http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011302753_pf.html
QuoteEscalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica
Sheets Melting in an Area Once Thought to Be Unaffected by Global Warming
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 14, 2008; A01
Climatic changes appear to be destabilizing vast ice sheets of western Antarctica that had previously seemed relatively protected from global warming, researchers reported yesterday, raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates.
While the overall loss is a tiny fraction of the miles-deep ice that covers much of Antarctica, scientists said the new finding is important because the continent holds about 90 percent of Earth's ice, and until now, large-scale ice loss there had been limited to the peninsula that juts out toward the tip of South America. In addition, researchers found that the rate of ice loss in the affected areas has accelerated over the past 10 years -- as it has on most glaciers and ice sheets around the world.
"Without doubt, Antarctica as a whole is now losing ice yearly, and each year it's losing more," said Eric Rignot, lead author of a paper published online in the journal Nature Geoscience.
The Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking despite land temperatures for the continent remaining essentially unchanged, except for the fast-warming peninsula.
The cause, Rignot said, may be changes in the flow of the warmer water of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that circles much of the continent. Because of changed wind patterns and less-well-understood dynamics of the submerged current, its water is coming closer to land in some sectors and melting the edges of glaciers deep underwater.
"Something must be changing the ocean to trigger such changes," said Rignot, a senior scientist with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "We believe it is related to global climate forcing."
Rignot said the tonnage of yearly ice loss in Antarctica is approaching that of Greenland, where ice sheets are known to be melting rapidly in some parts and where ancient glaciers have been in retreat. He said the change in Antarctica could become considerably more dramatic because the continent's western shelf, an expanse of ice and snow roughly the size of Texas, is largely below sea level and has broad and flat expanses of ice that could move quickly. Much of Greenland's ice flows through relatively narrow valleys in mountainous terrain, which slows its motion.
The new finding comes days after the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the group's next report should look at the "frightening" possibility that ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica could melt rapidly at the same time.
"Both Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheet are huge bodies of ice and snow, which are sitting on land," said Rajendra Pachauri, chief of the IPCC, the United Nations' scientific advisory group. "If, through a process of melting, they collapse and are submerged in the sea, then we really are talking about sea-level rises of several meters." (A meter is about a yard.) Last year, the IPCC tentatively estimated that sea levels would rise by eight inches to two feet by the end of the century, assuming no melting in West Antarctica.
The new Antarctic ice findings are based on mapping of 85 percent of the continent over the past decade using radar data from European, Japanese and Canadian weather satellites. Previous studies had detected the beginning of ice loss in West Antarctica and substantial loss along the peninsula, but the current research found significantly greater changes.
Rignot and his team found that East Antarctica, which holds a majority of the continent's ice, has not experienced the same kind of loss -- probably because most of the ice sits atop land rather than below sea level, as in the west. In several coastal areas of East Antarctica, however, small but similar losses have been detected, he said.
In all, snowfall and ice loss in East Antarctica have about equaled out over the past 10 years, leaving that part of the continent unchanged in terms of total ice. But in West Antarctica, the ice loss has increased by 59 percent over the past decade to about 132 billion metric tons a year, while the yearly loss along the peninsula has increased by 140 percent to 60 billion metric tons. Because the ice being lost is generally near the bottom of glaciers, the glacier moves faster into the water and thins further, as a result. Rignot said there has been evidence of ice loss going back as far as 40 years.
The new findings come as the Arctic is losing ice at a dramatic rate and glaciers are in retreat across the planet. At a recent annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Ohio State University professor Lonnie Thompson delivered a keynote lecture that described a significant speed-up in the melting of high-altitude glaciers in tropical regions, including Peru, Tibet and Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya.
Thompson, who has studied the Quelccaya glacier in the Peruvian Andes for 30 years, said that for the first half of that period, it retreated on average 20 feet per year. For the past 15 years, he said, it has retreated an average of nearly 200 feet per year.
"The information from Antarctica is consistent with what we are seeing in all other areas with glaciers -- a melting or retreat that is occurring faster than predicted," he said. "Glaciers, and especially the high-elevation tropical glaciers, are a real canary in the coal mine. They're telling us that major climatic changes are occurring."
While the phenomenon of ice loss worldwide is well documented, the dynamics in the Antarctic are probably the least understood. Glaciers and ice sheets are sometimes miles deep, and researchers do not know what might be happening at the bottom of the ice -- but it clearly is being lost along the peninsula and West Antarctic coast.
Rignot theorizes that the warmer water of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is the cause. Douglas Martinson, a senior research scientist fellow at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, has studied the issue and agrees.
Martinson said the current, which flows about 200 yards below the frigid surface water, began to warm significantly in the 1980s, and that warming in turn caused wind patterns to change in ways that ultimately brought more warm water to shore. The result has been an increased erosion of the glaciers and ice sheets.
Martinson said researchers do not have enough data to say for certain that the process was set in motion by global warming, but "that is clearly the most logical answer."
Pachauri, the IPCC's chief of climate science, will visit Antarctica this week with Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg to get a firsthand view of the situation.
"You can read as much as you want on these subjects, but it doesn't really enter your system. You don't really appreciate the enormity of what you have," Pachauri said.
All this ice loss, but the water levels look to be exactly the same to me at least in the St. Johns. ::)
I saw this on the news. Pretty scary.
RG: And we all know that by looking at something every single day means you notice every little change, right? lol. Btw, we wouldn't see water levels elevate to the point that it would affect us until it's too late. The levels increase gradually. It's not like the ocean is an 8oz cup of ice filled over the rim, where the melting ice causes a huge mess. There is more water on the planet than land, so to have ice plates and ice bergs melting causes increases to the levels of water in minute measurements, that through time equate to feet which is devestating for places like FL that are below sea-level. Anyway, the St. John's is used as a primary water source for residents in our area and beyond, so if we're sucking water out at the same rate that water is going in, there wouldn't be any change.
But, if you truly want to see something with your naked eye, just take a trip down to Ponte Vedra Beach or Vilano Beach and watch the houses falling into the ocean.
RG's feet are dry so he's doing just fine thank you.
Quote from: second_pancake on January 15, 2008, 08:38:42 AM
But, if you truly want to see something with your naked eye, just take a trip down to Ponte Vedra Beach or Vilano Beach and watch the houses falling into the ocean.
Some snaps please?
I have converted my house to an Ark, so either way I win. On the one hand, I have a home with a cool nautical motif if there is no flood, and on the other hand, I can fulfill a biblical prophecy should there be a flood. As it turns out, this is a no lose proposition, at least for me and the several animals I have collected.
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 14, 2008, 11:34:10 PM
All this ice loss, but the water levels look to be exactly the same to me at least in the St. Johns. ::)
The St. Johns River flows North, so its immune to level change from the ice melting in the ocean because its flowing away from Antartica, so thats why you don't see it going up.
in all seriousness guys, the ice is tired of the cold and is in search of warmer weather. ::)
Quote from: Midway on January 15, 2008, 01:21:11 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 14, 2008, 11:34:10 PM
All this ice loss, but the water levels look to be exactly the same to me at least in the St. Johns. ::)
The St. Johns River flows North, so its immune to level change from the ice melting in the ocean because its flowing away from Antartica, so thats why you don't see it going up.
And what degree has been conferred to you to make That statement? Are you a scientist or do you just have a friend over at the psyhic network? Because, the last time I check the St. John's river has "tidal" flows. And it's these "tidal" flows that raise and lower the level of the river itself. Now unless, your psyhic friend sees something I don't, then I'm affraid your psyhic friend is wrong and you are wronger. ::)
Quote from: second_pancake on January 15, 2008, 08:38:42 AM
I saw this on the news. Pretty scary.
RG: And we all know that by looking at something every single day means you notice every little change, right? lol. Btw, we wouldn't see water levels elevate to the point that it would affect us until it's too late. The levels increase gradually.
No kidding. Sea level changes are gradual?? Perhaps y'all are unable to detect sarcasm even with the ::) icon following my post.
The point is sea level changes are very gradual and probably not caused by man. Here is a chart of sea level changes from 1900 to 2003 at various US points:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/U._S._Sea_Level_Trends_1900-2003.gif)
A rise of 250 millimeters (9.84 inches) over 100 years is not something I am going to lose sleep over. And, we are coming off a glacial period so a rise in sea levels is not particularly surprising. See this chart for changes over the last 9,000 years:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Holocene_Sea_Level.png)
QuoteBut, if you truly want to see something with your naked eye, just take a trip down to Ponte Vedra Beach or Vilano Beach and watch the houses falling into the ocean.
You do understand the difference between a sea level rise and coastal erosion, dont you? Since it is apparent that you do not, I would suggest you read this:
QuoteCoastal erosion (see also beach evolution) is the wearing away of land or the removal of beach or dune sediments by wave action, tidal currents, wave currents, or drainage. Waves, generated by storms or fast moving motor craft, cause coastal erosion, which may take the form of long-term losses of sediment and rocks, or merely in the temporary redistribution of coastal sediments; erosion in one location may result in accretion nearby. The study of erosion and sediment redistribution is called 'coastal morphodynamics'. It may also be caused by hydraulic action, abrasion, and corrosion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_erosion
Quote from: Midway on January 15, 2008, 01:21:11 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 14, 2008, 11:34:10 PM
All this ice loss, but the water levels look to be exactly the same to me at least in the St. Johns. ::)
The St. Johns River flows North, so its immune to level change from the ice melting in the ocean because its flowing away from Antartica, so thats why you don't see it going up.
The St Johns River is heavily influenced by sea level and tides. Just wait till the next hurricane comes through with a storm surge up the mouth of the River for confirmation of this. Still, this Gorean sea level rise has caused no problems for coastal Jacksonville. Maybe if we wait around for 500 years we will start to notice some problems. :o
How do you know what the sea level was 9000 years ago? Were you there? Did you see it? And besides, the earth is only 6000 years old anyway.
When I read these posts I had a fesh glass full of ice and tea. When the Ice melted the glass wasn't nearly as full as when I sat it there... Wouldn't the North Pole effect be the same since Ice contains o2 ? Water expands as it freezes, so it follows that it contracts as it thaws. So could Florida GROW?
Now I haven't made a study of this, and certainly the South Pole is on land and mountains, but is one more land of seasons and flowing rivers REALLY going to drown Jacksonville? My guess is, if it is, our problems are going to be much bigger then just water worrys. It would be the end of the World as we know it.
Ocklawaha
Thanks Stephendare, you know the old hippie syndrome...
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Ocklawaha
Quote from: stephendare on January 17, 2008, 03:36:09 PM
QuoteWhen I read these posts I had a fesh glass full of ice and tea. When the Ice melted the glass wasn't nearly as full as when I sat it there... Wouldn't the North Pole effect be the same since Ice contains o2 ? Water expands as it freezes, so it follows that it contracts as it thaws. So could Florida GROW?
Now I haven't made a study of this, and certainly the South Pole is on land and mountains, but is one more land of seasons and flowing rivers REALLY going to drown Jacksonville? My guess is, if it is, our problems are going to be much bigger then just water worrys. It would be the end of the World as we know it.
Welcome to the ball game, Ock.
Late, but welcome all the same.
and no. there is no chance of the sand bar that we live on growing. Only 500 years ago it was all underwater, and that was with a minor difference in sea levels.
What is being discussed is a twenty foot rise from the antarctic alone. If Greenland melts, add another 20 feet to that.
Florida was under water 500 years ago?? This might come as a surprise to the Spanish who first set foot on Florida soil 495 years ago in 1513 and to the Indians who inhabited the peninsula for at least the 13,000 years before that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Florida
BTW, I think Florida was underwater perhaps 30,000 years ago.
http://www.keyshistory.org/keysgeology.html
Thanks for the insight though Professor Dare.
Oh, and what caused this coastal recession in Holland over the last 350 years?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/Holland_recession.jpg)
Was it man's CO2 emissions? Or, perhaps it is a natural process which we do not fully understand.
Except you didnt say "Mandarin was under water" or "south Florida was under water", you said Florida was under water. And, I do not agree with your new statements either. Portions of Mandarin and South Florida were as they are now but not all of "Florida".
Sure the tidal surge and shoreline has changed from time to time, but I believe the geology of Florida speaks volumes to it's rather HIGH past...
Florida Platform:
The Florida Platform lies on the south-central part of the North American Plate, extending to the southeast from the North American continent separating the Gulf of Mexico from the Atlantic Ocean. The Florida Platform, as measured about the 300 foot isopath, spans more than 350 miles at its greatest width and extends southward more than 450 miles at its greatest length. The modern Florida peninsula is the exposed part of the platform and lies predominanly east of the axis of the platform. Most of the State of Florida lies on the Florida Platform; the western panhandle is part of the Gulf Coastal Plain. The basement rocks of the Florida Platform include Precambrian-Cambrian igneous rocks, Ordovician-Devonian Sedimentary rocks, and Triassic-Jurassic volcanic rocks. Florida's igneous and sedimentary foundation separated from what is now the African Plate when the super-continent Pangea rifted apart in the Triassic (pre-Middle Jurassic?) and sutured to the North American craton.
IGNEOUS ROCK is from volcanic activity, one such crater is directly below and as big as the entire Orlando International Airport. So how high was it? No one really knows. But it wasn't alone. We still have at least one hot spring and one area of large surface rock that often rumbles and smells of sulphur... Anyones guess???
Sure not some sand bar like we were taught in school. Most of our volcanic rock is found in deep wells reaching between 3,500' and 18,000' feet in depth. But it is common knowledge in the geology halls that this place has a history not unlike the ring of fire... and maybe not so long ago!
That ought to melt your ice cubes!
Ocklawaha
Jacksonville is one big fat sandbar east of I95. Period. Now how would it get that way?
Quote from: stephendare on January 17, 2008, 03:36:09 PM
Quote
and no. there is no chance of the sand bar that we live on growing. Only 500 years ago it was all underwater, and that was with a minor difference in sea levels.
What is being discussed is a twenty foot rise from the antarctic alone. If Greenland melts, add another 20 feet to that.
Stephen. Are you saying that all of Florida was underwater 500 years ago? I don't know much about Florida history but this seems far fetched to believe the Native Americans settled in FL just in the last 500 years. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Did ANYONE READ my post. Sorry guys but the sandbar theory isn't true. Yes they taught us that in school, and no the schools didn't know what they were teaching as Florida has some of the worst State History books in the nation. READ THE POST, Florida's "platform" which probably includes Cuba and the Bahama Islands is 450 miles long... and it's VOLCANIC in origin. This is VERY unlike our neighbor states, many with mountains, but no sign of Volcano activity. Last time I spent reading up on the subject I think we had some 8 major volcano's within the current State, most below Jacksonville. As anyone who has lived in Alaska, California, the Pacific States or Colombia, can tell you pressure changes such as rising sea levels can set these old babies back to work. Plate movement can also come from pressure changes, crack or scoot a plate and the vent could be reopened in seconds.
As it is, we live in a very peaceful part of the geologic World, and speaking of that world, that is probably the most dangerous condition to live in. "We don't have earthquakes"... "We don't have volcano's..." BULL SHIT! We may well be very overdue for a good wake-up call from Mother Earth. Put a little Sea pressure on us and rather then sink like the Titanic, we might indeed rise like Hawaii.
