QuoteScientific Assessment Captures Effects of a Changing Climate on Extreme Weather Events in North America
June 19, 2008
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research today released a scientific assessment that provides the first comprehensive analysis of observed and projected changes in weather and climate extremes in North America and U.S. territories. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change previously evaluated extreme weather and climate events on a global basis in this same context. However, there has not been a specific assessment across North America prior to this report.
Among the major findings reported in this assessment are that droughts, heavy downpours, excessive heat, and intense hurricanes are likely to become more commonplace as humans continue to increase the atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
The report is based on scientific evidence that a warming world will be accompanied by changes in the intensity, duration, frequency, and geographic extent of weather and climate extremes.
"This report addresses one of the most frequently asked questions about global warming: what will happen to weather and climate extremes? This synthesis and assessment product examines this question across North America and concludes that we are now witnessing and will increasingly experience more extreme weather and climate events," said report co-chair Tom Karl, Ph.D., director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
"We will continue to see some of the biggest impacts of global warming coming from changes in weather and climate extremes,†said report co-chair Gerry Meehl, Ph.D., of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "This report focuses for the first time on changes of extremes specifically over North America."
The full CCSP 3.3 report, Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate, and a summary FAQ brochure are available online.
Global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases, according to the report. Many types of extreme weather and climate event changes have been observed during this time period and continued changes are projected for this century. Specific future projections include:
* Abnormally hot days and nights, along with heat waves, are very likely to become more common. Cold nights are very likely to become less common.
* Sea ice extent is expected to continue to decrease and may even disappear in the Arctic Ocean in summer in coming decades.
* Precipitation, on average, is likely to be less frequent but more intense.
* Droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe in some regions.
* Hurricanes will likely have increased precipitation and wind.
* The strongest cold-season storms in the Atlantic and Pacific are likely to produce stronger winds and higher extreme wave heights.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related events and information service delivery for transportation, and by providing environmental stewardship of our nation's coastal and marine resources.
NOAA plays a key role in the Climate Change Science Program, which is responsible for coordinating and integrating climate research, observations, decision support, and communications of 13 federal departments and agencies.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research investigates climate, weather, and other topics related to the atmosphere. It is sponsored by the National Science Foundation and managed by a nonprofit consortium of universities, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080619_climatereport.html
well, at least we know. and knowing is half the battle.
A nonvegetarian diet has a devastating impact on our planets well being:
A report from the U.N. in 2006 revealed the fact that “raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks of the world combined.†Tens of billions of animals farmed for food release gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide though their massive amounts of manure. Animals such as cows and sheep, being ruminant, emit huge amounts of methane due to flatulence and burping. “The released methane†the report says, “has 23 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.†The livestock industry along is responsible for 37 percent of human induced methane emissions. To make room for these animals to graze, virgin forests are cleared. The livestock industry also needs vast stretches of land to raise mono crops to feed the animals. The carbon dioxide that the trees and plants store escapes back into the air when they are destroyed. Growing fodder for farmed animals implies heavy use of synthetic fertilizers produced from fossil fuels. While this process emits a huge amount of carbon dioxide, the fertilizers themselves release nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that is 296 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
A single person, by simply not consuming meat, prevents 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide emissions in a year.
Midway didn’t you say you “flip burgers†for a living? You are one of the biggest contributors to global warming in the world then!
Your exhalation of Co2 is a larger contributor. I didn't say I eat them. I just said I flip them.
Thats like saying "I dont drive the Hummers, I just build them"
Quote from: Midway on June 21, 2008, 08:27:29 AM
Your exhalation of Co2 is a larger contributor. I didn't say I eat them. I just said I flip them.
WOW, pot meet kettle... you obviosuly did not read the post:
“The released methane†the report says, “has 23 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.†In case you didn't know....Carbon Dioxide is Co2.
From Wikpedia (everyone's favorite):
Carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Now you have already gone off the handle about people getting killed everywhere in the world, so since you obviously don't want any people killed we have to cut back somewhere, which I guess would be meat, so if you truly believe in what you are spouting you need to find a new job. Anyone that rants about global warming and works in an industry that is a leading factor in global warming is not very genuine. Or keep kidding yourself, build those Hummers!
Well, ok, you got me on that one.
As a result of your well reasoned argument I have resigned from McDonald's and have gone on welfare.
Thanks for giving me the impetus to improve my life and those around me.
Now that I no longer work at McDonald's, I'm sure hundreds of thousands of people will no longer eat beef.
Again, thanks for the valuable tip, and be sure to keep working and paying your taxes, so that I can continue to collect my welfare checks.
Why do we have to keep pretending that you work at McD's, midway? As I said, my theory is a government worker of some kind. Please come clean. :)
Careful RSG. Press to hard on someone elses identity and you might get outed on general principle. After all, it has been at least a day or two since the last time.
hahaha. Good point. I just wanted to know his occupation to learn more about his viewpoint. As to his real identity, it doesnt matter.
Not denying it, just trying to reflect another viewpoint. Everyone goes on and on about the SUV's, but the UN report clearly states the worlds dedication to eating meat, especially beef is WORSE for global warming than all the SUVs combined. How come no one is touting vegetarianism? Why don’t these militant environmentalists attack Ruth Chris instead of someone's truck?
