Weather Acting Funny in Your Neighbourhood?


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Postby Pego » Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:19 am

Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby tafnut » Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:31 am

Pego wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change_12


from that report:

That means they agree that there is a 90 percent chance that global warming is caused by humans.


which caused a spike on my BS Meter (despite being a GlobWarm-believer myself). That's a pretty risk-free assessment (unprovable, one way or the other) and it seems in their own best interests to say that as a group, to impower themselves with an authority that " people better listen to us!" Sorry, not impressed (not that I need to be, to see that we may WELL have a problem we'd better address RIGHT NOW).
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby bad hammy » Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:02 am

lonewolf wrote:There is indeed an inexorable global warming now in it 15th millenium, give or take a few millenium. Man did not cause it.

Folks, this isn’t that difficult to understand. While cyclical periods of warming and cooling have been going on since pretty much the beginning of time there is very strong evidence that this particular warming cycle is going to be much more intense than any know previous warming cycles (going back about 400,000 years). The key here is the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which closely coorespond to temperature levels. The historical levels are measured by the atmospheric CO2 levels observed in the Antarctic ice cap. The levels of atmospheric CO2 have risen dramatically over the past 100 or so years, far past any previous levels of any recorded global warming phase, primarily because of our propensity to burn fossil fuels and to cut down forests around the world.

And any information about this year’s weather, last year’s weather or next year’s weather is all a smoke screen for those folks on either side of the discussion (like figo’s long, long note). The whole global climate change thing happens and is evidenced over a much longer period that what is going on in the weather this year.

I nice little CO2 chart from the liberal wingnuts over at the EPA. The peaks and valleys over the years correspond to the Milankovitch cycles figo referenced earlier.

Image
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby figo » Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:54 pm

bham

my long long article was intended to mock and fart in the general direction of those global warmer fadists.... stupid consensus of opinion diatribe spewers... who smell of elderberries..

i do believe but with very modest confidence that indeed co2 introduced by man is warming the planet, but there is also a natural cooling effect setting in (as predicted by the most recent models based on ice core data). so the conclusion remains that co2 (on its own) is a good thing..... burning fossil fuels in light of the above would be to error on the side of safety.

climatology is in it's infancy. the effects of the sun, earth rotation, position in the milky way, oceanic volcanoes, comets, apollo objects, ocean currents, position of land masses, etc, etc,
the basics of the above are just now being studied in earnest with basic principles uncovered.
predictive models will be mostly unreliable until such time as the basics are understood. at that point, it will be very very challenging to understand the interrelationship between the various variables.
so there's a lot to learn and study, many nobel price winning discoveries to be made... lots of fun.

remember recent climate models from our global expert warming crowd p predicted another huge hurricane season...
their sophisticated techniques were essentially spun to come up with what they strongly expected to happen, another big hurricane season.
after the big non-event - virtually no hurricanes at all, you may conclude the model is wrong... dead wrong. needs more work..

while our "experts are working on a better understanding / better models, these dead wrong people are advising with virtual certainty about global warming, a topic which is surely much more complicated that predicting a single hurricane season.
sorry, this bunch need to establish their credentials before they are allowed any say anything what so ever. i mean, they're predicting an uninhabitable mediterranean....no rain... hot ?? what are they going to say if it rains more this year? and next?

what i see from the historical record is that when earths temperature has risen, the effect is generally very good. when temperatures fall, it is very bad news, lots of people die.

ideally, you'd like to pump the equatorial water to the poles somehow.
cooling the equator by several degrees and upping pole temperature by several degrees, what a bonus that would be.
Last edited by figo on Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:39 am, edited 3 times in total.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby tafnut » Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:50 pm

figo wrote:what i see from the historical record is that when earths temperature has risen, the effect is generally very good. when temperatures fall, it is very bad news, lots of people die.


but what's wrong with the 'historical record' is that

a. things have changed - we won't die of exposure if the temperature cools
b. past history cannot predict the future if the variables change significantly and dumping fossil fuels exhaust into the atmosphere is pretty drastic.
c. even if the GlobWarmists are wrong, if we try to cut emissions and conserve our energy use, we still have a great benefit - less pollution and slower use of our depletable natural resources. Why would it NOT make sense to do as the (rational) GlobWarmists ask and try to cut pollution and conserve our natural resources?

