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 figo » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:23 pm

cullman wrote:
figo wrote:good thing for the internet, these kind of bogus simple minded theories are getting shot down much quicker than in the old days, where some politically powerful group could drag crap theories on and on before the bubble burst.

...or it could be used to perpetuate "bogus simple minded theories."

Steve Milloy, former tobacco lobby shill and current mouthpiece for the petrochemical dudes runs this site: http://www.junkscience.com/

cman


hmmmm.
got to think about this...
i've thought about these kind of things for quite awhile, which is not to say that i've got a handle on the whole thiing.
i'd buy the thought that simple minded and semi bogus to bogus theories can gather some steam...and get in the way of "serious science.

that said, science proceeds best when you limit the politics and agendas, power groups.

recently with the advent of google-internet you have serious academics having the ability to express theory unencumbered leading to an phenomenal advances.

its a revolution.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby lonewolf » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:37 pm

Another complicating factor in changing sea level debate that I have not seen discussed:
The melted ice now below water will occupy less volume as water.
perhaps balanced by the addition of water volume when ice now above water melts.
I have not idea what the percenage of ice above an below water is:
I dunno, just a thought.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby figo » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:06 am

lonewolf wrote:Another complicating factor in changing sea level debate that I have not seen discussed:
The melted ice now below water will occupy less volume as water.
perhaps balanced by the addition of water volume when ice now above water melts.
I have not idea what the percenage of ice above an below water is:
I dunno, just a thought.


good point, something which is obvious which i did not think of...
certainly should have.....
ice in the sea melting won't make much difference at all in the sea level.

the whole thing gets more complex in that much of antarctica is below sea level, the soulth pole is under water... but if the ice melts, the continent will rise, due to the mile (high) or so of ice of "its back"

given that antarctica is reported to be cooling off or is at least stable in temperature, really you only have greenland ice to consider.

i'm sure that proper scientists will factor all of the above into upcomming predictions of sea level rising...

no 50 foot rise in sea levels it would seem. perhaps a meter? in the next 20 years...

anyway, with this little conversation on track and field news we have exposed many variables in the ice melting sea rise equation, some of which were not considered by some of the so called experts working in high places.....like us gov....

really, it makes you wonder about a so called scientist that simply calculated the total volume of ice in the world and figured that it would automatically go into sea level rise, alarming the track and field world for no reason...

but time and time again this is the way it goes when so called experts opinions are not subject to critique .....
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby lonewolf » Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:30 am

[/quote} no 50 foot rise in sea levels it would seem. perhaps a meter? in the next 20 years....[/quote]

In my semi-professional opinion, I think any worldwide rise in sea level will be minimal for a verrry long time. There is natural subsidence in some coastal areas ( South Louisiana, for example) partially because the delta is not being replinished with annual floods as it was for 15,000 years after the last ice age before we started messing with Mother Nature.
I am certainly no authority on Antartica but as a geologist, I am skeptical that there will be any appreciable rise in the Antartic continent, even if all the ice melts, an unlikely event. Antartica is hard rock which I do not expect to rebound.
Even though unconsolidated sediments can and do subside when large amount of liquids (oil and water) are removed (Long Beach oil field, for example) I cannot think of an example where the reverse is true.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby figo » Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:56 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AntarcticaRockSurface.jpg

The geological study of Antarctica has been greatly hindered by the fact that nearly all of the continent is permanently covered with a thick layer of ice. However, new techniques such as remote sensing have begun to reveal the structures beneath the ice.


Geologically, West Antarctica closely resembles the Andes of South America...

[url]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Peninsula
[/url]
The Scandinavian peninsula occupies part of the Baltic Shield, a stable and large crust segment formed of very old, metamorphic crystalline rocks. Most of the soil covering this substrate was scraped by glaciers during continental glaciation, specially in the northern part, where the shield is nearest the surface. As a consequence of this scouring, the elevation and the climate, a very small percentage of land is arable (3% in Norway)[4]. The glaciers also deepened river valleys, which were invaded by the sea when the ice melted, creating the famous fjords. In the south the glaciers deposited many sedimental deposits, configuring a very chaotic landscape.[5]

Altought the Baltic Shield is largely stable and resistant to the influences of other neighboring tectonic formations, the weight of nearly four kilometers of ice sheet caused the terrain to sink down. When the ice sheet disappeared, the shield rose again, a tendency that continues to this day at a rate of about 1 meter per century[5]. Conversely, the south part has tended to sink down to compensate, causing the flooding of the Low Countries and Denmark.