Every time I hear of these things I have a desire to jump in the Avanti, crank up the AC and stereo and thank God that I'm not driving it in Colombia, where certain villages maintain an art form of passing on the sidewalk! Before the trip, I always shower off and use the spray deodorant. I know it's supposed to kill all life on the planet Earth, but I'm just too busy to worry about it. I mean, if I broke into a sweat, I'd only have to use more, and soon the snowball effect could tilt the scales towards a world cataclysm. Can you imagine the hysteria? The Mayhem? and the unbridled terror? Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked, in the head, by an iron boot? Of course you don't--no one does--that never happens.
"Sometime, when the city is up against it, and the breaks are beating the boys, tell them to get out there and give it all they've got. And, win just one for the Zipper. I don't know where I'll be then, but I won't smell too good. That's for sure." QuoteMount St. Helen's: Arrest That Volcano!
By Michael John McCrae
Relatively Recent Science
In the State of Washington, the biggest threat to clean air is not the environmental policies of the Bush administration; but a natural phenomenon; Mount St. Helen's.
Mount St Helen's has been: “pumping out between 50- 250 tons a day of sulfur dioxide. The EPA should be furious. They have yet to find a way to collect fines from active volcanoes.
Mount St. Helen's joins other natural factories of pollution like Italy’s Mount Etna which: “can produce 100 times more sulfur dioxide than Mount St. Helen's†affecting huge areas of Europe; or the Kilauea volcano in Hawaii which: “churns out 2000 tons a day of sulfur dioxide…creating an acid fog that damages crops.â€
If one volcano can beat an entire state of man- made emissions, becoming the top dog of state sources of pollution, what is a state to do? What is the EPA to do? Should Environmental Activists run to the base of the mountain and picket Mother Nature?
Perhaps the ACLU can sue to have the mountain’s name changed because of the religious overtones of the title “Saintâ€! Aren’t volcanic eruptions considered “Acts of God?†OH! NO! Can’t have that! But, how do you take a volcano to court?
Along with the sulfur dioxide, Mount St. Helen's “produces 500-1000 tons a day of carbon dioxide.†Now, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; but, do not fear, because man-made sources of carbon dioxide beat out the mountain by 10 times that amount.
All the earth’s volcanoes combined produce only about one percent of all sourced carbon dioxide. If you remember the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines though, that one eruption is said to have put more pollutants in the air than all the automobiles ever built and driven up to the time of that event. One “Act of God†became a greater source of pollution that all the cars of history! That’s amazing! A rumor I’m starting is that the EPA has put out an arrest warrant for God concerning the Pinatubo disaster.
Science is a wonderful thing. But science can be taken to extremes. We hear about how man is destroying this planet; yet natural sources of contamination and pollution happen every day and nobody blinks an eye.
There are those that decry the fact that America hasn’t been bilked into giving up jobs and adding to the national debt by joining the worthless Kyoto Protocol. China, the world’s heaviest polluter is exempt from the protocol. Since China is just now expanding its industrial development, it is getting a bye from Kyoto. Every day China causes more unchallenged pollution; yet it is America, the cleanest country of the world, with the most expansive environmental laws in existence that is impugned for its stance against another plan to steal money from the American taxpayers while allowing super-polluters to buy exemptions and the expense of American jobs. We don’t need Kyoto. We are clean enough thank you.
So until the EPA and the Environmental Movement can come up with a big enough pair of handcuffs to rein in Mother Nature, Mount St. Helen's’ title as Washington’s super polluter is assured to continue.
NOTE: All quotations from: “The Seattle Times.com†Wednesday, Dec. 1, 2004, “Mount St. Helen's the state’s No. 1 air polluter†by Sandi Doughton.
As for me and my house, we will take the streetcar. Streetcars don't pollute, and in fact, they earn carbon credits that can then be sold at a handsome profit to big dirty places like Automobile factories. As soon as I get those first checks the So-Co is on me boyz and Girlz. ::)
Ocklawaha
I think OCK has a point; a lot of the people pushing these theories are a little, off the wall... Prince Charles? Al Gore? Crazy people spray painting (I thought aerosol was bad too?!) painting unsuspecting SUVs, others climbing to the top of massive trees to stop them from being cut down (did you see the guy on the news? He had like 1 tooth and hadn't showered in three weeks). If a normal average joe stepped up then maybe more people would listen, as it is people can shrug the message off due to the messenger....
Besides, I think the raising of meat crops and the food crops to support them is a bigger issue then what car someone drives. After all we aren’t just talking about what the actual animal naturally contributes; we are also talking about all the chemicals released in the dirt and water, chemicals used to fertilize the crops grown to feed the beef. There is also the considerable energy consumed to process this meat. It would seem to make more since to attack meat eaters than SUVs, but maybe that is not politically correct?
;D
Quote from: Midway on June 20, 2008, 10:12:13 PM
QuoteScientific Assessment Captures Effects of a Changing Climate on Extreme Weather Events in North America
...Among the major findings reported in this assessment are that droughts, heavy downpours, excessive heat, and intense hurricanes are likely to become more commonplace as humans continue to increase the atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
The report is based on scientific evidence that a warming world will be accompanied by changes in the intensity, duration, frequency, and geographic extent of weather and climate extremes.