I have NO idea if GW actually exists or whether we're just in a normal climatological cycle, but I DO know we're polluting the hell out of the earth and we are wasting resources we can never get back.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby SQUACKEE » Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:00 pm

tafnut wrote:
figo wrote:what i see from the historical record is that when earths temperature has risen, the effect is generally very good. when temperatures fall, it is very bad news, lots of people die.


but what's wrong with the 'historical record' is that

a. things have changed - we won't die of exposure if the temperature cools
b. past history cannot predict the future if the variables change significantly and dumping fossil fuels exhaust into the atmosphere is pretty drastic.
c. even if the GlobWarmists are wrong, if we try to cut emissions and conserve our energy use, we still have a great benefit - less pollution and slower use of our depletable natural resources. Why would it NOT make sense to do as the (rational) GlobWarmists ask and try to cut pollution and conserve our natural resources?

I have NO idea if GW actually exists or whether we're just in a normal climatological cycle, but I DO know we're polluting the hell out of the earth and we are wasting resources we can never get back.


That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby EPelle » Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:03 pm

... and making certain species extinct in the process. I wonder how much the weather and climate changes have affected wildlife in search of shelter and food.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:44 pm

EPelle wrote:... and making certain species extinct in the process. I wonder how much the weather and climate changes have affected wildlife in search of shelter and food.


Animal species come and go all the time, with or without man's 'help'. This one, however, was a pretty spectacular example of man's abilities:

Wikipedia wrote:The Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) or Wild Pigeon is an extinct species of pigeon that was once the most common bird in North America. It is estimated that there were as many as five billion Passenger Pigeons in the United States at the time Europeans arrived in North America.


:shock:
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby MJD » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:07 pm

This is fairly bizarre but I guess it has happened before. An avalanche in WNY:

http://www.wgrz.com/news/news_article.a ... ryid=44546


Everyone was whining about the lack of snow and cold in these parts and now they are compliaing because we are getting too much of a good thing.

http://tinyurl.com/yrpteg

Difficult to please baby boomers. That's why all the booze and drugs.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby figo » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:11 pm

tafnut wrote:
figo wrote:what i see from the historical record is that when earths temperature has risen, the effect is generally very good. when temperatures fall, it is very bad news, lots of people die.


but what's wrong with the 'historical record' is that

a. things have changed - we won't die of exposure if the temperature cools
b. past history cannot predict the future if the variables change significantly and dumping fossil fuels exhaust into the atmosphere is pretty drastic.
c. even if the GlobWarmists are wrong, if we try to cut emissions and conserve our energy use, we still have a great benefit - less pollution and slower use of our depletable natural resources. Why would it NOT make sense to do as the (rational) GlobWarmists ask and try to cut pollution and conserve our natural resources?

I have NO idea if GW actually exists or whether we're just in a normal climatological cycle, but I DO know we're polluting the hell out of the earth and we are wasting resources we can never get back.


the above is quite reasonable, very and represents in a nutshell standard environmental green thinking.

for sure pollution is bad, smog is bad, killing the fish in the ocean is bad, destroying our environment is bad, wasting non-renewable resources is bad.

bad bad bad. yes, yes, yes.
i hate concrete, i hate factories, i hate over population.
i think everyone should practice birth control except for me and my clan (some of them anyway), of course.....

so it looks like i'm contradicting myself here.
a bit at least.

the hypothesis i'm putting forward is that the byproduct of burning fossil fuels may be a positive side effect - warming - and is worth consideration.

if this cooling effect is real and profound maybe we'll be looking at some artificial means of warming the planet.

i'm wondering if we can burn fossil fuels in a clean way, it is not such a bad thing and that non-renewable resources such (oil and gas) may last a lot longer than we think. once nonrenewable resources become scarce, there seem to be a great variety of energy sources to tap into, wind, hydro, thermal, fission and fusion.

in any event, given the ice age cycle, co2 and methane production might not make that much of a dent in the big picture.

overall man does tend to have a nasty effect on the environment, but nature really delivers the ko punch.... mass extinction events, dinosaurs, large mammals, many past civilizations?

science, cooperation and technology practiced with mature wisdom will be a key to our long term survival.

practicing an ill conceived mixture of warped poli-science will lead to a massive waste of time at best.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby lonewolf » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:14 pm

figo, you express our mutual opinion so much more eloquently than I.