FACT: Sometime after St. Augustine was settled, we discovered the St. Augustine Fault, the City had a good quake that pretty well trashed all of the work that had been done.
FACT: In the 1880's WE (Jacksonville) had our windows broken, and shelves emptied by another sleeper, the Charleston Fault, which runs from Charleston SC to Jacksonville. That same quake did more damage in 2 minutes then the combined Federal Armies had done in 5 years. (Sorry Yankee Friends, but we could have whipped y'all with corn stalks, but y'all just wouldn't play that way).
CONCLUSION: We sit between or on two of the largest known faults on the East Coast... Feel better now?
FACT: The Florida platform has some 8 volcano craters in it. (Just within modern Florida) and they are NOT that old in the Earth clock.
FACT: Throughout our history our Earthquakes have been explosive. Not rolling or wave types, but sudden violent jolt, often with loud explosive sounds. So are we talking about events of 20,000,000 million years ago? No! Try, the 1980's, 90's, and 2000's.
FACT: Quakes CAN wake sleeping volcano's.
FACT: Pressure CAN cause Quakes.
So rather then run out and buy a new Carolina Skiff, I'd suggest we might want Snow Ski's. Nobody knows what this will do to Florida. We still have a hot spring, many sulfur springs, and at least one vent that was active in the late 1800's.
Frankly, I think MICKEY would look good at 8,000 feet. SO if we rise rather then sink, I just want two things...
Move that air traffic from Orlando to JIA, We could use the extra revenue. Y'all could help me with the next one, I want to be Inspector General of the Cuban State Railroads... We could built a mainline from Miami to Havana and let's see light rail in... or... and... hee hee.
Ocklawaha
Quote from: gatorback on January 15, 2008, 12:48:09 PM
Quote from: second_pancake on January 15, 2008, 08:38:42 AM
But, if you truly want to see something with your naked eye, just take a trip down to Ponte Vedra Beach or Vilano Beach and watch the houses falling into the ocean.
Some snaps please?
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e170/prowlett/13288834_300X225.jpg)[/img]
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e170/prowlett/frontimage.jpg)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e170/prowlett/img1.jpg)
These were grabbed from News4Jax but if you Google, Ponte Vedra or Vilano+erosion, you'll find plenty more.
I haven't had a chance to read everything that I missed since I posted earlier, so someone may have already addressed this, but if not...
QuoteYou do understand the difference between a sea level rise and coastal erosion, dont you? Since it is apparent that you do not, I would suggest you read this:
The information you provided does not prove anything contrary to what I've stated. Erosion is, (based on the definition you provided in your link), "...the wearing away of land or the removal of beach or dune sediments by wave action, tidal currents, wave currents, or drainage." It's the degree of erosion that is causing the problem. When the ocean levels rise, the high-tide becomes higher covering and displacing more land. If the erosion were caused by a storm, it would be a one time occurence and you would not continue to see the water pass over the areas affected by storm-surge.
QuoteWhen I read these posts I had a fesh glass full of ice and tea. When the Ice melted the glass wasn't nearly as full as when I sat it there... Wouldn't the North Pole effect be the same since Ice contains o2 ?
Just want to make sure everyone understands the ice-in-a-glass analogy. In order to recreate the effect of large glaciers melting into the ocean, you would have to stack your glass with ice over and above the rim of the glass. Remember, glaciers can not only be miles below the water, but also miles above. It is the amount of the glacier sitting above sea level and melting that cause the problem. So, if you packed a glass with ice, none above the rim, you would be simulating ice melting BELOW the level of water. If the glass was packed with ice and then stacked several inches high above the rim, the melting effect would result in not only a glass full of water, but water spillage out of the glass. That spillage is the increase in water level.
Yeah, I know Stephendare, but I really want a 50 yard line seat if things start moving around under us!
Ocklawaha
To quote Sam Kinison, "See this. It's sand. What's it going to be on a 1,000 years? Sand!"
Except for Orlando. Orlando is going to be a nice little island in the next 100 years.
This article is from icecap.us which I recommend looking at to find some sanity in climatology and meteorology and objective reporting on the global warming hysteria.
QuoteLatest Antarctic Sea Ice Extent
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
Once again today we were told in the media that the antarctic ice is melting at an increasing and alarming rate. The story appeared in many papers including the Washington Post and the UK Globe Mail today based on a research project, led by Eric Rignot, principal scientist for the Radar Science and Engineering Section at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and appearing in the current issue of Nature Geoscience. In an e-mail, Dr. Rignot attributed the shrinkage in the ice sheet to an upwelling of warm waters along the Antarctic coast, which is causing some glaciers to flow more rapidly into the ocean. He suspects the trend is due to global warming.
This seemed odd coming shortly after reports that the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) set a record for the MAXIMUM extent of ice since satellite monitoring began in 1979 this year. We thought we would take a look at the latest NSIDC graphs for southern hemispheric ice extent.
I will remind you it is mid-summer in the Southern Hemisphere. Ice extent remains well (one million square kilometers) above the 28 year average and an impressive 3 million square kilometers above last year at this time!. There is clearly a lot of year to year variability in the record but the demise of the Antartic icecap seems to be anything but imminent. Most of the warming and melt in recent years has been in the vicinity of the Antarctic Peninsula, a small portion of the Antarctic which reaches above the Antarctic Circle and is a choke-point for the circumpolar ocean currents, and is more susceptible to variations. There’s also an active subsea volcano in the area, perhaps leading to the warm water upwelling in the study.
So it's settled then. There is no global warming.
Do you think the Giants will win the "Big Game"?
Quote from: gatorback on January 20, 2008, 02:08:04 PM
To quote Sam Kinison, "See this. It's sand. What's it going to be on a 1,000 years? Sand!"
Except for Orlando. Orlando is going to be a nice little island in the next 100 years.
Sure. The great things about these "predictions" is none of us will be here to claim credit if they come true or take the blame if they do not. Their real benefit lies in their ability to scare the public into adopting the green agenda.
BTW, extreme cold in Siberia and the northern US may be hampering the hoped for melting of the ice caps. Wow, this is cold:
QuoteRussians Brace For The Big Chill
January 16, 2008 8:18 p.m. EST
Jupiter Kalambakal - AHN News Writer
Moscow, Russia (AHN) - Russians are bracing for temperatures of as low as minus 55 degrees Celsius (minus 67 degrees Fahrenheit) in Siberia as Russia's emergencies ministry warns on Wednesday of its impending dangers in the coming weeks.
Government agencies were placed on high alert, reports AFP. The ministry ordered local administration officials to prepare for the extreme chill expected to last until Jan. 21.
The ministry warned that the unusually cold weather could kill, cause frost-bite, conk heaters and cut electricity to homes, disrupt transport, increase the rate of car accidents and even destroy buildings across Siberia.
The freezing temperatures have already caused overloading of electricity grids and power interruptions in the regions of Irkutsk and Tomsk because of overused heaters in homes. Two people have already died and more than 30 others hospitalized with forst-bite in Irkutsk, reports AFP citing state media.
Bloomberg reports that worst hit will be the Siberian region of Evenkiya, while neighbor Georgia, whose climate is subtropical, already plunged to as low as minus 35 degrees Celsius. Lake Paliastomi in the western Georgia froze for the first time in 50 years, reports Rustavi-2 television.
Average temperatures in large Siberian cities in January usually range between minus 15 degrees Celsius and minus 39 degrees Celsius, according to data from weatherbase.com. Schools have been closed down in at least four regions because of the cold.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009739004
Unusual cold and snow in large parts of China. Are we entering into a new ice age?
QuoteHeavy snow in China causes deaths and damage
Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:14pm EST
By Jason Subler
BEIJING (Reuters) - Cold weather and heavy snow have struck unusually large swathes of central and eastern China, causing fatal accidents, bringing down power lines and destroying crops.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSPEK1510020080121?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 21, 2008, 03:08:07 PM
Unusual cold and snow in large parts of China. Are we entering into a new ice age?
Oh no, RG, we're merely witnessing the slow development of the killer ice cyclone that was shown in 'The Day After Tomorrow'. :D LOL, the hype and hysteria of the whole issue sure has been silenced this winter.
Quote from: Midway on January 20, 2008, 10:51:03 PM
So it's settled then. There is no global warming.
Do you think the Giants will win the "Big Game"?
Nope. Sorry. We've got the ice cores to prove it. Next.
Quote from: gatorback on January 21, 2008, 04:12:57 PM
Quote from: Midway on January 20, 2008, 10:51:03 PM
So it's settled then. There is no global warming.
Do you think the Giants will win the "Big Game"?
Nope. Sorry. We've got the ice cores to prove it. Next.
Ice cores predict the winner of the Super Bowl? ???
With all of this global cooling going on, I urge everyone to rev up their SUV's and burns as much fuel as possible. We need to stay ahead of this.
Let's cover all the bases.
Monday: SUV's, only, no catalytic converters to the head of the gas lines, no recycle
Tuesday: It's electric, or hydrogen, bikes, green shirts please, no a/c, recycle
Wednesday: Free for all. Feel free to bring out those pre OBD cars, Free wash, a/c, no recycle
Thursday: It's electric, or hydrogen, bikes, green shirts please, no a/c, recycle
Friday: Mass Transit, Hybrid, OBD I, and OBD II,Water from 11AM-2PM, recycle 1 AM-1:15 AM
Saturday: Bubbles, bursting bubbles a plus, Wash cars only, no recycle, your friend's car, or SUV
Sunday: SUV's, Pre OBD, Post OBD II and your magic carpet, Water yard 8:00 PM - 7 PM, a/c, no recycle
This probably wont be a strech for some of us now will it, except for maybe tuesday, but then tuesday is for gays anyways right, or is that Thursdays, I keep forgetting. ;)
More bad news for global warmistas. Arctic temperatures reign across the US. Temps in the upper Midwest more than 30 degrees below normal. :'(
QuoteArctic Chill Stretches Coast to Coast
CNN
Posted: 2008-01-21 16:55:12
(Jan. 21) - Bitter cold gripped most of the United States on Monday, with temperatures dipping below normal from coast to coast.
Temperatures in the Upper Midwest and Northern Plains were about 30 degrees below normal, CNN meteorologist Bonnie Schneider said.
"It's very hard to find any part of the country that's warm," Schneider said.
In Presque Isle, Maine, the overnight low dropped to 27 below zero, according to the National Weather Service. Monday's high in extreme northern Maine was not expected to make it up to zero, the service said, and the wind chill made it feel much colder.
In Butte, Montana, the temperature at 10 a.m. (noon ET) was 20 below zero, up from an overnight low of 32 below.
The cold hampered firefighting efforts in Lawrence, Massachusetts, where firefighters had to deal with frozen hydrants and frigid temperatures during a seven-alarm fire.
The pre-dawn blaze destroyed a dozen homes and sent one person to a hospital, the city's fire chief said.
Icy temperatures in Fort Collins, Colorado, forced organizers to move their celebration of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday indoors, CNN affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver reported.
Heavy lake-effect snow blanketed parts of upstate New York.
In Fulton, New York, near Syracuse, deep snow collapsed the roof of a Department of Public Works garage, according to CNN affiliate WSYR-TV in Syracuse. The people inside escaped unharmed, but snowblowers and salt trucks needed for snow removal were stuck inside the damaged building, the station reported.
More snow was in the forecast for the region -- possibly up to 12 inches.
Snow also was expected in Chicago, Illinois, and other areas near Lake Michigan. Weather was blamed for flight delays of up to an hour and 45 minutes at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and an hour at Salt Lake City International Airport in Utah.
The National Weather Service issued a winter storm warning until 5 a.m. ET Tuesday for parts of Michigan. The service said snowfall could top 8 inches in some areas.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/arctic-chill-stretches-coast-to-coast/20080121164809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Thank you, Stephen. Leave it to people so completely self-absorbed that they can not see past the 'now' into the future, to focus on only one aspect of a larger condition. It's the equivalent of focusing only on the cough when your child has the flu. Come on, let's treat that cough, forget about the sniffling, the wheezing, the headaches, none of that matters, they're all something else entirely and not tied to the coughing at all, right?
Where was I when the mountain went for sale?! I'd at least have thrown a five spot down on that place. ;D
How quaint. The newspaper labels it as global warming due to lack of precipitation. I guess there was man-made global warming during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, the Irish Potato Famine of the 1870s, the Bengal Famine of 1770, and the Mayan society collapse in the early ages of man. ::) It's hilarious...label it climate change rather than global warming, because it's so easy to sucker people.
::) um, okay
Good Lord, Stephen, are you serious? Even the disasters before the Industrial Revolution? I may have to cure cancer to make up for my paragraph, but you'd have to eliminate death on this planet to make up for your statement.
My, My. You guys behave.
You have to admit SD that there is a leap of Faith involved by fully engulfing yourself in the ideology of Global Warming claim. I mean come-on. When you say it causes heating, cooling, rain, snow, fire, earthquake, hurricane, you've pretty much got every base covered. You might as well throw these weather phenomenon in the "miracle" category.
Uh Stephen, read the entirety of the Mayan collapse in Wikipedia...there is a thing called drought, i.e. lack of precipitation which is pretty apparent in every single famine and drought. Lack of rain was not caused because of man-made actions onto the overall environment, which is what the global warming Nazis are proclaiming today. You're failing to see the overall big picture...we can only control what we do with the land and weather that is given to us; we cannot control the weather.
Like midnight said, I'm wondering when man will be the cause of earthquakes and volcanos according to this ludicrous ideology.
QuoteI'm wondering when man will be the cause of earthquakes and volcanos according to this ludicrous ideology.
When we start probing into previously 'sleeping' volcanos to extract minerals essential to the dormant volcano remaining dormant, and when we build communities on known fault lines, using dynamite or other explosive devices in the earth for building those foundations. Did we CREATE the volcano or the earthquake, no, but whomever chooses to ignore or otherwise irritate the natural balance of nature can surely be at fault for the deaths of the people they carelessly put in that path.
Actually, Stephen, I do believe in climate change.
The climate ALWAYS changes and is never constant on this planet. This has been the case since the beginning of time, and man has always been irrelevant to the causation of climate changes.
QuoteRain-making linked to killer flood
18:05 30 August 2001
From New Scientist Print Edition.
Andrea Graves
Lynmouth flood, Latymer Upper School
UK Royal Air Force
The Rainmaker, BBC Horizons
Artificial rain making operations may have caused a storm that nearly wiped out an English village in 1952. New evidence has emerged that the UK's Royal Air Force was carrying out cloud seeding experiments that could in theory have led to the disaster.
A torrent swept through Lynmouth, Devon and remains the worst flood on record for the UK, drowning 35 people. "I'd never seen a sky that colour - yellowy, greeny, purple - it was uncanny," one eye-witness said.
Government defence officials have always denied that cloud seeding experiments were carried out before 1955. But now documents have been unearthed showing that scientists had teamed up with the RAF to try to make rain in the week of the disaster.
De-classified War Office documents also suggest that the military had been interested in using rain to cause downpours to hamper enemy movements, clear fog from airfields, and even increase the fallout range of atomic weapons
Nope. Human beings don't change the climate at all ::)
Just think, if all of this happened prior to 1955 and wasn't reported or "unearthed" until 2001, what is happening now, that we won't know until 50+ years later?