"This report addresses one of the most frequently asked questions about global warming: what will happen to weather and climate extremes? This synthesis and assessment product examines this question across North America and concludes that we are now witnessing and will increasingly experience more extreme weather and climate events," said report co-chair Tom Karl, Ph.D., director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
"We will continue to see some of the biggest impacts of global warming coming from changes in weather and climate extremes,†said report co-chair Gerry Meehl, Ph.D., of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "This report focuses for the first time on changes of extremes specifically over North America."
Global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases, according to the report. Many types of extreme weather and climate event changes have been observed during this time period and continued changes are projected for this century. Specific future projections include:
* Abnormally hot days and nights, along with heat waves, are very likely to become more common. Cold nights are very likely to become less common.
* Sea ice extent is expected to continue to decrease and may even disappear in the Arctic Ocean in summer in coming decades.
* Precipitation, on average, is likely to be less frequent but more intense.
* Droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe in some regions.
* Hurricanes will likely have increased precipitation and wind.
* The strongest cold-season storms in the Atlantic and Pacific are likely to produce stronger winds and higher extreme wave heights...
Quote from: Charleston native on June 02, 2008, 08:41:22 AM
...I forecast more man-made global climate change hysteria with the onslaught of any hurricanes that are spawned this season.
Damn. I'm better than I thought! :D
Notice the locations of the two quoted co-chairs for this report. Boulder, CO and Asheville, NC. Talk about peas in a pod. Should we expect anything different from these people who have chosen to live in those cities? Could these co-chairs be agenda-driven? Ooohhh, of course not.
Here would be a nice place to move to and live when Charleston starts flooding and the food riots become intolerable..
ATLAS E MISSILE SITE HOME CONVERSION
FOR SALE
(http://www.earth-house.com/Listings/Homes_4_Sale/Atlas_E_Silo/ArielJPG_of_Kimball_Missile_Silo_in_Nebraska.jpg)
ArielJPG of Kimball Missile Silo in Nebraska
This Atlas E Missile Site is located about two miles southwest of Kimball Nebraska 69145. Kimball is remotely located in the western panhandle of Nebraska about 60 miles east of Cheyenne Wyoming near Interstate 80.
February 23, 2005 Article from Computer World on this former missile silo home.
Atlas Missile Site Coordinates-As things were during early construction of various sites.
GEOGRAPHICAL
There are several distinct and desirable characteristics about this particular property and its location. This property is centrally located in the USA. This area is sparsely populated. It is far from any high population and military target areas. Denver CO is about a three hour drive southwest and Lincoln NE is about 380 miles east. It is not earthquake prone and tornadoes are not a threat for the underground structure. It is a dry climate and is not located in a flood area. The elevation is about 4,930 feet.
MISSILE CONCENTRATION
Kimball is known as the Missile Capital of the USA. It is believed that if a threat response caused a launching of USA minuteman and/or peacekeeper missiles, our missiles in the three-state area would be launched and gone before the enemy's missiles could reach here. Therefore, it is believed that this area would not be a target since the US missiles would already be out of the ground. Kimball and the surrounding area is sparsely populated and is not believed to have a tactical or strategic military target significance to the enemy. It is not a Command and Control Center like NORAD. There are about 200 Minuteman and Peacekeeper missiles in the adjacent three-state area (Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado).
See http://www.angelfire.com/tx/missileaway/
SURVIVABILITY AND DEFENDABILITY
There is a large pipe fence with large dual swinging gates at the outer entrance of the 18 acres of property. A 9' tall military chain link compound fence with three strands of barbed wire at the top make the property defendable. Sensors provide early notification to an inside computer of breaches/intruders at the compound fence gate and driveway.
The building entrance blast doors are made of heavy gauge steel, which make it nearly impossible to gain unauthorized entrance. The Atlas E missile site construction required 1,062,000 cubic yards of earth moving, 139,000 cubic yards of reinforced concrete and 27,840 tons of structural steel. (Source: "The Military Engineer", No. 362, November -December). The underground structure was designed to withstand a 1-Megaton blast up to 1.6 miles away. The walls and ceilings are 18" to 24" thick constructed of hardened reinforced concrete. This is a hardened underground structure of about 19604 square feet; adding the above ground structures makes a total of approximately 29,352 square feet. The complex sets on top of a hill and provides views in all directions.
Internal self-reliant equipment includes two redundant 12 kWh diesel generators, two 4KW inverters, two independent sets of battery banks, and a wind generator. Pellet stoves and solar collectors provide heat and solar assisted hot water.
The property and surrounding property are defendable and viewable with a high end outside color security camera that can pan, tilt and zoom with inside controls. There are no trees on the property and the ground cover is grassland. The property sets in a cow pasture with the nearest neighbor about a half-mile away. Kimball is about three miles away.
PEACETIME
The underground structure provides a relatively constant temperature and humidity. Without any heat the ground temperature is about 52 F in the winter and 55 F in the summer. The humidity stays near 60%, which is healthy for the human body. Fresh air is circulated in and out of the living area constantly. The 15' high ceilings and the large rooms make it spacious and appeals to the psychic.