I hereby appoint you as my proxy and I am going back to working on my taxes.. or a nap.. whichever comes first.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby tafnut » Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:44 pm

figo wrote:overall man does tend to have a nasty effect on the environment


I see we are in complete 100% agreement :D so would it be a BAD thing to cool our ramjets and consider how NOT to have this 'nasty effect'?
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby figo » Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:05 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02 ... index.html

global warming escalates downward...

Science and Space News - CNN - Report links global warming to humans

The phrase "very likely" translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man.
What that means in layman's language is "we have this nailed," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who originated the percentage system.
It marked an escalation from the panel's last report in 2001, which said warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to up the ante to "virtually certain" man causes global warming, which translates to 99 percent chance.
On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues. (Watch how rising sea levels could affect San Francisco Video)

The 2001 report projected a sea level rise of up to 35 inches.


ok, we have a 90 percent chance they know the cause of global warming but maybe 99 percent certain at any moment which is a 9% increase which is impressive in itself. the IQ of it all.
in the article they "escalate" from 2001 a rise in sea level from 35 inches down to 7-23 inches. which is a drop roughly of 500% (35/7) to 35/23 (50%) . which could be augmented by 4-8 inches...... to be on the safe side???

anyone here see how this percentage system adds up?

how about getting our scientist friends to play russian roulette, i mean it's a 1/6 chance, versus 1/10, our scientist would be very likely certain to live through the first round and almost quite very likely virtually certain to live past a few rounds.
hell a whole team of percentage scientists could play russian roulette without any very likely risk of death.....but if someone does eat the bullet, they could use the augmentation factor to show that he's not actually dead, leading to the following probable (90%+) conversation......

C: my lad. I wish to complain about this scientist what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

O: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian..What's,uh...What's wrong with him?

C: I'll tell you what's wrong with him, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with him!

O: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

C: Look, matey, I know a dead scientist when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

O: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable researcher, the Norwegian , idn'e, ay? Beautiful suit!

C: The suit don't enter into it. He's stone dead.

O: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

C: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!


'Ello, Mister Doctor Scientist! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show
O: There, he moved!

C: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the doc!

O: I never!!

C: Yes, you did!

O: I never, never did anything...

C: (yelling and hitting the doc repeatedly) 'ELLO DOCTOR!!!!!

Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Takes scientist out of the doc and thumps his head on the counter. Throws him up in the air and watches him plummet to the floor.)

C: Now that's what I call a dead scientist.

O: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!

C: STUNNED?!?

O: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegians stun easily, major.

C: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That scientist is definitely deceased, and when I purchased him not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that his total lack of movement was due to him bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

O: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

C: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?

O: The Norwegian prefers kippin' on his's back! Remarkable researcher, id'nit, squire? Lovely suit!

C: Look, I took the liberty of examining that scientist when I got him home, and I discovered the only reason that he had been sitting on his perch in the first place was that he'd had been NAILED there.

(pause)

O: Well, o'course he was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that researcher down, he would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

C: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this researcher wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!

O: No no! 'E's pining!

C: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This scientist is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!

'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!

'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig!

'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!

THIS IS AN EX-SCIENTIST!!

(pause)

O: Well, I'd better replace it, then.

(he takes a quick peek behind the counter)

O: Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of scientists.

C: I see. I see, I get the picture.

O: I got a slug.

(pause)

C: (sweet as sugar) Pray, does it talk?

O: Nnnnot really.

C: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

O: Look, if you go to my brother's university in Bolton, he'll replace the scientist for you.

C: Bolton, eh? Very well.

The customer leaves.

The customer enters the same university. The owner is putting on a false moustache.

C: This is Bolton, is it?

O: (with a fake mustache) No, it's Ipswitch.

C: (looking at the camera) That's inter-city rail for you.

The customer goes to the train station.

He addresses a man standing behind a desk marked "Complaints".

C: I wish to complain, British-Railways Person.

Attendant: I DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS JOB, YOU KNOW!!!

C: I beg your pardon...?

