http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...8B&chanID=sa003
With all the doom and gloom over human impact on the Earth, is there any good news?
New lands are being discovered. Greenland is now able to grow vegetables and a northwest passage will be possible soon. Beach front property may be available in Arizona and California may be a series of islands.
Is this all soooooo bad?
Thank you xtrmn8r for that link. I hope adoucette, the perennial "doubting Thomas", will read that article. 
In case he doesn't, here's the final summation at the end of the article.
I'm amazed that thinking, supposedly scientific people can read article after article like this in peer-reviewed, respected journals and still not see the writing on the wall!
These people need to read Jared Diamond's book, "Collapse" and reflect where America stands among his examples! 
California may not turn into an island chain, but we might need dikes to keep the Central Valley from becoming another "Great Lake!" If that fails we could call it "Lake Interior." Then the mnemonic device could be "homies" for "Huron", "Ontario", "Michigan", "Interior", "Erie" and "Superior!" 
In case he doesn't, here's the final summation at the end of the article.QUOTE
"The authors—388 scientists reviewed by roughly 1,000 of their peers—view the report as "an urgent call for action" and decry the "woefully inadequate" global response to problems such as climate change. "The amount of resources needed to sustain [humanity] exceeds what is available," the report declares.
"The systematic destruction of the earth's natural and nature-based resources has reached a point where the economic viability of economies is being challenged," Achim Steiner, UNEP's executive director, said in a statement. "The bill we hand our children may prove impossible to pay."
"The systematic destruction of the earth's natural and nature-based resources has reached a point where the economic viability of economies is being challenged," Achim Steiner, UNEP's executive director, said in a statement. "The bill we hand our children may prove impossible to pay."
I'm amazed that thinking, supposedly scientific people can read article after article like this in peer-reviewed, respected journals and still not see the writing on the wall!
These people need to read Jared Diamond's book, "Collapse" and reflect where America stands among his examples! California may not turn into an island chain, but we might need dikes to keep the Central Valley from becoming another "Great Lake!" If that fails we could call it "Lake Interior." Then the mnemonic device could be "homies" for "Huron", "Ontario", "Michigan", "Interior", "Erie" and "Superior!"
"Peer review" isn't what it used to be...
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/...ed.0020124&ct=1
or this...
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print...3557627104.html
Due to real science and proper physics, like this...
http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/...ed.0020124&ct=1
or this...
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print...3557627104.html
Due to real science and proper physics, like this...
http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html
John A, Evolution and global warming are firmly established through the replication and preponderance of "yeses" over "nos" after voluminous individual studies. The scenario in the Public Library of Science article would more commonly apply to "in house" and other sponsored studies by pharmaceutical companies with a financial interest in the research results.
That was quickly followed by this,
LOL. I guess that would have to be the alarmists because they sure are screaming about science and refusing to show it. No, physics has already proved that CO2 is not a driving factor in climate change.
Game over for the alarmists. They can no longer spread fear on "what if, could be, appears to be, lead to believe"...Enough already.
LOL. I guess that would have to be the alarmists because they sure are screaming about science and refusing to show it. No, physics has already proved that CO2 is not a driving factor in climate change.
Game over for the alarmists. They can no longer spread fear on "what if, could be, appears to be, lead to believe"...Enough already.
A good joke, unless references provided?
I doubt it. Since many supernova and other astronomical events can only be seen by high powered telescopes (their light is so dim) I doubt the amount of light from them would be significant. Unless someone can show some experiment evidence of this, I am pretty sure it is negligible.
The scenario in the Public Library of Science article would more commonly apply to "in house" and other sponsored studies by pharmaceutical companies with a financial interest in the research results. QUOTE
"Still, other researchers warn not to fear all mistakes. Error is as much a part of science as discovery. It is the inevitable byproduct of a search for truth that must proceed by trial and error. "Where you have new areas of knowledge developing, then the science is going to be disputed, subject to errors arising from inadequate data or the failure to recognize new matters," said Yale University science historian Daniel Kevles. Conflicting data and differences of interpretation are common."
From the wsj.com article.That was quickly followed by this,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Still, other researchers warn not to fear all mistakes. Error is as much a part of science as discovery. It is the inevitable byproduct of a search for truth that must proceed by trial and error. "Where you have new areas of knowledge developing, then the science is going to be disputed, subject to errors arising from inadequate data or the failure to recognize new matters," said Yale University science historian Daniel Kevles. Conflicting data and differences of interpretation are common." |
From the wsj.com article.
That was quickly followed by this, "Overall, technical reviewers are hard-pressed to detect every anomaly. On average, researchers submit about 12,000 papers annually just to the weekly peer-reviewed journal Science. Last year, four papers in Science were retracted. A dozen others were corrected.
No one actually knows how many incorrect research reports remain unchallenged.
Earlier this year, informatics expert Murat Cokol and his colleagues at Columbia University sorted through 9.4 million research papers at the U.S. National Library of Medicine published from 1950 through 2004 in 4,000 journals. By raw count, just 596 had been formally retracted, Dr. Cokol reported."
GO FIGURE THE PERCENTAGE ON THOSE, AND SEE IF THOSE HEADLINES ARE JUSTIFIED! Please don't try to condemn valid science in one field, based on such minimal percentages of retraction or other problems in others. That is the disingenuous method of Creationists!
After all, Pfizer studied "Viagra" for an entirely different use at first. Through their research, the new use was found! LONG LIVE SCIENCE!
That was quickly followed by this, "Overall, technical reviewers are hard-pressed to detect every anomaly. On average, researchers submit about 12,000 papers annually just to the weekly peer-reviewed journal Science. Last year, four papers in Science were retracted. A dozen others were corrected.
No one actually knows how many incorrect research reports remain unchallenged.
Earlier this year, informatics expert Murat Cokol and his colleagues at Columbia University sorted through 9.4 million research papers at the U.S. National Library of Medicine published from 1950 through 2004 in 4,000 journals. By raw count, just 596 had been formally retracted, Dr. Cokol reported."
GO FIGURE THE PERCENTAGE ON THOSE, AND SEE IF THOSE HEADLINES ARE JUSTIFIED! Please don't try to condemn valid science in one field, based on such minimal percentages of retraction or other problems in others. That is the disingenuous method of Creationists!
After all, Pfizer studied "Viagra" for an entirely different use at first. Through their research, the new use was found! LONG LIVE SCIENCE!
Again,
Due to real science and proper physics, like this...If you can show me where the physics here are wrong, then please do so.
Thanks
http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html
Due to real science and proper physics, like this...If you can show me where the physics here are wrong, then please do so.
Thanks
http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html
Perhaps I should restate my question differently. I did not intend for this thread to become yet another heated debate on global warming, there is other threads dedicated to that.
Instead, I was wondering if any outcome of weather change could be considered a good thing over time. Like discoveries of heretofore unknown lands or ancient civilizations.
While a certain amount of destruction seems inevitable, especially on the coasts, would other land masses emerge? Can't we just migrate from uninhabitable areas to newly fertile ones? Is all this doom and gloom short sighted? Is there a future?
I grow weary of the almost daily barrage of pro and con arguments. The only thing that seems certain is that changes are occurring and we are helpless to affect any correction.
Instead, I was wondering if any outcome of weather change could be considered a good thing over time. Like discoveries of heretofore unknown lands or ancient civilizations.
While a certain amount of destruction seems inevitable, especially on the coasts, would other land masses emerge? Can't we just migrate from uninhabitable areas to newly fertile ones? Is all this doom and gloom short sighted? Is there a future?
I grow weary of the almost daily barrage of pro and con arguments. The only thing that seems certain is that changes are occurring and we are helpless to affect any correction.
xtrmn8r,
Sorry, but from the sound of your 1st post I thought that you were poking fun, so I jumped in for good laugh too. What with your comments about ocean front property in Arizona what is one to think?
Of course we will just move to better land, for that matter we would move in on any new land good or bad. Look at all of those homes on the side of mud-- I mean,, hill sides. Didn't the ice cores from Antarctic show vegetation? The earth is always changing. Some land will become the new grain belt and other places will become waste land.
Sorry, but from the sound of your 1st post I thought that you were poking fun, so I jumped in for good laugh too. What with your comments about ocean front property in Arizona what is one to think?
Of course we will just move to better land, for that matter we would move in on any new land good or bad. Look at all of those homes on the side of mud-- I mean,, hill sides. Didn't the ice cores from Antarctic show vegetation? The earth is always changing. Some land will become the new grain belt and other places will become waste land.
There is a study in the Dec. 16 1880 issue of the journal Nature that explains this. Yes, 1880, not 1980. There is a detailed study from the RS on altering two land masses to allow the Gulf Stream to warm Western Europe and open it up for agriculture. It is a very detailed study that claims the Arctic would melt, Northern Canada would be suitable for agriculture, the Eastern USA would cool, and Japan and East Asia would have an ultimate climate. This study was reviewed by the journal, and it was determined that the Eastern USA would not cool. The plan was to create more farmable land to feed the growing population. I have to wonder if something, somewhere, has been altered.
Now they are saying that even with their inflated figures, CO2 cannot account for their "current observations". However, this 130 year old plan not only accounts for their observations...It predicts them.
Now they are saying that even with their inflated figures, CO2 cannot account for their "current observations". However, this 130 year old plan not only accounts for their observations...It predicts them.
paul h,
I was being slightly facetious, but frankly, I don't understand all the facts and figures put forward by people I don't even know. I generally go straight to the bottom line and try to figure out what they are getting at, and as far as I can tell nobody really knows. For every pro there is a con.
So what do we do about a circumstance we have no control over? We can certainly try to understand it, but if we can't get out of it, we might as well get into it!
I was being slightly facetious, but frankly, I don't understand all the facts and figures put forward by people I don't even know. I generally go straight to the bottom line and try to figure out what they are getting at, and as far as I can tell nobody really knows. For every pro there is a con.
So what do we do about a circumstance we have no control over? We can certainly try to understand it, but if we can't get out of it, we might as well get into it!
xtrmn8r: thanks for starting the thread. A majority of the commentary on this stuff is always about whether CO2 / Methane is the cause, or not. The question of "is this really a bad thing" is implied as a "yes", but I'm not sure that it has been addressed nearly as AGGRESSIVELY as the implied cause.
So my 2 cents; there is probably more good in a global warming scenario than the "world is coming to an end" types want people to think. Remember, Greenland was actually green when it was being discovered by the Vikings, and by the sounds of it, it will be green again, along with more of Canada. A lot of Russia could probably benefit from the northern land mass being warmer in the future, and it should benefit the food production capability of these regions (along with the northern US) as other areas experience reduced "traditional" food production.
John A: that was a great post / series of links. The article titled "HEAT STORED BY GREENHOUSE GASES" was the first documentation that I have seen (other than some numbers posted in wikipedia) that actually addressed the math / science of global warming. I don't have the background to support or attack the paper, but the way it was presented (with the laws of physics involved, the formulas described and used, etc) I would discount any ones attack against it unless they specifically addressed the content in the paper. If a "dissenter" did that, then it would be in the "peer review" arena where this subject belongs, instead of the political area where it is being played out.
Actually, the article seems to be in line with other threads that had commentary about the solar component accounting for all of the increase up to ~1970, when the global temperature increased above the measured solar cycle intensity. What was curious about that thread was that the "attacks" discounted the entire input of the solar cycle data, when someone else (in that thread) pointed out the idea of "what changed" to cause the variation in measurements.
I have opinions on that, but will cut this posting off here for now...
So my 2 cents; there is probably more good in a global warming scenario than the "world is coming to an end" types want people to think. Remember, Greenland was actually green when it was being discovered by the Vikings, and by the sounds of it, it will be green again, along with more of Canada. A lot of Russia could probably benefit from the northern land mass being warmer in the future, and it should benefit the food production capability of these regions (along with the northern US) as other areas experience reduced "traditional" food production.
