71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 08:32 am
Here is an important message from Bush on GW.

http://www.jibjab.com/jokebox/jokebox/jibjab/id/555981/jokeid/125614
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 08:45 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
Anthropogenic global warming is not an idea a cult or a religious belief. Its real. Tangible. We can measure it. We know what causes it.
So far, so good. However the real part is the possibility that AGW has materially contributed - among other potentially more significant variables - to a small degree oif warming in the last century. Whether this will or will not dominate observable natural cycles or will be significantly damped by natural processes remains unknown. Certainly the doomsday forecasts that have become associated with AGW have no basis in science -- they are speculations, not forecasts.

Steve 41oo wrote:
Its as real as the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs, though no doubt there were some dino-sceptics around at the time who said it was all hysteriacal nonsense... or alternatively if it was real it would probably miss.
This is the fantasy, the cult. The meteorite impacts that caused previous extinctions are geological facts. They happened. The speculations of future AGW calamities, based on utterly meaningless numerical integrations of the state and momentum equations for the earth's oceans and atmosphere, based on assumed initial conditions, - integrations for which there is a sound fundamental mathematical basis on which to conclude that the results of such numerical integrations are utterly meaningless -- are hardly of the same rank as observable facts. One who confounds the two cannot protect himself from serious critical analysis with the mantle of science.

In addition it is also an observable fact that - even absent the effects associated with AGW - the climate of the earth has never been stable. There have been repeated cycles of warming and cooling noted in the geological record and even in recorded human history. It takes a degree of transcendent belief to assume that the scanty evidence of AGW wil somehow dominate all this -- the hallmark of a cult.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 09:03 am
George is getting so anxious about being shown up as a fool that he is resorting to red and Nazi baiting those AGW. This is a sure sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 09:18 am
georgeob1 wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
Its as real as the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs, though no doubt there were some dino-sceptics around at the time who said it was all hysteriacal nonsense... or alternatively if it was real it would probably miss.
This is the fantasy, the cult. The meteorite impacts that caused previous extinctions are geological facts. They happened.


I wouldn't buy that either, george. Do not believe any geologist or paleontologist if he says he knows for sure why dinosaurs went extinct. How many theories have there been on that, and how many more will there be? Just because Discovery channel can make it all look so final, so what? There is nothing so spectacular needed for animals to go extinct in millions of years. We see it happen in less than 100 with nothing spectacular at all.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 09:24 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
Anthropogenic global warming is not an idea a cult or a religious belief. Its real. Tangible. We can measure it. We know what causes it.
So far, so good...

Steve 41oo wrote:
Its as real as the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs, though no doubt there were some dino-sceptics around at the time who said it was all hysteriacal nonsense... or alternatively if it was real it would probably miss.
This is the fantasy, the cult.
This is a joke George.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 09:31 am
Mass extinctions, large meteorite impacts, volcanism, continentl drift (and repeated cycles of cooling and warming) are observable facts in the geological history of our planet. They are not speculations or ev en forecasts - they are observable facts.

We have good scientific reason to believe that the mass extinctions were associated with the meteorite impacts, but that conclusion is a sound theory, not an observable fact.


The speculations of the AGW cultists about various catasthrophic outcomes do not even have the status of accepted scientific theory. They are intellectual constructs, beliefs that are held by many people, but they have no particular claim on truth. To propose to sacrifice real flesh and blood based on these unprovable beliefs is hardly different than the sacrifice of millions in the former USSR in prusuit of the development of "socialist man" by believers in the Leninist cult; or of the slaughter of millions in pursuit of Aryan perfection by believers in the Nazi cult -- one could go on and find further examples in the contemporary world.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 09:37 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
This is a joke George.


No joke. It is science and mathematics. The numerical models used as the basis for the various calamaty theories being put forward are known to be subject to chaos and meaningless as forecasts.

The joke is your credulity - your willingness to believe that the science that knowingly cannot accurately predict the weather in two weeks in the UK, can somehow predict a global calamity in a century.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 09:38 am
How would YOU call YOUR obsession here, George, or compare it to what?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 09:45 am
I have no obsession other than a healthy skepticism of people who claim to know what is good for me and who show an inclination to use force to advance their ideas.

I have an open mind on the potential for AGW. I believe it is an interesting and worthy subject for continued investigation.

I am also mindful that we have a lot of history to remind us of the ease with which zealots can put aside the side effects of various remedies they put forward to remedy single issues which interest them. A good example is the human mortality resulting from the resurgence of Malaria in Africa that is a side effect of the discontinuation of the use of DDT as an insecticide. The historical record shows that little attention was paid to this possibility during the early years of the post "Silent Spring" environmental movement.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 10:12 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
This is a joke George.