That sounds exactly like the kind of stuff in Micheal Crichton's book "State of Fear". (a good read btw)
We can redirect and lower the impacts of Hurricanes as well. But that doesn't mean we can tame mother nature. But I don't think the English released CO2 into the atmosphere to accomplish this feat.
I am skeptical about how much we can do at this point but there was some good news from the AP today. I guess a cheap way to supplement livestocks diet so to almost eliminate methane emissions. These emissions constitute 5% percent of greenhouse gases but they are much more potent at containing heat than CO2. This looks like something that can be quickly instituted.
I know it's true I saw it on tv. I didn't want to post this but, you made me. Click play under the starving sea cow.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/30/60minutes/main2631210.shtml
Stephendare, Hey brother, missed you at the meeting today. Ever notice how the same super religious right that raised the two of us, is the first to deny the events mentioned in the "end times" of the Bible?
The earth gets trashed by fire and heat according to the scriptures...
NO warming ANYWHERE according to the churches.
Starvation on a mass scale in the end times according to scriptures...
The weather is just fine, and within normal changes according to churches.
Wars and mega-wars according to scriptures...
"Peace talks" and close to peace, war for peace according to churches.
The list just goes on and on... Really strange.
Ocklawaha
I say we bomb the hell out of Iran and Saudi Arabia, and Lybia, maybe even part of the Sudan and Chad, dig some inland seas, and pump water in for aquaculture......
that and hire some Dutch to build dykes.....
Quote from: midnightblackrx on January 22, 2008, 06:48:45 PM
That sounds exactly like the kind of stuff in Micheal Crichton's book "State of Fear". (a good read btw)
We can redirect and lower the impacts of Hurricanes as well. But that doesn't mean we can tame mother nature. But I don't think the English released CO2 into the atmosphere to accomplish this feat.
Never read the book. Micheal Crichton generally puts me in a state of fear with all his doom's day kind of theory...stuff I'd rather not think about, you know?
"...that doesn't mean we can tame mother nature", that is exactly my point. That we can dramatically change the natural balance of the world around us, but ultimately,nature is going to push back and it's going to (and has) have devestating effects. I don't think the English "released CO2" either, but they did seed clouds to create rain, and so does OUR government. We have released an amount of CO2 into our atmosphere that are beyond normal natural levels, and we (including our government) make decisions every day that impact the health of our planet and all living beings on the planet.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on January 22, 2008, 11:29:18 PM
Stephendare, Hey brother, missed you at the meeting today. Ever notice how the same super religious right that raised the two of us, is the first to deny the events mentioned in the "end times" of the Bible?
The earth gets trashed by fire and heat according to the scriptures...
NO warming ANYWHERE according to the churches.
Starvation on a mass scale in the end times according to scriptures...
The weather is just fine, and within normal changes according to churches.
Wars and mega-wars according to scriptures...
"Peace talks" and close to peace, war for peace according to churches.
The list just goes on and on... Really strange.
Ocklawaha
Ok, let me just preface this by saying, I'm objective and look at issues from all aspects before coming to a conclusion on something which is why I'm about to say what I'm about to say, and this is VERY rare considering the subject...don't read anything into it ;) ....
There is a belief within many Christian organizations that says one can never know when the world is going to end...that just when there is physical evidence to prove that the "end times" are near, that's when God basically changes his mind because no mortal being can know when the end is going to happen. So, it may be that the churches you are referring to are saying that the end is "not" near and they won't recognize the changes because they are not supposed to know the end is near (not saying it is, just theorizing based on that belief). That and the fact that they've screamed "End Times!" so many times before and we're all still here, that maybe they don't want to be 'the-boy-who-cried-wolf.' ;)
There's also another theory that I've heard, which is that the description of the end written in the bible is an extreme depiction of weather patterns that were evident on earth at that point in time...the authors were taking observed disasterous events from their time and the known history, and speculating that the end would be that times 100, for instance. So less literal Christian groups will state that what we are experiencing now is no different than what has gone on in the past and they make the decision to overlook or otherwise ignore current events.
My personal belief is that no one wants to believe we could have contributed to a life of lesser quality or worse, that we could be putting ourselves, our children, and our way of life at risk. They don't want to believe it, therefore it doesn't exist...the equivalent of closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and mouthing, "la, la, la" until it all goes away.
There is a saying in the Tao Te Ching (roughly translated) that says, "The harder one tries, the more resistance one creates for oneself." I believe we have proven this time and again with our actions in trying to harness and control nature, or otherwise work against it. The sooner we learn to respect it, the better our quality of life will be.
QuoteI also take exception to the wickedness and cruelty involved in this whole "so fucking what, its the End Times!" argument.
And along the same lines, the belief that while not "perfect" they are "forgiven." Reminds me of a kid in my 4th grade class who kept making the same mistake over and over and telling the teacher he was "sorry."
Something tells me, when those that deny we contribute to climate change, finally come to the realization that it was indeed the truth and not some government or media-induced "scare tactic", they will simply say, oops, my bad. Unfortunately, their belief means that they'll be looking down from heaven upon a wrecked planet, wrecked at their own hands. If they have a conscience, wouldn't that mean they're actually in hell? Hmmmm....
Quote from: stephendare on January 22, 2008, 04:45:00 PM
QuoteThe climate ALWAYS changes and is never constant on this planet. This has been the case since the beginning of time, and man has always been irrelevant to the causation of climate changes.
until now.
::)
The western shelf of Antarctica is melting, while the eastern shelf grows and gets colder.
State the whole truth about Antarctica.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a_OD3Hqa9l1A&refer=canada
QuoteIncreased Snowfall
While scientists in recent years have observed more melting of glaciers in west Antarctica, the continent as a whole may gain mass due to increased snowfall in the east, according to the Nobel Prize-winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year produced its most detailed study of global warming in a series of four reports.
The research by Corr and colleagues was published yesterday in Nature Geoscience. The government-funded British Antarctic Survey has an annual budget of 45 million pounds ($88 million), and operates five research stations in and near Antarctica. The group is based in Cambridge, England
The eastern ice in Antarctica is growing, the west is shrinking.
It is balancing out right now (best guess anyone has)
The western ice sheet has always been unstable, has been for 2 million years.
Read this:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/articles/bind.html
Its by a glaciologist that worked for NASA.
Research has shown that the ice has thinned by 200-400 meters in the last 10,000 years.
January 22, 2008
Will the Ice Caps Melt?
By Jerome J. Schmitt
"The engineer has learned vastly more from the steam-engine than the steam-engine will ever learn from the engineer."
-- Prof John B. Fenn, Nobel Prize, Chemistry, 2002
There is considerable debate over whether the "greenhouse gas" effect will raise the temperature of the atmosphere by between 1-5°C over the next 100 years. But even if you grant for the sake of argument the Warmist claim that the earth's atmosphere will go up a full five degrees Centigrade in temperature, Al Gore's claim that ocean levels will rise 20 feet thanks to global warming seems to ignore the laws of thermodynamics. I am no climatologist, but I do know about physics.
Anyone who has ever spent time in a temperate climate following a snowy winter realizes that when the air temperature rises above 32°F the snow and ice do not melt immediately. We may experience many balmy early spring days with temperatures well above freezing while snow drifts slowly melt over days or weeks. Similarly, lakes and ponds take some time to freeze even days or weeks after the air temperature has plunged below zero. This is due to the latent heat of freezing/melting of water, a physical concept long quantified in thermodynamics.
That aspect of basic physics seems to have been overlooked by climatologists in their alarming claims of dramatic and rapid sea-level rise due to melting of the Antarctic ice caps and Greenland glaciers. But of course, we have learned that models predicting global warming also failed to take account of precipitation, so overlooking important factors ("inconvenient truths") should not cause much surprise anymore.
The scientific data necessary to calculate the amount of heat necessary to melt enough ice to raise ocean levels 20 feet is readily available on the internet, and the calculations needed to see if polar cap melting passes the laugh test are surprisingly simple. Nothing beyond multiplication and division, and because we will use metric measures for simplicity's sake, much of the multiplying is by ten or a factor of ten.
Let's review the math. The logic and calculations are within the grasp of anyone who cares to focus on the subject for minute or two, and speak for themselves.
I should first mention that the only source of energy to heat the atmosphere is the sun. The average energy per unit time (power) in the form of sunlight impinging on the earth is roughly constant year-to-year, and there are no means to increase or reduce the energy flux to the earth. The question merely is how much of this energy is trapped in the atmosphere and available to melt ice thus effecting "climate change".
How much heat must be trapped to raise the atmospheric temperature by a degree centigrade (or more) can be readily calculated, knowing the mass of the atmosphere and the specific heat of air. Specific heat is simply an empirically-determined quantity that corresponds to the number of units of heat energy required to raise a specific mass of a substance, in this case air, by 1 degree in temperature. A common unit of energy familiar to most of us is the calorie. But for simplicity, in this calculation I will use the MKS
- metric unit of the Joule (J), which, while perhaps unfamiliar to many readers in itself, is the numerator in the definition of our common unit of power, the Watt[†] = Joule/second.
The mass of the atmosphere can be found here. We also know that it is principally composed of air, so without loss of accuracy in what is essentially an "order of magnitude" calculation, it is fair to employ the specific heat of air at constant pressure, Cp which also can be referenced on the internet here. While this has a value that changes with temperature, it doesn't change by orders of magnitude, consequently, I choose the value at 0° C, which, as we all know, is near to the global mean temperature at sea level. In this I err on the side of caution, overestimating the heat energy in the calculation below, because as we all know, both air pressure and temperature drop with altitude. Also note that while the specific heat value cited uses the unit °K in the denominator, this is equal to a °C. I use the tilda (~) as symbol for "circa" or "approximately".
Mass of atmosphere:
5 x 1018 kg
Specific heat of air:
1.005 kJ/kg-°C
Heat needed to raise the temp of the atmosphere 1° C:
~5 x 1018 kJ
Heat needed to raise the temp of the atmosphere 5° C:
~2.5 x 1019 kJ
It is instructive now to compare this quantity of heat with the amount that would be required to melt sufficient volume of ice from the Antarctic ice to raise the sea-level by 20-feet as predicted by Al Gore. Although ice floats, ice and water are very close in density, so at first approximation, it is fair to say that the volume of sea-water required to raise sea-level by 20-feet would be equivalent to the volume of ice that would need to melt to fill the ocean basins in order to cause that rise. Consequently, let's first roughly calculate the volume of seawater necessary.
The surface area of the earth can be looked up here. It is 5.1 x 108 square kilometers, which I convert to 5.1 x 1014 square meters below for the purpose of our calculation. Al Gore's 20-foot-rise is equal to ~6 meter. Let's use the commonly cited figure that 70% of the earth's surface is covered by the oceans and seas. Accordingly,
Area of earth's surface:
5.1 x 1014 m2
Proportion of earth's surface covered by water:
70%
Area of oceans and seas:
~3.6 x 1014 m2
Sea level rise predicted by Al Gore:
20 feet = 6 m
Volume of water necessary to raise sea-level 20-feet:
~6 x 1024 m3
Volume of ice that needs to melt to raise sea-level 20-feet:
~22 x 1015 m3
This is where the latent heat of melting comes into the equation. As we all know, when we drop an ice cube into our glass of water, soft-drink or adult-beverage, it quickly cools the drink. Heat is transferred to the ice from the liquid in order to melt the ice; this loss of heat cools and reduces the temperature of the liquid. This cooling continues until the ice melts completely.
Scientists have long known that a mixture if ice and water (ice-water) remains at the freezing / melting point (0° C = 32°F). Adding heat does NOT change the temperature, it just melts more ice; withdrawing heat does NOT change the temperature it just freezes more water. The temperature of ice-water will not rise until all the ice is melted; conversely, the temperature of ice-water will not fall until all the water is frozen. The heat that would have otherwise raised the ice temperature is somehow "stored" in the melt water - hence "latent heat".
As an aside, the transformation of the latent-heat of steam into work via steam-engines has had, and continues to have, vast industrial importance. The early systematic study of steam-engines in order to improve their performance, laid the groundwork for the science of thermodynamics, which undergirds essentially all of physics and chemistry.
It turns out that latent heats of melting (and evaporation) are generally very large quantities when compared to the amount of heat necessary to change temperatures. Also, as usual in such analyses we normalize to units of mass. Since the density of water/ice is roughly a thousand times higher than air, this also greatly impacts the magnitudes of energy involved, as you will see below. So let's proceed with the calculation.
The latent heat of melting of water can be looked up here. It is 334 kJ/kg of water. One of the benefits of the metric system is that 1 ml = 1 cm3 = 1 g of water; this "built in" conversion simplifies many engineering calculations. Remembering this fact, we do not need to look up the density of water. Converting this density, 1g/cm3, to MKS units, yields density of water = 1000 kg/m3. We now have all our data for the rough calculation:
Volume of ice that needs to melt (from above):
~22 x 1015
Density of water and ice:
1000 kg/m3
Mass of ice that needs to melt:
~22 x 1018 kg
Latent heat of melting for water
3.34 x 102 kJ/kg
Heat necessary to melt ice to achieve 20-foot sea-level rise
~ 7.4 x 1021 kJ
Following this "back of the envelope" calculation, let's compare the two energy values:
Heat needed to raise the temp of the atmosphere 5° C:
~2.5 x 1019 kJ
Heat necessary to melt ice to achieve 20-foot sea-level rise
~7.4 x 1021 kJ
There is a difference of 300* between these two figures. Even if I am wrong by an order of magnitude, there is still an enormous difference. This does NOT mean that ice caps have not melted in the distant past nor that ice-age glaciers have not grown to cover much of the northern hemisphere; it simply means that the time scales involved to move sufficient quantities of heat to effect such melting or freezing occur over what we scientists commonly call "geological" time scales, i.e. hundreds of thousands and millions of years.
Even if sufficient heat is trapped in the atmosphere to raise it the maximum value predicted by anthropogenic "global warming" alarmists (5°C) over the next 100 years, hundreds of times more heat energy must be imparted into the ice-caps to melt sufficient ice to raise sea-levels the catastrophic levels prophesied by Al Gore.
I humbly submit that this might constitute a flaw in his equations.
*Editor's note: a transposed decimal point led to an incorrect multiple used here when this article was first published. The energy required is nevertheless hundreds of times greater than evidently assumed by Al Gore.
Jerome J. Schmitt has a degree in mechanical engineering from Yale, and is president of NanoEngineering Corporation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- MKS = meter-kilogram-second instead of cgs units = centimeter-gram-second for the units of length, mass and time.
[†] -After James Watt, inventor of the first practical steam-engine which employed a separate condenser.
Found something you might want to see...
Scientists Find Active Volcano in Antarctica
Article Tools Sponsored By
By KENNETH CHANG
Published: January 21, 2008
Here is another factor that might be contributing to the thinning of some of the Antarctica’s glaciers: volcanoes.
In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh F. J. Corr and David G. Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica.
For Antarctica, “This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet,†Dr. Vaughan said.
Heat from a volcano could still be melting ice and contributing to the thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island Glacier, which passes nearby, but Dr. Vaughan doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in West Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Dr. Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause.