John A: that was a great post / series of links. The article titled "HEAT STORED BY GREENHOUSE GASES" was the first documentation that I have seen (other than some numbers posted in wikipedia) that actually addressed the math / science of global warming. I don't have the background to support or attack the paper, but the way it was presented (with the laws of physics involved, the formulas described and used, etc) I would discount any ones attack against it unless they specifically addressed the content in the paper. If a "dissenter" did that, then it would be in the "peer review" arena where this subject belongs, instead of the political area where it is being played out.
Actually, the article seems to be in line with other threads that had commentary about the solar component accounting for all of the increase up to ~1970, when the global temperature increased above the measured solar cycle intensity. What was curious about that thread was that the "attacks" discounted the entire input of the solar cycle data, when someone else (in that thread) pointed out the idea of "what changed" to cause the variation in measurements.
I have opinions on that, but will cut this posting off here for now...
Seems like the outcome is to be established simply by those who are willing to shout loudest.
QUOTE
Seems like the outcome is to be established simply by those who are willing to shout loudest.
LOL. I guess that would have to be the alarmists because they sure are screaming about science and refusing to show it. No, physics has already proved that CO2 is not a driving factor in climate change.
Game over for the alarmists. They can no longer spread fear on "what if, could be, appears to be, lead to believe"...Enough already.
What's wrong with global warming. If you love plants, you should love global warming. So what if a bunch of rich people built their houses too close to the Ocean?
I propose that we begin a program to release all the CO2 in the White Cliffs of Dover.
Friends of Ivy, Unite!
Eat Beans, release Methane!!
Here is to a Truly Green Future!
In reality I'm a global warming skeptic (with regard to only some aspects). Unfortunately, given the (lack of) quality of the arguments made by anti-global-warming Scientists, I find it a hard position to justify with any credibility.
But, I do like SOME of the things Freeman Dyson says here (some of it is a bit looney even for me)
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf
For example
I propose that we begin a program to release all the CO2 in the White Cliffs of Dover.
Friends of Ivy, Unite!
Eat Beans, release Methane!!
Here is to a Truly Green Future!
In reality I'm a global warming skeptic (with regard to only some aspects). Unfortunately, given the (lack of) quality of the arguments made by anti-global-warming Scientists, I find it a hard position to justify with any credibility.
But, I do like SOME of the things Freeman Dyson says here (some of it is a bit looney even for me)
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf
For example
QUOTE
To stop the carbon in the atmosphere from increasing, we only need to grow the biomass in the soil by a hundredth of an inch per year
I only wish some of you guys would rush down to the seaside one day to watch a Tsunami come in.... Now that would be "good news".
QUOTE (John A+Nov 5 2007, 05:27 PM)
LOL. I guess that would have to be the alarmists because they sure are screaming about science and refusing to show it. No, physics has already proved that CO2 is not a driving factor in climate change.
Game over for the alarmists. They can no longer spread fear on "what if, could be, appears to be, lead to believe"...Enough already.
A good joke, unless references provided?
OK one more dumb question.
Would the light from other stars ( or nova, quasar and such) reaching the earth affect the global temp?
My line of thought is IF the light that is just now reaching us from distant objects are having an effect. I remember an astronomy instructor said that in another 1000 years (abstract time reference) that we should be able to see thousands of new stars as their light has just not arrived here yet.
Would the light from other stars ( or nova, quasar and such) reaching the earth affect the global temp?
My line of thought is IF the light that is just now reaching us from distant objects are having an effect. I remember an astronomy instructor said that in another 1000 years (abstract time reference) that we should be able to see thousands of new stars as their light has just not arrived here yet.
QUOTE
OK one more dumb question.
Would the light from other stars ( or nova, quasar and such) reaching the earth affect the global temp?
My line of thought is IF the light that is just now reaching us from distant objects are having an effect. I remember an astronomy instructor said that in another 1000 years (abstract time reference) that we should be able to see thousands of new stars as their light has just not arrived here yet.
Would the light from other stars ( or nova, quasar and such) reaching the earth affect the global temp?
My line of thought is IF the light that is just now reaching us from distant objects are having an effect. I remember an astronomy instructor said that in another 1000 years (abstract time reference) that we should be able to see thousands of new stars as their light has just not arrived here yet.
I doubt it. Since many supernova and other astronomical events can only be seen by high powered telescopes (their light is so dim) I doubt the amount of light from them would be significant. Unless someone can show some experiment evidence of this, I am pretty sure it is negligible.
QUOTE (paul h+Nov 6 2007, 08:10 PM)
OK one more dumb question.
Would the light from other stars ( or nova, quasar and such) reaching the earth affect the global temp?
My line of thought is IF the light that is just now reaching us from distant objects are having an effect. I remember an astronomy instructor said that in another 1000 years (abstract time reference) that we should be able to see thousands of new stars as their light has just not arrived here yet.
This is a good question, but (IMHO) about the wrong influence. An article I read a while back brought up the idea of cosmic Rays and their affect on cloud production in the atmosphere. I did a quick Google search to find any articles and some refresher. Of course anything that could affect cloud formation would affect solar energy influence on the planet, etc.
If I understand the concepts, some / most of these particles are interstellar particles that are the equivalent to solar winds. The article indicated that these particles have been on the decline over the last century due to the increase in the magnetic field strength produced by the sun.
Now there are multiple types of climate change cycles that have been noted by different sources: the one that I remember is a 1500 year cycle that we are in the warming phase of right now. I believe there are other cycles as well, but I don't recall any numbers so I won't quote anything.
Anyway, one of the ideas that I had (no references, nothing other than "gee, I wonder...") was the idea of the placement of the solar system in reference to the rotation of the Milky Way galaxy. If there is some increase of cosmic ray particles due to passing near a more powerful source, or something similar, it might account for some of the cycles that occur. I don't recall off the top of my head right now what the rotation rate is for the Milky Way, but I'd be curious if it coincides with one of those cycles, in some way.
So in my round about way, that is how I would consider the influence of other stellar / galactic objects possibly having an affect on climate, not by light, but by cosmic ray particles.
Would the light from other stars ( or nova, quasar and such) reaching the earth affect the global temp?
My line of thought is IF the light that is just now reaching us from distant objects are having an effect. I remember an astronomy instructor said that in another 1000 years (abstract time reference) that we should be able to see thousands of new stars as their light has just not arrived here yet.
This is a good question, but (IMHO) about the wrong influence. An article I read a while back brought up the idea of cosmic Rays and their affect on cloud production in the atmosphere. I did a quick Google search to find any articles and some refresher. Of course anything that could affect cloud formation would affect solar energy influence on the planet, etc.
If I understand the concepts, some / most of these particles are interstellar particles that are the equivalent to solar winds. The article indicated that these particles have been on the decline over the last century due to the increase in the magnetic field strength produced by the sun.
Now there are multiple types of climate change cycles that have been noted by different sources: the one that I remember is a 1500 year cycle that we are in the warming phase of right now. I believe there are other cycles as well, but I don't recall any numbers so I won't quote anything.
Anyway, one of the ideas that I had (no references, nothing other than "gee, I wonder...") was the idea of the placement of the solar system in reference to the rotation of the Milky Way galaxy. If there is some increase of cosmic ray particles due to passing near a more powerful source, or something similar, it might account for some of the cycles that occur. I don't recall off the top of my head right now what the rotation rate is for the Milky Way, but I'd be curious if it coincides with one of those cycles, in some way.
So in my round about way, that is how I would consider the influence of other stellar / galactic objects possibly having an affect on climate, not by light, but by cosmic ray particles.
DEK46656
>not by light, but by cosmic ray particles
You may be on to something. do you mean Plain 'ol garden variety cosmic rays or ultra-high energy cosmic rays?
What is the differance and how frequent are they both .
>not by light, but by cosmic ray particles
You may be on to something. do you mean Plain 'ol garden variety cosmic rays or ultra-high energy cosmic rays?
What is the differance and how frequent are they both .
Global warming was started by us aliens. Your planet was f***ing freezing before, and we didn't want to go down on a planet with that climate.
QUOTE (AE_JO_59+Nov 8 2007, 11:12 PM)
Global warming was started by us aliens. Your planet was f***ing freezing before, and we didn't want to go down on a planet with that climate.
- Gehn
- Gehn
QUOTE (paul h+Nov 8 2007, 06:11 PM)
DEK46656
>not by light, but by cosmic ray particles
You may be on to something. do you mean Plain 'ol garden variety cosmic rays or ultra-high energy cosmic rays?
What is the differance and how frequent are they both .
I'm not sure, I don't have that deep of an understanding of Cosmic Rays. I don't know what the ratios are (high energy inter-galactic versus low energy "solar winds" from 20 light years out).
The thing I found interesting was that this was another possible explanation to the current climate change trends going on; after it was reported not much else was brought up. Maybe the science was discredited, or maybe it was swept under the rug for political expedience.
>not by light, but by cosmic ray particles
You may be on to something. do you mean Plain 'ol garden variety cosmic rays or ultra-high energy cosmic rays?
What is the differance and how frequent are they both .
I'm not sure, I don't have that deep of an understanding of Cosmic Rays. I don't know what the ratios are (high energy inter-galactic versus low energy "solar winds" from 20 light years out).
The thing I found interesting was that this was another possible explanation to the current climate change trends going on; after it was reported not much else was brought up. Maybe the science was discredited, or maybe it was swept under the rug for political expedience.
Serious question:
How much CO2 can the air hold if the temp is 0c or if it is 50c ?
Do we find more CO2 in the atmosphere when the temp has gone up or less when the temp goes down?
Blaming GW on CO2 may be a case of the tail wagging the dog.
The temp goes up, the air holds more CO2 than it did when the temp was lower.
How much CO2 can the air hold if the temp is 0c or if it is 50c ?
Do we find more CO2 in the atmosphere when the temp has gone up or less when the temp goes down?
Blaming GW on CO2 may be a case of the tail wagging the dog.
The temp goes up, the air holds more CO2 than it did when the temp was lower.
While the amount of H2O the atmosphere can hold varies with temp, the amount of CO2 in the air does not.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 9 2007, 06:18 PM)
While the amount of H2O the atmosphere can hold varies with temp, the amount of CO2 in the air does not.
Arthur
adoucette,
Today the founder of the weather channel in an interview said that he did not know of any studies that would answer this question. So I thought that I would ask it here. He also said that he thinks that if the planet's temp had gone up by 1 degree that man was probably only responsible for about 25% of that one degree. So where is the science here? have there been studies?
Arthur
adoucette,
Today the founder of the weather channel in an interview said that he did not know of any studies that would answer this question. So I thought that I would ask it here. He also said that he thinks that if the planet's temp had gone up by 1 degree that man was probably only responsible for about 25% of that one degree. So where is the science here? have there been studies?
Well Paul, from that I'd presume he was the money man, not the science guy.
CO2 is a well mixed gas and its concentration is not dependent upon atmospheric temperature.
Arthur
CO2 is a well mixed gas and its concentration is not dependent upon atmospheric temperature.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 9 2007, 10:25 PM)
Well Paul, from that I'd presume he was the money man, not the science guy.
CO2 is a well mixed gas and its concentration is not dependent upon atmospheric temperature.
Arthur
Well I don't know , that,s why I ask. I have no more reason to doubt you than I do to believe him, He more than likely has an agenda. you on the other hand would not have anything to gain or loose with this question so I'll take your word for it.
(unless several others here dispute your statement,, ha,ha)) Thanks.
CO2 is a well mixed gas and its concentration is not dependent upon atmospheric temperature.