The flame pit has been converted into a large greenhouse with an automatic watering system to multiple shelf levels mounted on a 45 -degree slope that creates varying temperature environments for plants and trees. This provides for a self-reliant garden capability. This hardened structure provides an ideal property for protection from natural and man made disasters like tornadoes and civil violence.
This property is remote. Cheyenne Wyoming is 60 miles west; Scottsbluff NE is 40 miles north; Sidney NE is 40 miles east; Sterling CO is 66 miles southeast. Kimball intersects I 80 and Highway 71, which are major truck routes. These main roads are about 2 miles from the Missile Site. There is an FAA airport about two miles from the Missile Site. Kimball has most services and products one needs to live in peacetime. Kimball has about 2500 people and the county has about 4000 people that primarily raise cattle, farm and have oil interests. http://www.ci.kimball.ne.us/
In peacetime a business could be set up using the existing structures. The two mobile homes could provide office space or rental property. The two Quonsets (8,000 sq. ft total) would make a good manufacturing or storage facility. The underground buildings would protect and store finished goods. Semi-trucks can enter the two Quonsets and underground structures.
CONVERSION
The conversion of this Missile Site is extensive and has taken about 5 years to complete. It has been converted to provide for self-sufficiency and self-reliance for peacetime and survival situations. The food flow starts at the greenhouse and continues to the canning kitchen, food cellar, kitchen pantry and finally the kitchen. There is a 16,000-gallon underground water tank in-line with the well that can be pumped if the well fails. The property has the standard utilities plus solar heat and auxiliary emergency wind power. Two sets of UPS Batteries, inverters and two backup generators ensure power availability when rural power fails. The Site is under computer control and is voice commanded. The two 40' X 100' outside concrete pads have Steel Master Quonsets on them. The Atlas E structure is more desirable than the Atlas D or F for converting into a home. The Atlas D complex is above ground and is exposed. The Atlas F complex has a small two story Control Center structure (2363 Sq. Ft of living area) and a 52' wide by 174' deep vertical silo which is very difficult to convert into a functional home. The Atlas E has the most practical underground square feet for conversion.
PRICE
An Atlas E Missile Site cost the government about $3.5M in 1960 dollars and cost about $25M to construct, equip and operate according to The Kansas City Star, Tuesday, December 26, 1995 article "Turning swords into plowshares". This site is a custom conversion home and has many unique custom furnishings. There were only 29 Atlas E Missile Sites built and there will not be any more built. A comparable structure built today would cost in the tens of millions of dollars.
Tell them you saw this listing at Earth House
The price is $25,000,000 USD.
If you are serious about purchasing a converted Atlas E Missile Site home then we recommend you plan a trip to see the whole package. It will take about a day to cover everything you need to see and learn.
http://www.earth-house.com/Listings/Homes_4_Sale/Atlas_E_Silo/atlas_e_silo.html
Quote from: stephendare on June 23, 2008, 05:28:34 PM
Are you also going to predict that spring follows winter and then claim it as proof the Dublin is the capitol of France?
Quote
...I forecast more man-made global climate change hysteria with the onslaught of any hurricanes that are spawned this season.
Damn. I'm better than I thought! Cheesy
Notice the locations of the two quoted co-chairs for this report. Boulder, CO and Asheville, NC. Talk about peas in a pod. Should we expect anything different from these people who have chosen to live in those cities? Could these co-chairs be agenda-driven? Ooohhh, of course not.
You know Stephen, it would help if you actually put your responses outside of the quote box...unless, of course, you were trying to hide your snide comment about my post.
If you do not see the point I tried to make in my post, let me explain it for you. Boulder is one of the supreme capitals of liberalism (Ward Churchill's favorite hangout), and Asheville is basically its Southeastern counterpart. These cities have become known for their incredibly inane political affiliations with not just the left, but the
extreme liberal left. Their culture is drenched in radical leftism...so, we get co-chairs of a research report located in these two cities basically regurgitating the Goracle's tripe. Consider the source and their influences. That was my point.
Midway, I love how you try to make your remarks more personable with me and my prior job while you refuse to even answer River's or my questions about your profession or lot in life. Maybe I should be more careful about being more open with someone who refuses to do the same. BTW, I don't think I'd want to live in a nuclear hotzone. You realize if a massive launch ever occurred, that home site you referenced would be toast. By all means, why don't you move there? ;)
Quote from: stephendare on June 24, 2008, 10:41:44 AM
seriously Dave?
Lets hover down closer to reality land.
did you ever stop & think that maybe there is a reason that he chose "Charleston native" as his screen name instead of using his real name?
Stephan's signature-quote-thingie at the bottom of his forum entries mentions
incredulity. And boy, do I see a lot of it here!
Quote from: stephendare on June 24, 2008, 10:41:44 AM
The majority of the world, and the runaway majority of scientists would consider your point of view extremely radical and ideologically driven.
In this, you're absolutely correct. A majority of the world and a majority of scientists agree on the points of global climate change, etc. But not 'all.'
Isn't the point of science and research to
continually explore and expand the boundaries of the understanding of our surroundings? Didn't scientific research once suggest that the planet and the 'cosmos' was only a few hundred thousand years old? Haven't those theories been enhanced, refined, and updated over the course of a generation or three?