The crystalline substrate and absence of soil exposes mineral deposits of metals, like iron, copper, nickel, zinc, silver and gold.


reality in these concepts is that old viking ports are now 20-50 km inland....

the point of all of this is that the geology of antarctica is not well known. the known gelolgy of the situation implies to me that if the ice is rermoved the land mass will rise big time and long time......

anyway, antarctica may ice actually be growing in size

here is a fun site that lists many many glaciers growing in recent years...\
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/7/story.cfm?c_id=7&objectid=10363304
New Zealand Herald
The Department of Conservation is worried someone will be killed as giant chunks of ice are falling from rapidly advancing glaciers in the middle of the peak visitor season.

Staff believe the risk of ice collapse at the face of the Fox and Franz Josef Glaciers is high and visitors are ignoring warning signs and putting themselves at risk.

Both glaciers are advancing at the rate of about a metre a week.


http://www.iceagenow.com/Antarctic_Ice_sheet_Growing_Sea_Levels_Falling.htm
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby Daisy » Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:32 pm

lonewolf wrote:I have not idea what the percenage of ice above an below water is:
I dunno, just a thought.


As far as i am aware part of the calculations are based on the Greenland ice sheet, which is all above water.

"If the Greenland ice sheet melted completely, it would raise global sea levels by about 7m." from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4720536.stm
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:58 pm

Thank you for the reference figo and Daisy.

I am not qualified to debate these learned bodies quantatively but I am not ready to panic.
The earth, in some configuration, will survive the inevitable, slow, massive changes induced by geologic forces and weather cycles. Species, including man, will adapt or become extinct as they always have .
Many former seaports are now inland, others are underwater., some gradually, some cataclysmically . Mountain chains, comprised of the detritus of older land masses were once sea beds.
We are only here for a century or so, future generations will cope. There is really nothing we can do about it. I am just gonna relax , wait for this ice storm to pass and not sweat the big stuff..
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby figo » Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:52 pm

http://www.iceagenow.com/A_hundred_years_for_sea_levels_to_rise_half_an_inch.htm

greenland melting....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6069506.stm

0.3 mm per year estimated rise of oceans..... maybe.
or 0.4 inches per 100 years....
estimates vary by 200-300%
some say the ice in the center of greenland is getting thicker while losing ice on the edge..
need more data to figure out what's what.

and antarctica may well take up that precipitation, not to mention changes in the biomass and atmospheric total h20........ there are reports of record snow accumulation in 2006......

.......
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:01 pm

Falling sea levels

The tiny country of Tuvalu is not cooperating with global warming models. In the early 1990s, scientists warned that the Pacific coral atoll of nine islands - only 12 feet above sea level at its highest point - would vanish within decades, swamped by rising seas. Sea levels were supposedly rising at the rate of 1.5 inches per year.

However, new measurements show that sea levels have fallen 2.5 inches since that time. Similar sea-level declines have been recorded in Nauru and the Solomon Islands. (London Telegraph, 6 Aug 2000)


"The Maldives in the central Indian Ocean consist of some 1,200
individual islands grouped in about 20 larger atolls," says Mörner.
In-as-much as the islands rise only three to seven feet above sea
level, they have been condemned by the IPCC to flooding in the
near future.

Mörner disagrees with this scenario. "In our study of the coastal
dynamics and the geomorphology of the shores," writes Mörner,
"we were unable to detect any traces of a recent sea level rise.
On the contrary, we found quite clear morphological indications
of a recent fall in sea level."

Mörner’s group found that sea levels stood about 60 cm higher
around A.D. 1150 than today, and more recently, about 30 cm
higher than today.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Sea_levels_are_falling.htm

Arctic sea level has been falling by a little over 2mm a year - a movement that sets the region against the global trend of rising waters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N45/C2.jsp
atlantic, southern oceans measurements indicate a drop in sea level....

this global warming water rising stuff is getting very laughable..... maybe the science joke of the century, kind of like year 2k?
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby lonewolf » Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:41 pm

Another thought:

How do we evaluate the relative effect of seafloor volcano growth displacing water, theoretically raising sea level in a smaller total ocean basin concurrent with sea floor spreading and continental drift compression theoretically increasing basin capacity?

