PDA

View Full Version : Last chance to care !



Leon m
04-06-2007, 06:30 PM
It IS worse than you think

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3014590

Leon m
04-06-2007, 06:37 PM
"The world needs to act fast if we are to succeed in stabilizing climate change and thereby prevent its worst impacts," Dimas said in a statement.

For the first time, the scientists broke down their predictions into regions, and forecast that climate change will affect billions of people.

North America will experience more severe storms with human and economic loss, and cultural and social disruptions. It can expect more hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves and wildfires, it said. Coasts will be swamped by rising sea levels. In the short term, crop yields may increase by 5 to 20 percent from a longer growing season, but will plummet if temperatures rise by 7.2 F.

Africa will be hardest hit. By 2020, up to 250 million people are likely to exposed to water shortages. In some countries, food production could fall by half, it said.

Parts of Asia are threatened with massive flooding and avalanches from melting Himalayan glaciers. Europe also will see its Alpine glaciers disappear. Australia's Great Barrier Reef will lose much of its coral to bleaching from even moderate increases in sea temperatures, the report said.

Leon m
04-06-2007, 06:50 PM
"The final IPCC report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution."

WX
04-06-2007, 07:59 PM
John Howard has more or less admitted that global warming is fact. He won't do anything about it because it will cost jobs in the coal industry.
I find it interesting that he never worried about the little people losing jobs before....a man of little vision.
I've lived here for 30 years and over that time I've noticed changes in our weather. 30 years ago we could expect around 30 inches of rain in the first 3 months of the year...our Wet. This has been slowly diminishing over the years.
This year...so far, NO wet. I will just have to hoe for a wet winter.

Leon m
04-06-2007, 08:44 PM
John Howard has more or less admitted that global warming is fact. He won't do anything about it because it will cost jobs in the coal industry.
.

Maybe we could put those people to work building wind generators,or some other alternative fuel systems.

I too have seen many odd weather changes as of late.I used to pride myself on my ability to read and predict the weather...I can't make heads or tails of it lately...something is definetly off.

Leon m
04-06-2007, 08:53 PM
Wow, 70 hits and only one cares enough to speak up...guess that kind of sums up why we are in the trouble we are in. :(

Leon m
04-06-2007, 08:59 PM
90 to 1 and still counting.

stumpbumper
04-06-2007, 09:01 PM
Leon, the issue has been debated so much here. Perhaps it's not that nobody wishes to speak, rather the skeptics don't wish to admit they're wrong, and the believers don't want to say " I told you so". There is absolutely no doubt at this point that we all need to be involved in doing our part to save the environment as we know it, so our children's children may exist.

High C
04-06-2007, 10:50 PM
...rather the skeptics don't wish to admit they're wrong.....

"Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but in the end agreed to compromises. However, some scientists vowed never to take part in the process again."

(emphasis mine)

Bruce Hooke
04-06-2007, 11:01 PM
Yes, the scientists objected to the government negotiators watering down the report. So, the scientists wanted this report to be stronger than it was:


Agreement came after an all-night session during which key sections were deleted from the draft and scientists angrily confronted government negotiators who they feared were watering down their findings.

Thanks for posting this Leon. There are always going to be some hold outs, but it feels like the world is finally waking up to the seriousness of this problem.

Leon m
04-06-2007, 11:13 PM
Who are these "government negotiators " negotiating for anyway ?

High C
04-06-2007, 11:16 PM
Yes, the scientists objected to the government negotiators watering down the report...


...and others have resigned the iPCC because their names have been included in the report, even though they are skeptics. They're objections were not included in the report, yet their names remain as if they support the conclusions.

The good news about the IPCC report (barely reported, of course), which flies in the face of increasingly politicized hysteria, is that this report is LESS dire than the previous IPCC report some six years ago.

Bruce Hooke
04-06-2007, 11:23 PM
You can always find some scientists to disagree with just about any conclusion. The level of consensus behind this report strikes me as pretty overwhelming.

Bruce Hooke
04-06-2007, 11:42 PM
The good news about the IPCC report (barely reported, of course), which flies in the face of increasingly politicized hysteria, is that this report is LESS dire than the previous IPCC report some six years ago.