Didn't the scientific community once think that dinosaurs were scaly, lumbering, reptilian- and amphibian-related stupid beasts with limited to no intelligence, just waiting for that asteroid to kill them all off? Don't they now conclude that a lot of the dinosaurs were probably feathered and more avian-related rather than their previous hypothesis? Scientific research there updated and revised itself.
My point, and subsequent question, then, is this: Is the scientific community just *done* with their research into global warming, overall climate change, and the effects of humankind's contribution to all of that? It kind of looks like they're collectively saying, "Ok, humankind caused global warming. We're evil and selfish. Next subject!" They hopefully are not doing that, but that sure is the perception. Research here does not seem to be updating or refining itself. Nor do most people - scientists, advocates, and regular Joes - seem to be wanting it to do so.
The majority of scientists have said this, but not all. Why are we not hearing more from them? Are they wrong because they might not agree with the majority or have other evidence suggesting otherwise? Isn't a function of the scientific method to continually prove or disprove previously-published theories? Research of a subject goes like this: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. Where's the anti-thesis? Why are we not hearing about it? Certainly there has to be an antithesis, because otherwise it's not so much a science as it is a dogma. Why is it so wrong then, to try to disprove this subject?
Quote from: stephendare on June 24, 2008, 10:41:44 AM
In fact, other than a few crackpots at some of the gas stations downtown, yourself, River, and a few others that post here, I never EVER hear from people who share your (and by 'your', I mean you, river and a few of gasbags from metjax) bizarre and totally self contained theories about climate change.
Crackpots, gasbags, dogmatists; bizarre and self-containted theories. So, people with other ideas, be they educated or not, are wrong? If someone doesn't share your opinion, they're crackpots?
Science isn't done with itself quite yet. New evidence suggests that the upward, warming temperature trend stablized around 1998 and hasn't increased appreciably since. The ozone layer over the Antarctic opens and closes regularly, in spite of a once-upon-a-time prediction that it would continually expand and eventually just go away altogether. The 2006 and 2007 hurricane season wasn't anywhere on par with the devastating 2005 season, when *a majority* of climatologists, forecasters, and scientists were
convinced that they would be. Peak oil didn't cripple the world economy in the mid-1990's, like I was taught it would back in elementary and Junior High School. The oceans haven't risen to destroy the major metropolises of the world before 2005, like we once thought they would.
My point here is not that I'm trying to debunk and disprove these points, but rather that the time-tables have been continually extended, redefined, and thought out again and again. A lot more research was done. Time was able to tell. Doomsday might be inevitable, but then again it might not. Let's be good stewards of the planet and recycle, re-use, find better ways to do things, be more responsible, etc. But let's do it for the good of the planet and our continued existence - not some political movement thats en vogue today and forgotten 20 or 30 years from now. Anyone heard of or remember the global cooling scare of the 60s-70s?
Quote from: Driven1 on June 24, 2008, 11:05:41 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 24, 2008, 10:41:44 AM
seriously Dave?
Lets hover down closer to reality land.
did you ever stop & think that maybe there is a reason that he chose "Charleston native" as his screen name instead of using his real name?
A favorite tactic of Stephen when he cannot win an argument - unmask his opponent. Havent you been warned about this, "Dare"?
Hey Driven, I did have my name as part of my signature on MetJax; maybe that was a mistake.
Stephen, rest assured that my post on radical liberal capitals was not a bulwark of an argument that rejects man-made global climate change. It was primarily an observation, and I thought it was a rather interesting one, despite your castigation. We've already debated ad nauseum about the supposed phenomenon, and I really didn't want to go into detail about it again.
Of course, you know as well as I that an entire city's population is not unified on a political spectrum, and to think so would be ludicrous. That was never my point. However, some city's are more defined by their political culture than others. While cities like New York, Chicago, Paris, Rome, and London contain extreme leftists in their culture, many conservatives and libertarians also live in those cities, providing some balance in terms of culture.
Boulder and Asheville are exceptions to this balance. Have you ever been to those cities? I have, numerous times. While there are balances to political culture in other parts of their respective states, these cities do not have balance within their populations. Knowing this, I made an observation that it was interesting to read about the co-chairs' statements and where they are located because their views and their places of residence correlate.
As far as "the fringe", I believe you would also qualify for this characterization, particularly with your views on war, the current president, the environment, and your wildly skewed interpretations of Scripture. If you consider yourself a Christian, you would undoubtedly be seen as in "the fringe". But that's besides the point.
I have read the data, the theories, and the charts...the ones not corrupted by political powers (ironically, you and I both agree that there is corruption in all political organizations, but you are unable to even acknowledge this with the hucksters of climate change), and I have come to a conclusion contrary to yours. More and more scientists are starting to come to the same conclusions as mine or similar ones, especially as more information is being discovered. Many polls still show that this nation is split 50/50 on man-made global climate change, despite the propaganda being spoon-fed to the masses. We will probably continue to disagree on this until our time on this world is up.
Quote from: stephendare on June 24, 2008, 10:41:44 AM
The majority of the world, and the runaway majority of scientists would consider your point of view extremely radical and ideologically driven.
