Tweet
BTW - Isn't Louisana gaining land every year? Isn't New Orleans around the delta? Why would global warming cause a flood there?
-
I never know their names, But i smile just the same
New faces...Strange places,
Most everything i see, Becomes a blur to me
-Grandaddy, "The Final Push to the Sum" -
Yes, I udnerstand that, the ice cap melting is unprecedented for human ages if I understand correctly- it has melted before... Before it has melted completely off.Originally posted by Urban Ranger
DarkCloud,
I don't have my figures on hand, so we will have to go back to them later.
One thing to remember is climatic changes are hard to predict since it is definitely non-linear. An increase of one degree can mean a massive shift in climatic patterns. There is already indication that the Atlantic Conveyor Belt is weakening.
The Antarctic ice cap is melting at an unprecedented rate already
And Mac- Actually Louisiana and Florida lose coastline each year, as do the Eastern Coast States in the US and the Atlantic Boarding European nations-->Visit CGN!
-->"Production! More Production! Production creates Wealth! Production creates more Jobs!"-Wendell Willkie -1944Comment
-
I thought the Mississippi dropped sediment off at the delta and that was adding to Louisiana... Are you saying all of that soil just gets wahed into the gulf?I never know their names, But i smile just the same
New faces...Strange places,
Most everything i see, Becomes a blur to me
-Grandaddy, "The Final Push to the Sum"Comment
-
Actually, that may be happening, but overall the coast of Louisiana is losing land and New Orleans may very well be flooded in a few more decades.-->Visit CGN!
-->"Production! More Production! Production creates Wealth! Production creates more Jobs!"-Wendell Willkie -1944Comment
-
Exactly, you’ve just answered the question for yourself – ‘based on current trends’That's just rubbish. How on Earth can you predict what the world will be doing in 40 years? You can't. You can only speculate given the current trends and technologies, which are inevitable to change.
Of course this is assuming there’ll be any trees in 40 years, considering the rate the rainforests are being denuded etc…
I agree, but you have to legislate with what you know at the time – things could end up far better than predicted, or they could end up far worse! Surely it is logical and responsible to act and ensure that the former happens – rather than the latter!!?Anyone know the name of that bozo running around in the 60's saying that in 50 years there'd be no oil? What about the wise guys who said Lake Erie was dead? What I'm tyring to demonstrate is that you simply can't know. You can guess, you can speculate, you can call up the Physic Network, you can fear monger, but you simply can't know. Consider that fact that if you told someone in the 1850's that there'd be 6 billion people on the Earth they'd more than likely believe there'd be a shortage of horses used as transportation because they had no way of foreseeing the invention of the automobile
Wrong! 40% of the state is at risk of becoming submerged and they are losing X number of football fields of the Bayou to the sea every year (it was a large number!). New Orleans is already at least 8ft below sea level, which isn’t very good when you’re surrounded by the stuff! I saw and heard this stuff with my own eyes only last month!BTW - Isn't Louisana gaining land every year? Isn't New Orleans around the delta? Why would global warming cause a flood there?
Bottom line is that we're not insuring sufficiently for the future and we all know that in real life insurance is that necessary evil that prevents you from losing everything if your house burns down or your car gets totalled - so why not apply this prudent failsafe to safeguarding our lives and those of our children!!?Comment
-
I did some research on this for French class (no, really!), and whether the Kyoto Protocol should have been passed or not.
Meteorological satellite data has shown that the global average temperature HAS increased, but over the last 30 years it has benn around a 0.0002% increase. At this rate we won't need to worry for a helluva long time.
And the human contribution to most greenhouse gases is minute in comparison with nature's own sources. There is a worry with losing the carbon sinks of the rainforest, but the ocean is a hugely bigger sink that we can't really evaporate that easily!Comment
-
I have it the same way KrazyPart of me really hopes global warming is happening.
. I hate the cold winter.
