Here's a stick of dynamite. I'll light it :yep:.

There hasn't been a tremendous amount of eruptions lately so--who wants to place bets on where the next one will be?

;)

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/eruptionlist.cfm

Actually, there were quite a few in 2006. And there are a few out there that are continuous.

I know Indonesia has been getting worked pretty good. I'm keeping my eye on Yellowstone at the moment ;).

That's a great website! Thank You! I've had the pleasure of visiting Mt Etna in the past--Quite a show.

Peto

The explanation is here: http://www.gotquestions.org/BC-AD.html

"Anyone see a pattern here?"

Yup. People from both sides exchanging information provided by people they know nothing about involving scientific methods they know nothing about.

Like that chart - does anyone here know what data they base their figures on from times when there are no records? Do you know if these methods are at all reliable?

Because if not, it has no more value than one I could draw up for you in MSPaint right now.
And if what I chose to put on my pretty colored graph backed up what you believed I'm sure you'd present it to people as fact.

Again, both sides do this, imo.


But I've always had a hard time figuring out why anyone would be pro-pollution.

It's just such an odd stance to take

That'd certainly cause a dip in global temperatures... :rotfl:

We are slowly coming coming out of the ice age still.

That's an easy one to answer. Because being pro-pollution requires no effort ;).

If it were pro or anti pollution it would be an easy decision. The inconveniant truth is that it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with money, eg how do carbon credits curb pollution.


Can one pay his/her way out of destroying the planet?

I agree 100% :up:. The cost of doing nothing could well be greater than the cost of change.

Wastegate is right. Nobody is "pro-pollution" ....as was said. But many people question the movement that is blaming mankind for temperature fluctuations, which nature has already shown to be naturally occuring even without SUV's, jet aircraft and such. This is a movement that wants humanity to take drastic action without truly understanding what they themselves are seeing. And they have been wrong about these naturally occuring changes for over 40 years now. The actions they want us to take may actually cause many unforeseen problems that they haven't taken into account. And in the same vein as you, I can just as easily say that I couldn't understand how people are against a decent standard of living, travel, and electronic goods (such as your little desktop computer). They all require oil, or electricity. Even if battery powered on your laptop, raw materials are still used to manufacture the stuff. That creates emissions....right? And oil is used to deliver it to your door. But still that's not the main point. The deal is, many believe that technology, and ecology can coexist. Capitalism can also coexist with ecology. There are rational movements afoot to create cleaner cars, and better/cleaner methods of manufacturing. I applaud those efforts. But I still see the draconian measures of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc. to be absolutely unecessary, and potentially harmful.

And I also agree with you. There are way too many people on the extremes regarding this problem. I think we need to do something in case that our activities are causing harm though. I also believe action can be taken that make sense and can lead us to being less dependant for our power.

I have a couple friends in different households who have managed to remove themselves from the power grid by haressing both solar and wind to more than meet their power needs. However, doing that was far from free and it will take time to break even.

The technology is there and the more we work with it, the more affordable it will become. However, the financial aspect of doing so can upset many other delicate global balancing acts as well (political, governmental et al).

It is definitely an interesting period to be living in. It's also rather frightening in many ways. Caution is required on many levels...

That would depend on what those changes are I would think.

[quote=Fish]
Come on Fish. Who the H.E. double hockey sticks is this guy??? Looks like just an average run of the mill forum poster on another board. Other than he's a spinal cord researcher. I guess that makes him a climate expert if he says what you want to hear..right? You can't be serious.

At any rate, even this guy displays a different graph showing temperature and CO2 cycles extending back 400,000 years. These of which shows cyclical patterns of CO2 and temperature changes rising and falling through time. So he seems a bit confused as to what he's trying to display. He kind of proves the assertion that mankind is not the likely culprit in current warming trends. And I'm sure that wasn't his goal.