Volcanically, Antarctica is a fairly quiet place. But sometime around 325 B.C., the researchers said, a hidden and still active volcano erupted, puncturing several hundred yards of ice above it. Ash and shards from the volcano carried through the air and settled onto the surrounding landscape. That layer is now out of sight, hidden beneath the snows that fell over the subsequent 23 centuries.
Although out of sight, the layer showed up clearly in airborne radar surveys conducted over the region in 2004 and 2005 by American and British scientists. The reflected radio waves, over an elliptical area about 110 miles wide, were so strong that earlier radar surveys had mistakenly identified it as bedrock. Better radar techniques now can detect a second echo from the actual bedrock farther down.
The thickness of ice above the ash layer provided an estimate of the date of the eruption: 207 B.C., give or take 240 years. For a more precise date, Mr. Corr and Dr. Vaughan turned to previous observations from ice cores, which contained spikes in the concentration of acids, another byproduct of eruptions. Scientists knew that an eruption occurred around 325 B.C., plus or minus a few years, but did not know where the eruption occurred. “We’re fairly confident this is the same eruption,†Dr. Vaughan said.
Now, they know both time and place.
“It’s probably within Alexander the Great’s lifetime, but not more precise than that,†Dr. Vaughan said.
The under-ice eruption was probably similar to one in Iceland in 2004. Although explosive, spewing ash more than seven miles in the air, the Iceland eruption was much less powerful than Mount St. Helens, the volcano in Washington State that blew off its peak in 1980.
Can you believe BIG BUSINESS planted a volcano right there to melt the ice away?!?! UNBELIEVEABLE!!!
Mess with your heads #1
Quote"The engineer has learned vastly more from the steam-engine than the steam-engine will ever learn from the engineer."
-- Prof John B. Fenn, Nobel Prize, Chemistry, 2002
...and now this comment just to mess with your heads. I'm not sure this is true! It has been said the Steam Locomotive is the closest thing to a living, breathing, animal that man has ever created. Even in this high tech world, EVERY steam locomotive is completely unique. Same blue prints, same builders, same parts and details and yet no two EVER are even close in what they'll do. Moreover, they behave differently in the hands of different people. Science has studied the hell out of the strange actions and reactions, in fact it is even called LIVE STEAM. Could it be that something is at work in the water, fire, and earth elements that go into the locomotive that make it an extension of the personality of the locomotive engineer and fireman? Why does one crew fight an engine all the way to the river and the next crew gets a free ride on the same engine? Swap engines and the opposite effect might happen, thus they do indeed seem to learn... Worse, there are hundreds if not thousands of storys of steam locomotives acting on their own, without apparent human assistance... Some would call it Ghost Trains, but to others there are tales of engines that saved their crews by making a seeming automatic move. Again do the elements play into this? at least they respond... strange indeed.
Mess with your heads #2
If that one missed, Stephendare, how about my questions on the Churches teaching one thing then denying it on Monday morning news? Recently I have had a scary thought, what if WE... THE USA are the evil great power of the end time? What if WE... THE USA are the ones judged with horrors beyond belief. We always want to lay this on the feet of Islam, or Catholics or some other group, but what if it is US? Would that be strange... Not a doctrine, not a dogma, just a weird thought. [/color][/b]
Ocklawaha
Quote from: stephendare on January 22, 2008, 04:21:36 PM
Midnight.
The climatological model merely addresses DYNAMIC changes in temperature and weather patterns with cumulative global increases in temperature.
So regular weather within the boundaries of its normal extremes would not really fall within the parameters of the model.
However, freakish, bizarre and 'record setting' weather would be an indication that the model is correct.
River knows this and yet he continues to post the freakish weather that he sees as an extreme counter to 'warming'. The irony is that the freakish weather he addresses is EXACTLY what someone who is trying to prove climate change would be pointing out.
No one denies that the globe has been very warm over the past 10 years.
Is river trying to pretend that the net result of these freakish cold spells will LOWER the global cumulative temperature this year?
So the Climate Change model really ISNT about getting 'every base covered', just the anomolies----which btw, are JUST what River is posting.
Weather is normally known to have dynamic changes. When was this not true? When does it stay the same? Also, looking back over the past temperature fluctuations for the past 450,000 years or so, what average temperature is normal, Stephen?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png)
QuoteThis figure shows the Antarctic temperature changes during the last several glacial/interglacial cycles of the present ice age and a comparison to changes in global ice volume. The present day is on the left.
The first two curves shows local changes in temperature at two sites in Antarctica as derived from deuterium isotopic measurements (δD) on ice cores (EPICA Community Members 2004, Petit et al. 1999). The final plot shows a reconstruction of global ice volume based on δ18O measurements on benthic foraminifera from a composite of globally distributed sediment cores and is scaled to match the scale of fluctuations in Antarctic temperature (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005). Note that changes in global ice volume and changes in Antarctic temperature are highly correlated, so one is a good estimate of the other, but differences in the sediment record do no necessarily reflect differences in paleotemperature. Horizontal lines indicate modern temperatures and ice volume. Differences in the alignment of various features reflect dating uncertainty and do not indicate different timing at different sites.
The Antarctic temperature records indicate that the present interglacial is relatively cool compared to previous interglacials, at least at these sites. The Liesecki & Raymo (2005) sediment reconstruction does not indicate signifcant differences between modern ice volume and previous interglacials, though some other studies do report slightly lower ice volumes / higher sea levels during the 120 ka and 400 ka interglacials (Karner et al. 2001, Hearty and Kaufman 2000).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
So actually, we are in an interglacial period at present and a relatively cool one. Would you prefer that it was cooler and we had glaciers in Illinois? Do you really believe we have the power to control this? Stop trying to foist this nonsense upon us. The truth is this is a massive scam designed to fleece the public and convince them to cede to the government important powers over their lives, such as how much power can a person use.
In fact, looking at the above chart, I am far more concerned about another ice age than I am about additional warming. It looks like we are more than due for a plunge in global temps. Wake up and smell the rainforests... ;)
Here is a good piece from National Review Online by Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville:
QuoteAt the risk of losing my tongue-in-cheek position as Rush Limbaugh’s “Official EIB Climatologist,†I’m going to weigh in on his argument against Jim Geraghty’s view that the Republicans’ chances in the next presidential election are being hurt by those of us not willing to give in to the scientific “consensus†on global warming.
First, the science. After many years in this line of work, I’ve come to the firm conclusion that global warming is one of those research areas where scientists think they know much more than they really do. In many ways, putting a man on the Moon was far easier than understanding the climate system. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas â€" a minor one. And, yes, humans burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide: one molecule of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, every five years.
But is this a recipe for a global warming Armageddon? I’m betting my reputation on: “No.†Recent research has made me more convinced of this than ever.
So, why would a minority of scientists like me dare to disagree with a 56-percent majority? (That is how many of the 530 climate scientists polled agreed that global warming is mostly caused by humans,)
While there are several answers to this question, here I’ll mention only one. Compared to the carbon dioxide that humans produce, Mother Nature routinely transfers 40 times as much CO2, and 24,000 times as much water vapor (Earth’s primary greenhouse gas), back and forth between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface, every day.
Scientists have simply assumed that these natural processes have been in balance for centuries. But, what if there have always been some small â€" but natural â€" imbalances in those large up-and-down flows that slowly change over time? In that case, our measured increases in greenhouse gases and global temperatures might well turn out to be more natural than manmade, lost in the noise of natural variability.
Can I prove any of this? No â€" not yet, anyway. But neither have any scientists produced one single scientific paper showing that Mother Nature isn’t the dominant source of what we are seeing. Mankind is one possible explanation, and our measurements of natural variability in the climate system on time scales of decades to centuries are simply not good enough to find out how many natural sources of variability are also out there.
On the political side, all of this talk of a supposed scientific consensus puts politicians between a rock and a hard place. Long-range scientific predictions of environmental gloom and doom have had a terrible track record, historically, and yet for some reason we are always willing to accept the next one that comes along. Maybe it’s their entertainment value.
So, what is a politician to do? Go with the currently popular flow, or ignore what most of the experts, pundits, and media are saying and just stick with their gut instincts? Certainly, politicians who want a better chance of winning an election should go for the popularity contest.
But in the case of global warming, Rush Limbaugh has decided to go with his gut instinct. Scientists can be (and have been) spectacularly wrong when pontificating on natural systems as complex as the Earth’s climate â€" or the human body. This instinct has served Rush well over the years, and in the case of global warming, I agree with him.
This position is also consistent with Rush’s recent emphasis on conservative principles over specific politicians. He frequently reminds listeners that America’s success has not come from its politicians, but from its people. Not from soaring (yet ambiguous) speeches, but from enduring ideals, creativity, hard work, and most of all â€" freedom.
But what if sticking to one’s guns on such an issue is just enough for the Republicans to lose the White House? Well, what is more important for the future of America: the party affiliation of the next president, or the decision to let government control how much energy people and business can use from now on?
Once the government gains control over energy decisions, do we really think they will relinquish it after manmade global warming is realized to be a false alarm? It has been said that whoever controls energy, controls life. Right now, the free market (which means you) controls those decisions.
Do we need to remind ourselves how well things went in the former Soviet Union when the bureaucrats made the economic decisions, rather than letting the collective will of the people, expressed though a free market, govern the economy?
I can certainly appreciate Jim Geraghty’s concern over the short-term political risks of doubting the paradigm of manmade global warming. But the long-terms risks of giving in to it are far greater.
How much easier this would all be if it was only as simple as buying hybrid cars, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and building more energy efficient homes. But the public needs to know that all of these meager efforts will have no measurable effect on global temperatures, no matter how much warming you think there will be in the future.
This is the one subject for which I believe “hoax†is an entirely appropriate label when it comes to people’s motives for advancing such solutions. Either “hoax,†or “stunning stupidity.†Rush is right â€" mankind depends mostly on petroleum and coal for its energy, and nothing is going to change that until human creativity, fueled by the extra wealth created by free markets, leads to new energy technology breakthroughs.
Are we “addicted to oil� Sure, just like we are addicted to food. Try quitting.
What will people do when they realize that going along with the 56-percent scientific majority has resulted in them giving up much of their personal freedom in the process? I wouldn’t trade that freedom for any presidential candidate.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWFjMDkyNTljYmEwYzUyNTkwZWJkMjEyODJjZTM3Nzc=
His credentials:
QuoteRoy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He >>> received > his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981. As Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, >> Dr. Spencer previously directed research into the development and application of > satellite passive microwave remote sensing techniques for measuring > global > temperature, water vapor, and precipitation. He is co-developer of the original satellite method for precision monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. Dr. Spencer also serves as U.S. Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) flying on NASA’s Terra satellite. He has authored numerous research articles in scientific journals, and has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/author/?q=NDE0Nw==
I remember seeing William F. Buckley, Jr. speak to the student body at the University of Florida during the mid 1980s. His public speaking is as eloquence as his his writing style. Dad subscribed to the Nation Review so I naturally read it for years. Bill Buckley is now speaking out about how shameful and asphyxiating it was to discover a White House official had edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming. Funny that Riversidegator fails to mention and that the Environmental Protection Agency’s staff concluded last month that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the nation’s welfare.
Quote from: gatorback on January 24, 2008, 06:55:55 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 24, 2008, 05:28:25 PM
National Review
Give me a break. ::)
Please dispute the facts cited, not the source. And, rolling eyes is not an argument.
Quote from: stephendare on January 24, 2008, 09:34:43 PM
He has been doing this for the past two years, Gatorback, stifling any possibility of discussing positive actions or making plans.
Ive saved the various threads for replay later.
Its so irresponsible that I feel that he should have to review the cost of the vapid obstructionism hes engaged in.
Whats worse, is the more the entire world realizes that climate change is indeed occurring, the less reliable the charts become.....but whose counting?
So, the ice core temperature charts are fabricated and/or unreliable?
Quote from: gatorback on January 24, 2008, 10:12:03 PM
I remember seeing William F. Buckley, Jr. speak to the student body at the University of Florida during the mid 1980s. His public speaking is as eloquence as his his writing style. Dad subscribed to the Nation Review so I naturally read it for years. Bill Buckley is now speaking out about how shameful and asphyxiating it was to discover a White House official had edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming. Funny that Riversidegator fails to mention and that the Environmental Protection Agency’s staff concluded last month that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the nation’s welfare.
Please cite sources for all of this.
Let’s start with “consider the source.†You’re referring a publication that was started by old oil money. The founder, William F. Buckley Jr., father was an oil mogul. Don’t you think there’s just a little bias in the publication?
Quote from: gatorback on January 25, 2008, 12:27:41 AM
Let’s start with “consider the source.†You’re referring a publication that was started by old oil money. The founder, William F. Buckley Jr., father was an oil mogul. Don’t you think there’s just a little bias in the publication?
I thought you just said that Buckley has come out in support of the global warming theory? Now you claim that his magazine is hopelessly biased against GW theory because of his father working in the oil business? Which is it?
Janet Wilson and Richard Simon, Los Angeles Times
Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:36 PM MST
WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency’s staff concluded last month that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the nation’s welfare, which would require federal regulations to rein in emissions from vehicles, factories, power plants and other industrial polluters under the Clean Air Act, sources in the agency told the Los Angeles Times.
I'm not going to play games with you. Put down the pipe. Read. That the White House edited reports.
The EPA is a agency of the federal govenment rife with liberals who obviously would fall for this. No surprise there. I was really talking about Buckley.
And, let me say that I am not being paid anything by "big oil" or any other special interest group. I am on the side of finding the truth and fashioning the best society for mankind possible. Obviously, if I truly believed that there was some eminent and dire threat, I would not be saying all of this. It is my conclusion that GW is nonsense. It is possible I have been duped by "big oil" but I really doubt it at this point. Time will tell.
Although I could not find the specific date that I attended Mr. Buckley's lecture at UF, the link here says enough for even simpletons to deduce that Bill was part of the series.
http://www.stetson.edu/administration/marcom/media/06dec/5apgar.pdf
Lastly, thank you. I never knew "the EPA is [sic] a agency of the federal goverment."
Quote from: gatorback on January 25, 2008, 12:40:01 AM
And as lastly, although I could not find the specific date that I attended Mr. Buckley's lecture at UF, the link here says enough for even simpletons to deduce that Bill was part of the series.
http://www.stetson.edu/administration/marcom/media/06dec/5apgar.pdf
Each year UF host many lectures just as Stetson University does if you don't want to take my word that he spoke there then fine.
I am refering only to this statement, not to whether or not WFB spoke at UF:
QuoteBill Buckley is now speaking out about how shameful and asphyxiating it was to discover a White House official had edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming.
Just so y'all know, JTA and their BRT plan is already testing for when the tide comes in...
Meet your worst nightmare... JTA's newest model.
"The Ebbtide II BRT bus" for the Beaches route.
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/Bus%20Transit/BRTAntiarticaIvan_the_Terra_Bus.jpg)
Bet you already figured it was cost 100x more for a rail version of the same vehicle... and who would maintain or run it?
Ocklawaha
Some people are just 3 off. I've enjoyed researching to refute other's posts. What's more important is looking forward which I think was stephen's point. We need to start now. We need start recycling everything, invest in pollution free energy, renewable resources, Environmental Protection, and Manage Global Warming none of which Jacksonville has a plan. In fact, looks like Jacksonville, Florida is doing a 180 on working toward a better future for ourselves.