As far as I could tell, the quotes below seem to be typical of the statements being made about the comparison between this report and the earlier reports:


Top climate experts issued on Friday their bleakest forecasts yet about global warming, ranging from hunger in Africa to a thaw of Himalayan glaciers.
Overall, the report is the strongest U.N. assessment yet of the threat of climate change, predicting water shortages that could affect billions of people and a rise in ocean levels that could go on for centuries. (These quotes are from a Reuters report posted here: http://news.com.com/Harshest+warning+yet+issued+on+climate/2100-11395_3-6173933.html )

The predictions for certain types of impacts may have been adjusted down (I don't know and don't completely trust someone as clearly on one side of the issue as Patrick J. Michaels). However, even if that is true, all the reports I could find seem to be saying that this IPCC report is saying that the overall affects will be WORSE than previously predicted.

For the record, it should also be noted that it looks like the article by Patrick J. Michaels posted by few3 was written about the report released back in February, not the report that was released yesterday.

High C
04-06-2007, 11:50 PM
...all the reports I could find seem to be saying that this IPCC report is saying that the overall affects will be WORSE than previously predicted...

That's the problem, Bruce. The words used in the summaries say one thing, while the numbers say another. The 2001 IPCC report forecast sea level rise of up to 34" over the next century. The new report forecasts a maximum rise of 17". Half... Yet the verbiage grows ever more extreme.

I smell a stink burger.

WX
04-07-2007, 12:10 AM
The ocean temperature around Tasmania has risen 2 degrees c already. Wildlife use to cooler weather is moving south.
Few3, the recordings of co2 levels for the last few hundred thousand years show this is not just some interglacial period.
You believe what you want to though...your choice.

Paul G.
04-07-2007, 12:21 AM
bunkum (caused by us that is)

BrianW
04-07-2007, 12:25 AM
Man, the US should have signed the Kyoto Accord, then all would be well.

WX
04-07-2007, 07:35 AM
BrianW, signing the Kyoto Accord would have been lip service. The reductions they were planning were really quite small.
"The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement under which industrialised countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this limitation represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions of six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. National limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland."

LeeG
04-07-2007, 07:40 AM
That's the problem, Bruce. The words used in the summaries say one thing, while the numbers say another. The 2001 IPCC report forecast sea level rise of up to 34" over the next century. The new report forecasts a maximum rise of 17". Half... Yet the verbiage grows ever more extreme.

I smell a stink burger.

that's the broccoli and blue cheese I had last night

WX
04-07-2007, 08:00 AM
17" or 34" will still see some Brisbane and Gold Coast suburbs become untenable. Areas of the Tweed valley where I live will be inundated around spring highs...Highway 1 passes though this region. Add a flood to the equation and we are looking at billions in new infrastructure, and that's in just 200kms of coastline.
How will your area be affected by an extra 17" or 34" of mean sealevel?
Remember to add spring high tides, storm surges, flooding etc.
This is to anyone reading this thread, I'm not having a go at anyone.

johngsandusky
04-07-2007, 08:01 AM
Rooting hard for global warming, as this "spring " remains very @#$%^n cold. (And I know the global warming alarmist cult believes that cold weather is also a sign of global warming, how convenient)

Leon m
04-07-2007, 08:23 AM
Rooting hard for global warming, as this "spring " remains very @#$%^n cold. (And I know the global warming alarmist cult believes that cold weather is also a sign of global warming, how convenient)

Yeah, thats why we just had record breaking high temps in March...80's in March in Wisconsin just don't happen...yeah and it's cold now and all the bulb plants have been killed by freezing weather because of the premature warm up...yeah thats natural.

Sorry, time to pull your head out.Things are out of wack.

Does it do any harm to live responsibly just in case we did screw things up, or may screw things up more? And don't give me the line about the poor coal miners...all the lamp lighters didn't die when we invented the light bulb.

Guess people just don't want to pay the fiddler.

Leon m
04-07-2007, 02:22 PM
Bump...Thats right I;m keeping it here till EVERYBODY gets the message .:)

Leon m
04-07-2007, 02:43 PM
Yes there's that too ,but we are ALL responsible.

Leon m
04-07-2007, 03:27 PM
Bump ...thats right ...I'm gunna cram this puppy down your throat if I have to.

