Originally Posted by Perfectlap

The other issue that is rarely concentrated on is how burning fossil fuels at these global levels dumps unprecedented amounts of mercury into the enviorment. That ends up in the air you breathe, the water you drink and the fish you eat. Warming or no warming.

Originally Posted by thstone

"(night vision is basically a camera that detects IR light). "

Let's be careful in using terms so we don't confuse anyone - there are actually three types of technology used for night vision:

The technology that most people call "night vision" works by amplifying the very low level of visible ambient light that our eyes cannot detect. A better name for this technolgy is "light amplification". This technology creates the classic "green" scene images that we've all seen from the military. The military likes this approach because it is passive in nature and will not give away a soldiers position.

Alterntively, other night vision devices use an energy source (just out of the visible range in either near-wave IR or UV) to illuminate a scene in a wavelenth that humans cannot see. This is an active technology and is kind of like mounting your old hippie black light from your garage to a camera that detects the black light. Obviously the military doen't like this approach because this type of device can be easily dectected by an IR or UV sensor which would immediately give away your position but it is useful for other situations and can provide very good quality images because there is an actual source of energy illuminating the scene. These images are characteristically black and white (not green) with a bright spot (more white) where the illuminator energy is strongest.

Otherwise, true IR cameras detect heat or thermal energy and can be used for night vision but only objects with different temperatures can be resolved. This can be helpful when searching for a Sasquatch (hot) in a forest where the ave temp of the background forest is colder than the Big Foot or any other hot blooded animal but many objects can go undetected or unresolved because they are same or close to the same in temperature as the surrounding background (e.g. cold blooded animals or made made objects). These images are recognizable by their wide range of full colors (red, yellow, green, and blue) with bright red being the warmest and dark blue being the coldest.

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

The other issue that is rarely concentrated on is how burning fossil fuels at these global levels dumps unprecedented amounts of mercury into the enviorment. That ends up in the air you breathe, the water you drink and the fish you eat. Warming or no warming.

Originally Posted by Lordblood

In addition to carbon dioxide fossil fuel combustion emits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide- all of which makes water more acidic, and it all comes back down as acid rain, which has proven to change environments drastically. There are plenty of reasons to move away from fossil fuels (and combustion in general) other than global warming.

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

Then can we assume you have gotten rid of all your vehicles that use fossil fuel? How about your electric, does it come from coal or oil? If so have you disconnected from the line. Kinda like Al Gore riding around in his private jet complaining about carbon footprint. If all of you advocates would give up your use of fossil fuels we all would be better off, no? Until that time....

AKL :cheers:

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

Don't know if is "legal" to post this, but if you hit this link you will find some interesting new NASA data on CO2.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

AKL

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

to say nothing of all the mercury in those new ugly light bulbs we are now going to be required to buy. Just don't break one when the children are around or you be in for it. Keep a chemical suit ready for your home cleanup. Looks like we are all dead in the end anyway. :ah:

AKL

Originally Posted by tonycarreon

careful now, because the link is an op-ed written by a senior fellow at the heartland institute. HI is vehemently opposed to climate change data and has stated that global warming would even be helpful, not harmful. they are so anti-"climate science" that they sponsor the international conference on climate change, which is a twice-yearly get-together for climate change deniers who are so rabidly against any data that shows evidence for climate change, that even moderate skeptics have avoided associating themselves with the group...

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

I see, the senior fellow is and "Activist"? And therefore should be taken with skepticism? How about the religious climate change folk, should we be skeptical? How about his evidence, can we look at that first before we rush to name calling?

AKL :cheers:

Originally Posted by Lordblood

The problem, I suspect, is that this group is using NASA data when it shows that climate change isn't occurring, but would call NASA a "government-funded propaganda machine" when the data would show a trend towards climate change. Brings to mind the BS about people rejecting that the healthcare law would reduce spending because the CBO was fed bad data.

Yes, you should be skeptical about all data until it is proven to hold water on multiple occasions. Such is the nature of science.

I would presume you reject the "hockey stick" model, though that has been put out by the same scientists that put out this data.

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

Also any dissenters are labeled "deniers" and dismissed out of hand thereby ending debate. This only happens when your argument is weak.

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

The other thing to consider, global warming (or not) may be a long term issue so it might be something that doesn't really impact you for another 20-30 years.
But the effect of mercury, acid rain, etc. could already be affecting your health and shortening your life. I can only imagine how sick the Chinese population living in those areas where there are no enviormental protections will be faring in 15-20 years.

Originally Posted by Topless

The simple fact is that CO2 has been warming the planet since the beginning of time and we know for certain that adding a lot more to the atmosphere will increase that warming. Radiative physics 101. The 100 trillion $ question is how much warming. Enviro-nazi kooks will tell us that it will warm 5-8C by 2200 and waves of water will cover NYC. Heartland kooks will tell us "no worries, no warming at all." They are both likely very wrong. Even the estimates made in IPCC AR4 (2-6C) are highly speculative and have little or no supporting evidence.

If you are seriously interested in a frank discussion on the big question of "how much warming?" by mostly scientists and engineers around the world I recommend this website:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/

These are mostly number crunchers who put observable evidence and known properties far above wild eyed speculation and don't have a political dog in the fight. It's worth a look.