A: I'm a qualified brain surgeon! I only do this job because I like being my own boss!

C: Excuse me, this is irrelevant, isn't it?

A: Yeah, well it's not easy to pad these python files out to 200 lines, you know.

C: Well, I wish to complain. I got on the Bolton train and found myself deposited here in Ipswitch.

A: No, this is Bolton.

C: (to the camera) The university man's brother was lying!!

A: Can't blame British Rail for that.

C: In that case, I shall return to the university!

He does.

C: I understand this IS Bolton.

O: (still with the fake mustache) Yes?

C: You told me it was Ipswitch!

O: ...It was a pun.

C: (pause) A PUN?!?

O: No, no...not a pun...What's that thing that spells the same backwards as forwards?

C: (Long pause) A palindrome...?

O: Yeah, that's it!

C: It's not a palindrome! The palindrome of "Bolton" would be "Notlob"!! It don't work!!

O: Well, what do you want?

C: I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!

Sergeant-Major: Quite agree, quite agree, too silly, far too silly...
Last edited by figo on Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:45 am, edited 3 times in total.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:57 pm

"non-consensus" among scientists about global warming

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605&rfp=dta
Kyoto is pointless, say 60 leading scientists

4 Apr 2006 - In an open letter to Canada 's new Conservative prime minister,
Stephen Harper, more than 60 leading international climate change experts have
asked him to review the global warming policies he inherited from his center-left
predecessor.

"Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in
Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in
climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.

There is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the
various causes of global climate change, they wrote. Study of global climate
change is an "emerging science."

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to
convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause.
Neither of these fears is justified.

"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact
still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise'."

The list of brave signatories (below) looks like a list of “Who’s Who” of the
world’s scientists.

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology,
Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans,
former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth
sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor,
Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology),
Carleton University , Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate
professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University , Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada.
Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences,
Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph , Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg ; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa ;
consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological
Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological
Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of
the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical
Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University
of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in
environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University
of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University , Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor
to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in
climatology at University of Exeter , U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va. , and Sioux
Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant,
Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey , B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth,
Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton , N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology , Oregon State University; Oregon
State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences,
University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of
Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University , Townsville , Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National
Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to
World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and
Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands
Meteorological Institute Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist,
Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New
Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University , Stockholm , Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas , Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center ,
The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon , France ;
former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases,
Paris , France . Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central
Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw , Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull ,
U.K. ; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael
Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist
who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas , past director
and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of
Wyoming ; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService)
of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse
Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington , N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science,
Liverpool John Moores University , U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College
London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems
Engineering, University of Pretoria , South Africa . Member, United Nations
Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of
Virginia ; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope
geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for
Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological &
Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept.
of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston , Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book
The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA,
and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and
carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria , Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey
of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki , Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and
Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University , Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Calif. ; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University,
The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied
research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College , Cambridge , U.K. ; international
economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:08 pm

Massive underwater volcanic eruptions may cause arctic ice to melt
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2003/pressRelease20030718/index.html
Underwater volcanic activity in the Arctic Ocean
far stronger than anyone ever imagined!

German-American researchers have discovered more hydrothermal activity at the Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic Ocean than anyone ever imagined.

"The Gakkel ridge is a gigantic volcanic mountain chain stretching beneath the Arctic Ocean. With its deep valleys 5,500 meters beneath the sea surface and its 5,000 meter- high summits, Gakkel ridge is far mightier than the Alps."

Two research icebreakers, the "USCGC Healy" from USA and the German "PFS Polarstern," recently joined forces in the international expedition AMORE (Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge Expedition). In attendance were scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and other international institutions.

The scientists had expected that the Gakkel ridge would exhibit "anemic" magmatism. Instead, they found "surprisingly strong magmatic activity in the West and the East of the ridge and one of the strongest hydrothermal activities ever seen at mid-ocean ridges."
"The Gakkel ridge extends about 1800 kilometers beneath the Arctic Ocean from north of Greenland to Siberia, and is the northernmost portion of the mid-ocean ridge system."

To their surprise, the researchers found high levels of volcanic activity. Indeed, magmatism was "dramatically" higher than expected.