Have a nice day. :)

Bruce Hooke
04-07-2007, 03:33 PM
That's the problem, Bruce. The words used in the summaries say one thing, while the numbers say another. The 2001 IPCC report forecast sea level rise of up to 34" over the next century. The new report forecasts a maximum rise of 17". Half... Yet the verbiage grows ever more extreme.

Does the comparison you are making on the projected sea level rise apply across the board to the majority of projected impacts of global warming? I rather doubt it.

stumpbumper
04-07-2007, 03:49 PM
There is absolutely no doubt at this point that we all need to be involved in doing our part to save the environment as we know it, so our children's children may exist.

And there is absolutely no reason at this point not to take steps to begin reversing the problem. The only motivations I can think of for not doing it are unbridaled greed or perhaps selfish stubborness to the point of stupidity.

Lynn

Leon m
04-07-2007, 03:51 PM
You Go Stumpbumper !!!

ahp
04-07-2007, 03:56 PM
I have just downloaded the 23 page summary, but have not read it yet. A 17 inch rise is sealevel by 2100 would have an effect here. The water comes up to edge of the causway pavement to St. Simons Island on a spring tide now. The causway can be raised however, for a price.

Leon m
04-07-2007, 03:58 PM
The causway can be raised however, for a price.

Wrong answer,save the planet instead.:)

Bruce Hooke
04-07-2007, 04:34 PM
I have just downloaded the 23 page summary, but have not read it yet. A 17 inch rise is sealevel by 2100 would have an effect here. The water comes up to edge of the causway pavement to St. Simons Island on a spring tide now. The causway can be raised however, for a price.

What many people living on barrier islands like this may not realize is that the horizontal position of barrier islands is very sensitive to sea level. Raise sea level by a foot and if I remember correctly, the typical barrier island will try to move landward by something like 100 feet. Furthermore, this moving back process is not pretty from the perspective of human structures placed on barrier islands. Last I read up in it, the most likely scenario was storm waves overwashing the island carrying sediments from the seaward side to the landward side.

For islands where development has wisely been restricted to behind the foreshore dunes, all of this may not be that big a deal. For islands where development goes right up to the beach, the houses closest to the beach are likely not going to survive.

Tylerdurden
04-07-2007, 04:34 PM
"Never mind me" said the man behind the curtain as he created a new illusion to distract us.

Many cannot see the forest for the trees and this thread is a prime example. You all need to look around at whats going on for real.
Climates change, they have throughout history, the trick is getting people to adapt and survive. I agree the environment needs attention and we should follow the Indian way and have respect for mother earth, but this is not the way. It is the way the elite would have us go.

mister_moon
04-07-2007, 05:31 PM
I too have seen many odd weather changes as of late.I used to pride myself on my ability to read and predict the weather...I can't make heads or tails of it lately...something is definetly off.

Up to now I was not convinced, but you got me there.

Leon can't predict the weather anymore!

:rolleyes:

WX
04-07-2007, 05:43 PM
Leon, The planet will survive, it's us so called thinking Humans that are in trouble...and quite few of the other lifeforms on this planet.
Talking of islands, Venice will be in even more trouble than it is now...not to mention quite a few Pacific island nations.
I guess the bright side is I won't have to travel quite as far to my boat.

Leon m
04-07-2007, 05:50 PM
Whats?
Are ya gettin' _____ at me?
What did I say wrong?

No not you Boyle...Everyone thats not listening. :)

Leon m
04-07-2007, 05:51 PM
Up to now I was not convinced, but you got me there.

Leon can't predict the weather anymore!

:rolleyes:

Thank you for seeing the wisdom that is LEON . :D

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-07-2007, 05:53 PM
...Everyone thats not listening...

We izz listening all right, we just don't care.

Leon m
04-07-2007, 06:04 PM
Is this post absolutely essential for your survival Rev. Leon?:p

Yes ,and yours . :p

Hwyl
04-07-2007, 06:15 PM
It's interesting Leon, one of the reasons I started coming to the bilge was because of the people who i thought of as intelligent and rational, but did not beleive in global warming. Most of them have now changed their view, from "it's not happening", to "it's happening, but we can't do much about it". High C seems to have changed his view, so has (to a lesser extent) few3. I think John Bell/MrMoon is changing. It only leaves a couple of notable standouts. I think at least two of them are not admitting to global warming because of their obstreperousness, so that basicaly leaves Art Read as the sole non believer.