I know I completely demolished your arguments and I'm sorry you're devastated. My references:
http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/953/know-your-right-wing-speakers-william-f-buckley-jr
and
Your rag: The National Review on Line. William F. Buckley Jr. on Global Warming.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=
and
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-endanger24jan24,1,1831879.story
So, let's see. I guess my sources include, The White House, The EPA, The LA Times, William F. Buckley Jr., the National Review to name a few.
"You're fired!"
Quote from: gatorback on January 25, 2008, 01:17:34 AM
Some people are just 3 off. I've enjoyed researching to refute other's posts. What's more important is looking forward which I think was stephen's point. We need to start now. We need start recycling everything, invest in pollution free energy, renewable resources, Environmental Protection, and Manage Global Warming none of which Jacksonville has a plan. In fact, looks like Jacksonville, Florida is doing a 180 on working toward a better future for ourselves.
Read the post I put up yesterday about the green initiative as reported from the Wall Street Journal. I posted some information about Jacksonville's recycling program (current practices as well).
We can all banter back and forth stating our side and why we feel so passionately about climate change for or against, but the fact that can't be glossed-over is that there is absolutely no harm to ANYONE in taking actions that may possibly benefit us and the planet. We do not NEED to use incandesent bulbs. We do not NEED to have an 8 cylinder Cadillac car that uses 30 gallons of gas a week. We do not NEED to drive 1 mile down the road to pick up toilet paper from the supermarket, and we do not NEED to buy bottled water in plastic bottles, get plastic shopping bags with every freakin purchase of chewing gum we make. In fact, believe it or not, we don't even NEED to have our air-conditioning running full blast at 64 degrees every minute of the day during the Florida summers ~gasp~. All of these things are things we, as a very selfish (or non-selfish depending how you look at it) society have become accustomed to. The TRUE "inconvient truth" here is that none of these global-warming protestors want to do anything different than what they've done their entire lives. They don't want to change, and by God no one's gonna make 'em ~hmph~.
How damned hard is it to buy a different light bulb? How hard is it to have a seperate can for things that are recyclable? Why can't you shorten your showers by a minute, stop worrying about having a freakin green 'lawn', and stop comparing yourselves to others to the point that you're competing over the bigger, the best, the most expensive, regardless of energy consumption???? Answer: IT'S NOT, you just don't "want" to.
The really ironic thing about the comments posted by those 'individuals' is their claim to be Christian, and yet the idea of extravagence, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride, are what they are defending. Here's an 8th sin for all of you: Indifference. Don't worry though, you've exhibited that one just as well if not better than all the rest.
Quote from: stephendare on January 24, 2008, 09:34:43 PM
He has been doing this for the past two years, Gatorback, stifling any possibility of discussing positive actions or making plans.
Ive saved the various threads for replay later.
Its so irresponsible that I feel that he should have to review the cost of the vapid obstructionism hes engaged in.
Whats worse, is the more the entire world realizes that climate change is indeed occurring, the less reliable the charts become.....but whose counting?
Right. Here's what you're basically saying: "The more people we convert into believing that the earth is warming, or the climate is changing, or somehow blame ourselves for the weather, the less attentive the world will be to the facts and data." Turn more individual thinkers into sheep...hmmm, smells like socialism to me.
As usual, 2nd pancake and yourself choose to stereotype people who profess to be Christians as individuals who choose not to toe the environmentalist line because they don't give a s--t. More disingenuous arguments...this is becoming a habit for you guys.
Apparently, the White House, EPA, WFB, and the entire world community is in on this scandle too. Everybody, except...you. Are you for real, or just a BOT that blogs manure when text including global warming is scanned. ;D
QuoteTurn more individual thinkers into sheep...hmmm, smells like socialism to me.
As usual, 2nd pancake and yourself choose to stereotype people who profess to be Christians as individuals who choose not to toe the environmentalist line because they don't give a s--t. More disingenuous arguments...this is becoming a habit for you guys.
Interesting choice of words, "individual thinkers." Just what about your way of thinking is individual to you? Which of the ideas that you've regurgetated here are your own? What philisophical pondering have you done to come to your conclusion about the state of our world?
If what I stated does not pertain to you, than logic dictates the answer to, DO you give a "s--t?" would be, yes. So, if that's the case...if you're true to your word and not some mindless lemming or ultra-conservative drone, then what exactly is your argument against global climate change? What have you chosen to care about and what are you indifferent to? And while you're "thinking" about all of that, think a bit on the terms of socialism as well and ask yourself if technological advancement and the natural progression of a society is truely socialism.
Quote from: gatorback on January 25, 2008, 12:19:39 PM
Apparently, the White House, EPA, WFB, and the entire world community is in on this scandle too. Everybody, except...you. Are you for real, or just a BOT that blogs manure when text including global warming is scanned. ;D
Definitely not a bot, otherwise CN would have picked up on the NYT story I posted yesterday. Oh well. And to think I was really looking forward to the arguments ::)
Quote from: second_pancake on January 25, 2008, 12:46:16 PM
Interesting choice of words, "individual thinkers." Just what about your way of thinking is individual to you? Which of the ideas that you've regurgetated here are your own? What philisophical pondering have you done to come to your conclusion about the state of our world?
My only response to this would be: WTF? As a thinker, I
think about the different
facts that are presented to me on particular issue, then I
decide what I think is correct and what I think is wrong about it. What's sad is that you condescend my reasoning because I don't follow your crowd nor do I
think that I should be forced to.
Quote from: second_pancake on January 25, 2008, 12:46:16 PMIf what I stated does not pertain to you, than logic dictates the answer to, DO you give a "s--t?" would be, yes. So, if that's the case...if you're true to your word and not some mindless lemming or ultra-conservative drone, then what exactly is your argument against global climate change? What have you chosen to care about and what are you indifferent to? And while you're "thinking" about all of that, think a bit on the terms of socialism as well and ask yourself if technological advancement and the natural progression of a society is truely socialism.
Mandating usage of "technological advancement" without giving choice is a form of it, yes. Forcing people to change their technology, way of life, and their comfort because of a delusion...yes, this is a form of socialism. The premise is to control people under the guise of "saving the planet". When the microwave was invented, people were not mandated to use it...it gained popularity on its own.
I'm all for cleaner energy because locally, excessive levels of carbon monoxide does affect our local environments and community health; however, not at the expense of choices in the market place. I think its wise to recycle plastics (you know, the material you consider evil from your earlier posts) to keep landfills from getting bigger. Being good stewards of the earth is indicative of what we can do on a local level. However, all I ask is for the government to quit trying to force me to change my life based on a phenomena that is bogus or in question. Even if the earth was indeed warming, it is vain for man to think that something as small as us can change something that big and dynamic.
However, here's another question which is the underlying argument for this global warming tripe: who the heck are you to tell me what I "need"?! Who are you to tell me how far I should drive for toilet paper, how warm or cold I should keep my house, what kind of light bulbs I should have, or what kind of car I should drive? Good Lord, your earlier post wreaks of infringement on my freedoms. The "science" of the global warming has been debunked by legitimate sources, and I choose to live accordingly. In your case, you've bought this new religion, so you want everybody to change their lifestyle, all in the name of a supposed problem. THAT is socialism, telling me what I need for the greater good.
BTW, gator, you do a pretty good job of blogging manure around here, anyway. ;D I just don't have the time to respond to every single statement. Also, if the "world community" decided to jump off the Arlington Bridge, would you blindly follow? Nice work on your references...er...rags. Since when was the LA Times a fair, objective source? Center for Progress...ah, propaganda at its finest.
Quote from: gatorback on January 25, 2008, 01:25:14 AM
I know I completely demolished your arguments and I'm sorry you're devastated. My references:
http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/953/know-your-right-wing-speakers-william-f-buckley-jr
and
Your rag: The National Review on Line. William F. Buckley Jr. on Global Warming.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=
and
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-endanger24jan24,1,1831879.story
So, let's see. I guess my sources include, The White House, The EPA, The LA Times, William F. Buckley Jr., the National Review to name a few.
"You're fired!"
??? Did you even read the articles you cited?? The first is merely a somewhat hostile bio on William F. Buckley, Jr. on a website owned by an organization known as the Center For American Progress. The CFAP is a left wing front organization funded and probably wholly controlled by billionaire left wing radical, George Soros, and currently run by former Clinton Chief of Staff, John Podesta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_For_American_Progress
I am not surprised that they dislike Buckley but I dont really see what probative value this piece has. I freely admit (as does WFB) that WFB's father was involved in the oil business in Texas in the early 20th century. If this invalidates his opinions then the opinions held by green fanatics such as you are similarly invalidated.
The second link is to an article on global warming by WFB in which he admits that his father was involved in the oil business:
QuoteI'd guess that, in the current mood, I should enter the datum that my father was in the oil business. But having done that, I think it fair to ask: Are we invited to assume that anyone who works in a business that generates greenhouse gases (a) is complicit in the global-warming problem, and (b) should resign and seek work elsewhere?
You apparently totally misread the article because Buckely does not in any way speak "out about how shameful and asphyxiating it was to discover a White House official had edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming." Instead, he started the article with this introduction:
QuoteThe heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable columnist (Thomas Friedman of the New York Times) opened his essay last week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."
What asphyxiated this critic was the discovery that a White House official had edited "government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming." The correspondent advises that the culprit had been an oil-industry lobbyist before joining the administration, and on leaving it he took a job with ExxonMobil.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=
So, he led off with a quote from a liberal columnist and then set out to shred the central point of that article by showing that the global warming movement is eerily religious in nature, that it seeks to silence its critics rather than to debate them in the arena of ideas and that even if the GW hysteria is true that the adoption of Kyoto by the US would not have slowed GW much at all due to the fact that the growing economies of China and India were not included in Kyoto and that China would soon produce more CO2 than the US anyway.
Did you actually read this article? His article in fact says the complete opposite of what you claim. Are you deficient in the area of reading comprehension or are you being intentionally dishonest, Gatorback? Choose one or the other.
As for the EPA, they are staffed by permanent bureaucrats who are leftists and who have a green agenda. The GW hysteria is simply being used as the stalking horse for this agenda. No surprise here.
BTW, you could not "demolish" your way out of a paper bag.
Quote from: second_pancake on January 25, 2008, 09:13:33 AM
Quote from: gatorback on January 25, 2008, 01:17:34 AM
Some people are just 3 off. I've enjoyed researching to refute other's posts. What's more important is looking forward which I think was stephen's point. We need to start now. We need start recycling everything, invest in pollution free energy, renewable resources, Environmental Protection, and Manage Global Warming none of which Jacksonville has a plan. In fact, looks like Jacksonville, Florida is doing a 180 on working toward a better future for ourselves.
Read the post I put up yesterday about the green initiative as reported from the Wall Street Journal. I posted some information about Jacksonville's recycling program (current practices as well).
We can all banter back and forth stating our side and why we feel so passionately about climate change for or against, but the fact that can't be glossed-over is that there is absolutely no harm to ANYONE in taking actions that may possibly benefit us and the planet. We do not NEED to use incandesent bulbs. We do not NEED to have an 8 cylinder Cadillac car that uses 30 gallons of gas a week. We do not NEED to drive 1 mile down the road to pick up toilet paper from the supermarket, and we do not NEED to buy bottled water in plastic bottles, get plastic shopping bags with every freakin purchase of chewing gum we make. In fact, believe it or not, we don't even NEED to have our air-conditioning running full blast at 64 degrees every minute of the day during the Florida summers ~gasp~. All of these things are things we, as a very selfish (or non-selfish depending how you look at it) society have become accustomed to. The TRUE "inconvient truth" here is that none of these global-warming protestors want to do anything different than what they've done their entire lives. They don't want to change, and by God no one's gonna make 'em ~hmph~.
How damned hard is it to buy a different light bulb? How hard is it to have a seperate can for things that are recyclable? Why can't you shorten your showers by a minute, stop worrying about having a freakin green 'lawn', and stop comparing yourselves to others to the point that you're competing over the bigger, the best, the most expensive, regardless of energy consumption???? Answer: IT'S NOT, you just don't "want" to.
This is what it all boils down to: leftists such as you seek to first establish their moral authority on matters of the environment using a totally fictitious problem (GW) to aid them in this cause. They then seek to control others by forcing them to adopt their agenda and lifestyle. Look, pancake, I dont care if you live in the woods and worship trees while wandering about naked and using leaves for toilet paper. I do care when you start to try to tell me how to live and use bogus science as your basis for doing so. How about trying to lead by example and let the rest of us do our own thing.
Quote
The really ironic thing about the comments posted by those 'individuals' is their claim to be Christian, and yet the idea of extravagence, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride, are what they are defending. Here's an 8th sin for all of you: Indifference. Don't worry though, you've exhibited that one just as well if not better than all the rest.
Actually, your Christian theology is as warped as is your scientific knowledge. You have already committed the mortal sin of denying Christ in any event. Maybe gaia will help you on Judgment Day. Good luck with that.
Quote from: gatorback on January 25, 2008, 12:19:39 PM
Apparently, the White House, EPA, WFB, and the entire world community is in on this scandle too. Everybody, except...you. Are you for real, or just a BOT that blogs manure when text including global warming is scanned. ;D
Another fallacious argument. The "entire world community" does not agree with the GW theory. Not by a long shot. Try doing some independent research for a change. Or are you not capable of logical, linear thought?
From Webster's dictionary:
so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Hmm, last I checked, our government wasn't exercising emminent domain over Dow or Phillips or any other company producing lightbulbs, and then distributing them based on what they think we should have, i.e. - each household should only have 4 lightbulbs and they should last 4 years, therefore, you only receive 4 lightbulbs every 4 years. Nor does our government "plan" or "control" our economy. WE, the consumers, the business-owners, the stockholders do. And no, the Federal Reserve is NOT government controlled. So, now that we've had a lesson in economics...moving on...
QuoteAs a thinker, I think about the different facts that are presented to me on particular issue, then I decide what I think is correct and what I think is wrong about it
I would love to believe this to be true, however every single fact that was presented which came from an unbiased source (i.e. non-government, private-business employee) whose education exceeds any of ours here on this forum; whose life's work is in the study of life, our atmosphere and the inner workings of our planet; you wholly dismissed without even fully reading the information. So what exactly did you think about, what you already determined to be true based on other things you read, and political hear-say? Things change. We may not like it, but that's just the way it is. Hell, if God were to come down from heaven and show up on my front door step one day, then I would have to admit his existence. So, why then, when these facts are presented are they not even entertained?? You don't for a moment think something is the least bit amiss when so many scientists come up with the exact same results every single time they perform the tests they've done? You don't think it the least bit strange that the people presenting information against global warming have not duplicated the tests others have done and yet are using them as a direct comparison? It's not odd to you that the timelines reflected in the data provided by the opponents does not span the same length of time as shown my those making the climate change claims?
QuoteI'm all for cleaner energy because locally, excessive levels of carbon monoxide does affect our local environments and community health
How can that possibly be true? If carbon monoxide affects our "local" environment then it would have to affect our GLOBAL environment, and yet you say it doesn't. Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.