Hydrothermal hot springs on the seafloor were also far more abundant than predicted. "We expected this to be a hydrothermally dead ridge, and almost every time our water measurement instrument came up, they showed evidence of hydrothermal activity, and once we even 'saw' an active hot spring on the sea floor," said Dr. Jonathan Snow, the leader of the research group from the Max Planck Institute.

No wonder the ice is melting!


(From the Max Planck Society, 18 July 2003, The Fiery Face of the Arctic Deep.)

Hydrothermal vents pumping 500-degree water into Arctic Ocean
– Aug 20, 2005 - Researchers have discovered the northernmost hydrothermal
vents in the world along the Mohns Ridge in the Arctic Ocean . "I've seen a lot of
hydrothermal systems all over the world's oceans," said Adam Schultz, a
geophysicist from Oregon State University ’s College of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Sciences," and these Arctic fields are spectacular."

"We found two large high-temperature fields and as we explored them, we would
come upon a large mound of chimneys with superheated water jetting out of them,"
Schultz said. "Then in the distance, we'd see another mound and then beyond that,
another one, and so on." Temperatures in one field reached as high as 260 degrees C (500F). Temperatures may have approached 300C (572F) in the second field. "

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050819123850.htm
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby lonewolf » Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:52 pm

Thank you, figo for researching and articulating all this good information. I have the same conclusions stored in my mental data bank , without remembering the details. I am too old, tired and lazy to look it up but am happy to add a resounding Amen and hold your coat..
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby figo » Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:21 am

lonewolf wrote:Thank you, figo for researching and articulating all this good information. I have the same conclusions stored in my mental data bank , without remembering the details. I am too old, tired and lazy to look it up but am happy to add a resounding Amen and hold your coat..


many thanks for the kind thanks.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby tafnut » Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:43 am

I also appreciate all the time and effort you've put into this, figo, and I'm still on the fence as to what is real or imagined in re: GlobWarm, but nothing you have posted addresses what I consider the pressing issue confronting us. Shouldn't we be more Earth-friendly right now??!! As you you yourself have noted, man is treating Mother Nature rather shabbily. If that is true (and we all seem to be in agreement that it IS), shouldn't we ALL be environmentally-aware conservationists? Shouldn't we be trying to lower emissions, fossil fuel uses, and pollution-causing industries? We've only got this one planet to play with, so using it as our own personal cat box seems very counter-productive to own our best interests!
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby lonewolf » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:08 am

You will get no argument from me, tafnut, that perhaps we "should" do the things you mention. They will certainly do no harm nor do I think they will make an ultimate difference. My point is, IMO, the doomsday scenario is overdone and, at least partially, driven by personal and political agendas.

I am off now on this 5 F globally warmed February morning to officiate the first indoor track meet of the season at Univ Okla.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby EPelle » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:20 am

14 killed in Florida today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_ ... re_weather

Does man-made weather change have any significant bearing on tornadoes?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:47 am

lonewolf wrote: My point is, IMO, the doomsday scenario is overdone and, at least partially, driven by personal and political agendas.

Undoubtedly. But the same is true of the "everything is ok--there's nothing amiss" scenario. It's a lamentable fact of life that important scientific issues have become polticized. That should never happen, but it does happen regularly these days.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby MJD » Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:48 am

More reality. A bit too much of a good thing. Have driven in this nonsense before-not this time. Run will be fun:


/O.CON.KBUF.LE.W.0007.070204T0000Z- 070205T1100Z/ /O.CON.KBUF.WC.Y. 0002.070204T0300Z-070205T1500Z/ CHAUTAUQUA-CATTARAUGUS-ALLEGANY- INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...JAMESTOWN... OLEAN...WELLSVILLE 645 AM EST SAT FEB 3 2007

...LAKE EFFECT SNOW WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM 7 PM THIS EVENING TO 6 AM EST MONDAY... ...WIND CHILL ADVISORY REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM 10 PM THIS EVENING TO 10 AM EST MONDAY...

A LAKE EFFECT SNOW WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM 7 PM THIS EVENING TO 6 AM EST MONDAY. A WIND CHILL ADVISORY REMAINS IN EFFECT FROM 10 PM THIS EVENING TO 10 AM EST MONDAY.