Bob Adams
04-07-2007, 06:19 PM
Wow, 70 hits and only one cares enough to speak up...guess that kind of sums up why we are in the trouble we are in. :(


Maybe because we're tired of this same rehash.

Vince Brennan
04-07-2007, 06:53 PM
Guess people just don't want to pay the fiddler.

Ahhh, but we shall, we shall....

Rancocas
04-07-2007, 07:01 PM
Well, I happen to be one who thinks that global warming might be a wonderful thing. For years I have been depressed, frustrated and disgusted with my fellow man. Global warming has given me new hope. For me, it is something to look forward to.

Sure the earth is going to experience some extinctions. This is far from the first time that has happened. Other species will benefit from the rising seas and warmer atmosphere. It is possible that entirely new species will evolve. It is only us, the human species, who fear the loss of all that we know. But, this old earth won't miss us at all.

At least one environmental scientist who I have read, has the opinion that up to 80% of mankind will die off within the next 100 years or so due to heat, drought, famine, and disease.

I would add to those natural deaths my prediction of wars fought for water and food, and roving gangs killing, raping, and plundering throughout a world gone mad. A new "dark age" will decend over man. Much of our current technology will be lost in our struggle to survive.

However, I look at all that as a new beginning. We have fouled our nest, made such a mess of this planet, and are generally such a debauched animal, that I can only say "good riddence" to the current state of humanity. But, hopefully, in a hundred years or two hundred, those who survive just might have a chance to build a much better world.

Leon m
04-07-2007, 10:07 PM
So Leon M, I ask you again when will you reduce your excessive use of energy?

Already have...Bought a more (way more ) fuel efficient vehicle, switched all my lights to flourescent,burning Bio-fuel in my vehicles etc etc...and planting trees :)

And thats all I'm asking of you Mike...and everybody else on the planet ;)

If we all did just those simple things it would have a huge impact.

Leon m
04-07-2007, 10:09 PM
or we could go with Rancocas plan

mister_moon
04-08-2007, 07:43 AM
Well, I happen to be one who thinks that global warming might be a wonderful thing. For years I have been depressed, frustrated and disgusted with my fellow man. Global warming has given me new hope. For me, it is something to look forward to.

Sure the earth is going to experience some extinctions. This is far from the first time that has happened. Other species will benefit from the rising seas and warmer atmosphere. It is possible that entirely new species will evolve. It is only us, the human species, who fear the loss of all that we know. But, this old earth won't miss us at all.

At least one environmental scientist who I have read, has the opinion that up to 80% of mankind will die off within the next 100 years or so due to heat, drought, famine, and disease.

I would add to those natural deaths my prediction of wars fought for water and food, and roving gangs killing, raping, and plundering throughout a world gone mad. A new "dark age" will decend over man. Much of our current technology will be lost in our struggle to survive.

However, I look at all that as a new beginning. We have fouled our nest, made such a mess of this planet, and are generally such a debauched animal, that I can only say "good riddence" to the current state of humanity. But, hopefully, in a hundred years or two hundred, those who survive just might have a chance to build a much better world.

I'll never understand those who pine for the destruction of humanity. Sad.

Leon m
04-08-2007, 11:07 AM
No matter what the topic. Whether the Iraq war ( it's working ), The economy ( it's beautiful ), global warming ( yep, it is, and has been long before Holy Allah Al Gore discovered it ). The liberals can't seem to see the forest for the tree's. Everything has to be doom, gloom, and hopelessness. This is why conservatives make better lovers.:p

.

What a load of bunk...the problem is you guys don't want to be responsible for your actions.

And liberals make better lovers cause conservatives tend to be fat and balding :p :D

Leon m
04-08-2007, 11:10 AM
And how many miles will you approve of me driving to work?;) Be carefull now when you reply. If you say five miles, what happens to the guy that drives 5.4 miles. Is he abusing the planet? And if the condo association does not approve of the trees you suggest are those people by default poluters even when they drive those Hoverarounds?;)

At what point is enough when say some of these poor folks can not purchase those new fangle fancy shiny vehicles that glow in the dark under those big quartzs lights? Are those folks by no fault of their own poluters? Where do you cross the line in defining how much is excessive? I bet I already use less energy since my heating bill and winter seasons are already less than yours. Wanta buy some carbon credits? :D [Opps, not suppose to be selling anything on here.]:p Cheers as I must turn this thing off to conserve while you are endulging in excessive energy use, according to my standards. :D Later in the spirit of a good but worn debate.