Actually no. The majority of the British public for example has doubts as to the validity of the GW theory as do significant numbers of scientists. Stop making things up, Stephen. Here is the poll of Britons:
Quote
Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions
QuoteLike the fringe view that the world is flat based on scriptural interpretation.
1) I have never heard anyone seriously make this argument.
2) This is a long discredited straw man argument you have been making which fails to impress or persuade anyone.
QuoteMost people take the time to read and perform basic cognitive skills like comparing and contrasting period photos and look at raw data and see the simple problem.
So comparing photos of glaciers prove that GW is caused by man? What then was the cause of previous periods of glacial recession? What caused the glaciers to expand in the 19th century? I somehow doubt I will receive an answer to these questions.
Quote from: stephendare on June 24, 2008, 12:03:10 PM
...And btw, I certainly don't want to hear any privacy concerns from River as he has no problem discussing my personal life on this forum and has repeatedly crossed that boundary whenever he disagrees with a poster.
Dave often signs his posts, and has no reason to be ashamed of his opinions or his name, which apparently some on this board should and do.
Besides, when did this ridiculous notion that blogging means anonymity set in?
Certainly there have been news articles about bloggers in Jax...
Actually, Stephen, I don't recall having signed a post with my name on this forum, but I did on MetJax.
Quote from: stephendare on June 24, 2008, 12:22:27 PM
I thought you had actually signed a couple, especially when you get all fired up...lol.
But you are right, primarily on metjax.
Like me though, you obviously arent ashamed of your opinions.
We can completely agree here. LOL.
we should post criminal records of people on here. that would be fun. hold on...i'm going to look up a couple of peoples'. i bet we might find some fun stuff there. i'll post back in a moment.
Come on guys. What does any of this have to do with the topic of the coversation?
Would you all just leave eachother the hell alone and stop the bickering?!
Quote from: Jason on June 24, 2008, 12:41:19 PM
Come on guys. What does any of this have to do with the topic of the coversation?
Would you all just leave eachother the hell alone and stop the bickering?!
Jason - it has NOTHING to do with the NOAA report, blah, blah, blah. it has everything to do with narccistic vindictiveness.
one sec...i just found some quite interesting stuff...turns out that we have a fugitive (or this person once was) here posting with us!!
was wanted in another jurisdiction. trying to find out on what charges. I'm not sure if i will be able to find THAT info out at https://showcase.duvalclerk.com/searchCases.aspx.
and getting back to global warming - so...this NOAA warning - is it like the warning we got last year about "highly increased hurricane activity in Florida"?? didn't we have like 1 or 2 minor storms?
In an attempt to add a little bit of levity to this thread, and in honor of one of my favorite comedian George Carlin's recent passing, I invite everyone to find and either buy, dig out, or download his album "Jammin' in New York," and listen to the last track on it entitled, "The Planet is Fine." Humorous to be sure, and poignant - as was his style.
Regardless of your stance on this subject, it'll make you think; and it'll make you either angrier, happier, sadder, more riled up, or some of all of the above.
Is that what that was? My apologies then for the redundancy. I can't get the videos and stuff here at the office - just a blank java box or what have you. (Subsequently, y'alls "greatest videos" thread from a few weeks back was especially painful for me, since I couldn't see any of those!)
Quote from: Charleston native on June 24, 2008, 08:46:55 AM
Midway, I love how you try to make your remarks more personable with me and my prior job while you refuse to even answer River's or my questions about your profession or lot in life. Maybe I should be more careful about being more open with someone who refuses to do the same. BTW, I don't think I'd want to live in a nuclear hotzone. You realize if a massive launch ever occurred, that home site you referenced would be toast. By all means, why don't you move there? ;)
Yeah, I'm a personable guy!
It's commonsensical!
Quote from: Midway on June 24, 2008, 03:05:53 PM
Also, I am not the subterranean type.
LOL I would have never guesed that! The things you learn on this site...amazing!
Quote from: Midway on June 24, 2008, 03:05:53 PM
...And, I'm also sure that in the event of a "massive launch" the entire country would become a "nuclear hot zone" so it would not make much difference. But, if you really knew anything about those launch sites, they have no strategic value because if they were targeted, all the missiles would be already launched, and the enemy strike would be upon unpopulated grasslands with empty silos, so actually in the event of nuclear holocaust, that would probably be the safest place to be.
I guess they never told you that.
What a truly ignorant, intellectually void statement. It just proves you have no clue how a nuclear war is strategized. The objective of launching at missile sites is to destroy as many missiles as possible before launch, and we are not a "first launch" nation. So you figure it out.
Since you probably would watch a movie rather than read a book about it, I highly recommend you getting "The Day After" on DVD. It is one of the most accurate depictions of nuclear war available. Talk to me after you watch it. Thanks.
CN, which nuclear war did you serve in?
Quote from: Lunican on June 24, 2008, 05:40:58 PM
CN, which nuclear war did you serve in?
Didnt you swipe this line from Driven?
Quote from: stephendare on June 24, 2008, 05:00:39 PM
Ive seen the day after.
Is that really a pretty accurate depiction?
It's one of the only two movies that we watched during our undergraduate space and missile training. There are only a few flaws, but they aren't even glaring ones. It is the most accurate of any Hollywood-made film depicting nuclear war.