Arthur
Well I don't know , that,s why I ask. I have no more reason to doubt you than I do to believe him, He more than likely has an agenda. you on the other hand would not have anything to gain or loose with this question so I'll take your word for it.
(unless several others here dispute your statement,, ha,ha)) Thanks.
I am surprised to find pro-global warming people here. I know the oil companies have done much to discredit any real research on the matter. No one wants to stop making money for one second to consider the planet. Of course no one wants to have to be responsible. The choice is do you wish to become like Mars or Venus? Humans are clearly destroying the planet. The choices made by man is one that any lemming can make. Run off the cliff and drown yourselves. As long as people choose to protect their precious ego's and their greed the planet will die. It is simple you choose words of life or words of death. When People like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkings, Helen Caldacott and Al Gore are all warning people it seems logical to listen. None of these people named are extremists. These are logical very smart people. Of course they tend to be humble so no one wants to listen to them because they do not stroke people's egos. They stick with the facts. It does not seem very smart to saw the branch that the monkey sits. I never understand why everyone insists that Global Warming is a good thing. Time will prove me right because when the human species destroys itself I will be the first to say see I told you.
I remember in my school years being told that the ecosystem of the earth needed to remain in balance and the margin for disrupting that balance was very small. I think that everyone is being selfish and doing the gamble thing. Let our children or their children get the tab. If we are lucky we can be dead due to old age and have our life span make it. So each generation plays out the clock doing nothing hoping to make their millions of dollars. Sagan way back when he made the "Cosmos" series warned how dangerous this line of thinking was and he did not have all the data we have today. America is doing the "Berches Garden Syndrome". Lets just paint any pretty picture we want and call it reality.
I remember in my school years being told that the ecosystem of the earth needed to remain in balance and the margin for disrupting that balance was very small. I think that everyone is being selfish and doing the gamble thing. Let our children or their children get the tab. If we are lucky we can be dead due to old age and have our life span make it. So each generation plays out the clock doing nothing hoping to make their millions of dollars. Sagan way back when he made the "Cosmos" series warned how dangerous this line of thinking was and he did not have all the data we have today. America is doing the "Berches Garden Syndrome". Lets just paint any pretty picture we want and call it reality.
Horta Posted on 11/09/07 at 8:53 PM
QUOTE
I am surprised to find pro-global warming people here
No one here is pro-global warming. This is humor.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am surprised to find pro-global warming people here |
No one here is pro-global warming. This is humor.
Humans are clearly destroying the planet
Earth has undergone more destructive forces in its history than man will ever be capable of.
?????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????
I remember in my school years being told that the ecosystem of the earth needed to remain in balance and the margin for disrupting that balance was very small.
They were wrong. The Earth will survive anything humans can do. We might destroy all life, but the earth will remain.
>this current rate of extinction is thus 10 to 100 times greater than any of the prior mass extinction events in the history of the Earth.
Now I don't have an exact number but I would guess that the probability of man reducing the global population by 50% (or more) with the start of WW3 is 1000 times higher than the chances of GW ever becoming as big of a problem as some think it will.
It wouldn't take too many nuclear bombs to push us into the ice age. That would be far worse than any GW.
>I agree, life will continue, but the sixth extinction has started and it is driven by man's negative influences.
Yes - this 6th extinction has started... You can hear it-- just listen to the sound of the war drums. So what is worse? CO2 or nuclear ash??? War- Man made population control!
>I looked up the founder of the Weather Channel, but couldn't find anything on the quote you referenced.
I had quoted him from a live interview on Friday with Jason Lewis, (filling in for Rush Limbaugh). Yes he does seem to carry a grudge with the Weather Channel for his ouster. But near the end of the interview is when he made his statement questioning if the air could hold more CO2 based on it's temp. This seemed like a very good question, That is why I posed it here. having read your copy of his statements here I tend to agree with him. Yes perhaps he has fudged the numbers. (not good) This may be part of his AGE agenda.
Can you supply the source for that claim?
Can you supply the source for that claim?
Yes, the IPCC.
They claim that the globe warmed ~ 0.6 C over the last 100 years.
That amounts to an average of 0.06 C per DECADE.
Oh, and as to your quip
Humans are clearly destroying the planet
Earth has undergone more destructive forces in its history than man will ever be capable of.
QUOTE
......Al Gore.....
?????????????????????????????????
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ......Al Gore..... |
?????????????????????????????????
I remember in my school years being told that the ecosystem of the earth needed to remain in balance and the margin for disrupting that balance was very small.
They were wrong. The Earth will survive anything humans can do. We might destroy all life, but the earth will remain.
QUOTE (Horta+Nov 9 2007, 11:53 PM)
I remember in my school years being told that the ecosystem of the earth needed to remain in balance and the margin for disrupting that balance was very small.
Did they happen to mention that the NORMAL for the last 2 million years or so has been one of almost perpetual ice ages?
Did they happen to mention that the NORMAL for the last half a million years has been an ice age that has been broken only by short interstitials lasting ~ 15-20k years.
Did they happen to mention that that is EXACTLY where we are now, in a SHORT LIVED interstitial?
Did they happen to mention that each of the last 4 interstials reached temps HIGHER than present?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f...Temperature.png
Did they happen to mention that the amount of VARIATION between the cold/warm periods has been steadily increasing for the last ~ 3 million years.
Just curious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Five_My...mate_Change.png
Arthur
Did they happen to mention that the NORMAL for the last 2 million years or so has been one of almost perpetual ice ages?
Did they happen to mention that the NORMAL for the last half a million years has been an ice age that has been broken only by short interstitials lasting ~ 15-20k years.
Did they happen to mention that that is EXACTLY where we are now, in a SHORT LIVED interstitial?
Did they happen to mention that each of the last 4 interstials reached temps HIGHER than present?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f...Temperature.png
Did they happen to mention that the amount of VARIATION between the cold/warm periods has been steadily increasing for the last ~ 3 million years.
Just curious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Five_My...mate_Change.png
Arthur
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+Nov 10 2007, 12:11 AM)
The Earth will survive anything humans can do. We might destroy all life, but the earth will remain.
No, life on Earth is far more tenacious than that and capable of living in conditions and locations that man still can't even reach, let alone kill.
Check out the life that lives in Antarctica, in Hot Sea Vents, and even far below the crust of the Earth.
Arthur
No, life on Earth is far more tenacious than that and capable of living in conditions and locations that man still can't even reach, let alone kill.
Check out the life that lives in Antarctica, in Hot Sea Vents, and even far below the crust of the Earth.
Arthur
Hi Arthur,
I agree, life will continue.
I agree, life will continue.
I agree, life will continue, but the sixth extinction has started and it is driven by man's negative influences. 
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event
"According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent believed that they were currently in the early stages of a human-caused mass extinction, known as the Holocene extinction event. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20 percent of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028). Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years. More significantly the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times "background" or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth; moreover, this current rate of extinction is thus 10 to 100 times greater than any of the prior mass extinction events in the history of the Earth. wikipedia. Emphasis mine.
"There was a limited debate as to the extent to which the disappearance of megafauna at the end of the last ice age can also be attributed to human activities, directly, by hunting, or indirectly, by decimation of prey populations. While climate change is still cited as another important factor, anthropogenic explanations have become predominant.
There is still hope, argue some, that humanity can eventually slow the rate of extinction through proper ecological management. Current socio-political and overpopulation trends, others argue, indicate that this idea is overly optimistic. Many hopes are set on sustainable development and conservation. 189 countries which are signatory to the Rio Accord have committed to preparing a Biodiversity Action Plan, a first step at identifying specific endangered species and habitats, country by country." wikipedia. Emphases mine.
Though global warming is not the predominant factor, it is still of concern. Anything which lessens or slows these extinctions could have unforetold consequences to forestall these extinctions.
I have personally held and photographed museum specimens of two of America's most widely known extinct birds, the Passenger Pigeon and the Carolina Parakeet. And I have closely followed the news of the capture of the last free-flying California Condors (Gymnogyps californianus), their captive-breeding recovery and their subsequent, successful re-releases to the wild. I have visited and photographed them at one of the breeding colonies at San Diego's Wild Animal Park. Seeing these icons of past extinctions and viewing one of the most successful reintroductions of a nearly extinct species, gives me hope that sustainable development and conservation will become more commonplace and widespread. People need to see concrete examples to gain the insight necessary to act in time to save what is left. There can be and is good news at times. Our legacy will depend on how we husband this planet with a view to future generations.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event"According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York's American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent believed that they were currently in the early stages of a human-caused mass extinction, known as the Holocene extinction event. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20 percent of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028). Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years. More significantly the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times "background" or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth; moreover, this current rate of extinction is thus 10 to 100 times greater than any of the prior mass extinction events in the history of the Earth.
wikipedia. Emphasis mine."There was a limited debate as to the extent to which the disappearance of megafauna at the end of the last ice age can also be attributed to human activities, directly, by hunting, or indirectly, by decimation of prey populations. While climate change is still cited as another important factor, anthropogenic explanations have become predominant.
There is still hope, argue some, that humanity can eventually slow the rate of extinction through proper ecological management. Current socio-political and overpopulation trends, others argue, indicate that this idea is overly optimistic. Many hopes are set on sustainable development and conservation. 189 countries which are signatory to the Rio Accord have committed to preparing a Biodiversity Action Plan, a first step at identifying specific endangered species and habitats, country by country." wikipedia. Emphases mine.
Though global warming is not the predominant factor, it is still of concern. Anything which lessens or slows these extinctions could have unforetold consequences to forestall these extinctions.
I have personally held and photographed museum specimens of two of America's most widely known extinct birds, the Passenger Pigeon and the Carolina Parakeet. And I have closely followed the news of the capture of the last free-flying California Condors (Gymnogyps californianus), their captive-breeding recovery and their subsequent, successful re-releases to the wild. I have visited and photographed them at one of the breeding colonies at San Diego's Wild Animal Park. Seeing these icons of past extinctions and viewing one of the most successful reintroductions of a nearly extinct species, gives me hope that sustainable development and conservation will become more commonplace and widespread. People need to see concrete examples to gain the insight necessary to act in time to save what is left. There can be and is good news at times. Our legacy will depend on how we husband this planet with a view to future generations.
>this current rate of extinction is thus 10 to 100 times greater than any of the prior mass extinction events in the history of the Earth.
Now I don't have an exact number but I would guess that the probability of man reducing the global population by 50% (or more) with the start of WW3 is 1000 times higher than the chances of GW ever becoming as big of a problem as some think it will.
It wouldn't take too many nuclear bombs to push us into the ice age. That would be far worse than any GW.
>I agree, life will continue, but the sixth extinction has started and it is driven by man's negative influences.
Yes - this 6th extinction has started... You can hear it-- just listen to the sound of the war drums. So what is worse? CO2 or nuclear ash??? War- Man made population control!
Does anyone remember the 70's ice age scare? Isn't it funny how we can go from an ice age to global warming in just 35 years? Is there any hope left for those idiots? Why should they ever be taken seriously?
John A,
Yes I do remember the '70s ( I think, but I was so stoned it could have been the '60s)
read my comments on this here: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=19034&hl=
now I rebut allot of the GW thingy with humor but that is because 1: Liberalous stupidicus won't believe facts anyway. 2: For any theory on a subject there will be a descending theory that will disagree. The debate will go on and on until we are all bundled up in our fur coats ( oops,, strike that,,, can't wear fur)
>Is there any hope left for those idiots?
Yes, perhaps that cannabis powered car in another thread would help them.