Don't "throw out the baby with the bath water" you conservative types tend to do that as an excuse for doing nothing.

Alls I'm saying is if everybody does what they CAN do we will be in a lot better shape, but if we go around doing nothing because we can't do everything ...we aint gunna make it.

Don't worry Mike we aint gunna make you grow your hair long and wear sandels. ;)

WX
04-08-2007, 07:01 PM
Erster, regarding Mars, did you read the whole article?
That could be a shaky wagon you're hitching your horse to.

Leon m
04-08-2007, 08:13 PM
[quote]

I still say you can hitch your wagon to any and all hype or selectively discard facts

Yes, and you are doing a wonderful job of it.

Leon m
04-09-2007, 10:18 AM
[And let me say once again, some of you fine folks seem to want to ignore some real evidence, all presented by sources that you also use when it fits your needs and your likings. Again you make the call to which you discount and which you choose to accept, which also shows that you are really interested in the truth.

That statement works both ways ;)

Leon m
04-09-2007, 10:27 AM
Leon, I have enjoyed our own little bitty thread here. I consider you still a great fellow, even though you are simply misguided, :

The feeling is mutual Mike . :)

Thank you for your concern about my mental well being, but I assure you I am no ware near depressed...In fact I consider myself to be quite happy in life...That said I am very compassionate about the state of our planet. You see I have children, and some day my children will have children, and when they ask me ..."Grandpa why did your generation screw up our planet, and why didn't you fix it?". I'll be able to at least say "I tried", instead of "I just passed the buck".

John of Phoenix
04-09-2007, 11:28 AM
Rock on Leon.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20070404/lta070404.gif

Leon m
04-09-2007, 01:29 PM
"Iraq has become a quagmire of the vanities --
a place where America is spending blood and treasure to protect the egos of men who won't admit that they were wrong. - Paul Krugman "


Rock on John !

Kaa
04-09-2007, 01:41 PM
Bump ...thats right ...I'm gunna cram this puppy down your throat if I have to.

LOL. I'm not a big fan of puppies down my throat. Are you sure you're set to deal with projectile vomiting which may be the result?

:D

Kaa

Leon m
04-09-2007, 04:04 PM
LOL. I'm not a big fan of puppies down my throat. Are you sure you're set to deal with projectile vomiting which may be the result?

:D

Kaa

Wouldn't be the first time I made poeple puke in the bilge. ;) :D

Art Read
04-09-2007, 05:55 PM
A shameless C&P from Newsweek...

"Why So Gloomy?


By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International
April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.


A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc."

High C
04-09-2007, 06:07 PM
...Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology....

It shouldn't be long before someone who isn't qualified to carry this guy's catheter bag comes along and declares him an irrelevant quack. :D

Memphis Mike
04-09-2007, 06:15 PM
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

LOL!

Memphis Mike
04-09-2007, 06:17 PM
I beat you to it, Squeaky.

High C
04-09-2007, 06:22 PM
That's what they'll call him on. The US Government is the energy companies.

Ahh, of course, Cheney's oil buddies. I bet they're pissed that the big Iraq oil contracts are going to China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. Looks like that "war for oil" thing we heard so much about didn't pan out after all. ;)

Memphis Mike
04-09-2007, 06:25 PM
Have another drink, Squeaky. You're doing your part.

Art Read
04-09-2007, 09:07 PM
"Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface."

The man's gotta point:


"Quake lifts Solomons island out of the sea by Neil Sands
Sat Apr 7, 7:19 PM ET



RANONGGA, Solomon Islands (AFP) - The seismic jolt that unleashed the deadly Solomons tsunami this week lifted an entire island metres out of the sea, destroying some of the world's most pristine coral reefs.

In an instant, the grinding of the Earth's tectonic plates in the 8.0 magnitude earthquake Monday forced the island of Ranongga up three metres (10 foot).

Submerged reefs that once attracted scuba divers from around the globe lie exposed and dying after the quake raised the mountainous landmass, which is 32-kilometres (20-miles) long and 8-kilometres (5-miles) wide.

Corals that used to form an underwater wonderland of iridescent blues, greens and reds now bleach under the sun, transforming into a barren moonscape surrounding the island.