Lunican, pretty unoriginal comment, but that was my job in the military. I think I have some legitimate expertise in that field, thank you very much.
Quote from: stephendare on June 24, 2008, 05:00:39 PM
Quote from: Charleston native on June 24, 2008, 04:54:31 PM
Quote from: Midway on June 24, 2008, 03:05:53 PM
...And, I'm also sure that in the event of a "massive launch" the entire country would become a "nuclear hot zone" so it would not make much difference. But, if you really knew anything about those launch sites, they have no strategic value because if they were targeted, all the missiles would be already launched, and the enemy strike would be upon unpopulated grasslands with empty silos, so actually in the event of nuclear holocaust, that would probably be the safest place to be.
I guess they never told you that.
What a truly ignorant, intellectually void statement. It just proves you have no clue how a nuclear war is strategized. The objective of launching at missile sites is to destroy as many missiles as possible before launch, and we are not a "first launch" nation. So you figure it out.
Since you probably would watch a movie rather than read a book about it, I highly recommend you getting "The Day After" on DVD. It is one of the most accurate depictions of nuclear war available. Talk to me after you watch it. Thanks.
Ive seen the day after.
Is that really a pretty accurate depiction?
Yeah, it was just like the nuclear war he served in. Except instead of K rations he ate soylent green.
MMMMM.......tastes like chick'n.
(http://www.solarguard.com/tcthree.jpg)
Again, I am in awe of your wit and intellect.
Quote from: Charleston native on June 24, 2008, 04:54:31 PM
What a truly ignorant, intellectually void statement. It just proves you have no clue how a nuclear war is strategized. The objective of launching at missile sites is to destroy as many missiles as possible before launch, and we are not a "first launch" nation. So you figure it out.
Since you probably would watch a movie rather than read a book about it, I highly recommend you getting "The Day After" on DVD. It is one of the most accurate depictions of nuclear war available. Talk to me after you watch it. Thanks.
Do launch officers really strategize on nuclear war or would the order be sent down from above?
I would think it would come from above, otherwise our nuclear strategy would vary based on which launch officer is on duty.
I find it interesting that you two libs (lunican and midway) who claim to support the troops on other occasions are basically attacking the service of a former officer in the US Air Force. Very classy.
BTW, when it comes to this sort of expertise, you two couldnt carry his jock.
I'll leave that to you.
:D ::)
Quote from: Driven1 on June 24, 2008, 01:00:03 PM
one sec...i just found some quite interesting stuff...turns out that we have a fugitive (or this person once was) here posting with us!!
was wanted in another jurisdiction. trying to find out on what charges. I'm not sure if i will be able to find THAT info out at https://showcase.duvalclerk.com/searchCases.aspx.
Is it me? LOL
Quote from: Lunican on June 24, 2008, 11:41:04 PM
I'll leave that to you.
Brilliant!! Finally a profession that suits both his aptitude and demeanor. Miracles do happen!
Quote from: Charleston native on June 24, 2008, 04:54:31 PM
Quote from: Midway on June 24, 2008, 03:05:53 PM
...And, I'm also sure that in the event of a "massive launch" the entire country would become a "nuclear hot zone" so it would not make much difference. But, if you really knew anything about those launch sites, they have no strategic value because if they were targeted, all the missiles would be already launched, and the enemy strike would be upon unpopulated grasslands with empty silos, so actually in the event of nuclear holocaust, that would probably be the safest place to be.
I guess they never told you that.
What a truly ignorant, intellectually void statement. It just proves you have no clue how a nuclear war is strategized. The objective of launching at missile sites is to destroy as many missiles as possible before launch, and we are not a "first launch" nation. So you figure it out.
Since you probably would watch a movie rather than read a book about it, I highly recommend you getting "The Day After" on DVD. It is one of the most accurate depictions of nuclear war available. Talk to me after you watch it. Thanks.
I think that your boy George might have changed that philosophy a bit. But, anyhows, to suggest that the DOD would rely on some mole that lives in a hole in the ground to produce strategy regarding nuclear warfare policy just proves you have been in that hole way too long. That's why they were showing you movies during your training, they wanted to plant some strong images in your head that would override those crazy urges to push that button that you get in the middle of the night. And please don't tell me that it takes more than one person's codes, I already know that, ok?
Is idiocy a natural thing for you Midway, or is it an acquired skill? You and Lunican think with the smidgeon of knowledge of nuclear war that you possess, you honestly know more about nuclear policy than me?That's fine, I'll let you live in your ignorance.
Actually, we watched the movies on our own free time, but they were suggested by our training officers.
River, notice the constant twisting and manipulation of words that these supreme intellectuals use when making their attacks/arguments, such as Lunican's statement about us launch officers strategizing nuclear war. At no time did I say that. It should've been implied that while launch officers don't strategize, we know how it's done by higher ranking officials, because we are trained on the process. I did say that they have no clue how it's done, and the continuous ignorant statements are proving me correct.
Thanks. Now I feel safe. Can I tunnel under your house and live there?
Quote from: Charleston native on June 25, 2008, 09:03:49 AM
Is idiocy a natural thing for you Midway, or is it an acquired skill? You and Lunican think with the smidgeon of knowledge of nuclear war that you possess, you honestly know more about nuclear policy than me?That's fine, I'll let you live in your ignorance.