QuoteI think its wise to recycle plastics (you know, the material you consider evil from your earlier posts) to keep landfills from getting bigger.
Why does it matter if our landfills get bigger? We're too "small" to have any impact on the planet, so just let it fill up. Who cares. We'll just keep covering it and it will make a great change to the flat landscape of FL. Oh, wait. That would be building a mountain and changing the overall elevation of the land, which, if large enough, would actuallty change the topography of the planet, and as you stated, we can't possibly change something as "big and dynamic" as the earth.
QuoteBeing good stewards of the earth is indicative of what we can do on a local level.
Uh...yeah, I saw the Republican debate last night too. Thought I wouldn't watch cause I'm a "liberal", eh? LOL. Anywho, why is it good stewardship if there is nothing wrong? I have to say, I'm getting really confused as to where you stand. You want to fix something that's not broken, but you only want to do it locally even though if everyone did something locally it would have a global effect, but that must only hold true for positive impact because there's no such thing as global warming because again, we're all "too small" to have an impact???? I know you don't like it when I use your words against you, but....WTF???
Quoteall I ask is for the government to quit trying to force me to change my life
So, then you must subscribe to the school of, what-we-don't-know-won't-hurt-us, eh? I suppose it would be better if the changes were made and you knew nothing about it? That, my friend, is "force." History has shown us that in a democratic society, even though laws may be passed that we feel are threatening our way of life, the people push back. Remember prohibition? What about when it was illegal, and life-threatening, to have an abortion? If so many people were against what was happening right now, it wouldn't be happening. And who knows, the CFLs may fall the way of prohibition. We may all start using them and realize they suck and start buying incandesents on the black-market and thus bring them back into production. Like I said earlier, things change. That's life, and that's what's great about our country.
Quotewho the heck are you to tell me what I "need"?! Who are you to tell me how far I should drive for toilet paper, how warm or cold I should keep my house, what kind of light bulbs I should have, or what kind of car I should drive? Good Lord, your earlier post wreaks of infringement on my freedoms....you want everybody to change their lifestyle, all in the name of a supposed problem
Ahh, once again you make an assumption. I wouldn't want anyone to make those changes only because of the environment. I'd want them to change because driving a mile to the grocery store is about the laziest thing I've heard of unless you're handicapped, if you "need" your house that cold than you're extremely obese or are not of the human race (it is a fact that it is not a necessity for to survival for humans to have an environment at a consistent 64 degree temperature...we're warm-blooded afterall), and an 8 cylinder car guzzling 30 gallons of gas a week is complete and utter excess even if fuel supplies were completely renewable or unlimited. Once again, you have a hard time with words and have confused "need" with "want", so let me consult Webster's for you once more....
need1 [niːd] noun
something essential, that one must have
Example: Food is one of our basic needs.
It really would make things easier if you would just say that you "want" certain things rather than claiming someone/something is taking away your "needs." Also, if you could actually understand the difference between inherent rights and freedoms versus being accustom to a way of life. They are indeed two completely different things you know.
Hey, I have an idea! I can use use my socialist/liberal light-beacon, shine it in the sky, get my posse together and we'll collectivly pool our borrowed and begged-for money together, to buy you a dictionary. ;D
Quoteleftists such as you seek to first establish their moral authority on matters of the environment using a totally fictitious problem (GW) to aid them in this cause. They then seek to control others by forcing them to adopt their agenda and lifestyle. Look, pancake, I dont care if you live in the woods and worship trees while wandering about naked and using leaves for toilet paper. I do care when you start to try to tell me how to live and use bogus science as your basis for doing so. How about trying to lead by example and let the rest of us do our own thing.
I don't classify myself, RG. I am no more a leftist than I am a Christian a Buddist or a cyclist . When you define yourself by one belief, thought or idea, you limit your ability to reason, to seek out the truth, and to understand the differences around you. Which explains a lot about your posts, actually. I have many beliefs, none of which fit neatly into the tight little packaging you and your friends like to call, liberal. Sorry to disapoint.
I find it interesting how when your way of life is imposed on others you don't see it as an imposition or a revocation of rights, but when someone with beliefs like mine introduces a new idea or way of living into your realm, you immediately cry out loss-of-freedom. RG, just think with me for a moment. You suggested that you don't care if I want to live in the woods, "wander about naked" and use "leaves for toiletpaper", but if you're way of life means that all the land is used up to build tract homes, I have no woods to wander in. If I want to live naked, but your laws say I must be clothed in public places, and because of your building, I no longer have a private place, then I'm forced to find clothing. If all of your buildings are made from the trees that I used to live in and your way-of-life simply plants artificial trees, then there are no leaves for which to wipe myself. Do you see the difference in our ideas, RG? You still have lightbulbs, you still have houses, you still have cars, they would just be built from different things or using different processes. But, if something doesn't change from how we are doing things now, then MY world is gone and I have lost my fundamental right to life.
QuoteActually, your Christian theology is as warped as is your scientific knowledge.
This one I just don't get. I guess what you're saying is what I've said all along and why I don't believe in organized religion; you just get to pick and choose the pieces of the bible that you want to believe in?
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 25, 2008, 04:09:22 PM
Quote from: gatorback on January 25, 2008, 12:19:39 PM
Apparently, the White House, EPA, WFB, and the entire world community is in on this scandle too. Everybody, except...you. Are you for real, or just a BOT that blogs manure when text including global warming is scanned. ;D
Please cite sources for all of this.
Okay, you asked for my sources. I gave them to you..made a few funny remarks and you're off on a different tangent. Question, why did you bother asking for my resources if you wanted to go somewhere else with the topic. I see you have not a rebuttal. I'm with you brother stephen this lady just wants to debat a mute point.
Mother Nature is asking you to change your life not the government. If you'd shut up for a minute you'd hear her. :-*
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 25, 2008, 03:56:34 PM
Actually, your Christian theology is as warped as is your scientific knowledge. You have already committed the mortal sin of denying Christ in any event. Maybe gaia will help you on Judgment Day. Good luck with that.
RG you are stepping on my franchise. Please leave the theological interpretations and biblical quotations around here to me and I will leave the support of the Bush renewal of America to you.
QuoteMandating usage of "technological advancement" without giving choice is a form of it, yes. Forcing people to change their technology, way of life, and their comfort because of a delusion...yes, this is a form of socialism. The premise is to control people under the guise of "saving the planet". When the microwave was invented, people were not mandated to use it...it gained popularity on its own.
I see completely see your point now CN. It's sort of just like the ice pick lobotomy was heralded as a great advance in psychosurgery from 1936 through the 1950s. Lobotomies gradually became unfashionable with the development of antipsychotic drugs and are rarely performed. See the link with the microwave and the incondesent lightbuld now. There isn't, but we got smarter since the 30's.
I'll be blut. We used lobotomies until something better came along. Don't you think the same can happen to the light buld. Or does this the make no sense to you? Should I grab my ice pick and head over?
A lot of emotions are coming out on this thread. Maybe we could try and be a little bit more civil and try to give points and counter-points rather than taking personal shots to each other's personal believes; however extreme to you they maybe.
What I see happening in the "man-made global warming era" is that the GW believers think that those skeptical of the "truth" to them must be out to destroy the planet. They think the number one driving force of the skeptics is to push the issue under the rug so that big bad business can take advantage of the Earth. For me it extends much further than that. Has it ever occured to you that there are big businesses that will prosper from initiating stricter "carbon laws"?
This is a movement that seems to use selectively use evidence to support their already foregone (and ever changing) conclusion that humans are the ultimate evil.
I can't tell you how scared it makes me to think that there are gov'ts that want to be able to control what type of light bulb I use. This is all irrational lunacy that will fearmonger to get what they want: money and power to control.
This thread and many of the comments that I have read are reason for serious concern. I have been following the GW issue since the early 90's, and the evidence continues to only build and grow much stronger year after year that the earth is warming and that humans are contributing to this warming. The fact is that the majority of the world's leading scientists support this assertion. Yes, there is a slim possibility that they are wrong, but the potential environmental and economic consequences of ignoring this problem are so devastating that we must take dramatic actions now. The actions that are necessary will also potentially strengthen our economy by creating new economic opportunities and jobs and industries that are much more sustainable and less polluting.
Much of the "evidence" that disputes the GW crisis is junk science that was funded by companies like Exxon that have profited immensely from the status quo. Even if you are swayed by arguements of the GW deniers, I would ask you to take a look at the impact that humans have had on the environment in general. Human activity has had devastating effects on the planet in a time span that represents only a blip on the timeline of this planet's history. We are experiencing a rate of species extinction that is about 1,000 times pre-human levels. Most of our rivers and streams are polluted and don't meet their designated use. Invasive species have spread across this planet thanks to us, disrupting ecosystems and costing billions of dollars each year in an attempt to control. Over time, our actions have for the most part had a negative impact on our planet and ecosystems, and there is no reason to think that we aren't doing the same to our climate.
The good news is that we didn't know as much before as we do today. We have new technologies that are cleaner and more efficient. We know how to produce products with far less pollution and waste. We know how to plan and build communities that much more sustainable. We can change for the better, and we shouldn't wait to do so.
Incentives should be provided that will encourage new technologies, renewables, and alternative production and building techniques. But, regulations and tax devices may have to be utilized, as well. The free market has no moral conscience and does a poor job of capturing external costs and managing public goods. One of the keys to an effective free market is information. Unfortunately, the market doesn't do a good job of providing that either (especially in a global economy with multinational corporations ruling the day), so consumers cannot often make well-informed decisions and choose the more environmentally-friendly products. Finally, we don't have a right to use an excessive amount of natural resources that are public goods and belongs to all of us and to future generations, anyway. There are times when our governments have an obligation to step in and regulate our actions in an effort to protect the public good.
I hope this dialogue can move past whether or not GW is occuring, and start addressing why "Jacksonville still has no plan" and what that plan should be.
Quote from: midnightblackrx on January 26, 2008, 06:25:15 PM
This is a movement that seems to use selectively use evidence to support their already foregone (and ever changing) conclusion that humans are the ultimate evil.
Please describe even one instance where humans have improved any physical aspect of the environment from the standpoint of any life form other than human.
Quote from: midnightblackrx on January 26, 2008, 06:25:15 PM
I can't tell you how scared it makes me to think that there are gov'ts that want to be able to control what type of light bulb I use. This is all irrational lunacy that will fearmonger to get what they want: money and power to control.
Not to worry. There are literally billions of incandescent light bulbs out there in the marketplace. You will probably be able to get them on Ebay well into the next century, and at very low prices, I might add. The law only mandates that these type of devices not be manufactured any more. You are still free to use them. And as the popularity of that desire declines, the existing stock of bulbs will become even cheaper. You can still buy vacuum tubes on Ebay, (which, depending on your age, you may not even know what they are) and they are very cheap because they are neither collectible nor useful.
With regard to the government mandating that you use only certain types of technologies, suppose you want to view only analog television signals? You're out of luck as of February 2009, sorry.
Suppose you think that DC is better than AC power (like T. Edison did). sorry, the government has mandated that only 60 Hertz alternating current shall be used, and to further enforce that rule, all electrical appliances are only made to work on that power scheme. So again, you're out of luck.
Suppose you believe that a Lada is the car that you should own and drive. Too bad, because it does not meet the EPA requirements for emissions or the NTHSA and DOT safety requirements that are mandated by the Government, thus making it illegal to drive on the public highways in this country.
Now I could go on with hundreds more pages of examples like this, but I think you might get the idea. You already live in a country that regulates almost every aspect of your existence, as well as the daily conduct of your life, and to think that taking away your light bulb represents a milestone with regard to the surrender of individual rights, puts you about 50 years behind the curve in terms of awareness of that reality.
Quote from: Midway on January 27, 2008, 10:33:20 AM
Please describe even one instance where humans have improved any physical aspect of the environment from the standpoint of any life form other than human.
Just thought of an answer! Humans act as hosts to colonies of mutating organisms that are generally referred to as pathogens, as well as some other bacterial and viral life forms generally accepted to be harmless , at least to Humans.
I forgot about those little buggers. The outcome for them looks really bleak when us humans are gone because at least 30-60 of those species only live on us. You have a valid point Midway.
Midway - I guess I look at humans being as vulnerable as every other creature/plant on this planet. To think of ourselves as saviors of the world is ridiculus. The planet will be here long after humans are gone.
Quote from: midnightblackrx on January 28, 2008, 09:14:21 AM
Midway - I guess I look at humans being as vulnerable as every other creature/plant on this planet. To think of ourselves as saviors of the world is ridiculus. The planet will be here long after humans are gone.
You are 100% correct in that assertion.
However, the object of this game is to prolong conditions on this planet that would support human life, because , at least from the vantage point of humanity, it really does not matter whether the planet Earth exists or not, if conditions on Earth will not support human life.
More complete article:
QuoteBy Andrea Thompson
updated 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
A vast ice shelf hanging on by a thin strip looks to be the next chunk to break off from the Antarctic Peninsula, the latest sign of global warming’s impact on Earth's southernmost continent.
Scientists are shocked by the rapid change of events.
Glaciologist Ted Scambos of the University of Colorado was monitoring satellite images of the Wilkins Ice Shelf and spotted a huge iceberg measuring 25 miles by 1.5 miles (about 10 times the area of Manhattan) that appeared to have broken away from the shelf.
Scambos alerted colleagues at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) that it looked like the entire ice shelf â€" about 6,180 square miles (about the size of Northern Ireland)â€" was at risk of collapsing.
David Vaughan of the BAS had predicted in 1993 that the northern part of the Wilkins Ice Shelf was likely to be lost within 30 years if warming on the Peninsula continued at the same rate.
"Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula yet to be threatened," he said. "I didn't expect to see things happen this quickly. The ice shelf is hanging by a thread â€" we'll know in the next few days and weeks what its fate will be."
Aircraft reconnaissance
The BAS scientists sent an aircraft out on a reconnaissance mission to survey the extent of damage to the ice shelf.
Jim Elliot, who captured video of the breakout said, "I've never seen anything like this before â€" it was awesome. We flew along the main crack and observed the sheer scale of movement from the breakage. Big hefty chunks of ice, the size of small houses, look as though they've been thrown around like rubble â€" it's like an explosion."
An initial iceberg calved away from the Wilkins Ice Shelf on Feb. 28. A series of images shows the edge of the ice shelf proceeding to crumble and disintegrate in a pattern characteristic of climate-caused ice shelf retreats throughout the northern Antarctic Peninsula. The disintegration left a sky-blue patch of hundreds of large blocks of exposed old glacier ice floating across the ocean surface.
By March 8, the ice shelf had lost just over 220 square miles of ice, and the disintegrated ice had spread over 540 square miles. As of mid-March only a narrow strip of shelf ice between Charcot and Latady islands was protecting several thousand more kilometers of the ice shelf from potentially breaking up.
The region where the Wilkins Ice Shelf lies has experienced unprecedented warming in the past 50 years, with several ice shelves retreating in the past 30 years. Six of these ice shelves have collapsed completely: Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and the Jones Ice Shelf.
Antarctic warming
The Wilkins Ice Shelf was stable for most of the last century until it began retreating in the 1990s. A previous major breakout occurred there in 1998 when 390 square miles of ice was lost in just a few months.