The stench of rotting fish and other marine life stranded on the reefs when the seas receded is overwhelming and the once vibrant coral is dry and crunches underfoot.

Dazed villagers stand on the shoreline, still coming to terms with the cataclysmic shift that changed the geography of their island forever, pushing the shoreline out to sea by up to 70 metres.

Aid agencies have yet to reach Ranongga after the quake and tsunami that killed at least 34 people in the Pacific archipelago but an AFP reporter and photographer on a chartered boat witnessed the destruction first hand.

At Pienuna, on Ranongga's east coast, locals said much of their harbour had disappeared, leaving only a narrow inlet lined by jagged exposed coral reefs either side.

Villager Harison Gago said there were huge earthquake fissures which had almost split the island in half, gesturing with his hands that some of the cracks were 50 centimetres (20 inches) wide.

Further north at Niu Barae, fisherman Hendrik Kegala had just finished exploring the new underwater landscape of the island with a snorkel when contacted by the AFP team.

He said a huge submerged chasm had opened up, running at least 500 metres (550 yards) parallel to the coast.

On the beach at Niu Barae, the earthquake has revealed a sunken vessel that locals believe is a Japanese patrol boat, a remnant of the fierce fighting between Allied forces and the Japanese in WWII.

Kegala said that from the perspective of those on the island, the sea appeared to recede and villagers still feared it would come back again as a tsunami, making them reluctant to return from higher ground where they fled.

"Plenty big noise," he told AFP, describing the disaster in the local pidgin dialect.

"Water go back and not come back again," he added, saying the whooshing sound of the receding water and the shaking from the quake occurred simultaneously.

Danny Kennedy, a dive operator in the provincial capital Gizo, said the earthquake had damaged coral reefs throughout the Solomon Islands' western province.

He said dive sites once ranked among the best in the world were dying because the tremors had upset the fragile natural ecosystem.

"Some of the most beautiful corals are the most delicate and those are the ones that have been affected," he told AFP.

"The more robust corals are still there but it's the ones that people want to photograph, the sea fans and the colourful corals, that are dying."

Kennedy said the damage to the coral reefs could dry up the region's major source of overseas money.

"Diving is huge here, it employs so many local people," he said. "The fear is that people are going to come here and see the reefs are damaged then tell people not to come back for a few years until they recover."

Jackie Thomas, acting manager for Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) in the Solomons, said the loss of the reefs was a huge blow for the fishing communities that are dotted along Ranongga's coast.

"The fish from the reefs are the major source of protein for the villagers," she told AFP from Gizo.

"They use shells for tools and rely on the sea for many of their basic needs.

"It just shows the incredible force of the earthquake, to move a whole island."

She said the reefs around Ranongga were a protected marine environment and locals had worked hard with WWF in recent years to ensure that they were managed sustainably.

"Now it's another marine environment that has been destroyed," she said.

"Who knows if the coral reefs will recover and the fish will come back? Villagers will have to travel further to find the same sort of food and nutrition they've relied on -- the whole food chain has been disrupted."

Paul Girouard
04-09-2007, 09:24 PM
It IS worse than you think



So how much longer do we have to care or not care , exactly !

Pretty warm in Cleveland , another snowed out dbl. header:mad:


CLEVELAND -- Snow turned to mixture of sleet and rain at Jacobs Field on Monday, but the result was familiar: another doubleheader postponed.

http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/images/2007/04/09/WmTqXQab.jpg

Leon m
04-10-2007, 12:27 PM
So how much longer do we have to care or not care , exactly !

]

I'll give you until the next election. ;)

Oh,and yes snow does not mean that there is no global warming ...It's just further proof of the screwed up weather patterns.We shouldn't be having this long of a cold "snap" this late into the spring season.Thanks for helping my piont along . :)

Popeye
04-10-2007, 12:42 PM
'India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. ... Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.'

guys a nut

Popeye
04-10-2007, 01:11 PM
A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. .


seriously scary bananas

Art Read
04-10-2007, 01:49 PM
So, Popeye?

"Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."

...And you have tenure, where?:)

Leon m
04-10-2007, 03:15 PM
So, Popeye?

"Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."

...And you have tenure, where?:)

TENURE SCHMENURE...How about the school of real life ?