Yes I do remember the '70s ( I think, but I was so stoned it could have been the '60s)
read my comments on this here: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=19034&hl=
now I rebut allot of the GW thingy with humor but that is because 1: Liberalous stupidicus won't believe facts anyway. 2: For any theory on a subject there will be a descending theory that will disagree. The debate will go on and on until we are all bundled up in our fur coats ( oops,, strike that,,, can't wear fur)
>Is there any hope left for those idiots?
Yes, perhaps that cannabis powered car in another thread would help them.
For me, it was the 70's, 80's 90's ...
Here's the Inconvenient Truth about the ice age scare...
http://www.dailytech.com/Update+NASA+James...article9061.htm
35 years of being wrong...and still at it. Is there anyone left who could believe this person?
Here's the Inconvenient Truth about the ice age scare...
http://www.dailytech.com/Update+NASA+James...article9061.htm
35 years of being wrong...and still at it. Is there anyone left who could believe this person?
QUOTE
In 1971, Hansen wrote his first climate model, which showed the world was about to experience severe global cooling. NASA colleagues used it to warn the world that immediate action was needed to prevent catastrophe.
QUOTE (paul h+Nov 9 2007, 05:35 PM)
adoucette,
Today the founder of the weather channel in an interview said that he did not know of any studies that would answer this question. So I thought that I would ask it here. He also said that he thinks that if the planet's temp had gone up by 1 degree that man was probably only responsible for about 25% of that one degree. So where is the science here? have there been studies?
I looked up the founder of the Weather Channel, but couldn't find anything on the quote you referenced.
I did find this though.
He clearly is an AGW skeptic and while he might be right, unfortunately this short piece amounts to nothing but hand-waving.
http://www.kusi.com/home/11131801.html
Arthur
Today the founder of the weather channel in an interview said that he did not know of any studies that would answer this question. So I thought that I would ask it here. He also said that he thinks that if the planet's temp had gone up by 1 degree that man was probably only responsible for about 25% of that one degree. So where is the science here? have there been studies?
I looked up the founder of the Weather Channel, but couldn't find anything on the quote you referenced.
I did find this though.
He clearly is an AGW skeptic and while he might be right, unfortunately this short piece amounts to nothing but hand-waving.
QUOTE
COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
By John Coleman
jcoleman@kusi.com
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... It is a SCAM.
Some scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15-minute documentary segment.
I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.
However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science, the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril.
I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As temperatures rise, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern will all fail to occur as predicted, and everyone will come to realize we have been duped.
The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.
I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.
By John Coleman
jcoleman@kusi.com
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... It is a SCAM.
Some scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15-minute documentary segment.
I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.
However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science, the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril.
I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As temperatures rise, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern will all fail to occur as predicted, and everyone will come to realize we have been duped.
The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.
I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.
http://www.kusi.com/home/11131801.html
Arthur
This is the scarier part:
These GISS records are the same ones that I've been studying.
You know the ones that Hansen claims support the GWers theory of AGW.
The problem is when I study the ACTUAL DATA, I can't find a climatic trend that supports a primaily GHG based hypothesis.
See: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=271876
Arthur
QUOTE
In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him. The issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs intern. It warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA's official press policy, which requires the agency be notified prior to interviews. Hansen claimed he was being "silenced," despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in recent years, including 15 the very month he made the claim. While he admits to violating the NASA press policy, Hansen states he had a "constitutional right" to grant interviews. Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture halls decrying the politicization of climate science.
Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him.
A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.
Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest.
But the issues don't stop here. Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he followed by publicly endorsing Kerry. Hansen also acted as a paid consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC event.
After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make public the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees. Many areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend. A full audit of the Hansen code is currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to do.
Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him.
A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org and other political action groups.
Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest.
But the issues don't stop here. Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he followed by publicly endorsing Kerry. Hansen also acted as a paid consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC event.
After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make public the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees. Many areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend. A full audit of the Hansen code is currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to do.
These GISS records are the same ones that I've been studying.
You know the ones that Hansen claims support the GWers theory of AGW.
The problem is when I study the ACTUAL DATA, I can't find a climatic trend that supports a primaily GHG based hypothesis.
See: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=271876
Arthur
>I looked up the founder of the Weather Channel, but couldn't find anything on the quote you referenced.
I had quoted him from a live interview on Friday with Jason Lewis, (filling in for Rush Limbaugh). Yes he does seem to carry a grudge with the Weather Channel for his ouster. But near the end of the interview is when he made his statement questioning if the air could hold more CO2 based on it's temp. This seemed like a very good question, That is why I posed it here. having read your copy of his statements here I tend to agree with him. Yes perhaps he has fudged the numbers. (not good) This may be part of his AGE agenda.
Not that surprising.
Climatology, though realated to Meterology, are not the same.
A Meterologist, for instance could care less about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time.
Consider, that even if ALL of the warming of the 20th century were caused by CO2, it would still be responsible for less than 0.06 degree C change PER DECADE.
Clearly not of the magnitude of impact that a weatherman cares about.
Arthur
Climatology, though realated to Meterology, are not the same.
A Meterologist, for instance could care less about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time.
Consider, that even if ALL of the warming of the 20th century were caused by CO2, it would still be responsible for less than 0.06 degree C change PER DECADE.
Clearly not of the magnitude of impact that a weatherman cares about.
Arthur
QUOTE
"Consider, that even if ALL of the warming of the 20th century were caused by CO2, it would still be responsible for less than 0.06 degree C change PER DECADE."
adoucette quote.Can you supply the source for that claim?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Consider, that even if ALL of the warming of the 20th century were caused by CO2, it would still be responsible for less than 0.06 degree C change PER DECADE." |
adoucette quote.
Can you supply the source for that claim?
"Clearly not of the magnitude of impact that a weatherman cares about."
Can you supply the source for that claim?
"Clearly not of the magnitude of impact that a weatherman cares about."
adoucette quote.
Weathermen are concerned only about short term predictions. The rest of us here are concerned about our long-term survival, and that of our children's, children's, children (to paraphrase the Moody Blues.) Maybe you just don't give a damn, which would be typical of Republican short-sightedness! 
"MOTHERS, DON'T LET YOUR CHILDREN GROW UP TO BE REPUBLICANS! (())
Weathermen are concerned only about short term predictions. The rest of us here are concerned about our long-term survival, and that of our children's, children's, children (to paraphrase the Moody Blues.)
Maybe you just don't give a damn, which would be typical of Republican short-sightedness! "MOTHERS, DON'T LET YOUR CHILDREN GROW UP TO BE REPUBLICANS! ((
))
QUOTE (photojack+Nov 14 2007, 11:49 PM)
Can you supply the source for that claim?
Yes, the IPCC.
They claim that the globe warmed ~ 0.6 C over the last 100 years.
That amounts to an average of 0.06 C per DECADE.
Oh, and as to your quip
QUOTE (Photojack+)
Weathermen are concerned only about short term predictions.
If you actually bother to read what I posted you will find that was the POINT I was making.
Arthur
If you actually bother to read what I posted you will find that was the POINT I was making.
Arthur
adoucette, Did you bother to comprehend the point (not quip) I was making? I agreed with you about the weatherman, but I went beyond that, to work toward long-term goals and understanding, something conspicuously absent from "the Republican agenda"! Please see my post today in the thread, "Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize. Defunct award, or political statement?" (())
I agreed with you about the weatherman, but I went beyond that, to work toward long-term goals and understanding, something conspicuously absent from "the Republican agenda"! Please see my post today in the thread, "Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize. Defunct award, or political statement?" (())
QUOTE (photojack+Nov 15 2007, 05:19 PM)
adoucette, Did you bother to comprehend the point (not quip) I was making? I agreed with you about the weatherman, but I went beyond that, to work toward long-term goals and understanding,
BS, you went beyond that to claim I don't give a damn about the my children's future.
Typical.
Arthur
I agreed with you about the weatherman, but I went beyond that, to work toward long-term goals and understanding, BS, you went beyond that to claim I don't give a damn about the my children's future.
Typical.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 15 2007, 06:55 PM)
BS, you went beyond that to claim I don't give a damn about the my children's future.
Typical.
Arthur
adoucette,
Gee, I thought that photojack's remark was directed at me.
Typical.
Arthur
adoucette,
Gee, I thought that photojack's remark was directed at me.
adoucette, If you need further reminders of the point I am making, here's a response to the "Nova" show. Read it and weep (())
This was followed by another well-reasoned reply:
))QUOTE
"I watched Nova also last night and agree with you that it was an excellent portrayal of the Dover court case.
Agree also that the right wing agenda continues on funded by wealth and well-meaning. but ignorant people. These are not stupid people, but they are driven by belief instead of rational thought. We, on the left, have our sacred cows, too, make no mistake, but on the right there is a different mentality. I'm thinking of John Dean's book "Conservatives Without Conscience" in which he makes the case that right wingers simply have an authoritarian brain that makes them susceptible to irrational belief in authority. Left wingers ask more questions. The issue for the left is how to effectively and powerfully refute the right wing agenda as the Dover case did. It took money and expertise. The right wing has just got the money, but not the expertise. If we can match the think tank money we'll win every time because right wing arguments, when exposed to sunlight, evaporate."
From http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/20...elligent_designAgree also that the right wing agenda continues on funded by wealth and well-meaning. but ignorant people. These are not stupid people, but they are driven by belief instead of rational thought. We, on the left, have our sacred cows, too, make no mistake, but on the right there is a different mentality. I'm thinking of John Dean's book "Conservatives Without Conscience" in which he makes the case that right wingers simply have an authoritarian brain that makes them susceptible to irrational belief in authority. Left wingers ask more questions. The issue for the left is how to effectively and powerfully refute the right wing agenda as the Dover case did. It took money and expertise. The right wing has just got the money, but not the expertise. If we can match the think tank money we'll win every time because right wing arguments, when exposed to sunlight, evaporate."
This was followed by another well-reasoned reply:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I watched Nova also last night and agree with you that it was an excellent portrayal of the Dover court case. Agree also that the right wing agenda continues on funded by wealth and well-meaning. but ignorant people. These are not stupid people, but they are driven by belief instead of rational thought. We, on the left, have our sacred cows, too, make no mistake, but on the right there is a different mentality. I'm thinking of John Dean's book "Conservatives Without Conscience" in which he makes the case that right wingers simply have an authoritarian brain that makes them susceptible to irrational belief in authority. Left wingers ask more questions. The issue for the left is how to effectively and powerfully refute the right wing agenda as the Dover case did. It took money and expertise. The right wing has just got the money, but not the expertise. If we can match the think tank money we'll win every time because right wing arguments, when exposed to sunlight, evaporate." |
From http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/20...elligent_design
This was followed by another well-reasoned reply:
"Where on earth do you get the idea that the right wing agenda is funded by well-meaning people? Would that have something to do with the burning of the poster, the death threats the judge has had thrown at him, the vitriol hurled at anyone that doesn't toe their line? Sure the uber-rich, the extremely privileged, the wealthy funders probably haven't got their hands dirty directly with any of those activities, but if they are the least bit well-meaning shouldn't they actively work to counter such activities their financial support has precipitated?
What is sadly lacking in this discussion is any reference to nature of the right wing agenda. This effort to nurture ignorance and superstition is part of a broad attack on any perceived threat to their positions of privilege and status. Hardly well-meaning."
Where did I say that? You read something into it that wasn't there, Typical! I alluded to the Moody Blues song title to draw attention to Republican short-sightedness! Now, I will ask you directly... Do you care about all of our children's future for "seven generations hence" as the Indian oratory so eloquently stated it? I DO. That is why I am posting here.
Care to counter the countless points brought up in the above quotes, one by one?