One monstrous volcanic eruption can blanket the earth with sun blocking material, inducing a mini-ice age, setting global warming back decades, centuries, milleniums. Who knows? Not I. Or you.

The incomprehensible number of variables render puny mankind unable to identify them all or do anything about those he can.

There is a finite amount of water and rock, excluding insignificant occasional additions from outer space, in the world. God, Mother Nature or whoever is in charge of distribution of this material will arrange it as he/she/it, they see fit.

So, I renew my recommendation to lighten up about auto emissions and bovine flatulance and enjoy our alloted life span. Dismissing the improbability of reincarnation,it is the only one we get.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby tafnut » Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:28 pm

figo wrote:this global warming water rising stuff is getting very laughable..... maybe the science joke of the century, kind of like year 2k?


Google "global warming" and read only the scientific evidence of its very real existence and effect. The 'ice cap melting' scares, however, are just that - 'scares' - in an attempt to get people talking about the 'greenhouse effect' that we are causing. Laugh at your own risk. It may not affect us at all; it's my unborn great-grandkids I'm worried about. In the 1970s it was the big 'Population Bomb' scare that dominated the media. And it worked: fertility rates fell, especially in 'first-world' countries that took it seriously. No one is saying that DRASTIC measures are in order RIGHT NOW, but it behooves us to take this seriously enough to investigate thoroughly.

The Y2K Scare also worked - computer program patches prevented the brunt of the problem (which was, of course, over-hyped to begin with).
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby figo » Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:57 pm

i'm leaning to thinking the side effect of co2 emissions is actually good.
probably we're better off with a couple of more degrees...
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby figo » Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:02 pm

global warming causes freezing weather again...

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2007/01/16/biz/news04.txt

Freeze destroys 70 percent of California orange crop
By Los Angeles Times
Jan 16, 2007 - 06:59:08 am PST
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby EPelle » Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:04 am

Climate perils push doomsday clock forward a couple minutes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070117/sc_ ... clock_dc_4
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby figo » Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:00 pm

It was quite an eruption. As summarized in the book Volcano Cowboys (see bibliography), for nine hours the volcano released the energy of one atomic bomb every second. St. Helens triggered the largest landslide in recorded history -- enough rock and crud to fill a football field 600 miles high.

http://whyfiles.org/031volcano/

a quick off the top retort is that a global village idiot could shoot off a dozen nukes and the overall effect would be less than one significant volcanic eruption.

also the radioactivity of two nukes in japan did not exactly destroy that country as in a few decades the country became the #2 economy with the longest life span in the world.......

that said, nuke scares are good in the sense that people become aware of a potential serious problem....

but the spin doctors use such scares to get their way with political agendas, i.e. weapons of mass destruction for an oil play....

the mass media right now are towing these overblown items,
the real village idiots are the apathetic public and mass media sucking up to these foolhardy notions....

by in large i don't include the track and field public here to be generally not among the idiots....
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby bad hammy » Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:55 pm

figo wrote:the real village idiots are the apathetic public and mass media sucking up to these foolhardy notions....

If they are apathetic they aren’t sucking up to any notion - they are not paying attention at all. The real problems are the people who:

a. are positive that they know it all;

b. are positive that they know more than any of the scientists who are published;

c. are positive that because scientists were once behind a now-disproven ‘fact’ that scientists are never to be trusted again;

d. are positive that these theories are wrong without investigating anything beyond searching the internet to find other people who do not believe in these theories (always a tough thing to find on the internet).
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby figo » Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:39 pm

bham

right you are.

i'm not positive about very much of the stuff i post, which is not to say that i don't assign a reasonable probability of potential truth to it,
i try to approach topics from a common sense point of view and attempt to provide references which are not too crack potish...

my stuff may come off as a know it all...
suffice it to say i know less than 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 %
of what there is to know.

anyway the stuff i post is meant mostly to inspire thinking....
my attitude is go ahead and google the topic if you're into it and consider my line of thinking (which is often borrowed from others).

and in my opinion, based on experience, the politically correct / apathetic bunch out there contribute to most of the world's evil. you need to look closely at "accepted notions" as the powers that be tend to spin things for personal gain of some sort.

it took a career to figure out these basic things...

so i'm willing to battle and debate points raised.
in fact in my field, i've battled many a Ph.D,. many a, year many a time..

still the reader needs to be advised, the topics raised in this post are not within my professional area of expertise, i just study a lot of areas out of personal interest, it's fun.

there you have it, beer time.
figo
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Postby bad hammy » Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:27 pm

figo,

Unfortunately I have absolutely no area of expertise, so I spout off about subjects left and right with equal ignorance.