You know what the problem is with professors and scientists ?...They spend so much damn time in classrooms thinking that they have no idea whats going on outside in the REAL world. You could get more knowledge about nature from an old farmer than one of those quacks !

Art Read
04-10-2007, 03:57 PM
"You know what the problem is with professors and scientists ?...They spend so much damn time in classrooms thinking that they have no idea whats going on outside in the REAL world."

Yeah, but I've been led to believe by the true believers that "experiencing" the real world somehow disqualifies one from having an opinion about this on other threads here!:rolleyes:


("...The extent of your expertise is a brief, unscientific impression you got while sailing across an ocean...")

("...Art argues the possibility of an environmental armageddon (when he isn't dismissing it from the cockpit of a sailboat in the middle of the ocean) being ineffectively addressed by "saddling the world economy" with feel good quotas and political agendas...)

ahp
04-10-2007, 08:06 PM
Your point about beach moving back is well taken. Fortunately we live on the back side of the island. The island is about a mile wide here and furthermore we are overlapped by Sea Island on the ocean side at this location. Sea Island's real estate is about ten times more expensive, they are very snooty, and now have lots of security. I cannot even go there now without an invitation. They are going first! Shadenfruend (sp).

ahp
04-10-2007, 08:10 PM
I have finished reading for the first time the 23 page summary "Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assesment Report". Al Gore is actually UNDERstating what is happening now!

Rancocas
04-11-2007, 07:06 AM
hehehehe. I love it. Bring it on. (see my earlier post in this thread)
I'm going to burn my household trash today, just as I do every week. Maybe, just for the fun of it, I'll let my lawnmower idle until it runs out of gas, while I dance a gleeful jig around it with an arosol can in each hand, spraying randomly. Oh yeah, and flatulence - I'll eat a lot of beans. Also, you should see the bonfire I have every autumn when I burn the fallen leaves and other accumilated yard debris. The smoke column rises hundreds of feet into the air.
Maybe I'll take out my peach trees and plant oranges and bananas.
Yeah, I know it isn't much, but I do what I can to promote global warming.
LOL I'm so happy.

Leon m
04-11-2007, 09:58 AM
Yeah, I know it isn't much, but I do what I can to promote global warming.
LOL I'm so happy.

It aint about you.

Leon m
04-11-2007, 12:02 PM
We're having a fricken blizzard today, snows pileing up fast...I'm tellin ya folks this aint natural for this time of year... the weather patterns are all screwed up.

I'm thinkin (feeling ) we are in for an interesting summer.

paul oman
04-11-2007, 12:57 PM
google on "solar radiation', cosmic ray flux, and ice cap mars for alternatives to global warming that are not man made. Note that CO2 is only 0.035% of our air - it would take massive massive amounts of additional co2 to even get half a 100th of a percent of our air to contain co2. Is our buffered system really that sensitive to tiny tiny change? Also most of the co2 on the planet is in the oceans - a tiny change in the uptake or release of ocean co2 (due to temp or current changes) is much more likely to be resonsible for the co2 changes in the air. For every acre of land too hot to farm due to global warming there are ??? acres of land now warm enough to farm in say Canada/northern Russia etc. and a longer growing season in the 'Bread Baskets' of the world. Global warming is change and there are good things from out of it too! (i.e. less fuel to heat our houses!). 30 years ago the big story (backed by 'experts' and published in Time Magazine) was the coming ice age..... 10 years ago the experts (including Al Gore) said AID would depopulate Africa. Gore gets $50,000 - $250,000 for a global warming talk. - Global Warming panic is a $5 billion business and growing. Finding that mankind's contribution to it was trivial would be an economic crisis for many people, event organizers and newspapers. I fear the crisis is based more on money than science. Climate change, even big climate change, is normal and natural (even if we are somehow responsible for part of this one!). Note that an Ice Age event would be much worse for human life than global warming!You do believe in Ice Ages, don't you?

paul

Leon m
04-11-2007, 02:35 PM
Facts schmacts...The plain truth is that we are plowing under more nature and producing more pollution every day and that is not in balance with nature (you know, the stuff we and our planet are made of)...and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it will soon bite us on the backside.

So you can argue the fine pionts till the end of time (wich will probably be sooner than later), but 2+2 will always = 4.

Leon m
04-11-2007, 10:05 PM
http://www.theastronomicon.com/archives/crying.jpg