This was followed by another well-reasoned reply:
"Where on earth do you get the idea that the right wing agenda is funded by well-meaning people? Would that have something to do with the burning of the poster, the death threats the judge has had thrown at him, the vitriol hurled at anyone that doesn't toe their line? Sure the uber-rich, the extremely privileged, the wealthy funders probably haven't got their hands dirty directly with any of those activities, but if they are the least bit well-meaning shouldn't they actively work to counter such activities their financial support has precipitated?
What is sadly lacking in this discussion is any reference to nature of the right wing agenda. This effort to nurture ignorance and superstition is part of a broad attack on any perceived threat to their positions of privilege and status. Hardly well-meaning."
QUOTE
"BS, you went beyond that to claim I don't give a damn about the my children's future." 
Where did I say that? You read something into it that wasn't there, Typical!
I alluded to the Moody Blues song title to draw attention to Republican short-sightedness! Now, I will ask you directly... Do you care about all of our children's future for "seven generations hence" as the Indian oratory so eloquently stated it? I DO. That is why I am posting here. Care to counter the countless points brought up in the above quotes, one by one?
Where did you say that???
Its pretty clear that you aren't including me when you use the phrase "the rest of us"
As for that last post, it seems you are going off on a anti-creationist tangent.
Which of course has NOTHING to do with my posts about Global Warming.
If you care do do a little research you will find though that my views are well documented in some of the older Evolution threads.
Arthur
QUOTE
The rest of us here are concerned about our long-term survival, and that of our children's, children's, children
Its pretty clear that you aren't including me when you use the phrase "the rest of us"
As for that last post, it seems you are going off on a anti-creationist tangent.
Which of course has NOTHING to do with my posts about Global Warming.
If you care do do a little research you will find though that my views are well documented in some of the older Evolution threads.
Arthur
adoucette, Are you following Derek 1148, who when cornered asks if you wore a uniform? (()) I AM talking about the politics of global warming and Republican short-sightedness on I.D. as well as global warming! There is a direct connection! AND, you never answered my point about caring for all of our children's future for "seven generations hence" as the Indian oratory so eloquently stated it?
)) I AM talking about the politics of global warming and Republican short-sightedness on I.D. as well as global warming! There is a direct connection! AND, you never answered my point about caring for all of our children's future for "seven generations hence" as the Indian oratory so eloquently stated it?
I probably care more than you, since I actually do have children.
Arthur
Arthur
adoucette, Then how can you support the Republican agenda, when they only care for corporate bottom lines, the Bush family profiteering from Middle East oil, furthering the I.D. "wedge" to undermine the teaching of evolution and nothing for the long-term sustainability of our environment?
And I don't actually have children? Oops, did you really put your foot in your mouth? (())
And I don't actually have children? Oops, did you really put your foot in your mouth?
(())
I'm an Independent.
The "Agenda" you claim seems to have as much substance behind it as your calling for Bush's impeachment every 10th post, yet without evidence of ANY impeachable offense.
Which is why I asumed that you don't have children because, like your call's for impeachment, you act too immature to possibly attract a female.
Your understanding of GW is as bad as your understanding of politics.
Or evolution for that matter.
Hard to tell if you are helping that cause with quotes like:
no not anyone, just everyone!!!
but it won't be via sea level rise, heat or drought
y'all freeze to death in the upcoming Ice Age.. total Earth coverage
and the USA and .........
Oh all earthlings will share their food, and slowly die without even complaining.
Such is our glorious society.
Never wonder if it will happen
I will!!!! 100%
and the USA and .........
Oh all earthlings will share their food, and slowly die without even complaining.
Such is our glorious society.
Never wonder if it will happen
I will!!!! 100%
So you believe that Climate change is definitely a BAD thing?
Very possible that the human response to fears of disastrous climate change will be successful and Mankind will enter an age of advance that makes all our history seem just retarded!
A statement of "You are all going to die without a whimper" indicates that you have given up and expect to die from this.
Saddest thing I have ever heard!
Assignment Zarkov:
In the time-line you have projected for our little mudball on which we currently live to become a little dirtball that cannot support us, supply 3 changes that may reverse, retard or allow escape from planetary extinction.
Try not to use political changes as those are often out of the reach of common man.
My 3:
1. Personal power usage and production of in efficient direction.
Been on this since 1975 and have been mostly successful.
2. Teach and learn!
I work with a bunch of brilliant college kids that amaze me daily.
They have shown me models of Earth supporting 30 billion people!!
Hard work, but doable.
3. Support off-world exploration and exploitation.
Gonna get there eventually..might as well keep up with how to do it.
Or you can remain a cheerleader for the worst case scenario.
Bruce
doable changes
Place oil filters on all vehicle exhausts to catch unburnt oil = retard
All petroleum products declared noxious and all residues properly disposed of = retard
both retards would reverse if the exercise was done ALL OVER THE WORLD with complete diligence and there was enough time left, and that is the question ????
escape.. whole ocean micro-layer seeding to allow marine algae and other micro-organisms to digest the resident oil film.
I am not a doom merchant
but as a scientist if I perceive such I must say so... encourage debate and cause action.
Sorry, but I believe that is my duty if I know
and if I am deluded, then discussion should sort that out
and if that fails, then incoming data will test
So far all data has supported an oil membrane on the marine micro-layer inhibiting water evaporation and hence "The Death of Clouds"... warming.... drying... heating oceans....ice age
and now Ice Clouds are proliferating.... cold.....
For newbies the presented picture is not so simple since the North's climate is disjointed from the South's climate
But look to the south to see the future north !
This world must be made aware of the worst case scenario; inaction will surely bring this on
and just maybe it is already too late.
The rise of the Ice Clouds really has me rattled... and I look forward to the unfolding near future.. it may be critical !
Don't judge me by the flack I receive
yep too complex for slanderous fools.
Why don't you ask them for proof that "emissions" cause global damage ?
no, not talking oil here... just "greenhouse gases" crap.. CO2, CH4 etc
there is no proof and yet the hype from idiots has set this world on a double knife edge
(1) chasing the wrong walnut and allowing the real danger to go unabated
(2) by doing 1, thereby restricting economic progress for no effect. Laying blame and creating international tension, all for naught
I suppose y'all took part in Earth Hour LOL... fools.
Earthlings just love symbolic adherence....
Unbelievably stupid earthlings
The "Agenda" you claim seems to have as much substance behind it as your calling for Bush's impeachment every 10th post, yet without evidence of ANY impeachable offense.
Which is why I asumed that you don't have children because, like your call's for impeachment, you act too immature to possibly attract a female.
Your understanding of GW is as bad as your understanding of politics.
Or evolution for that matter.
Hard to tell if you are helping that cause with quotes like:
QUOTE (Photojack+)
To me, evolution is not falsifiable
Arthur
Arthur
Funny thread
Global warming GOOD NEWS
hey you won't need refrigerators soon, actually you won't need anything!!!
yay, there will be no pollution, no lies, no nothing!
CO2 Bah, no problems because CO2 is a gas (no latent heat) and it is exposed to space
Now the heating of the seas is another matter, and the death of clouds... and the rise and rise of ice clouds... is another matter again. and that is where the trouble for a continued existence of life on Earth lies.
I wonder why the talk of Darwinian Evolution... it is total BS, a very very naive view
biochemistry, genetics etc really has totally disproved evolution, and yet it is good for politics
I am more fit than you, see, I have more money, power... LOL
It is easy to falsify it.... transgenic manipulation disproves the concept
Not one life form evolved, it differentiated under genetic control from within, not from with-out, expression triggered by the deliberately modified environment to accommodate finer and finer life forms.
There is no "survival of the fittest", only survival of what is required to take the environment to the next level so that the next "living expression" can be genetically unfolded.
However soon only nothing will survive!
Global warming GOOD NEWS
hey you won't need refrigerators soon, actually you won't need anything!!!
yay, there will be no pollution, no lies, no nothing!
CO2 Bah, no problems because CO2 is a gas (no latent heat) and it is exposed to space
Now the heating of the seas is another matter, and the death of clouds... and the rise and rise of ice clouds... is another matter again. and that is where the trouble for a continued existence of life on Earth lies.
I wonder why the talk of Darwinian Evolution... it is total BS, a very very naive view
biochemistry, genetics etc really has totally disproved evolution, and yet it is good for politics
I am more fit than you, see, I have more money, power... LOL
It is easy to falsify it.... transgenic manipulation disproves the concept
Not one life form evolved, it differentiated under genetic control from within, not from with-out, expression triggered by the deliberately modified environment to accommodate finer and finer life forms.
There is no "survival of the fittest", only survival of what is required to take the environment to the next level so that the next "living expression" can be genetically unfolded.
However soon only nothing will survive!
And yet another thread slides into uselessness...
To bad, it had some potential for discussing science, research, and ideas related to the subject matter.
Has anyone here read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton?
To bad, it had some potential for discussing science, research, and ideas related to the subject matter.
Has anyone here read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton?
Don't waste your remaining time lads, Adoucette will still be denying that there are no problems when there's no food and all the other outcomes detailed today have come true.
He thinks he knows better than the worlds best researchers because he wants to be convinced there is no problem, when in reality he knows we are in the smelly stuff.
he probably works for the government as an anti-panic agent.
So bye for now I'm too busy enjoying the remaining time.
AR
He thinks he knows better than the worlds best researchers because he wants to be convinced there is no problem, when in reality he knows we are in the smelly stuff.
he probably works for the government as an anti-panic agent.
So bye for now I'm too busy enjoying the remaining time.
AR
When you have no argument so you resort to claiming I'm a Govt Plant?
Pretty Pathetic Post
But, as expected.
Arthur
Pretty Pathetic Post
But, as expected.
Arthur
Any of the Sky is Falling folks ever read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" or Singer and Avery's "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years"? Hmmm, why does Al Gore make so much money trading carbon credits? Sea level rising? 3.1 millimeters per decade (per NOAA). Ooooh, my big toe is in danger of drowning. Sigh! Me nauseated. Ahualoa.
As the title of this thread says,, GW has been very, very good to Al Gore.
I have heard that he made 100 million from the movie. but that's for a discussion in another thread.
ahualoa,
Welcome,,, And this was the thread that you chose to make your first post in.
I have heard that he made 100 million from the movie. but that's for a discussion in another thread.
ahualoa,
Welcome,,, And this was the thread that you chose to make your first post in.
Oh, I can't help my self,,, Someone stop me before I paste again,,,,,
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=...&rel=1&border=0
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=...&rel=1&border=0
Just a thought,,
Could todays warming trend be caused by better pollution control standards?
From about 1940's till 1970's the industrial revolution was in full swing with little or no concern for smoke stack or fluorocarbon emissions. The news in the mid '70's were talking about a coming ice age. but this was also when we began restrictions on emissions of cars we banned freon and aerosol fluorocarbons and smoke stack emissions were implemented. So 30 years of unregulated emissions resulted in light absorbing soot and other pollutants. Now with 30 years of regulation to remove them and we are looking at a warming trend. Could the removal of these pollutants now be causing the warming? It looks simple to me. Less soot to absorb the light = more heat.
I know that this sound goofy, but think about it for a bit.
Could todays warming trend be caused by better pollution control standards?
From about 1940's till 1970's the industrial revolution was in full swing with little or no concern for smoke stack or fluorocarbon emissions. The news in the mid '70's were talking about a coming ice age. but this was also when we began restrictions on emissions of cars we banned freon and aerosol fluorocarbons and smoke stack emissions were implemented. So 30 years of unregulated emissions resulted in light absorbing soot and other pollutants. Now with 30 years of regulation to remove them and we are looking at a warming trend. Could the removal of these pollutants now be causing the warming? It looks simple to me. Less soot to absorb the light = more heat.
I know that this sound goofy, but think about it for a bit.