LAKE EFFECT SNOWS HAVE LIFTED NORTH OUT OF THE AREA THIS MORNING... THEREFORE THE LAKE EFFECT SNOW ADVISORY FOR THIS MORNING HAS BEEN CANCELLED.

THE REGION WILL GET A RESPITE FROM LAKE SNOWS TODAY. HOWEVER...A SECOND COLD FRONT WILL CROSS THE REGION THIS EVENING WITH A BURST OF SNOW...THEN THE FOLLOWING WESTERLY FLOW WILL AGAIN PRODUCE HEAVY LAKE SNOWS ACROSS THE REGION TONIGHT THROUGH MONDAY MORNING. TOTAL ACCUMULATIONS OF UP TO TWO FEET OF ADDITIONAL SNOW ARE POSSIBLE SATURDAY NIGHT THROUGH SUNDAY NIGHT.

STRONG WESTERLY WINDS OF 15 TO 25 MPH WILL COMBINE WITH TEMPERATURES IN THE SINGLE DIGITS TO CREATE WIND CHILL VALUES IN THE 15 TO 25 BELOW RANGE LATER TONIGHT AND SUNDAY.

IN LAKE EFFECT SNOW THE WEATHER CAN VARY FROM LOCALLY HEAVY SNOW IN NARROW BANDS TO CLEAR SKIES JUST A FEW MILES AWAY. IF YOU WILL BE TRAVELING ACROSS THE REGION BE PREPARED FOR RAPID CHANGES IN ROAD AND VISIBILITY CONDITIONS.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby cullman » Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:23 am

We're getting a break from thinking about global warming ATTS (and that there stuff) for the next week or two up here in the PNW.

"Judith Lavoie, CanWest News Service
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

VICTORIA — Scientists are warning that if B.C.’s south coast is going to be hit by an earthquake soon, it’s likely to happen during the next week."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/natio ... 40&k=92513

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby Mennisco » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:42 am

We're in a nice box up here in Toronto.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby dukehjsteve » Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:48 am

Down here in balmy Indianapolis, it is 4 below. Hope they give the Colts' players heavy jackets before the Victory Parade this afternoon.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Postby figo » Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:09 am

i'm looking around for actual data on global warming.. direct data, no spins, no conclusions, raw data.
stuff like an average temperature now of say 500 weather stations versus historical averages, say from the last 100 years.
can't find it googling... you'd think this kind of data would be readily available ???
or sea levels around the world, averages of 200 ports....
or crop yields, growing seasons length world wide,....
or ocean temperature averages...
a list of all glaciers advancing - receding, snowfall accumulations and such.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html

my haphazard study indicates that the north is seemingly warming quite a bit as compared to the last 30-50 years but also the southern hemisphere is cooling by a bit.... i'm wondering if the earth averages are taken mostly from the north creating a bias, you'd like to balance north and south readings.. equal amounts of stations by longitude and latitude, geographic location (inland - sea).

for the north, you'd like to account for thermal warming of the arctic ocean caused by under water volcanoes, has this activity increased these last few years, accounting for the entire global warming effect??? according to the literature, there is virtually no historical data as most of the thermal contribution from volcanoes was uncovered in the last few years.... at least monitoring can start now in earnest, they should put some of their global warming dollars into research in this area...

or how about solar cycles - more / less radiation, what portion of the warming equation does the sun (output) account for.?? for sure solar activity varies a lot when it comes to solar storms (sunspots) and more energetic radiation output (uv, xray, high energy solar wind - particles coming earths way....


sunspot data - uv solar output equivalent?
note in the lows of the 1600's correspond very well with a little ice age, and the 1950's + corresponding now with a longer term warming effect????????

Image
Image
ideally, the global warmers would post all of this data on a single website.....
spend some global warmer government dollars there.
don't you think? or maybe it's out there already?

anyone find sources for raw data?
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby Mennisco » Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:46 am

I can't look for raw data right now but for heaven's sake if 2500 scientists under the auspices of the UN have now declared that the data shows unequivocally that we are ruining our climate, when does this silly debate stop?
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby MJD » Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:49 am

I think I heard someone say that they said it was actually 95% so there is a bit of wiggle room there.
Last edited by MJD on Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby tandfman » Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:10 am

A 95% likelihood that we're ruining the planet's climate should be enough to concern us. They're clearly not talking about a remote worst case scenario. It's as close as we're going to get to reality, and I agree with Mennisco and others who think that it's time to stop debating whether it's happening and it's time to start focusing all of our efforts on what the heck we're going to do about it.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Mennisco » Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:49 am

MJD wrote:I think I heard someone say that they said it was actaully 95% so there is a bit of wiggle room there.