"We believe the Wilkins has been in place for at least a few hundred years, but warm air and exposure to ocean waves are causing it to break up," Scambos said.
The Antarctic Peninsula has warmed faster than anywhere else in the Southern Hemisphere; temperature records show that the region has warmed by over 37 degrees Fahrenheit during the past 50 years â€" several times the global average and only matched in Alaska.
Other parts of Antarctica, including the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, seem to be more stable, though areas of melt have been observed in recent years.
Melting in the Antarctic is different than the recent record melt in the Arctic. Antarctica is composed of ice sheets, or huge masses of ice up to 2.5 miles thick that lie on top of bedrock and flow toward the coast, and ice shelves, the floating extensions of ice sheets. Arctic ice is primarily sea ice, some of which persists year-round and some of which melts in the summer and freezes again in the winter.
© 2008 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved.
Like what the hell plan would you suggest if the sea is 20 or 40 feet higher then downtown? Sandbags? Hell tow the big Ice chunk here and we'll make an artic theme park out of it until we all sink beneath the waves.
Sounds like a plan to me! Hey would this make my desert property in California "Ocean Front" hee hee
Ocklawaha
But Stephendare, Seawalls eat sand dunes! (see what's left of Miami Beach)...
Maybe some giant wind machines to blow the water away from the coast toward Africa?
Ocklawaha
Yes sonny, I was there when Isis met Osiris. at the great pyramid of giza, in the daysof the Pharaohs of Egypt -- and when Cleopatra first saw the approach of Julius Caesar and Marc Anthony...
OCKLAWAHA
the ancient one!
The Sky Is Falling! :o
Woods
QuoteMar 25, 2008
Misleading Reports About Antarctica
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
Last year when Antarctic set a new record for ice extent, it got no media attention. They focused on the north polar regions where the ice set record low levels. This summer when unprecedented anomalous cover continued in the Southern Hemisphere again no coverage. Then this report in the news today. You probably saw it on your favorite network or internet news site (pick one, anyone).
Vast Antarctic Ice Shelf on Verge of Collapse - Latest Sign of Global Warming’s Impact Shocks Scientists
Andrea Thompson Livescience
Please go to http://icecap.us to get a balanced and unhysterical viewpoint on climate. This article addressess the above doomsday report under the column entitled The Political "Climate".
Another great article from the above referenced website in the same column. Please so to site for rest of article:
QuoteMar 21, 2008
Gore’s 10 Errors: Old and New. Scientific Mistakes and Exaggerations in an Interview in India Today
By Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Al Gore no longer gives interviews to the Press except where the interviewer has been carefully pre-selected for his sycophancy and for his lack of elementary knowledge of climate science. Likewise, Gore no longer takes questions from the audience at any public meeting unless he is sure that no one in the audience knows anything of climatology. The interview from which the following list of Gore’s latest scientific errors and exaggerations was compiled appeared in India Today on 17 March 2008.
Error 1: “‘Global warming’ is a planetary emergency. It is a crisis and we have to find ways to come to an agreement to reduce the carbon dioxide.â€
The facts: There is no “planetary emergencyâ€. Nor is there a “crisisâ€. If there is an “emergency†or a “crisisâ€, it is certainly not caused by “global warmingâ€. The increase in global temperatures between 1980 and 1998, when “global warming†stopped, was only half of the small increase shown in the official temperature records (McKitrick, 2006, 2007 in press). In the decade since 1998 there has been no statistically-significant increase in global temperature (HadCRUt3, 2008; US NCDC, 2008; RSS,2008; UAH MSU, 2008; etc.). In the seven years since early 2001, the trend of global temperature has been downward at a rate equivalent to more than 0.4degrees Celsius (0.75 F) per decade:
Error 2: “Today we the people of this planet would put another 70m tons of global warmingpollution into the earth’s atmosphere.â€
The facts: “Global warming pollution†is Gore’s favorite phrase for “carbon dioxide.†However, CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally-occurring gas. Together with chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis and is, accordingly, plant food. The reconstruction of palaeoclimatological CO2 concentrations below, taken from Berner (2001), demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration today is almost at its lowest level since the Cambrian era 550 million years ago, when there was almost 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today, without any threat to animal or plant life, and without causing the “runaway greenhouse effect†that Gore likes to mention:
See larger image here. See all ten errors here.
Quote from: stephendare on March 26, 2008, 02:07:47 PM
true enough river. more accurately, marsh and swamp.
Actually, no. Parts were, most was not.
QuoteTry breathing a methane/carbon dioxide mix while rubbing sodium on one side of your body and chlorine on the other.
Might make sense if I stuck my head in a space with a TLV of over 1000 ppm CH4 or over 5000 on CO2. Other than that, it makes about as much sense as the "they're just a front for the evil oil companies" screed.
Nope. It would not be fair to say this. There is certainly infill but I would not say it is close to a majority of properties. Also, this practice has been illegal for some time now.
And the global warmistas certainly have no biases, financial backers or axes to grind. ::)
If you consider a large parcel of land in this city threatened by raising sea levels, one would have to look hard at where I live. Old timers will recall that the entire area East of the Dunes on Southside Blvd, South of Beach and West of the Inter-Coastal all the way to St. Johns County was once simply labeled "TIGER HOLE SWAMP". Today we call it Town Center, Kernan, Hodges, Mayo etc... Today only a tiny bridge on JTB has a sign that says Tiger Hole Swamp, and they are backing condos up to it as I write.
As for big money corporations, sorry guys, money isn't the root of all evil, but the love of it sure is. The infamous Child Labor Cases, The Drug Dealers, The Streetcar Conspiracy of GM, Firestone, Phillips and Standard Oil, The PG&E poisoning 1/2 of a desert community (about 40 miles from my place), LADWP stealing the entire Owens River and killing a 300 mile long farming valley, turning it to a talc desert. Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, Locked doors in a Night Club to make sure patrons PAID UP (they burned up), Love Canal, houses in the way of railroads that got blown up (see the James Family), the list is long indeed. It can't really be argued that having a Mega-Giant around isn't so bad for pretty toys, but when the lungs, blood and liver of our bodies get involved who wants to live in a petro-chemical wasteland?
Ocklawaha
*Actually Isis was pretty hot!
Quote from: stephendare on March 26, 2008, 03:12:17 PM
Thanks for the update from exxon, jax native.
Its always inspiring, even if factually incorrect and misleading to the point of lying.
Methane is also a naturally occuring gas.
ROFL I'm going to ask one of our CalTech research iterns from Argonne National Labs at Austin what the heck that would do to you an unbiased perspective not from our forum . lol
Sodium is naturally occuring element.
Try breathing a methane/carbon dioxide mix while rubbing sodium on one side of your body and chlorine on the other.
[/quote]
QuoteMethane is also a naturally occuring gas
What a bunch of crap! (oops)
There is a FOOL PROOF way to test this statement... just hold a lighter to your hind quarters and release a large amount of this very natural Methane... You WILL BELIEVE!
and all that good old sodium? Ask why a steam locomotive or the Titanic only used distilled spring water... Because sodium, even the "Safe" crap put in water softner will eat the boiler in nothing flat!Ocklawaha
Quote from: jaxnative on March 26, 2008, 04:37:16 PM
QuoteTry breathing a methane/carbon dioxide mix while rubbing sodium on one side of your body and chlorine on the other.
Might make sense if I stuck my head in a space with a TLV of over 1000 ppm CH4 or over 5000 on CO2. Other than that, it makes about as much sense as the "they're just a front for the evil oil companies" screed.
Earth's atmosphere already contains about 380 PPMV C02. Don't have too much farther to go to get to 5000 PPM, just an order of magnitude.
I don't know how many billions of tons it will take, but I'm sure we can do it.
Well I have to give you mega-corportate-chemical types one thing... I think COAL SMOKE is sweet! Even if it does mess with your eyes... Of course mixed with the right amount of heat, and water vapor from safety valves raining back on your blacked face...who cares? Ever hear a multi-chime steam whistle bounce of a high mountain canyon wall? Just gets me all misty eyed...
Ocklawaha
midway do you even know what an order of magnitude is?
QuoteI don't know how many billions of tons it will take, but I'm sure we can do it.
I don't think so.
My point is who cares if it's an order of magnitude, or 10 orders of magnitude: FTW is jacksonville doing about it? Stephen: You're right again. Outlaw building in the marshes, come up with a plan. Ocklawaha: Sorry, why bother building the world's model LRT when it's just going to be under wawa. USS Charles F. Adams: Maybe at Cecil Field?
Yes, Gatorback, your right, lot of good it would do us if we're the only city to make an effort... Frankly I think the changes are coming anyway, with or without our help. The one volcano in the Pacific is said to have spewed more toxins into the atmosphere then all of human kind in all of history... Now the "ring of fire is waking up again". I've got property south of Amboy Crater in California which is covered with USGS monitors. One has to ask why? Hasn't moved in 10,000 years. But sits over a fault line, and if the big one hits, Amboy could roar to life. (Gee I'd have a 50 yard line seat) until the bleachers burned under my butt. I saw evidence of this unreal power in Colombia when we got knocked out of bed by a waking volcano. Oh how I wish Florida would just get her mountains back, but how to do it without taking out Mickey?
I'm gonna hit the road for the night, and dream of belching black coal smoke and giant drive wheels!
Ocklawaha
What's Jacksonville doing. This is what Jax is doing. ;D
http://www.youtube.com/v/Y9T5cxnowyA
Quote from: stephendare on March 26, 2008, 03:12:17 PM
Thanks for the update from exxon, jax native.
Its always inspiring, even if factually incorrect and misleading to the point of lying.
Saying that these articles were inspired or financed by Exxon would be construed as lying, don't ya think? Oh that's right, you get your info from DailyKos.
The "deniers" are not on the take. As a matter of fact, the majority of the scientists who refute glo-bull warming live with paltry amounts of income. My guess is that they would've spent that "Exxon check" months ago before risking their prestige and careers in debunking this hoax.
To be honest, we do have the new Green Building thing going, though I don't recall if it was just City or State or some combination. Someone said "Show me a new Green Building" in a previous thread, okay, 16 Flat (planned & in sales).
On the other hand we are planning 26 plus miles of new freeway, for a fleet of diesel drinking, fume spewing buses that nobody will ride. Vancouver BC is trying to get transit ridership up to 20% and we have just hit 5% so our fix is more of the same? REAL SMART JTA... Golden...
Ocklawaha
What I think, based on the data from Volcanic gas studies, is we humans CAN have a direct effect on local problems, even regional such as smog, acid rain, ground water pollution etc... But on the big screen of planet earth, we are as much a part of the eco-system as is your friendly neighborhood butterfly. That includes our farms, ranches, roads, bridges, homes, skyscrapers, and war machines... Sorry, were just human. My guy's dont like your guy's and we spend 5 years blowing it all to hell so we can start over. Maybe it's our nature for population control? Then again to an Evolution Junkie, it should be PERFECT, for "Wars and roumors of wars" bring on the survival of the fittest... Gee Darwin would love that one. So would Darwin have embraced Hitler and Tojo, for extermination of inferior races? Ahhh, but I digress. Back to the Eco fight... If nature in the form of a Comet, Astroid, Volcanic "storm" IE: Yellowstone, etc... we are simply screwed. If the ice caps shift, if the planet has a collision, we starve, or freeze, or kill eachother off. Do you remember the near breaking of the US ability that Katrina brought us? Nations around the World came to help us the US? Ramp that up by several disasters, or the scale of the disasters and we're about as likely to come up with a solution as T-Rex back in the day... Doomsday may indeed be near, but theres not a damn thing we can do but try and plan for the possibilities.
News flash: "Florida was awakened this morning at 4:30 am, by massive Earthquakes and explosions, all traffic entering the state is halted, this could be the worst disaster in human history, Orlando it appears is gone, Tampa, Miami, and Jacksonville are largely leveled, The earth under OIA has a raised dome over 1,000 feet in the air... stay with CNN for details..."
You figure it out!
Ocklawaha
Run for the hills! :o
Riverside Gator: Your right! There's not a damn thing we could do about it. The fossil evidence says this is going to happen. I like the Florida scene just because it flys in the face of what the pro's taught all of us in SKOOL "Florida is a Sandbar"... Now, OOPS no, 3,000-30,000 feet down we are VOLCANIC! How cool (or hot) is that? Guess they found this while drilling test holes at OIA, where the volcanic rock forms a huge ring nearly at the surface. Duh? Looking at the record of the periods of history, (whatever your beliefs in Creation, Evolution etc...) the record is layered with Volcanic dust, earth, dust, earth, Space dust, earth, etc... Maybe we're just a bit overdue to get our butt's kicked by mother nature or Father God.
Stephendare: Your right! (or left depending on where one is standing) we should have a plan. I don't think any City in the Nation or the World should be without a complete plan. Phased from minor to doomsday... Food, communications, gas or breathing gear, transport, water, shelter or such. The old Civil Defense network may well have been on the right track. When Cuba had missles pointed at us, every school child had a survival pack in the classrooom. Homes were stocked, and downtown was a beehive of shelters and supplies. How would such a network have effected Katrina? Taken another way what about Bhopal, India?
Ocklawaha
Someday the only people left in the world will those who stole from the ones who planned ahead. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on March 27, 2008, 11:47:49 AM
The Ice Cappers are financed indirectly through Exxon, Charleston.
Stephen, I'm having problems with Icecap's website. Is there a source you can directly link me to that shows this?
Those that took from those that had? What a novel concept... Maybe a brain fart really but it made me recall the funniest grave marker I ever saw...
"The Yankees came South in droves and bands
to conquer this, our fair Southern Land.
But this little plot, in this shady spot,
is all this Damned Yankee ever got..."
Ocklawaha
DEO VINDICE!
Here is some info about ICECAP. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts
QuoteExperts
Joseph D’Aleo, Executive Director, Certified Consultant Meteorologist
Joseph D’Aleo was the first Director of Meteorology at the cable TV Weather Channel. He has over 30 years experience in professional meteorology. Mr. D’Aleo was Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation and Senior Editor of “Dr. Dewpoint†for WSI’s popular Intellicast.com web site. He is a former college professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College. He has authored and presented a number of papers as well as published a book focused on advanced applications enabled by new technologies and how research into ENSO and other atmospheric and oceanic phenomena has made skillful seasonal forecasts possible. Mr. D’Aleo has also authored many articles and made numerous presentations on the roles cycles in the sun and oceans have played in climate change.
Mr. D’Aleo is a Certified Consultant Meteorologist and was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). He has served as a member and then chairman of the American Meteorological Society’ Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, and has co-chaired national conferences for both the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association. Mr. D’Aleo was elected a Councilor for the AMS.
Joseph D’Aleo is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin BS, MS and was in the doctoral program at NYU.
Mr. D’Aleo’s areas of expertise include climatology, natural factors involved in climate change, weather and climate prediction, and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).
----------
Robert C. Balling Jr., Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University
Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr. is a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the greenhouse effect. Balling has been a climate consultant to the United Nations Environment Program, the World Climate Program, the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In addition, Dr. Balling authored The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality. He is also co-aauthor of the book Satanic Gases with Pat Michaels.