QUOTE (paul h+Nov 20 2007, 07:28 PM)
Oh, I can't help my self,,, Someone stop me before I paste again,,,,,
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=...&rel=1&border=0
Great link. Thanks...
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=...&rel=1&border=0
Great link. Thanks...
QUOTE (paul h+Nov 22 2007, 10:11 AM)
Just a thought,,
Could todays warming trend be caused by better pollution control standards?
From about 1940's till 1970's the industrial revolution was in full swing with little or no concern for smoke stack or fluorocarbon emissions. The news in the mid '70's were talking about a coming ice age. but this was also when we began restrictions on emissions of cars we banned freon and aerosol fluorocarbons and smoke stack emissions were implemented. So 30 years of unregulated emissions resulted in light absorbing soot and other pollutants. Now with 30 years of regulation to remove them and we are looking at a warming trend. Could the removal of these pollutants now be causing the warming? It looks simple to me. Less soot to absorb the light = more heat.
I know that this sound goofy, but think about it for a bit.
IMHO... not exactly. The pollution was real, the need to remove it was real, etc. The time line is approximately correct, but I believe that we are dealing with a combination of factors related to climate change.
One of those factors (again, IMHO) was the impact of fluorocarbons on the ozone. With the diminished ozone layer (starting to be noticed in the early 70's), there was an increase in UV radiation making it through the atmosphere to reach the ground. I would suspect that its potential influence is greater than the influence of CO2, and we have already taken steps to correct it.
In one of the other threads on this forum (about some anti-GW show out of England) there was a chart posted that showed the matching trend of global temp compared to measured impact of solar output. There were 2 places where the trend lines didn't correlate; post WW2 and ~1970 forward. The WW2 divergence was explained due to sulfates (I think) being released during the war having a cooling affect.
The argument that ensued (in the thread) was that the solar impact (to GW) represented in the chart had to be discounted as a cause because of the 1970 divergence. One of the counter arguments was "the trend matched until here, so what changed?" IMHO (third times the charm) it was the impact of a reduced ozone layer.
Does anyone reading this thread remember any of this, know about this chart, etc?
Could todays warming trend be caused by better pollution control standards?
From about 1940's till 1970's the industrial revolution was in full swing with little or no concern for smoke stack or fluorocarbon emissions. The news in the mid '70's were talking about a coming ice age. but this was also when we began restrictions on emissions of cars we banned freon and aerosol fluorocarbons and smoke stack emissions were implemented. So 30 years of unregulated emissions resulted in light absorbing soot and other pollutants. Now with 30 years of regulation to remove them and we are looking at a warming trend. Could the removal of these pollutants now be causing the warming? It looks simple to me. Less soot to absorb the light = more heat.
I know that this sound goofy, but think about it for a bit.
IMHO... not exactly. The pollution was real, the need to remove it was real, etc. The time line is approximately correct, but I believe that we are dealing with a combination of factors related to climate change.
One of those factors (again, IMHO) was the impact of fluorocarbons on the ozone. With the diminished ozone layer (starting to be noticed in the early 70's), there was an increase in UV radiation making it through the atmosphere to reach the ground. I would suspect that its potential influence is greater than the influence of CO2, and we have already taken steps to correct it.
In one of the other threads on this forum (about some anti-GW show out of England) there was a chart posted that showed the matching trend of global temp compared to measured impact of solar output. There were 2 places where the trend lines didn't correlate; post WW2 and ~1970 forward. The WW2 divergence was explained due to sulfates (I think) being released during the war having a cooling affect.
The argument that ensued (in the thread) was that the solar impact (to GW) represented in the chart had to be discounted as a cause because of the 1970 divergence. One of the counter arguments was "the trend matched until here, so what changed?" IMHO (third times the charm) it was the impact of a reduced ozone layer.
Does anyone reading this thread remember any of this, know about this chart, etc?
DEK46656
>The pollution was real, the need to remove it was real, etc. The time line is approximately correct, but I believe that we are dealing with a combination of factors related to climate change.
Very true, a combination of factors related to climate change.
I have been looking at some research on the effects of "brown clouds" My conclusion was that there is a correlation between surface cooling and atmospheric warming as a result of the aerosol particles (black carbon soot). The research seems to show that there is an atmospheric warming that may effect glacial melt and a dimming effect that can cause lower surface temps. is a regional event. How this would average out globally is a big question. What I have not found (yet) is data that shows the PPM count per decade. to see if there is a correlation in the time line that I proposed above. But IF found and the data supports this then I would surmize that the 30 year period from ~1940's to 1970's (when the cooling effect peaked) may have been masking an naturally occurring warming cycle. The question is If there had been no industrial revolution what would the global temps. have been? Considering that (for the most part) we don't use wood and raw coal for heat now.
>The pollution was real, the need to remove it was real, etc. The time line is approximately correct, but I believe that we are dealing with a combination of factors related to climate change.
Very true, a combination of factors related to climate change.
I have been looking at some research on the effects of "brown clouds" My conclusion was that there is a correlation between surface cooling and atmospheric warming as a result of the aerosol particles (black carbon soot). The research seems to show that there is an atmospheric warming that may effect glacial melt and a dimming effect that can cause lower surface temps. is a regional event. How this would average out globally is a big question. What I have not found (yet) is data that shows the PPM count per decade. to see if there is a correlation in the time line that I proposed above. But IF found and the data supports this then I would surmize that the 30 year period from ~1940's to 1970's (when the cooling effect peaked) may have been masking an naturally occurring warming cycle. The question is If there had been no industrial revolution what would the global temps. have been? Considering that (for the most part) we don't use wood and raw coal for heat now.
After a day of smurfing the Internet for the pollution data that I mentioned above, I have tripped over one thing that has increased steadily from the 1040's till the 70's and then declined from the 70's till now. Pb lead. we banned it from gas in the 70's.
I found a book that says that most of the atmospheric Pb ended up in the ocean. Also it said that the ocean contained 60% more CO2 than the atmosphere and that the absorption and release from the ocean was Dependant on an enzyme (it didn't say what enzyme) Now I wonder if the increase of Pb from 40's to 70's had an effect on that enzyme to cause the ocean to store more CO2 and cause a cooling effect and now the reverse, the reduction of Pb is now causing the ocean to release more CO2 and the result is our warming trend. Along with many other factors of course. although there is data that show the rise of CO2 before the 70's.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id...fFguMQ#PPA13,M1
I found a book that says that most of the atmospheric Pb ended up in the ocean. Also it said that the ocean contained 60% more CO2 than the atmosphere and that the absorption and release from the ocean was Dependant on an enzyme (it didn't say what enzyme) Now I wonder if the increase of Pb from 40's to 70's had an effect on that enzyme to cause the ocean to store more CO2 and cause a cooling effect and now the reverse, the reduction of Pb is now causing the ocean to release more CO2 and the result is our warming trend. Along with many other factors of course. although there is data that show the rise of CO2 before the 70's.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id...fFguMQ#PPA13,M1
Well, one good thing about global warming that comes to my mind is that we'll all be dead before the official Heat Death of the Universe actually occurs.
QUOTE (*sugarsparkles*+Nov 23 2007, 02:19 AM)
Well, one good thing about global warming that comes to my mind is that we'll all be dead before the official Heat Death of the Universe actually occurs.
Now you don't really think that GW is going to kill anyone do you.
(I'm sure this is just humor). I would think that if the ocean did rise 3 feet you would surely have time to walk up a 4 foot hill.
Now you don't really think that GW is going to kill anyone do you.
(I'm sure this is just humor). I would think that if the ocean did rise 3 feet you would surely have time to walk up a 4 foot hill.
QUOTE
you don't really think that GW is going to kill anyone do you.
no not anyone, just everyone!!!
but it won't be via sea level rise, heat or drought
y'all freeze to death in the upcoming Ice Age.. total Earth coverage
Regardless of cause, climate shift will ultimately cause deaths and economic destruction. Even if it causes a greater area of useful land to open up.
The majority of the human population lives within a short range of a coast. Along with living there, we've built our cities, power plants, train tracks etc etc. We can't pack up I95 and move it inland a few miles or ship it to Greenland. Ports and refineries would be lost and require rebuilding. Millions if not billions of job relocations will end up with a loss rate. People that simply can't or won't adapt to moving.
Believing there is an upside to climate change is to buy into the broken window theory of economics. It just doesn't work.
We're not a nomadic culture. Getting up and moving to greener pastures carries costs and losses with it. And that's assuming we actually end up with greener pastures to go to, which isn't likely.
Consider New Orleans. Instead of the few years since it's happened, spread what's happened to them over a century or two. There were and are plenty of better houses available all over the country. There's even a decent foreclosure market going right now. Unfortunately, not having a home, those needing to find new homes lack the resources to take advantage of it.
The same thing is going to happen around the planet in slow motion. People dislodged and lost, having to fight their way back to some kind of normal life in a new place. Considering the results of every other mass migration throughout history, I don't expect this one to be any prettier.
The majority of the human population lives within a short range of a coast. Along with living there, we've built our cities, power plants, train tracks etc etc. We can't pack up I95 and move it inland a few miles or ship it to Greenland. Ports and refineries would be lost and require rebuilding. Millions if not billions of job relocations will end up with a loss rate. People that simply can't or won't adapt to moving.
Believing there is an upside to climate change is to buy into the broken window theory of economics. It just doesn't work.
We're not a nomadic culture. Getting up and moving to greener pastures carries costs and losses with it. And that's assuming we actually end up with greener pastures to go to, which isn't likely.
Consider New Orleans. Instead of the few years since it's happened, spread what's happened to them over a century or two. There were and are plenty of better houses available all over the country. There's even a decent foreclosure market going right now. Unfortunately, not having a home, those needing to find new homes lack the resources to take advantage of it.
The same thing is going to happen around the planet in slow motion. People dislodged and lost, having to fight their way back to some kind of normal life in a new place. Considering the results of every other mass migration throughout history, I don't expect this one to be any prettier.
Sheesh.
FEAR MONGER MUCH?
Parts of New Orleans were as much as 8 ft BELOW sea level.
Those parts ABOVE sea level, like the French Quarter, were not inundated when the FRIGGIN LEVEEs broke.
Very little of the world lives BELOW sea level, but interestingly, those that do, do so relatively easily.
The ocean is not rising at a rate that will result in 'mass migrartions'
From the IPCC
Knock yourself out:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/denhelder.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20040205031417/...KZ+Dillingh.pdf
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...sea-level-rise/
etc etc
Arthur
FEAR MONGER MUCH?
Parts of New Orleans were as much as 8 ft BELOW sea level.
Those parts ABOVE sea level, like the French Quarter, were not inundated when the FRIGGIN LEVEEs broke.
Very little of the world lives BELOW sea level, but interestingly, those that do, do so relatively easily.
The ocean is not rising at a rate that will result in 'mass migrartions'
From the IPCC
QUOTE
Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003
Knock yourself out:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/denhelder.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20040205031417/...KZ+Dillingh.pdf
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...sea-level-rise/
etc etc
Arthur
Its Good News Week,
Headlines
All LIFE Extinct
Read all about it
Headlines
All LIFE Extinct
Read all about it
Hi all.
Sea level per se isn't the main worry.
It is the increased frequency and ferocity of storms ('superstorms' of all sorts everywhere) that will be the main problem.
Air and Sea travel will be more dangerous/unreliable.
Crops and man-made cities/structures will be continually extremely affected so that 'insurance policies/industry' will be too expensive to get/sustain.
Diseases will spread and become more problematic because of breeding and population concentration factors etc.
Not to mention that your planned holidays will in all probability be shot to heck weatherwise! hehehe.
So don't lose focus of where the action will be....irrespective of the cause....unless we can mitigate the global warming WHATEVER it stems from.