No joke. It is science and mathematics. The numerical models used as the basis for the various calamaty theories being put forward are known to be subject to chaos and meaningless as forecasts.

The joke is your credulity - your willingness to believe that the science that knowingly cannot accurately predict the weather in two weeks in the UK, can somehow predict a global calamity in a century.
I can assure you it was a joke George, because I meant it as a joke. When I talked about dino sceptics saying the meteorite will probably miss...that was a joke. It may not be the best joke I ever came out with, but it was a joke, that is not meant to be taken seriously.

As for my credulity, I would like to know exactly what calamity in a century or so I am supposed to believe in.

Let me ask you this; as you are so sceptical about science, what alternative guide to our actions do you propose? Guesswork? Toss a coin? Hope For the Best? Or are we to rely on the imminent Second Coming when Jesus will sort it all out at minimal cost?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 10:42 am
Quote:
An island made by global warming
By Michael McCarthy, Environmental Editor
Published: 24 April 2007
The map of Greenland will have to be redrawn. A new island has appeared off its coast, suddenly separated from the mainland by the melting of Greenland's enormous ice sheet, a development that is being seen as the most alarming sign of global warming.

Several miles long, the island was once thought to be the tip of a peninsula halfway up Greenland's remote east coast but a glacier joining it to the mainland has melted away completely, leaving it surrounded by sea.

Shaped like a three-fingered hand some 400 miles north of the Arctic Circle, it has been discovered by a veteran American explorer and Greenland expert, Dennis Schmitt, who has named it Warming Island (Or Uunartoq Qeqertoq in Inuit, the Eskimo language, that he speaks fluently).

The US Geological Survey has confirmed its existence with satellite photos, that show it as an integral part of the Greenland coast in 1985, but linked by only a small ice bridge in 2002, and completely separate by the summer of 2005. It is now a striking island of high peaks and rugged rocky slopes plunging steeply to a sea dotted with icebergs.

As the satellite pictures and the main photo which we publish today make clear, Warming Island has been created by a quite undeniable, rapid and enormous physical transformation and is likely to be seen around the world as a potent symbol of the coming effects of climate change.

But it is only one more example of the disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet, that scientists have begun to realise, only very recently, is proceeding far more rapidly than anyone thought.

The second-largest ice sheet in the world (after Antarctica), if its entire 2.5 million cubic kilometres of ice were to melt, it would lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 metres, or more than 23 feet.

That would inundate most of the world's coastal cities, including London, swamp vast areas of heavily-populated low-lying land in countries such as Bangladesh, and remove several island countries such as the Maldives from the face of the Earth. However, even a rise one tenth as great would have devastating consequences.

Sea level rise is already accelerating. Sea levels are going up around the world by about 3.1mm per year - the average for the period 1993-2003. That is itself sharply up from an average of 1.8mm per year over the longer period 1961-2003. Greenland ice now accounts for about 0.5 millimetre of the total. (Much of the rest of the rise is coming from the expansion of the world's sea water as it warms.)

Until two or three years ago, it was thought that the break-up of the ice sheet might take 1,000 years or more but a series of studies and alarming observations since 2004 have shown the disintegration is accelerating and, as a consequence, sea level rise may be much quicker than anticipated.

Earlier computer models, researchers believe, failed to capture properly the way the ice sheet would respond to major warming (over the past 20 years, Greenland's air temperature has risen by 3C). The 2001 report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was relatively reassuring, suggesting change would be slow.

But satellite measurements of Greenland's entire land mass show that the speed at which its glaciers are moving to the sea has increased significantly in the past decade, with some of them moving three times faster than in the mid-1990s.

Scientists estimate that, in 1996, glaciers deposited about 50 cubic km of ice into the sea. In 2005, it had risen to 150 cubic km of ice.

A study last year by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology showed that, rather than just melting relatively slowly, the ice sheet is showing all the signs of a mechanical break-up as glaciers slip ever faster into the ocean, aided by the "lubricant" of meltwater forming at their base. As the meltwater seeps down it lubricates the bases of the "outlet" glaciers of the ice sheet, causing them to slip down surrounding valleys towards the sea,

Another discovery has been the increase in "glacial earthquakes" caused by the sudden movement of enormous blocks of ice within the ice sheet. The annual number of them recorded in Greenland between 1993 and 2002 was between six and 15. In 2003, seismologists recorded 20 glacial earthquakes. In 2004, they monitored 24 and for the first 10 months of 2005 they recorded 32. The seismologists also found the glacial earthquakes occurred mainly during the summer months, indicating the movements were indeed associated with rapidly melting ice - normal "tectonic" earthquakes show no such seasonality. Of the 136 glacial quakes analysed in a report published last year, more than a third occurred during July and August.