I do know that the global warming folks have a lot of interesting and enlightening facts to back up their assertions, and have convinced a lot of people a whole lot smarter than me that things are going in the wrong direction, and to a degree unknown in hundreds of thousands of years, even taking those Milankovitch cycles into account. (Best as I can tell the general consensus about the Milankovitch cycles is that they are responsible for the various ice ages we’ve had over the years).

That said, the best thing about the global warning folks is that their solutions are things that are good for us and the environment, even if the global warming thing turns out to be bogus (and in the timeframe that these things happen most or all of us will not be around to find out for sure one way or the other).

Reduce the burning of oil and coal. Fair enough. Both are major environmental polluters; oil makes what happens in the Middle East a lot more important than it would be if our power juice wasn’t there, and oil & coal production are both ugly businesses in many, many ways.

Reforest the earth where we can, another nice thing to do even if global warming turns out to be bogus. Wind/solar/tidal power, hydrogen fuel cells, hybrids, energy efficient appliances, etc. None of these are bad things.

Other than the ‘I hate Gore’ folks I have a hard time figuring why there is so much hostility to the idea that global warming is potentially real and taking steps to mitigate it. All of those steps are great for us and the earth, even if global warming turns out to be the hoax of the century.

OK, I’m with you on beer time (except that I still have a couple of hours at work and a workout ahead of me still).
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:51 pm

bad hammy wrote:Unfortunately I have absolutely no area of expertise, so I spout off about subjects left and right with equal ignorance. blah . . .blah . . . blah . . . tree-hugging eco-PC BS . . . yada, yada, yada . . . All of those steps are great for us and the earth, even if global warming turns out to be the hoax of the century.


Even though BadHam is obviously a commie pinko, bleeding-heart left wing loonie, who admittedly knows nuthin bout nuthin, he, as a blind squirrel, in an infinite number of universes, given infinite time, can find one acorn, has blundered across the Truth of the matter. The Global-Warming Goombahs, even if TOTALLY wrong, have an agenda that is Mother Earth-friendly. Can we REALLY take the chance, slim as it may be, that they might not be :shock: right??!! This is our only planet for the foreseeable future (and at the rate that NASA is planning deep-space exploration and possible colonization, we might be stuck here for the far, far future also), so I think the sooner and better we take care of it, the better our chances for a habitable future. It's only logical [live long and prosper!].
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby SQUACKEE » Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:58 pm

tafnut wrote:
bad hammy wrote:Unfortunately I have absolutely no area of expertise, so I spout off about subjects left and right with equal ignorance. blah . . .blah . . . blah . . . tree-hugging eco-PC BS . . . yada, yada, yada . . . All of those steps are great for us and the earth, even if global warming turns out to be the hoax of the century.


Even though BadHam is obviously a commie pinko, bleeding-heart left wing loonie, who admittedly knows nuthin bout nuthin, he, as a blind squirrel, in an infinite number of universes, given infinite time, can find one acorn, has blundered across the Truth of the matter. The Global-Warming Goombahs, even if TOTALLY wrong, have an agenda that is Mother Earth-friendly. Can we REALLY take the chance, slim as it may be, that they might not be :shock: right??!! This is our only planet for the foreseeable future (and at the rate that NASA is planning deep-space exploration and possible colonization, we might be stuck here for the far, far future also), so I think the sooner and better we take care of it, the better our chances for a habitable future. It's only logical [live long and prosper!].


Everythings gonna be ok. Everyone please relax and enjoy yourself and dont worry so much- be happy. :D
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby gm » Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:01 pm

Stop burning oil and coal?
OK, big guy, you start the ball rolling! Cut off your electricity at home, weave yourself some blankets and grab a bicycle.
Been nice having you here on the board, but with your commitment to saving energy, a computer is out of the question.

:twisted:
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby bad hammy » Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:04 pm

gm wrote:Stop burning oil and coal?
OK, big guy, you start the ball rolling! Cut off your electricity at home, weave yourself some blankets and grab a bicycle.
Been nice having you here on the board, but with your commitment to saving energy, a computer is out of the question.