----------
Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. served as part Deputy Director of Mount Wilson Observatory. Her awards include the Newton-Lacy-Pierce Prize of the American Astronomical Society, the Petr Beckmann Award for Scientific Freedom and the Bok Prize from Harvard University. She has written over 200 scientific research articles. In 1991 Discover magazine profiled her as one of America’s outstanding women scientists. She was technical consultant for a science-fiction television series, “Gene Roddenberry’s Earth: Final Conflict,†airing 1997 - 2001. She received her M.A. (1975) and Ph.D. (1980) degrees in Astrophysics from Harvard University.
Her research interests include solar variability and other factors in climate change, magnetohydrodynamics of the sun and sunlike stars, exoplanets and the use of laser electro-optics for the correction of turbulence due to the earth’s atmosphere in astronomical images.
----------
Thomas A. Birkland, Director of the Center for Policy Research in the Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University of Albany
Dr. Birkland is the Director of the Center for Policy Research in the Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University of Albany. In 2006, he was on leave at the National Science Foundation, where he directed the Infrastructure Management and Hazard Response program in the Division for Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Innovation, Directorate for Engineering. In January 2007 he returned to the University of Albany and to his duties as director of the Center for Policy Research (www. albany.edu/cpr). The Center contains numerous scholars who engage in research on a wide range of policy questions. Professor Birkland is also a co-director of an interdisciplinary Master’s program in Biodiversity and Conservation Policy, and is an adjunct member of the Department of Biological Sciences.
Dr. Birkland’s research and teaching is in the public policy process, with an emphasis of the political, policy, and managerial aspects of natural and human hazards and disasters. He is the author of After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events (1997) and Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change after Catastrophic Events (2006), both with Georgetown University Press. His textbook, An Introduction to the Policy Process (2 nd Ed., M.E. Sharpe, 2005) has been very well received and widely adopted, and in October of 2006, CQ Press released Professor Todd Schaefer of Central Washington University and Dr. Birkland’s edited volume, Encyclopedia of Media and Politics. Dr. Birkland has in recent years visited Thailand and New Orleans in his research on disaster policy. He has published papers in a range of academic outlets, including several articles and book chapters co-written with graduate students.
Recent publications include articles in Social Science Quarterly, Review of Policy Research, Natural Hazards Review, Albany Law Environmental Outlook, and in several edited volumes. Dr. Birkland’s professional experience includes service as an aide to Governor Thomas Kean of New Jersey, and as assistant manager of Strategic Planning at the New Jersey Department of Transportation.
----------
Reid A. Bryson Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., Global 500 Laureate, Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, Emeritus Prof. of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
Reid Bryson received his B.A. degree in geology at Denison University in 1941, and his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Chicago in 1948. It was just the 30th PhD in Meteorology in the history of American education. He joined the faculty of the UW-Madison in 1946 at the end of his military service as a major in the Air Weather Service of the U.S. Arny Air Corps. His first appointment was in the Departments of Geography and Geology (in which he had been a graduate student before World War II).
In 1948, he became the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology, which has since become the largest and one of the most prestigious meteorology departments in the nation. During the late 1960’s, he was active in the university’s Interdisciplinary Studies Committee on the Future of Man and in subsequent committees that led to the establishment of the Institute for Environmental Studies, of which he became the first director in 1970.
Over his long career as scientist and teacher, Reid Bryson has significantly advanced the understanding of climate, people, and the environment. He has written more than 260 articles and five books ranging over the fields of geology, limnology, meteorology, climatology, archeology, and geography. Most cited climatologist in the world according to British Institute of Geographers article, 5th most cited physical geographer and 11th in list of all geographers.
----------
Robert Carter, Researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia
Dr. Robert Carter is a paleontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist with more than thirty years of professional experience and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences from 1981 to 1999. Dr. Carter has wide experience in management and research administration, including service as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the National Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways). His public commentaries draw on his knowledge of the scientific literature and a personal publication record of more than 100 papers in international science journals on topics which include taxonomic paleontology, paleoecology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef, Quaternary geology, and sea-level and climate change. B.Sc. (Hons), University of Otago, Geology, 1963. Ph.D., University of Cambridge, Paleontology, 1968. See Bob’s Website
----------
John Coleman, Founder of The Weather Channel, TV Meteorologist KUSI-TV, San Diego
John Coleman has been a TV weatherman since he was a freshman in college in 1953 and TV was brand new. He still loves predicting the weather and relating to the television viewers. “I also love working at KUSI NEWSâ€, he adds. “It is a rare thing; a locally owned and managed TV station. And, there are dozens of wonderful people who work here.†John has predicted and shoveled his share of snow. He has been a TV weatherman in Champaign, Peoria and Chicago, Illinois; Omaha, Nebraska, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and New York City. For seven years he was the weatherman on “Good Morning, America†on the ABC Network.
John also cooked up the idea of a cable channel devoted to nothing but weather and spent six years developing “The Weather Channel†on cable. “That’s my babyâ€, he says. “The bad guys took it away from me, but they can’t steal the fact that it was my idea and I started it and ran it for the first year. I put everything I had into making TWC the success it is.†“As for my “retirement job†at KUSI, it’s the most fun I ever had. And the people of San Diego County have been wonderful to me for well over a decade. That’s very, very nice. And, that’s all I have to say.†With that Coleman gets down to work predicting the weather one more time.
See John’s blogsite
----------
William Cotton, Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University
Dr. William Cotton is a Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. His main scientific interests include cloud physics and dynamics, and mesoscale meteorology. He has a BS in mathematics and an MS in atmospheric science from the State University of Albany and a PhD in Meteorology from Pennsylvania State University (1970).
Dr. Cotton has distinguished himself in a broad range of professional activities as a publishing scientist (more than 100 papers in peer-reviewed journals, seven chapters in books, authored one book and co-authored two books), advisor of graduate students; editor of journals and member of advisory and review panels. From 1970 to 1974, he worked as a meteorologist at NOAA’s Experimental Meteorological Laboratory in Miami. In 1974, he joined the faculty of Colorado State University and was quickly promoted through the ranks, achieving full Professorship in 1981. At CSU, he has received the Engineering Dean’s Council award for excellence in atmospheric science research, the College of Engineering Abell Faculty Research Graduate Program Support Award and the CSU Research Foundation Researcher of the Year (1993) Award. He has advised 33 PhD and 29 MS graduates.
----------
Chris De Freitas, climate scientist in the School of Geography, Geology and
Environmental Science at the University of Auckland
Chris has been Head of Science and Technology at the Tamaki campus and Pro Vice Chancellor. He has Bachelors and Masters degrees from the University of Toronto and a PhD from the University of Queensland as a Commonwealth Scholar. For 10 years he was as an editor of the international journal
“Climate Researchâ€. He is an advocate of open and well informed reporting on scientific issues. In recognition of this, he has three times been the recipient of the New Zealand Association of Scientists, Science Communicator Award, and a Merit Award in Science Communication.
----------
David Deming, Associate Professor of Arts and Science at the University of Oklahoma
David Deming is associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. He graduated from Indiana University in 1983 with a BS degree in geology and received a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah in 1988.
Prior to his arrival at the University of Oklahoma in 1992, Deming held a National Research Council postdoctoral fellowship at the US Geological Survey in California.
Dr. Deming is the author of more than thirty research papers and a textbook on hydrogeology. He is an associate editor for the journals Petroleum Geology and Ground Water. In addition to geology, Professor Deming is interested in the history and philosophy of science.
-------------
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist
Bob has been a meteorologist for 65 years and a climatologist for 60+ years. He was the third president of the American Association of State Climatologists and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979. Al Gore brought him back to the battle. He is writing a book on the controversies involved in climate change.
-------------
Mel Goldstein, Chief Meteorologist for News Channel 8 in Connecticut.
Dr. Mel Goldstein (or Dr. Mel) is a meteorologist, best known as the chief meteorologist for News Channel 8 in Connecticut. Dr. Goldstein was born in Swampscott, Massachusetts where, as Goldstein himself put it, “the conversation was always about the weather.â€
Since 1970, Dr. Goldstein has taught at Western Connecticut State University, where he developed the Weather Center and established the first and only Bachelor’s degree program in meteorology in Connecticut. He also developed a severe-storm prediction index used by numerous electric utilities across the country.
He has been a consultant to firms such as IBM, Union Carbide, General Electric, Detroit Edison, Philadelphia Electric, Northeast Utilities and United Illuminating.
Dr. Goldstein’s media career began with a single radio station and by 1976 his broadcasts were on dozens of radio stations nationwide. He then began doing television and in the 1980’s his forecasts were seen across the country on the Satellite News Channel, an all-news cable effort of ABC and Westinghouse. He became the Chief Meteorologist at WTNH-TV in 1986. Dr. Goldstein earned a Ph.D. in Meteorology from NYU and holds honorary doctorates from Albertus Magnus College and Mitchell College.
In addition, Dr. Goldstein has made the transition to author by writing “The Complete Idiot’s Guide To Weather.†It’s a quick and easy guide that can answer any question about weather. The profits from this book are donated to cancer research.
Dr. Mel also wrote a weekly column for the Hartford Courant in Northeast Magazine for 20 years.
All of Mel’s hard work has not gone unnoticed. He has received the President’s Award from Western Connecticut State University for his teaching and community service; the Connecticut Bloomer Award for contributions to the state of Connecticut; and a nomination for an Emmy award for a series of educational vignettes about the weather.
Dr. Mel also won Best of Connecticut poll for an on-air meteorologist on each of the past six years. This reader’s poll is conducted by Connecticut Magazine.
----------
Vincent Gray
Dr. Vincent Gray is an “Expert Reviewer†for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; he has published many papers on climate science including detailed critiques on each of the IPCC science reports. The latest “The Greenhouse Delusion: a Critique of Climate Change 2001.â€
----------
ect, ect, ect
There are a lot more, but it exceeds the 20000 character limit.
i have a plan. kill all the penguins. they breathe too much. all that CO2 is whats melting the ice caps after all(what with their dastardly reproduction and what not). they thought we wouldn't find out, they thought it was too obvious...well...i'm watching them...
but serioudly,
global warming is much less of a problem than manbearpig...
The death metal band?
(http://www.macarts.co.uk/resources/images/Igloo-Hullaboloo.jpg)
Igloo Paradise Resort by Metro-Jacksonville and Friends, Inc?
Hey, here's a thought for all of us, the Exxon and non-greasy alike... Why not form a Corporation and lay claim, homestead some of that prime new real estate that will be laid bare by the Ice... Stephendare can open a Seaside Club/Restaurant, I'll get to work on a transit system, JBM can take care of Law Enforcement and damn if we all won't get rich selling Antarctic Beachfront Condo's designed by Lakelander of course...
Retire in Sunny Antarctica.... Envirotopia of the future! *Hey, they've got some damn deep lakes too, bet the fishing will be great.
Ocklawaha
i love this site...howstuffworks.com...
this one tells us how much the oceans would rise with the melting of the icecaps...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm
WOW! i did not know that 90% of the world's ice was in antarctica!!!!!!!!!
that's a lot of ice, hahahahaha!!!
I just read an interesting article by David Orr, the Paul Sears Distinguished Professor of Environmental Studies and Politics at Oberlin College, about climate change. Orr distinguishes between optimism and hope - optimism means that the odds are in your favor, while hope is employed when you are fighting against the odds. In the case of climate change and many of our other environmental challenges, you could easily argue that the odds are against us. As a result, Orr calls for us to have "authentic hope" in the battle against climate change. "Authentic hope as he describes it "requires us to check our optimism at the door and enter the future without illusions. It requires a level of honesty, selfawareness, and sobriety that is difficult to summon and sustain."
I couldn't agree more. We all (including citizens, elected officials, and policymakers) must at some point begin to face reality and read the writing that is on the wall. In geological years, the Industrial Revolution represents a nearly imperceptible spec on the timeline. Yet, we have managed, in an incredibly short period of time, to cause significant and often devastating damage and harm to the health of this planet. We are lacking a healthy dose of reality, and we must get honest with ourselves before we can adequately address climate change and the other significant challenges that we are faced with.
Orr continues by challenging the conventional notion of "going green." He points out that consumerism might not bail us out of this mess, even if it is "green": The "Americanway of life" is thought to be sacrosanct. In the face of a global emergency, brought on in no small way by the profligate American way of life, few are willing to say otherwise. So we are told to buy hybrid cars, but are not asked to walk, travel by bikes, or go less often, even at the end of the era of cheap oil. We are asked to buy compact fluorescent light bulbs, but not to turn off our electronic stuff or not buy it in the first place. We are admonished to buy green, but seldom asked to buy less or repair whatwe already have or just make do.We are encouraged to build LEED-rated buildings that are used for maybe 10 hours a day for 5 days a week, but we are not told thatwe cannot build ourway out of the mess we have made or to repair existing buildings. We are not told that the consumerway of life will have to be rethought and redesigned to exist within the limits of natural systems and better fitted to our human limitations."
I would also add that we can't give people the false impression that buying carbon offsets and a new hybrid Tahoe means you are "green" and have done your part, either. Just as we need "authentic hope", we need "authentic green" and it needs to become a way of life. As Thomas L. Friedman said, "green has to become a part of America's DNA." To get to that point, we will have to be honest and see ourselves and our impacts without illusions. However, this will be a difficult task in state that has been built upon illusions, selling its own fantasy version of the American dream for a long time.
Here is the link if you want to read the entire Orr article: http://www.davidworr.com/more.php?articleid=23 (http://www.davidworr.com/more.php?articleid=23)
Stephen is correct: Who cares who is to blame, what are we doing about it???
I'm sure yall have seen this graph. Not from the wiki. It compares storm strength to ocean suface temp.
(http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/7305.gif)
7. Temporal development of a power dissipation index for tropical cyclones compared to the sea surface temperature of the oceans. According to K. Emanuel (Nature, 2005).
Stephen,
I re-read the quote you posted from Charleston native and it's utterly sad.
"You're failing to see the overall big picture... we can only control what we do with the land and the weather that is given to us: we cannot control the weather."
So ignorant of the fundamental impact 7 billion people are having on planet Earth...................... :(
So your whole point was to pick some random guy's quote from 2008, make him/her look bad, and prop yourself up in the meantime?
Why do you constantly do this? Geez you're a piece of work.
The fellows quote made him look bad, not Stephen. I think the point is that nothing has been done here or anywhere else in the past several years. We are the Sunshine State with no solar program in place at all and we will be the first to go underwater. I think that was the point.
Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2015, 04:59:48 PM
Quote from: MusicMan on June 03, 2015, 04:53:03 PM
Stephen,
I re-read the quote you posted from Charleston native and it's utterly sad.
"You're failing to see the overall big picture... we can only control what we do with the land and the weather that is given to us: we cannot control the weather."
So ignorant of the fundamental impact 7 billion people are having on planet Earth...................... :(
yes completely ignorant. And if you look at the date, you can see that 7 years ago, many people were denying that there were any changes whatsoever in the climate. Liberal Moonbats is what he and Riverside Gator were calling anyone who discussed climate change.
It was terrible. They kept quoting studies from 'teams of scientists' who disagreed, but when you researched the teams of scientists, you would find out that the science they studied was actually (and I'm not making this up) economics.
So where is your science? Totally sad. and I am not making this up.