 sj |
||
|
||
BS: US Politics and Global Warming
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 16 Jul 08 - 06:24 PM Aust Emissions trading scheme, Garnaut review – FAQ The scheme is due to start in 2010. Lincoln Archer Thursday, July 03, 2008 at 02:03pm Learn what an emissions trading scheme is and how it will affect you with our FAQ that gives you the lowdown on what you need to know. What is an emissions trading scheme? Why do we need it? Who is included in it? How will it work? But why should polluters play along? How will I be affected? So I'm stuffed? Who else is affected? So what now? Is this it? Where can I learn more? ~~~~~~~~~~~ Links include: Where can I learn more? For further information on an ETS and the Garnaut report and for full explanations of the issues and modelling involved, check out: - Garnaut review official website - Garnaut review interim report - February 2008 (.pdf file) - Garnaut review EST discussion paper - March 2008 (.pdf file) - IPCC report on the science of climate change - IPCC report on what needs to be done |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Stringsinger Date: 03 Jul 08 - 07:10 PM The science is there. Most throughout the world agree that this is a real problem. In this era, religion in the US has done damage to science. The political will in this country is not favorable to the acceptance of science or the findings of reputable scientists. The rejection of Evolution is a case in point. The politics is such that the religious right is given too much credence over science. Anti-Choice, anti-stem cell research, anti-birth control and other misguided superstitious ideas have taken hold to the detriment of the protection of our planet. Polar ice caps are melting. The planet is heating up because the oceans are absorbing more rays of sunlight which cut through ozone layers that protect us. The world is becoming more prone to deserts in Australia and Africa. The water table is rising and the hydrologic cycle is creating cloud turbulence with flooding and radical shifts in weather. Humans are causing this through CO2 emissions. Most Americans are asleep on this issue. Humans have had a pretty good run in the geologic age but may be digging the grave of their own extinction. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 03 Jul 08 - 06:53 PM 19:00 03 July 2008 NewScientist.com news service Michael Reilly PrintSendFeeds Advertisement Much noise has been made about how water lubricates the base of Greenland's ice sheet, accelerating its slide into the oceans. In a rare "good news" announcement, climatologists now say the ice may not be in such a hurry to throw itself into the water after all. Mother Nature, it seems, has given it brakes. Since 1991, the western edge of Greenland's ice sheet has actually slowed its ocean-bound progress by 10%, say the team, who have studied the longest available record of ice and water flow in the region. Greenland's mighty ice sheet has enough water locked away to raise global sea level 6.5 metres were it to melt. Each summer, vast lakes of meltwater form on its surface. The water seeps through cracks in the kilometer-thick ice to bedrock, where it acts as a lubricant. The sheet can move up to twice as fast in the summer, when meltwater is flowing, as when it is not. Many fear a positive feedback loop, whereby the accelerating flow will bring more ice down out of the mountains and toward warmer temperatures near sea level. Roderik Van De Waal and colleagues at Utrecht University in the Netherlands now say there is no evidence this will happen. Daily changes They looked at how meltwater has correlated with the speed of ice flow at the western edge of the sheet, just north of the Arctic Circle, since 1991. They found that meltwater pouring down holes in the ice Ð called "moulins" Ð did indeed cause ice velocities to skyrocket, from their typical 100m per year to up to 400m per year, within days or weeks. But the acceleration was short-lived, and ice velocities usually returned to normal within a week after the waters began draining. Over the course of the 17 years, the flow of the ice sheet actually decreased slightly, in some parts by as much as 10%. "For some time, glaciologists believed that more meltwater equaled higher ice speeds," Van de Waal says. "This would be kind of disastrous, but apparently it is not happening." Van de Waal believes that the channels that carry the meltwater out to sea freeze up during the winter months. In summer, pulses of water rushing down the moulins to the bedrock overwhelm the narrowed channels, and the increased pressure lifts the ice sheet off the rock, enabling it to move faster. However, after a few days the channels are forced open by the water, and it drains away from the glacier. As a result, the ice grinds back down against the bedrock and the lubricant effect is lost. No lubrication Van De Waal says this indicates that, overall, meltwater has a negligible effect on the rate at which the ice sheet moves. Not all scientists agree. Jay Zwally of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, US, says that averaging data over the last 17 years does not make sense because the most rapid melting at the edges of the ice sheet did not start until recently. "It's only in the last five years or so that the warming signal has really been visible," he says. Zwally told New Scientist that unpublished data from the eastern edge of the ice sheet suggests between 3% and 5% more ice is being lost because of lubrication than would otherwise happen. That is less than the 25% that was previously calculated, but still significant, he says. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 03 Jul 08 - 03:57 PM I recommend to those who wonder how this puzzle fits together a bbook called Common Wealth, recently released, which details intelligently the vectors of the problem, the hard numbers associated with it, and paths toward remediation. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: TIA Date: 03 Jul 08 - 03:20 PM In fact, links to the methane data are here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: TIA Date: 03 Jul 08 - 03:12 PM If one wishes to understand the true current state of the science and discriminate the junk, there is no better place to start than... here. There are plenty of references to the origianl journal articles and data. I encourage everyone to form your opinions from data, not blog entries or bloviators. Instead of killing all the farting animals, how about we require higher emissions standards for automobiles (for one little example)? And why do we not? As the Ancient Mariner says, follow the money trail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: GUEST,The Ancient Mariner Date: 03 Jul 08 - 02:52 PM We live in a media-driven age in which self-fulfilling prophesies are often promulgated by agenda-driven people. Whether it is "the sky is falling" doomsday prognosticators in economics or the same "dark side" forces at work in predicting a global climate armageddon just past the next dawn, just follow the money or the politics. There is an abundance of bad science on both sides. Mankind produces only a small portion of all of the methane produced daily. So, shouldn't we kill all the other vegetation eating animals in the world because their farts cause global warming? All the humans in the world who involuntarily exhale produce many metric tons of carbon dioxide daily. Do we all need to stop breathing? What about a rational view? I can agree that we need to have clean air and clean water for reasons of health and safety alone. It would be preferable, and it will be inevitable, that we find a substitute for fossil fuels. But, we can't stop the world and go back to the dark ages in order to satisfy the zealots among us who buy into the insupportable doomsday predictions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: TIA Date: 03 Jul 08 - 02:34 PM "A ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that details both the threat of global warming and our ability to address the problem has been suppressed by the White House since December. This document, produced in response to a "monumental" Supreme Court mandate, includes a "multimillion-dollar study conducted over two years" that finds "the net benefit to society could be in excess of $2 trillion" if strong carbon dioxide emissions standards for the automotive industry are issued. The proposal to increase today's fuel economy standards by 50 percent from 25 miles per gallon to 38.3 mpg by 2020 is stronger than those included in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, which called for a 40 percent increase. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson used the signing of the act as the public excuse to reject the findings of his staff and block California's proposal to regulate greenhouse tailpipe emissions. In fact, congressional investigations have revealed that officials in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) refused to open the email containing the EPA plan and that Johnson has been stonewalling to prevent disclosure of President Bush's role." source and references Until late next January, politics will triumph over science every time - usually to the detriment of not just americans, but all people on the planet. Asshole. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Wolfgang Date: 25 Jan 06 - 12:03 PM Yesterday, the lowest ever temperature was recorded in Austria. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: curmudgeon Date: 24 Jan 06 - 07:59 PM Those who think that there is no global warming would be well advised to consider this story - Tom |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Troll Date: 24 Jan 06 - 07:25 PM Can someone explain to me how "a global temperature increase of 0.4 degree Fahrenheit, per decade, for the last 30 years." (Ebbie, 13 Aug. 05), is caused by present-day policies. It may be being exacerbated by what's going on in the world right now but it certainly didn't start last week. While I can agree that the actions of man have had some adverse affect on the climate, I cannot agree that man, and the US in particular, is wholly at fault. There have been studies that point to sun spots, it was just reported that plants give off a lot of methane, and the beat goes on. On the other hand, there are those who ascribe the whole thing to Bush, the Republicans, Industry (but not in third world countries), Big Oil, America, and the Human Race. No one has all the answers, with the possible exception of those who crusade for one single cause, with one single group at fault. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 06 - 01:53 PM Notes from the current issue of Sea Technologty magazine: 1. UK National OCeanographic Center, SOuthhampton reports findings indicating that the Atlantic "overturning" current, responsible for the moderate climate of Europe, has slowed by 30% comparing records as far back as 1957; a rapid decline began in 2004. 2. The top three meters of permafrodt across the Northern Hemisphere coul dbe 50% gone by 2050 and 100% melted by 21000, according to simulations from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. 