The creation of Warming Island appears to be entirely consistent with the disintegrating ice sheet, coming about when the glacier bridge linking it to the mainland simply disappeared. It was discovered by Mr Schmitt, a 60-year-old explorer from Berkeley, California, who has known Greenland for 40 years, during a trip he led up the remote coastline.

According to the US Geological Survey: "More islands like this may be discovered if the Greenland Ice Sheet continues to disappear."

A self-governing dependency of Denmark, Greenland is the largest island in the world but is inhabited by only 56,000 people, mainly Inuit. More than 80 per cent of the land surface is covered by the ice sheet.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2480994.ece

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/grace_greenland_mass_trend.gif
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 11:41 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
Let me ask you this; as you are so sceptical about science, what alternative guide to our actions do you propose? Guesswork? Toss a coin? Hope For the Best? Or are we to rely on the imminent Second Coming when Jesus will sort it all out at minimal cost?
Since when scientific or economic predictions have been any guide to our societal actions 50, 100 years ahead Steve ? Our politicans are not even capable of saving the healthcare or pension systems NOW and they are claiming to commit to be saving the world ? Come on !

Believing in the computerized crystal balls is absurd power one.
But believing we should make sacrifice now to avoid making putative sacrifices in the future is absurd power ten.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 01:28 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
Let me ask you this; as you are so sceptical about science, what alternative guide to our actions do you propose? Guesswork? Toss a coin? Hope For the Best? Or are we to rely on the imminent Second Coming when Jesus will sort it all out at minimal cost?
Since when scientific or economic predictions have been any guide to our societal actions 50, 100 years ahead Steve ? Our politicans are not even capable of saving the healthcare or pension systems NOW and they are claiming to commit to saving the world ? Come on !

Believing in the computerized crystal balls is absurd power one.
But believing we should make sacrifice now to avoid making putative sacrifices in the future is absurd power ten.
There is a saying in this country "A stitch in time saves nine". It is certainly not absurd to strengthen sea defenses of vulnerable cities (London is one) if sea levels are rising and predicted to rise further. Of course its cheaper to do nothing, and hope. Is that your recommendation?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 01:46 pm
The French even add 91 more : «Un point à temps en vaut cent.»
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 02:41 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
There is a saying in this country "A stitch in time saves nine". It is certainly not absurd to strengthen sea defenses of vulnerable cities (London is one) if sea levels are rising and predicted to rise further. Of course its cheaper to do nothing, and hope. Is that your recommendation?
This is called prevention & adaptation as humans have always done. I see no problem with it even if the timing is a matter of economic discussion (bulding structures now that will, maybe, serve in 50 years is wasting your resources, nobody with all his mind will do it, except when it's not his money).

What is a problem to me is to try to "stop climate change" (yes, they said it!), the likes of Kyoto and other cap & trade bureaucratic stupidities that cost a fortune for no result.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 02:42 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
The French even add 91 more : «Un point à temps en vaut cent.»
We have also the opposite: "rien ne sert de courrir, mieux vaut partir à temps" (La Fontaine).
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 02:44 pm
miniTAX wrote:
We have also the opposite: "rien ne sert de courrir, mieux vaut partir à temps" (La Fontaine).


You aren't going to argue with fables against folk wisdom, aren't you? :wink:
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 02:51 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
We have also the opposite: "rien ne sert de courrir, mieux vaut partir à temps" (La Fontaine).


You aren't going to argue with fables against folk wisdom, aren't you? :wink:
La Fontaine's fables are made like this: you have the fable first followed by the ending which is of folk wisdom repertoire. What I cited is the ending. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 03:00 pm
I know, this has been discussed here Laughing

http://i10.tinypic.com/3yrbo5e.jpg
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 03:59 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
There is a saying in this country "A stitch in time saves nine". It is certainly not absurd to strengthen sea defenses of vulnerable cities (London is one) if sea levels are rising and predicted to rise further. Of course its cheaper to do nothing, and hope. Is that your recommendation?


I don't think that is at all what was implied. The rational approach to this problem is to calculate the expected cost of the problem and the expected cost of the remedy and act accordingly. The problem for AGW proponents arises here. The expected cost of the catastrophe is the probability of its occurrence times its direct cost. AGW cultists are asking us to accept the probability of occurrence as 100%, when in fact it is unknown and likely to be very small.

However, the costs of the remedy they are asking us to apply are certain. Moreover he estimates provided to date of the remedy are largely untested and underestimated, whiles those put forward regarding the catastrophe are generally recognized to be overstated. The beneficial effects on life and agriculture of a small degree of added warming in the temperate zones of the earth are likely to be quite substandial -- as was demonstrated during the last warming period during the late Middle Ages.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/23/2024 at 12:35:04