Actually, we watched the movies on our own free time, but they were suggested by our training officers.
River, notice the constant twisting and manipulation of words that these supreme intellectuals use when making their attacks/arguments, such as Lunican's statement about us launch officers strategizing nuclear war. At no time did I say that. It should've been implied that while launch officers don't strategize, we know how it's done by higher ranking officials, because we are trained on the process. I did say that they have no clue how it's done, and the continuous ignorant statements are proving me correct.
Lol. I've been entertained lately on the forum...that whole giving and giving of the rope sure is paying off in some halarious open mouth insert foot amusement/hanging.
Besides that, I've been glued to the weather channel. Seems we might get a named tropical depression in the next few days. Lightining, fire, wind, flood, um, The Countdown to Armageddon?
What are the signs of Armageddon agian?
Still waiting on the GW predictions to happen....
Quote
Democracy works, but sometimes churns slowly. Time is short. The 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen, if Washington adapts to address climate change, our children and grandchildren can still hold great expectations.
Ehh. (does the 'so-so' hand-shaking gesture)
China recently surpassed the US as the worst carbon-emitting and pollution-producing offender. (Or at the very least, it's slated to do so within the next 1-2 years.) That said, doesn't the 2008 US Presidential election become much less consequential in the grand scheme of things? Shouldn't we (i.e. the industrial and post-industrial, but even moreso the Kyoto Protocol signatories) now turn to China and India and other emerging industrial nations and say "learn from our mistakes and don't repeat them?"
We should.
ALSO:
Quote
Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link.
Well of course they're going to. When outside forces are trying (for whatever reason - good, bad, political, ecological, health, whatever) to aggresivley run you out of business, you're going to try even more aggressively to stay
in business. It's in your best financial interest to fight to keep your business solvent and profitable in an increasingly hostile marketplace. It's financial/economical suicide not to. Otherwise what's the point of being an entrepreneur?
Why is the general reaction to that always shock and disgust?
Quote from: Dr. KWhy is the general reaction to that always shock and disgust?
Because we could be better stewards. I think we're all called to be better stewards and for those of us who are we are always shocked. Kind of like those seal pup head hammerings. What
human wouldn't be shocked by this? Imagine the pup being mother nature. This is what we are doing to Mother Nature.
(http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/sundaymirror2/mar2006/5/6/00018200-4875-1426-B24E0C01AC1BF814.jpg)
Quote from: stephendare on June 25, 2008, 12:06:27 PM
Um. the polar ice caps are melting as predicted, and every forecast made by Hansen in 88 has come to pass. What else would you want?
Actually, this statement is false.
BTW, any source for your posted article? Mother Jones maybe?
Oh and the accuracy of James Hansen's findings and predictions are in serious doubt. He is basically acting as a partisan political figure now rather than as a scientist.
I did a yahoo search of "james hansen liar" and got 497,000 hits. Interesting...
Quote
Because we could be better stewards. I think we're all called to be better stewards and for those of us who are we are always shocked. Kind of like those seal pup head hammerings. What human wouldn't be shocked by this? Imagine the pup being mother nature. This is what we are doing to Mother Nature.
You lost me on the hammering the heads of seal pups, GatorBack, and I think I'm kind of glad. :) I'm all for being a better steward of the planet. I'm very much *not* all for letting politics/government make that decision for me.
My question was why are the haters of big oil and big tobacco and big-this and big-that always so shocked and disgusted that those businesses are trying to stay
in business? I'm not looking for a moral or political fight on this one. I'm merely looking at it from the economics standpoint. From the business aspect, it's common sense that they'd fight to keep themselves in business.
Quote from: stephendare on June 25, 2008, 06:04:31 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 25, 2008, 02:28:13 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 25, 2008, 12:06:27 PM
Um. the polar ice caps are melting as predicted, and every forecast made by Hansen in 88 has come to pass. What else would you want?
Actually, this statement is false.
BTW, any source for your posted article? Mother Jones maybe?
It was posted in multiple formats, Im sure you have found a source for the essay.
By the way, if you are claiming the arctic circle isnt melting you are a liar. And not even a terribly informed one.
However I have noticed that as your obfuscations on the issue have become more strident, your tendency to call people liars has become more hair trigger.
its very unattractive of you.
lol...
(http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/oliphant/oa048.jpg)
QuoteThe phrase "Pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom, used to accuse another speaker of hypocrisy, in that the speaker disparages the subject for a fault or negative behavior that could equally be applied to him or her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
Ohhh.... sot that's what it means when they say "pot meet kettle"! Gee, thanks. I thought he wanted a steak and tea.
The picture really helps me understand. The kettle has very beady eyes, don't you think? I wonder where he's from?
Dr. K.: OK. Perhaps the seal pup was a stretch, however, what I was getting at is simply that for the most part if left unchecked man has always seem to have done the wrong thing, remember strip-mining, Deforestation from underground and surface mining, unfair trade practices, monopolistic competition, etc., etc., etc. Hopefully, as a people we elect representatives that have our best interest in mind. Is our government doing a good job at this? Not at the moment.
I'm not for letting government make some decision for me either, but how else are we going to get things done?