On the other hand, I don't like temperatures above 30 degrees Celsius either. Then my freezer can't follow keeping the beers cold enough
**
But of course global warming exsist! You have to be ironheads or sponsered by the oil-industry to deny that without any serious considerations.First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
GandhiComment
-
hey new beach front property! Not bad
Max, Max, speak for yoursef. You are the biggest polluter in all my games. Dirty polluter.
Oh I know thats not the same asreal life. But sort of. Why would America reduces its indstry, infrastructure, to combat somthing that isnt even proven to exist. Do you have any proof? No.....Does anybody else? No.... Just a bunch of doomsday perdictions and mixed scietific data from scentists who's reputations are questionable.Comment
-
And all Im saying is that no one has proved that this is not the natural course of nature.If global warming is happening, its not because of human emissions.GLOBAL WARMING IS A FARSE!
Just to take a few of your comments, posted earlier.
Any new points of view?First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
GandhiComment
-
Everyone:
It seems the Bush Jr. administration is acknowledging the role that humanity plays in the global warming scene. Still sticking with the voluntary approach to reducing emissions from industry, though.
Gatekeeper"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll die defending your right to say it." — Voltaire
"Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart." — ConfuciusComment
-
I think you are overstating the scientific case. Please supply a peer-reviewd reference that suports that 90% figure.Originally posted by CyberGnu
Actually, people have already proven that there is better than a 90% chance that global warmng is caused by humans. It is not our fault you don't have the education to understand the proof.
The height of arrogance must be to assume that since you don't understand something, it must be false...Comment
-
More recently I attended a guest lecture on CO2 levels from Greenland (IIRC) ice cores. They had a complete set of CO2 levels in the atmosphere going back several hundred thousand years, and the tiny rise we were in was dwarved by the enormous fluctuations that can only have been natural, and perhaps periodic.
Of course, this can only certainly be the atmospheric levels IN GREENLAND, and recent evidence has of course shown that whilst some places are experiencing warmer temps, others still are actually getting colder...
I'm still not convinced with global warming being very significant and a universal phenomenon. I was, but not since I had to research it for my French talk (it could of course be French propaganda, since all the articles I could use were French - what are the odds of a French conspiracy against the world?)
Comment
-
Re: A few things to note about satellite data:
1. What are the magnitudes of these errors?Originally posted by Ramo
1. The orbits of satellites tend to degrade. Much of the "cooling trend" in this dataset can be attributed to the fact that their altitudes have been decreasing due to atmospheric drag (pressure and temperature being proportional).
2. Satellite data experiences noise due to surface microwave radiation.
3. The disparity between satellite data and surface data has been far from uniform. In some areas, such as in North America, satellite data tends to be equivalent to surface data, whilst mostly over oceans, the two datasets have diverged.
4. Satellite data shows different results in each area of the atmosphere. While there's a cooling trend in the lower stratosphere, the lower troposphere is getting slightly warmer, and th upper troposphere is getting clearly warmer.
In short, satellite data should not be trusted.
2. Are you rejecting all temp measurements? Or just those who give you data you don't like?
3. Which are more relieable: sattelitte instruments or despersed humand read thermometers?
4. Compare the significance of heat island error and human facotr error with that of sattelete orbvit decay.
5. If both sets of data have flaws wouldn't you want to keep the data sets and look at both? Not throw out measurements!! (TRY to think like a scientist...not a high school debater.)
6. How about balloon data or shipboard data? They should avoid the errors of heat island and the errors of orbit decay.Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Everyone:
It seems the Bush Jr. administration is acknowledging the role that humanity plays in the global warming scene. Still sticking with the voluntary approach to reducing emissions from industry, though.
Gatekeeper
This has gotten a lot of press but has been very fluffy (silly journalists...typical.)
What exaclty is the change in Bush Admin views? Is there new science? New evaluation of the science? Are the saying human caused GW is a fact? A possibility? What are they saying on the issue of dangers from warming? (i.e. effects)Comment
-
This was the best link I could find to answer your questions. Note: I did basically no actual looking
Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi Wan's apprentice.Comment
Comment