Cheers anyway folks!
RC.
.
Sea level per se isn't the main worry.
It is the increased frequency and ferocity of storms ('superstorms' of all sorts everywhere) that will be the main problem.
Air and Sea travel will be more dangerous/unreliable.
Crops and man-made cities/structures will be continually extremely affected so that 'insurance policies/industry' will be too expensive to get/sustain.
Diseases will spread and become more problematic because of breeding and population concentration factors etc.
Not to mention that your planned holidays will in all probability be shot to heck weatherwise! hehehe.
So don't lose focus of where the action will be....irrespective of the cause....unless we can mitigate the global warming WHATEVER it stems from.
Cheers anyway folks!
RC.
.
You know,,, If changes do occur they should be, like they have always been before, Slow to occur. We modern humans are no longer nomadic. we simply will not move (especially entire cities) The good news will be those who get rich selling things to make staying put more comfortable. The idea of stronger storms only serve to aid generator and window salesmen. It was said that the Katrina type storms would be the norm. but some 4 years latter and well,,,,,, you get the point.
2. Is Global warming a bad thing?
Number 1 on my list was "Is Global Warming happening?"
While seeking a Yes/No answer I had the debate change to "Climate Change".
I can accept that Climate change is happening so now I can move to question 2!
My spin is on basic resources and their possession.
As the climate changes land for use by man will change.
A lot of people, countries and businesses have a big stake in the status quo and will
seek to maintain or expand their resources.
Please discuss what you think may happen if China were hit with a "Dust Bowl"
era!
Suppose the desert southwest of North America (including much of northern Mexico) became the agricultural powerhouse.
Some argue that we are not a nomadic people....WRONG!!!!
People move to where conditions are better or away from where conditions are bad...always!!
If an area cannot support the populace with jobs and food, Well, Rats from a sinking ship comes to mind.
These relocations or adaptations have always been a part of our history.
Are these climate changes going to overwhelm our abilities to adapt?
Predictions of the direction and scope of these changes vary and often
seem to have a hidden agenda.
Natural changes must be adapted to...unless Man can alter these changes.
But that is question 3 on my list...What is Mankinds role in changing the climate?
I personally don't have enough believable info for question 2...yet.
Bruce
Number 1 on my list was "Is Global Warming happening?"
While seeking a Yes/No answer I had the debate change to "Climate Change".
I can accept that Climate change is happening so now I can move to question 2!
My spin is on basic resources and their possession.
As the climate changes land for use by man will change.
A lot of people, countries and businesses have a big stake in the status quo and will
seek to maintain or expand their resources.
Please discuss what you think may happen if China were hit with a "Dust Bowl"
era!
Suppose the desert southwest of North America (including much of northern Mexico) became the agricultural powerhouse.
Some argue that we are not a nomadic people....WRONG!!!!
People move to where conditions are better or away from where conditions are bad...always!!
If an area cannot support the populace with jobs and food, Well, Rats from a sinking ship comes to mind.
These relocations or adaptations have always been a part of our history.
Are these climate changes going to overwhelm our abilities to adapt?
Predictions of the direction and scope of these changes vary and often
seem to have a hidden agenda.
Natural changes must be adapted to...unless Man can alter these changes.
But that is question 3 on my list...What is Mankinds role in changing the climate?
I personally don't have enough believable info for question 2...yet.
Bruce
QUOTE
if China were hit with a "Dust Bowl"
and the USA and .........
Oh all earthlings will share their food, and slowly die without even complaining.
Such is our glorious society.
Never wonder if it will happen
I will!!!! 100%
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 29 2008, 08:37 PM)
and the USA and .........
Oh all earthlings will share their food, and slowly die without even complaining.
Such is our glorious society.
Never wonder if it will happen
I will!!!! 100%
So you believe that Climate change is definitely a BAD thing?
Very possible that the human response to fears of disastrous climate change will be successful and Mankind will enter an age of advance that makes all our history seem just retarded!
A statement of "You are all going to die without a whimper" indicates that you have given up and expect to die from this.
Saddest thing I have ever heard!
Assignment Zarkov:
In the time-line you have projected for our little mudball on which we currently live to become a little dirtball that cannot support us, supply 3 changes that may reverse, retard or allow escape from planetary extinction.
Try not to use political changes as those are often out of the reach of common man.
My 3:
1. Personal power usage and production of in efficient direction.
Been on this since 1975 and have been mostly successful.
2. Teach and learn!
I work with a bunch of brilliant college kids that amaze me daily.
They have shown me models of Earth supporting 30 billion people!!
Hard work, but doable.
3. Support off-world exploration and exploitation.
Gonna get there eventually..might as well keep up with how to do it.
Or you can remain a cheerleader for the worst case scenario.
Bruce
QUOTE
supply 3 changes that may reverse, retard or allow escape f
doable changes
Place oil filters on all vehicle exhausts to catch unburnt oil = retard
All petroleum products declared noxious and all residues properly disposed of = retard
both retards would reverse if the exercise was done ALL OVER THE WORLD with complete diligence and there was enough time left, and that is the question ????
escape.. whole ocean micro-layer seeding to allow marine algae and other micro-organisms to digest the resident oil film.
I am not a doom merchant
but as a scientist if I perceive such I must say so... encourage debate and cause action.
Sorry, but I believe that is my duty if I know
and if I am deluded, then discussion should sort that out
and if that fails, then incoming data will test
So far all data has supported an oil membrane on the marine micro-layer inhibiting water evaporation and hence "The Death of Clouds"... warming.... drying... heating oceans....ice age
and now Ice Clouds are proliferating.... cold.....
For newbies the presented picture is not so simple since the North's climate is disjointed from the South's climate
But look to the south to see the future north !
This world must be made aware of the worst case scenario; inaction will surely bring this on
and just maybe it is already too late.
The rise of the Ice Clouds really has me rattled... and I look forward to the unfolding near future.. it may be critical !
Don't judge me by the flack I receive
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 30 2008, 09:11 AM)
Don't judge me by the flack I receive
No, we simply judge you by the flack you deserve.
No, we simply judge you by the flack you deserve.
Can you just imagine what the result of the EPA regulating GHG's
http://www.knbc.com/goinggreen/15738656/detail.html#
http://www.knbc.com/goinggreen/15738656/detail.html#
QUOTE
the issue is complex,
yep too complex for slanderous fools.
Why don't you ask them for proof that "emissions" cause global damage ?
no, not talking oil here... just "greenhouse gases" crap.. CO2, CH4 etc
there is no proof and yet the hype from idiots has set this world on a double knife edge
(1) chasing the wrong walnut and allowing the real danger to go unabated
(2) by doing 1, thereby restricting economic progress for no effect. Laying blame and creating international tension, all for naught
I suppose y'all took part in Earth Hour LOL... fools.
Earthlings just love symbolic adherence....
Unbelievably stupid earthlings
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1725975,00.html
The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year
yes your controllers show the ultimate in stupidity... all metal/toxic poisoned, no love, no sanity, no hope.
This movie I am making to screen back home will be a laugh a minute !!!!!!
that's OK, so is everyone else and so am I.... but here is a crude... maybe disjointed synthesis. The devil is in the details... but this may give you some idea.
To accurately predict the future... or even claim to, is dubious.
Remember the Global Climate Change is caused by petroleum oil.... identified and detailed from every corner of the oceans... a membrane on the surface that inhibits water evaporation, turning the global hydrological cycle on its head.
"Green House" gases were saving us from the full effects for some time now.... however the equilibrium had to change... GH gases are not a problem... not even a slight problem.... if it rains often !!!!!!!!!!!!
The death of clouds, is what will happen once an area dries out... such as the Southern hemisphere already has... unlimited clear sky days....
The NH has a lot of fresh water ice melt happening... so the evaporation rate is slightly higher at the moment... not so in the south
however there is a loss of "condensation clouds" as the world's landmasses dry out... this lets through more direct sunshine.... warming, melting and precipitating various extreme weather events
BUT once the air does not have the flow through of water (liquid ->cloud -> rain somewhere...ultimately to poles ) once this stops... then Ice Clouds form
Even though there is about the same amount of water vapour pressure, the loss of condensation clouds causes that water vapour that is in the atmosphere to rise... to higher altitudes than "normal" (at normal cloud altitude the air is usually washed clean)
and the ice clouds are formed... these indicate a very dry atmosphere.
Once the ice clouds are stabilised they (continue to be sublimed by the daily sun cycle and rise again.... solidifying as ice crystals) repeat^n ..they just get higher, more stable, more dense and cover a wider area.
The effects of Ice Clouds at ground level are varied... depending on thickness.
They will form an ocean above our heads.. an ocean of ice, reflecting sunshine, trapping IR.... and many other negative effects.
Meanwhile the seas will continue to heat above natural limitations.
Natural limitations are evaporation linked, (like a thermostat) ... which loses the incoming heat..
The ubiquitous petroleum oil membrane in the marine micro-layer inhibits evaporation... therefore seas heat... a huge amount of trapped excess heat becomes a time bomb.. ----> ice age.
This is the worry.... and the Ice Clouds are a sign.... and what will happen is still highly questionable
but there can be no good come from any of this.
Most if not all the research and observations have been NH oriented... now the seas are becoming the focus...and about time... however the establishment is still in denial
Sorry, this subject is so intertwined that to elucidate all aspects in a few hundred words is impossible... but from little things big things grow, so I will try to flesh it out via answering questions.
QUOTE
"It's like witnessing a rape."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "It's like witnessing a rape." |
The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year
yes your controllers show the ultimate in stupidity... all metal/toxic poisoned, no love, no sanity, no hope.
This movie I am making to screen back home will be a laugh a minute !!!!!!
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 30 2008, 09:11 AM)
"The Death of Clouds"... warming.... drying... heating oceans....ice age
and now Ice Clouds are proliferating.... cold.....
So is it going to be ice clouds or no clouds?
Having a little trouble tying this together.
Bruce
and now Ice Clouds are proliferating.... cold.....
So is it going to be ice clouds or no clouds?
Having a little trouble tying this together.
Bruce
QUOTE
Having a little trouble tying this together.
that's OK, so is everyone else and so am I.... but here is a crude... maybe disjointed synthesis. The devil is in the details... but this may give you some idea.
To accurately predict the future... or even claim to, is dubious.
Remember the Global Climate Change is caused by petroleum oil.... identified and detailed from every corner of the oceans... a membrane on the surface that inhibits water evaporation, turning the global hydrological cycle on its head.
"Green House" gases were saving us from the full effects for some time now.... however the equilibrium had to change... GH gases are not a problem... not even a slight problem.... if it rains often !!!!!!!!!!!!
The death of clouds, is what will happen once an area dries out... such as the Southern hemisphere already has... unlimited clear sky days....
The NH has a lot of fresh water ice melt happening... so the evaporation rate is slightly higher at the moment... not so in the south
however there is a loss of "condensation clouds" as the world's landmasses dry out... this lets through more direct sunshine.... warming, melting and precipitating various extreme weather events
BUT once the air does not have the flow through of water (liquid ->cloud -> rain somewhere...ultimately to poles ) once this stops... then Ice Clouds form
Even though there is about the same amount of water vapour pressure, the loss of condensation clouds causes that water vapour that is in the atmosphere to rise... to higher altitudes than "normal" (at normal cloud altitude the air is usually washed clean)
and the ice clouds are formed... these indicate a very dry atmosphere.
Once the ice clouds are stabilised they (continue to be sublimed by the daily sun cycle and rise again.... solidifying as ice crystals) repeat^n ..they just get higher, more stable, more dense and cover a wider area.
The effects of Ice Clouds at ground level are varied... depending on thickness.