:twisted:

You're getting old, gm, and your eyesite bad. No one named bad hammy said stop the burning of oil and coal - reducing it. And I already have, thank you very much, and continue to do so.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:25 pm

tafnut wrote:Even though BadHam is obviously a . . . bleeding-heart left wing loonie . . .

Beats the alternatives . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gm » Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:32 pm

Haha, bh, my eyesight gets worse every year, but that was no mistake on my post. If you can figure out a way to make alternative fuels available, cheap and able to work with all the current machinery I have, I will be happy to use them.

Until then... where's that coal bucket? This global warming is freezing me!
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby lonewolf » Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:46 pm

You guys are all correct.
Global warming, although not man made, is real and unpreventable but it will do no harm, other than personal sacrifices, to try to ameliorate the ultimate effect.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby marknhj » Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:16 pm

Try driving into Palm Springs at 8am and finding ice on the streets and a temp of 35F. That's what happened to me Monday and if you know Palm Springs you'll know how strange that is (btw - I just moved there).
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gm » Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:59 pm

marknhj wrote:Try driving into Palm Springs at 8am and finding ice on the streets and a temp of 35F. That's what happened to me Monday and if you know Palm Springs you'll know how strange that is (btw - I just moved there).


Yow! Wonder what it is like at the top of the tramway?!
Great town, wonderful scenery.
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby EPelle » Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:02 am

+6°c and snowing. So much for the snowfall which wasn:t supposed to hit until march.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:33 am

I'm not a meteorologist, but I thought that when it was +6 C (43 F), you got rain, not snow.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby EPelle » Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:48 am

That was text tv. Aftonbladet shows it at +2°C. Sun has finally come up. It will rain tonight. Sunday night will be -7°C -- the coldest yet of the winter (if one calls it that).
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tlb747 » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:33 am

Well, my neck of the woods (or valley) are losing a lot of fruit due to freezing weather (Central California). Hope this does not effect the country as bad as people are saying.
tlb747
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:38 am

I:ve read that it has been as much as 750.000 pieces of fruit including avocadoes and oranges.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tlb747 » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:41 am

EPelle wrote:I:ve read that it has been as much as 750.000 pieces of fruit including avocadoes and oranges.


Prices will rise, but I think the economy here will rebound by the end of the year.
tlb747
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:29 am

EPelle wrote:I:ve read that it has been as much as 750.000 pieces of fruit including avocadoes and oranges.

Pretty much wiped out all citrus, avocadoes and artichokes. Over $1 Billion in damages. Much of the state declared a state of emergency, tens of thousands of workers out of work. Not pretty . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:04 am

tafnut wrote:Even though BadHam is obviously a . . . bleeding-heart left wing loonie . . .

A bunch of bleeding-heart left wing loonies pressuring Bush for mandatory reductions in climate-changing pollution . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01 ... index.html
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:57 pm

Somewhat scary report in today's NY Times.

Headline: World Scientists Near Consensus on Warming

Quote:

>>Among the findings in recent drafts:
The Arctic Ocean could largely be devoid of sea ice during summer later in the century.
Europe’s Mediterranean shores could become barely habitable in summers, while the Alps could shift from snowy winter destinations to summer havens from the heat.
Growing seasons in temperate regions will expand, while droughts are likely to ravage further the semiarid regions of Africa and southern Asia. <<

The article does seem to make it clear that these are reasonably good possibilities, but by no means cerrtainties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/world/30climate.html
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby tafnut » Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:59 pm

tandfman wrote:The article does seem to make it clear that these are reasonably good possibilities, but by no means cerrtainties.


So wouldn't this be a good time to err on the side of caution and 'assume' there IS something to this Global Warming 'scare'?
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby bad hammy » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:18 pm

The New York Times wrote:“We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering,” said John Holdren, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and an energy and climate expert at Harvard. “We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.”

Sounds like a reasonable summation of what we are looking at.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:46 pm

tafnut wrote:So wouldn't this be a good time to err on the side of caution and 'assume' there IS something to this Global Warming 'scare'?

Well, yes. I think so. A better time may have been a few years ago.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby EPelle » Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:13 am

Question becomes: Will any state or world-wide agency with far enough reach put their foot down and do something about it?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests