anybody made a big deal out of it. The mayor's idea of 'alternate fuel' is mostly running city busses on natural gas, however, which is fairly plentiful and cheap in New Mexico as we produce a lot of it. This would be far less practical in areas where natural gas is harder to come by.
As far as running roads through the petroglyphs, that happened when some of our local fanatics were looking the other way--you would have to see these petroglyphs, how scattered they are, and that a whole lot of them have been produced by Albuquerque school children and Boy Scouts in this century to understand why that wasn't really a problem.
Likewise, the bosque has been in no way harmed by a few more bridges and it was not the environmentalists protesting that as much as the people who didn't want a road to a bridge going through or near their neighborhoods. There was one enormous old cottonwood that had to be cut down for the Montano bridge a few years ago and some folks did fight furiously to save it. (This blocked the bridge being built for several years.) When they finally cut it down, it was almost completely rotted out inside and would have been dead within a short time anyway.
But then you have the city running thousands of gallons of water into the gutters from run off from the parks while fining citizens who let water escape from their yards. You have the very same environmentalists clamoring for more green and applauding a commuter train running a roughly 100-mile corridor from the Albuquerque metro area to Santa Fe and then objecting to it running through their neighborhoods or blowing its whistle. (We are spending many hundreds of thousands more dollars reconfiguring crossings so the train whistle won't have to blow.)
Those very city councilmen who sued the Bush administration (at considerable cost to the city) have been observed driving Suburbans and dualies and other large pickups and all live in very large energy consuming houses as does the mayor. (Not sure what the mayor drives now but it used to be a large SUV.)
Then of course there is a enormous amount of funding for state and local governments courtesy of the oil and gas industry in New Mexico.
And yes, sometimes our government, both local and state, is a major embarassment to those of us who can recognize futility, inefficiency, impracticality, waste, and again that old bugaboo hypocrisy, when we see it. I do like our mayor who gets things done, but even he doesn't always practice what he preaches.
The point is that most New Mexicans are enviromentally conscious and do their share to protect it. But we have our fair share of those who preach do as we say and not as we do types too including many in government roles. We also are loaded with high tech science here and a fair number of our scientists aren't buying the whole AGW thing or even that our current earth temperatures are anything unusual in the big picture of global science.
So what do we do? I think we keep studying it, learning, protecting our air, soil, and water as we can so that we will know what is NECESSARY that we do as good stewards of the Earth.
Foxfyre wrote:Welcome to A2K HighSeas. I don't know that we're living in a historically cool period [..........].
Thanks, Foxfyre - was in fact here years ago, though my old name is no longer available.
On your above portion of your post: please refer to graph. The historical averages of planetary temperatures aren't in doubt; you probably realize that a 10-degree Celsius (from 12 degrees C. to 22 degrees) variation is a colossal difference in the effects on fauna (us, too, and those pitiable polar bears mentioned by Walter) and flora.
We're now bumping along the bottom of that range, with 12 to 13 degrees average temperature. Pollution and species collapse caused by human overpopulation are easier to fix than planetary motions, which cause the 10-degree variation in temperature to begin with, so of course I agree with you to that extent.
High Seas wrote:
We're now bumping along the bottom of that range, with 12 to 13 degrees average temperature. Pollution and species collapse caused by human overpopulation are easier to fix than planetary motions, which cause the 10-degree variation in temperature to begin with, so of course I agree with you to that extent.
Planetary motion cause the temperture changes? Got any citation for that?
There have been many reasons for difference in temperature in the past. Everything from Sun radiation to CO2 concentration to planetary motion to volcanic activity, etc, etc. To say that planetary motion is "the cause" is to ignore science.
parados wrote:High Seas wrote:
We're now bumping along the bottom of that range, with 12 to 13 degrees average temperature. Pollution and species collapse caused by human overpopulation are easier to fix than planetary motions, which cause the 10-degree variation in temperature to begin with, so of course I agree with you to that extent.
Planetary motion cause the temperture changes? Got any citation for that?
There have been many reasons for difference in temperature in the past. Everything from Sun radiation to CO2 concentration to planetary motion to volcanic activity, etc, etc. To say that planetary motion is "the cause" is to ignore science.
LOL - to ignore science? Your qualifications for deciding such a point aren't clear to me, but you might try to start by looking at the data on the link posted along with the graph <G>
For extremely short time scales you may wish to refer to this source as well:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Observatory/datasets.html
And btw, Mr. Parados: if you can construct a mathematical model that simulates the KNOWN temperature profile of our planet for the last 4.5 billion years, rest assured that your Nobel prize is in the mail; since you claim to speak for "science" (sic) you probably know there's no prize for mathematics, but you can still be a candidate for literature.
High Seas, lots of non-scientists love to claim to speak for science.
Foxfyre wrote: .....
I have lived in Albuquerque since 1984 and in New Mexico off and on for most of my adult life. ......
Thanks Foxfyre for the discussion of Albuquerque. I am familiar with it as well, as I used to live there. Much of the green movement is nothing more than lip service if you analyze it closer. You talked about fighting the building of bridges to save the river environment and trees. Do these same people ever stop to consider how much fuel is saved by building a bridge to prevent thousands of people driving extra distance every day?
Albuquerque is situated in the sunny southwest, and solar should be huge there, a much larger component of the energy mix than now, so efforts to promote that are commendable, and as supply and demand dictates, it probably will become much more important in that region.
Given the urban sprawl of Albuquerque, I doubt very seriously that public transit systems are very efficient. Plus many people that work in Santa Fe live in Albuquerque or Rio Rancho, which produces a clogged and wasteful 60 miles to Santa Fe via I-25. Reason, cost of living in Santa Fe because of all the rich, artsy and cultured crowd that have moved there.
okie wrote:High Seas, lots of non-scientists love to claim to speak for science.
She certainly will appreciate that knowledge very much, I'm sure, okie
High Seas wrote:For extremely short time scales you may wish to refer to this source as well:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Observatory/datasets.html
And btw, Mr. Parados: if you can construct a mathematical model that simulates the KNOWN temperature profile of our planet for the last 4.5 billion years, rest assured that your Nobel prize is in the mail; since you claim to speak for "science" (sic) you probably know there's no prize for mathematics, but you can still be a candidate for literature.
So you are saying you made it up when you said...
Quote:than planetary motions, which cause the 10-degree variation in temperature to begin with
I am familiar with the datasets from NASA and NOAA. Before you poo poo someone else's knowledge of science you should not make statements that sound absolute when you have nothing to back it up.
Planetary motion is how the planets move around the sun. You may have been attempting to refer to plate tectonics because the site you referenced deals a fair amount with the movment of the earth's surface but it says nothing about "planetary motion" causing any changes in temperature.
I have never said I speak for science. I have said your statement is not based on much science. You haven't backed it up in a coherent fashion yet.
You might want to learn how to use sic correctly as well. You don't use sic when you use a single word spelled correctly in quotes.
http://www.answers.com/topic/sic-2
parados wrote:High Seas wrote:For extremely short time scales you may wish to refer to this source as well:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Observatory/datasets.html
And btw, Mr. Parados: if you can construct a mathematical model that simulates the KNOWN temperature profile of our planet for the last 4.5 billion years, rest assured that your Nobel prize is in the mail; since you claim to speak for "science" (sic) you probably know there's no prize for mathematics, but you can still be a candidate for literature.
So you are saying you made it up when you said...
Quote:than planetary motions, which cause the 10-degree variation in temperature to begin with
I am familiar with the datasets from NASA and NOAA. Before you poo poo someone else's knowledge of science you should not make statements that sound absolute when you have nothing to back it up.
Planetary motion is how the planets move around the sun. You may have been attempting to refer to plate tectonics because the site you referenced deals a fair amount with the movment of the earth's surface but it says nothing about "planetary motion" causing any changes in temperature.
I have never said I speak for science. I have said your statement is not based on much science. You haven't backed it up in a coherent fashion yet.
You might want to learn how to use sic correctly as well. You don't use sic when you use a single word spelled correctly in quotes.
http://www.answers.com/topic/sic-2
My dear man - considering the fact you've now quoted me 3 times as having said "planetary motion" (sic) instead of what was in fact written in my post, to wit "motions" you'll understand, I trust, that I can't be bothered with correcting the rest of your ill-conceived illiterate and innumerate rant. I have the honor of wishing you a good day.
I have quoted you 3 times and used the wrong words?
Are you really trying to say that plate tectonics has caused global warming?
Plate tectonics has moved the surface of the globe around and caused some areas to move from temperate to cooler climes over millions of years but it hasn't been the cause of global warming or cooling. Local climate does not equate to global temperatures.
Planetary motion does affect the global climate over time. The Earth's orbit has changed and will continue to change. However the wobble in the orbit does not account for all the changes in global temperature.
High Seas wrote:
My dear man - considering the fact you've now quoted me 3 times as having said "planetary motion" (sic) instead of what was in fact written in my post, to wit "motions" you'll understand, I trust, that I can't be bothered with correcting the rest of your ill-conceived illiterate and innumerate rant. I have the honor of wishing you a good day.
I apologize for interrupting a fascinating conversation, and welcome to the debate, High Seas, but out of curiosity, could you be the formerly known "BernardR" that happened in these parts a while back?