3. According to Rutgers professor Kenneth G. Miller, global ocean levels are rising at twice the rate they did 150 years ago -- two mm. per year versus several thousands of years of one mm./yr. The most dramatic change has been since the 19th century. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 13 Aug 05 - 04:32 AM This is not good news, although if it helps people wake up a tad faster there will be some benefit. It seems that for years there has been a puzzling discrepancy between ground temperature taking versus weather balloon temperatures. The difference between the two has been one of the anomolies that scoffers have used as ammunition for their thesis pooh poohing the notion of global warming. Today it is reported that there has been a good reason for the discrepancy - and the difference is not in the scoffers' favor. They end up by saying: "After correcting for the problem, the researchers estimate there has been a global temperature increase of 0.4 degree Fahrenheit, per decade, for the last 30 years. "Unfortunately, the warming is in an accelerating trend — the climate has not yet caught up with what we've already put into the atmosphere," said lead author Steven Sherwood, associate professor of geology and geophysics at Yale. "This has muddied the interpretation. "There are steps we should take, but it seems that shaking people out of complacency will take a strong incentive." Not Good News |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Don Firth Date: 12 Aug 05 - 11:18 PM 'Twouldn't be a bad idea to start building generation star ships and hope to hell there are habitable planets out there somewhere. It's beginning to look like we've buggered this one. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 12 Aug 05 - 10:54 PM Warming hits 'tipping point' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: freda underhill Date: 09 Aug 05 - 07:33 AM Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq ... to secure control of its oil. Neil Mackay on the document which casts doubt on the hawks IT is a document that fundamentally questions the motives behind the Bush administration's desire to take out Saddam Hussein and go to war with Iraq. Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century describes how America is facing the biggest energy crisis in its history. It targets Saddam as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of 'military intervention' as a means to fix the US energy crisis. The report is linked to a veritable who's who of US hawks, oilmen and corporate bigwigs. It was commissioned by James Baker, the former US Secretary of State under George Bush Snr, and submitted to Vice-President Dick Cheney in April 2001 -- a full five months before September 11. Yet it advocates a policy of using military force against an enemy such as Iraq to secure US access to, and control of, Middle Eastern oil fields. One of the most telling passages in the document reads: 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. 'This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader ... and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. 'The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.' At the moment, UN sanctions allow Iraq to export some oil. Indeed, the US imports almost a million barrels of Iraqi oil a day, even though American firms are forbidden from direct involvement with the regime's oil industry. In 1999, Iraq was exporting around 2.5 million barrels a day across the world. The US document recommends using UN weapons inspectors as a means of controlling Iraqi oil. On one hand, 'military intervention' is supported; but the report also backs 'de-fanging' Saddam through weapons inspectors and then moving in to take control of Iraqi oil. 'Once an arms-control program is in place, the US could consider reducing restrictions [sanctions] on oil investment inside Iraq,' it reads. The reason for this is that 'Iraqi [oil] reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade'. This, however, may not be as effective as simply taking out Saddam. The report admits that an arms-control policy will be ' quite costly' as it will 'encourage Saddam Hussein to boast of his 'victory' against the United States, fuel his ambition and potentially strengthen his regime'. It adds: 'Once so encouraged, and if his access to oil revenues was to be increased by adjustments in oil sanctions, Saddam Hussein could be a greater security threat to US allies in the region if weapons of mass destruction, sanctions, weapons regimes and the coalition against him are not strengthened.' The document also points out that 'the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma', and that one of the 'consequences' of this is a 'need for military intervention'. At the heart of the decision to target Iraq over oil lies dire mismanagement of the US energy policy over decades by consecutive administrations. The report refers to the huge power cuts that have affected California in recent years and warns of 'more Californias' ahead. It says the 'central dilemma' for the US administration is that 'the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience'. With the 'energy sector in critical condition, a crisis could erupt at any time [which] could have potentially enormous impact on the US ... and would affect US national security and foreign policy in dramatic ways.'' The main cause of a crisis, according to the document's authors, is 'Middle East tension', which means the 'chances are greater than at any point in the last two decades of an oil supply disruption'. The report says the US will never be 'energy independent' and is becoming too reliant on foreign powers supplying it with oil and gas. The response is to put oil at the heart of the administration -- 'a reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy'. The US energy crisis is exacerbated by growing anti-American feeling in the oil-rich Gulf states. 