Spoken like a true actuary :wink:

How many honey bees can do the Waggle Dance while shitfaced on Waggledance in the middle of a ferocious typhoon named Waggarina? :shock:

http://beergeek.stores.yahoo.net/yowahoal20.html
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby MJD » Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:49 am

I am not saying I disagree. I was just surprised at the 95%. The eco extremists talk about a virtual certainty and, as usual, it is the extremists that always hurt your case. To a mathematician, there is a big difference between virtual certainty and 95%.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Mennisco » Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:59 am

MJD wrote:I am not saying I disagree. I was just surprised at the 95%. The eco extremists talk about a virtual certainty and, as usual, it is the extremists that always hurt your case. To a mathematician, there is a big difference between virtual certainty and 95%.


True, and then I am also reminded of the current "rush hour traffic" warning dished out to BC as she's at 1 in 4000 odds of a catastrophic quake as we spake. It's more of an odds game than anything requiring absolute certainty, which I'd argue we're never gonna get anyway - problems of imperfection in climate models due to uncertainty in some variables for starters.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby SQUACKEE » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:15 pm

Da Ruskies are gonna nuke us.
Over population will be the death us
Some kinda of bug is gonna wipe out the human race
An asteriod could hit at any time wiping out all life.
A mega quake will cause a huge wave to wipe out coastal areas.
Global cooling will send the earth into an iceage
The disappearing rain forest will doom mankind
Nuclear power plants will blowup spreading deadly stuff all over da place
Jehoval witness's say the world will end in 1976
Pesticides are gonna kill us
Trans fatty acids are gonna kill us
second hand smoke is gonna kill us
Terrorist will get nukes and blowup american cities
Many say the world will end in the year 2000
Global warming will ruin our weather in a few decades

Im sick of all this crap. Im not saying it isnt true but im sick of it.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Daisy » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:20 pm

SQUACKEE wrote:Im sick of all this crap. Im not saying it isnt true but im sick of it.


I think you mean "I will be dead of it".
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:20 pm

SQUACKEE wrote:Jehoval witness's say the world will end in 1976


And only 100k get in I hear? Doesn't that make recruiting difficult?
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby tafnut » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:21 pm

SQUACKEE wrote:Im not saying it isnt true but im sick of it.


Which is EXACTLY what they've been saying all along - you WILL be sick of it. :D

Hype is just that - hype. The bad thing now is that people have been crying 'Wolf' for so long, when the real one comes, no one will believe it!!!
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby SQUACKEE » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:29 pm

Daisy wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Im sick of all this crap. Im not saying it isnt true but im sick of it.


I think you mean "I will be dead of it".


"Get on with the living or get on with the dying."
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby SQUACKEE » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:31 pm

MJD wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Jehoval witness's say the world will end in 1976


And only 100k get in I hear? Doesn't that make recruiting difficult?


Its 160k i believe but all 10 million or whatever think theyre one of the special few.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby SQUACKEE » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:34 pm

tafnut wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Im not saying it isnt true but im sick of it.


Which is EXACTLY what they've been saying all along - you WILL be sick of it. :D

Hype is just that - hype. The bad thing now is that people have been crying 'Wolf' for so long, when the real one comes, no one will believe it!!!


But which wolf is real and which wolf is a ghost? That is the question.But in the end it really doesnt matter, does it?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Mennisco » Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:04 pm

SQUACKEE wrote:
tafnut wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Im not saying it isnt true but im sick of it.


Which is EXACTLY what they've been saying all along - you WILL be sick of it. :D

Hype is just that - hype. The bad thing now is that people have been crying 'Wolf' for so long, when the real one comes, no one will believe it!!!


But which wolf is real and which wolf is a ghost? That is the question.But in the end it really doesnt matter, does it?


Sure it matters. It ain't too late to do nothing about it.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 10 guests