They will form an ocean above our heads.. an ocean of ice, reflecting sunshine, trapping IR.... and many other negative effects.
Meanwhile the seas will continue to heat above natural limitations.
Natural limitations are evaporation linked, (like a thermostat) ... which loses the incoming heat..
The ubiquitous petroleum oil membrane in the marine micro-layer inhibits evaporation... therefore seas heat... a huge amount of trapped excess heat becomes a time bomb.. ----> ice age.
This is the worry.... and the Ice Clouds are a sign.... and what will happen is still highly questionable
but there can be no good come from any of this.
Most if not all the research and observations have been NH oriented... now the seas are becoming the focus...and about time... however the establishment is still in denial
Sorry, this subject is so intertwined that to elucidate all aspects in a few hundred words is impossible... but from little things big things grow, so I will try to flesh it out via answering questions.
I took the liberty of translating Zerkoff's last post to Spanish then French, German, Chinese, Korean, Russian and back to English. I think it makes much more sense now:
Paul, it is there, it has been ID'ed it has been analysed
it is up to about 1 micron thick, it leaves a silvery sheen or it may be invisible
yes, thick oil (even thin) suppresses wave action... NASA uses this technique to detect THICK oil slicks
however the wave suppression from thin slicks is not detectable.
This is a semipermeable membrane, tenacious, ubiquitous.. and deadly, and wave action has little or no effect.
droplet formation, emulsions... can be up to 1000X less evaporative
It is there, no doubt.... its effects are as I have stated... the consequences are not fully known.... but judging by the pernicious changes in the Global Climate, they are not good news and yes... extinction is a very real possibility.
this was known and reported in the 1930's by marine micro-layer biologists
what you see in port is thick oil
but when you realise the amount of oil going into the sea each day and tanker sinking's
and its resident time
then you would easily see that the "possibility" is backed up with an enormous mass of science.
It is not unreasonable. If you calculate the thickness of the oil layer using reported estimates of wastage into the environment and couple them with experimental sea water evaporation rates, then the projected outcome is rather pessimistic, ...much as the Global Climate change is unfolding.
All references to this data are at my web site, later if requested I can post specific links to specific questions.
That is what my website is about... no trolls.
Paul, as far as seeing it !.... no you will see thick slicks... maybe more often than you think
but thin slicks < 1 Micron, are basically invisible except to a very well trained eye... slight lack of sparkle, slight lack of splash etc.. There maybe a slight silver sheen... slight dampening of the wave crests etc
can't stay now but will add more
and the analysis of sea water from every area of the globe has shown this oil membrane
and the biggest company in the world says nothing.... except to back anti-life lobiests,
who is liable? answer that and you answer the greatest hoodwink ever, which will result in the extinction of LIFE for a pile of money.
Now you tell me who is sane ?
LOL LOL LOL... joker!!
QUOTE (Zerkoff+)
That it assumes it it does not know, very it and all, I... But incompletion? in...? It is small and it will be? evil lyeng? ? ... It inward, entire iskluchaya? as far as possible? its that form of idea. Cisement Pr3 E? Not word? ... Or thus far? He does ask, it was i. signal? to it? ? by world quality? Climate does distinguish oil it it is created....? it does send? each? sea in the exterior angle. In inside 1 thing? Diaphragm does prevent as adjacent waters? ? By surface? It does evaporate? Certain the dog of thing is small? ? in? gas "? house "THE I color? IT? ? by one hydrology under the perfection inside the peace? cycle? In does make in order make will be influence.... but, the balance? change? ... Gas gh? ? ...? Frequently? It does have it it will be light? ? To will be equal....!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Cloud, is which it it does die by? Its elegy does come to the chute, from it, is which it it will solve time? it is dry? it had... So to have a talk the sky of syllable suedlaendische...?? limit is one.... Ice nh will be fresh water? ... Consequently? ? ? ? To evaporate, namely? ? ? ...? this earth? family? you will dry...? And it is immediately compared to too much inside the peace? ... Because, southern? to the interior? After I did have it it not was very and "it was evaporated easily but? Cloud "does lose? it does add? (- cloud - it does see normal, is which necessary to be high it does make generally internal air of cloud? to wash? thing)".law? "it? crosses? how? ? on? In the position inside which the form of part in the rain -...)? does have air, liquid adjacent waters but? it does enter in? ? Several to by very the case inside derritiendo... Writing of its thing? is supported the cloud form of hour? Then-occuring it and it is near? water vapour? effort? ocean, rod? cloud? ice, this reason? To lose in the pair, it did prevent in order to be as far as possible all, it will be which interior which they do time? Multi height will be the atmosphere it will be high interior... (it, and the cloud of ice? There will be method does show the atmosphere it it does construct very? SVO...? gives formation. Cloud as soon as writing? ? Does decide, ice (with period too much? ? ? Lift by lift in contin3 in e and side? it is difficult? ...?? ? in the profile? Swollens 1 are compared in the hour of the crystal of ice differently), they? Decides in convenience in the order they are high more almost repeat^.n. it does not support it it compared to it it acts and or it moors. On then accommodating the function of the cloud of ice of a quantity? soil is flat.... Too much it? ? is formed ocean iego? ? ice, reflection in the interior? meeting? In does go.... and persona of ocean differently? He resists function. Natural enemy inside the limit? ? ? hour? sea? ? step inward? it makes. Natural hostile limit? Solid body, is which it it does evaporate? , (it does seem that to be it does make? box)... ? ? It does lose it does assume? . Oil ubiquiste of diaphragm - the rod of ocean it does shut? ocean? ? ? ... In as that reason... Surplus? it is enormous? a quantity? ? one? k? ? ? ? glacier? It does explode time, is which it it did assemble? A? ? he does ask.... with the cloud of ice? .... And a maximum quantity does not decide on outside to the crust, which the thing that of form? k? IT but was it, but? to legal to gush it? From all it? . All the study and it is much? arrangement observesNH... It was happy? people? Information it not, ocean? ? ? ? ? ? ... And interior? ? ... It is friend but inside inward? Attrist3 inside e inside the machinery, to assume into 100? ? ? Detail as this? does refine entire aspect? ? On the possibility of information it not... It does recover and is prostimulirovan, situation which is small but? Situation is important it vein, inside as that reason to look away me? ? its meat? ? In I do eat? ? ?
Zarkov,
Your oil all over the ocean theory would be more believable it the ocean had no wave action, but it does, and this action continually breaks up any oil film that may float on the surface.
Your oil all over the ocean theory would be more believable it the ocean had no wave action, but it does, and this action continually breaks up any oil film that may float on the surface.
QUOTE
it the ocean had no wave action, but it does, and this action continually breaks up any oil film that may float on the surface.
Paul, it is there, it has been ID'ed it has been analysed
it is up to about 1 micron thick, it leaves a silvery sheen or it may be invisible
yes, thick oil (even thin) suppresses wave action... NASA uses this technique to detect THICK oil slicks
however the wave suppression from thin slicks is not detectable.
This is a semipermeable membrane, tenacious, ubiquitous.. and deadly, and wave action has little or no effect.
droplet formation, emulsions... can be up to 1000X less evaporative
It is there, no doubt.... its effects are as I have stated... the consequences are not fully known.... but judging by the pernicious changes in the Global Climate, they are not good news and yes... extinction is a very real possibility.
Zarkov,
Sure there is usually oil floating on the surface waters when IN PORT. but if you say that it covers the oceans (all of them) then please, convince me with a source. I have spent the last ~10 years at sea (off and on).
Sure there is usually oil floating on the surface waters when IN PORT. but if you say that it covers the oceans (all of them) then please, convince me with a source. I have spent the last ~10 years at sea (off and on).
QUOTE
Sure there is usually oil floating on the surface waters when IN PORT. but if you say that it covers the oceans (all of them)
this was known and reported in the 1930's by marine micro-layer biologists
what you see in port is thick oil
but when you realise the amount of oil going into the sea each day and tanker sinking's
and its resident time
then you would easily see that the "possibility" is backed up with an enormous mass of science.
It is not unreasonable. If you calculate the thickness of the oil layer using reported estimates of wastage into the environment and couple them with experimental sea water evaporation rates, then the projected outcome is rather pessimistic, ...much as the Global Climate change is unfolding.
All references to this data are at my web site, later if requested I can post specific links to specific questions.
That is what my website is about... no trolls.
Paul, as far as seeing it !.... no you will see thick slicks... maybe more often than you think
but thin slicks < 1 Micron, are basically invisible except to a very well trained eye... slight lack of sparkle, slight lack of splash etc.. There maybe a slight silver sheen... slight dampening of the wave crests etc
can't stay now but will add more
and the analysis of sea water from every area of the globe has shown this oil membrane
and the biggest company in the world says nothing.... except to back anti-life lobiests,
who is liable? answer that and you answer the greatest hoodwink ever, which will result in the extinction of LIFE for a pile of money.
Now you tell me who is sane ?
LOL LOL LOL... joker!!
>All references to this data are at my web site, later if requested I can post specific links to specific questions
I did request your source in my last post. now you want me to do it again?
If what you say is true, every one here knows that I will be the first to admit that I was wrong. (but not without proof
)
Convince me with DATA, not words.
I did request your source in my last post. now you want me to do it again?
If what you say is true, every one here knows that I will be the first to admit that I was wrong. (but not without proof
) Convince me with DATA, not words.
tried to post this days ago, but page error linked ???
OK
This is a thread on another forum that covers most of the material and some links to reports of oil on the seas by NASA, Coast Guard, Marine Layer microbiologists etc.
http://open2.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3107
If you don't want to look fine by me.
If you do look and ask specific questions I may be able to elaborate
but I am not going to find everything I already know to be true and lay it out out the feet of trolls.
Genuine.. OK... if not.... (nothing)
OK
This is a thread on another forum that covers most of the material and some links to reports of oil on the seas by NASA, Coast Guard, Marine Layer microbiologists etc.
http://open2.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3107
If you don't want to look fine by me.
If you do look and ask specific questions I may be able to elaborate
but I am not going to find everything I already know to be true and lay it out out the feet of trolls.
Genuine.. OK... if not.... (nothing)
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+Nov 4 2007, 03:35 AM)
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...8B&chanID=sa003
With all the doom and gloom over human impact on the Earth, is there any good news?
New lands are being discovered. Greenland is now able to grow vegetables and a northwest passage will be possible soon. Beach front property may be available in Arizona and California may be a series of islands.
Is this all soooooo bad?
I'll be waiting ... looks like it's going to take a looooooong time before California even begins to look like Venice (at the steady rate its been going for more than the last 100 years, ~0.7 inches per decade, in 1000 years or so the levels could rise a few feet, assuming we don't continue cooling into another ice age), but who knows, that's just a rough guestimate and it could be 700 years or a quarter million before we begin to see minor changes in coastal features (If it continued, I'd just recommend my great-great-great-great-....(insert~35 more greats here) great grandchildren not rebuild homes that currently reside on an immediate shoreline today).
With all the doom and gloom over human impact on the Earth, is there any good news?
New lands are being discovered. Greenland is now able to grow vegetables and a northwest passage will be possible soon. Beach front property may be available in Arizona and California may be a series of islands.
Is this all soooooo bad?
I'll be waiting ... looks like it's going to take a looooooong time before California even begins to look like Venice (at the steady rate its been going for more than the last 100 years, ~0.7 inches per decade, in 1000 years or so the levels could rise a few feet, assuming we don't continue cooling into another ice age), but who knows, that's just a rough guestimate and it could be 700 years or a quarter million before we begin to see minor changes in coastal features (If it continued, I'd just recommend my great-great-great-great-....(insert~35 more greats here) great grandchildren not rebuild homes that currently reside on an immediate shoreline today).
sea level rise will be minimal