'Gulf allies are finding their domestic and foreign policy interests increasingly at odds with US strategic considerations, especially as Arab-Israeli tensions flare,' says the report. 'They have become less inclined to lower oil prices ... A trend towards anti-Americanism could affect regional leaders' ability to co-operate with the US in the energy area. The resulting tight markets have increased US vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue political influence over the price of oil.'' Iraq is described as the world's 'key swing producer ... turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest''. The report also says there is a 'possibility that Saddam may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time', creating a volatile market. While the report alone seems to build a compelling case that oil is one of the central issues fuelling the war against Iraq, there are also other, circumstantial pieces of the jigsaw that show disturbing connections between 'black gold' and the Bush administration's desire to wage war on Saddam. In 1998 the oil equipment company Halliburton, of which Dick Cheney was chief executive, sold parts to Iraq so Saddam could repair an infrastructure that had been terribly damaged during the 1991 Gulf war. Cheney's firm did £15 million of business with Saddam -- a man Cheney now calls a 'murderous dictator'. Halliburton is one of the firms thought by analysts to be in line to make a killing in any clean-up operation after another US-led war on Iraq. All five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the UK, France, China, Russia and the US -- have international oil companies that would benefit from huge windfalls in the event of regime change in Baghdad. The best chance for US firms to make billions would come if Bush installed a pro-US Iraqi opposition member as the head of a new government. Representatives of foreign oil firms have already met with leaders of the Iraqi opposition. Ahmed Chalabi, the London-based leader of the Iraqi National Congress, said: 'American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.' Web report: Iraq 06 October 2002 http://www.sundayherald.com/28224 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: freda underhill Date: 09 Aug 05 - 07:30 AM Oil has always been top of Bush's foreign-policy agenda October 7 2002; Sydney Morning Herald The White House decided that diplomacy was not an option in the Middle East, writes Ritt Goldstein. As the United States prepares for war with Iraq, a report commissioned early in George Bush's presidency has surfaced, showing that the US knew it was running out of oil and foreshadowing the possible need for military intervention to secure supplies. The report forecasts an end to cheap and plentiful fuel, with the energy industry facing "the beginning of capacity limitations". Prepared by the influential Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, it urged the Bush Administration to admit "these agonising truths to the American people". "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century", written early last year, was a policy document used to shape the new administration's energy policy. It applauded the creation of Vice-President Dick Cheney's energy task force to address the creation of specific energy plans, and suggested it consider including representation from the Department of Defence. Saying "there is no alternative" and "there is no time to waste", the document projects periods of exploding US energy prices, economic recession and social unrest unless answers are found. It suggests that a minimum three to five years is needed to find a solution, and says a "reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy" is called for, with access to oil repeatedly cited as a "security imperative". The involvement of the Council of Foreign Relations in the report's preparation adds weight to its findings. The council ranks as one of the most influential groups in US political circles, with members including Mr Cheney and the former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and James Baker. ...It has been said repeatedly that the US objective is the construction of trans-Afghan pipelines allowing access to Caspian oil and gas. According to the authors and an article in Le Monde Diplomatique in January, US attempts to bribe and threaten the Taliban had preceded the September 11 attacks. Notably, the IPS article quoted the French authors as saying that, faced with the Taliban's refusal to co-operate, the rationale of energy security changed into a military one, reflecting what the report advocated as a valid option. ...It also suggests diplomatic alternatives - but policy since the September 11 attacks appears in keeping only with the military intervention option. Ideas such as defusing the Arab-Israeli conflict, an easing of Iraqi sanctions and "reducing the restrictions on oil investments inside Iraq" are at odds with the policies the Administration is pursuing. While the US now presses for "regime change" in Iraq, more than 18 months ago the report repeatedly emphasised its importance as an oil producer and the need to expand Iraqi production as soon as possible to meet projected oil shortages - shortages it said could be avoided only through increased production or conservation in the near-term. In essence, the report sees the nature of Persian Gulf politics as a significant threat and obstacle to increased energy supplies. Implicit in the substantive concerns - that "Gulf allies are finding their domestic and foreign policy interests increasingly at odds with US strategic considerations", and that "evidence suggests that investment is not being made in a timely enough manner" to meet global needs - is the seed of what has now become an almost openly adversarial position. During the northern summer, news reports began to paint Saudi Arabia as a possible adversary to the US. Rhetoric regarding Iraq has also been steadily ratcheted up, creating what amounts to an allegation du jour scenario. US military circles have watched as Iraq became "the tactical pivot", Saudi Arabia "the strategic pivot", and an agenda of "not just a new regime in Iraq" but a "new Middle East" has been increasingly discussed. ……………………. And.. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1295/6_66/87855086/p1/article.jhtml And http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnronaoAEp2.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 08 Aug 05 - 08:36 PM Another thread shredded by belligerent ignorance and dedicated know-nothingism. Plus ça change, plus ç'est la meme chose. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Aug 05 - 08:16 PM Drinking Scotch, even with ice in it, certainly warms my globes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: jpk Date: 08 Aug 05 - 05:47 PM was that glen livet,or glen devro, i prefer the later but like both better than the rest,no blends allowed thank you. ps the addition of ice to said scotch[discovered by experimention]ah simnlikke thhhhat.well it lowers the vol. in the beaker,at the hint of melting,the scotch having an adversion to dilution. or is it the observer's adversion to the dilution of the observed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 05 - 10:23 AM August 05, 2005 A noted geosciences professor says the Antarctic Peninsula is undergoing greater warming than nearly anywhere on Earth. Professor Eugene Domack of Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. -- writing in a cover article for the current issue of the journal Nature -- said the Antarctic warming may be associated with human-induced greenhouse effects. Domack says the spectacular collapse of the Antarctica's Larson B Ice Shelf -- an area roughly the size of Rhode Island -- is unprecedented in 10,000 years. He said his paper provides evidence the break-up of the ice shelf was caused by thinning during thousands of years, as well as short term (multi-decade) cumulative increases in surface air temperature exceeding the natural variation of regional climate during the Holocene period -- the last 10,000 years. The recent collapse is attributed to climate warming in the Antarctic Peninsula, which is more pronounced than elsewhere in the world. In recent years, Domack said, the Antarctic Peninsula has lost ice shelves totaling more than 4,825 square miles. Wal, G, what were their reasons? Or are you just trying to politicize the discussion with your condescending remarks? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: GUEST,G Date: 06 Aug 05 - 08:32 PM ......maybe for Margaritas? However, I digress - if one looks at the origin of this thread, almost 9 months ago, it is easy to understand why we drift off onto tangents. The thrust of the opening post was towards Bush and his not signing the Treaty. Why not explain the reason for WJC not signing it (he was there) and Algore being agasinst it. Had everyone paid attention to posts #2 and #3, much time and effort would have been saved. Ah, the life of sheep is not easily understood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 05 - 08:28 PM Ya ruins more darn Scotch that way. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: pdq Date: 06 Aug 05 - 08:16 PM A slight caution, John Hardly. Don't use ice cubes made from salt water. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: John Hardly Date: 06 Aug 05 - 07:51 PM This might be a very good time to do some experimenting. I think I'll see if ice will raise the level in a glass of scotch. Anyone else in an experimental mood? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 05 - 07:43 PM Actually, fresh water (like any material on the macro scale) contracts as it gets colder, but it has this peculiar anomaly: it expands when it actually goes through the phase-shift from liquid to ice, because of the particular ordering of the molecules when crystallizing. This is a very important fact in our life-systems. For example, it keeps the ice on the top of deep fresh lakes, so fish can survive down below. Anyway, jpk, your rebuttal is not with me, but with Dr. Noerdlinger. Perhaps if you look into what he says it will be clearer why he says it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: jpk Date: 06 Aug 05 - 07:10 PM dear mr firth,i belive the operative statement in amos thread was "when this floating ice melts"and the paper sited was titled"the melting of floating ice etc". the only changes taking place is the salinity of the liquid water do to the change in amount,oh yes and the temp. have a good day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 05 - 02:46 PM Many thanks for the lead, Don -- I have been meaning to get my hands on this book for some time. I will have to wait until I finish Dawkins and also your other recommendation, First Democracy(Woodruff) before I bring it into the house, though -- I get in trouble if my current books stacks get too high because they get misinterpreted as never-to-be-finished. :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Don Firth Date: 06 Aug 05 - 01:54 PM A book worth reading: Collapse : How Societies Chose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond. Here's a quote from a review. In Collapse, Jared makes a case for how civilizations died out as a consequence of conflict between the lifestyle they had to uphold in order to ensure their social survival and the lifestyle they should have adopted in order to ensure their biological survival, i.e. he points out how it was a lack of flexibility on the one hand (unwillingness to change their ways) and ignorance on the other that lead whole civilizations to commit a slow suicide by taxing the eco-system beyond the breaking point.If you want to read a bit more about it, here's an article in The New Yorker. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 05 Aug 05 - 07:22 PM JPK: I don't believe you are interpreting the post I offered correctly -- you might want to go read the original. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Ebbie Date: 05 Aug 05 - 07:18 PM One of the oddities is that all glaciers and icebergs are made of fresh water. Something to remember the next time you are stranded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Don Firth Date: 05 Aug 05 - 06:27 PM Sorry. I just popped back onto this thread from another one, saw what jpk had written, and without checking further back, assumed that he was trying to get away with Rush's little scam (sort of "Archimedean screwing" around with displacement). I'm afraid I knee-jerked. As I said, I was just waiting for someone to try to pull that one. I'm try not be so precipitous in the future. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: John Hardly Date: 05 Aug 05 - 05:30 PM Don, 1. You are WAY above the "Limberger" thing. 2. jpk misread the evidence that Amos was pointing out -- that there is a difference in density between the water of freshwater ice that floats in salt water, such that when fresh water ice melts into salt water, it does actually raise the water level even though freshwater ice melting into freshwater would not. Though I believe that jpk ignored the salient (had to slip a salty word into the freshwater discussion *BG*) point of Amos' post, they were both, in fact, discussing the melt limited to floating ice. They were not discussing the ice that sits on land. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Don Firth Date: 05 Aug 05 - 05:15 PM jpk, that's a crock. Rush Limberger tried to get away with that one several years ago. The two situations are not the same. The block of ice in the bucket of water displaces its own weight, so what you say works in the bucket. But the melting glaciers are not floating and displacing their own weight, they are sitting on land, NOT displacing any water in the oceans. So their mass, when melted, would flow into the oceans and raise the level. I was just waiting for someone to try to pull that one off. GOTCHA!!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: jpk Date: 05 Aug 05 - 04:55 PM dear amos, the ice bit is cock ca do a simple exoeriment at home. fill a bucket with water,mix in the amount of salt you want,add large ice block,mark level, let ice melt and copare,bet there is no change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: TIA Date: 05 Aug 05 - 01:49 PM Actually, we were heading towards an ice age 40 years ago. Guess what is contributing to the trend reversal. If you think most earth scientists are driven by ideology, you are sadly mistaken. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 05 - 06:51 PM MELTING OF FLOATING ICE WILL RAISE SEA LEVEL, August 04 When ice on land slides into the ocean, it displaces ocean water and causes sea level to rise. People believe that when this floating ice melts, water level doesn‚t rise an additional amount because the freshwater ice displaces the same volume of water as it would contribute once it melts. Similarly, people also think that when ocean water freezes to form sea ice and then melts, the water is merely going through a change of state, so it won‚t affect sea level. However, in a visit to NSIDC in May, Dr. Peter Noerdlinger, a professor at St. Mary‚s University in Nova Scotia, Canada, suggested otherwise. In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise. The common misconception that floating ice won't increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes' Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced. (From PhysOrg.com -- see link above). A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: jpk Date: 04 Aug 05 - 06:08 PM funny man was heading us down thwe road to another ice age when i was a kid.seems that it is always some fad to scare people with.been happing for years,before you know it will be something new/old to replace it.they come and go like diets,maybe why it is popular in holly wood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: dianavan Date: 04 Aug 05 - 05:27 PM I saw a group of dolphins in the inland waters of B.C. a few days ago. This is very unusual as they prefer colder water. I keep wondering if it has something to do with melting glaciers. I also noticed that although its nearly mid-August, the water is still icy cold and the nights are nippy. George Bush? I think he reads too much of the book of Revelations. He figures he can do whatever in the now because we're heading for Armegeddon anyway. He simply doesn't care. Why would anyone vote for such an ignorant tyrant? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 05 - 03:34 PM Except in Pheonix....maybe DOug has a scheme!! :) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Don Firth Date: 04 Aug 05 - 03:24 PM Recently, one of the biggest tourist attractions in Europe suffered what amounts to a major disaster. Between a rising mean sea level and an especially high tide (a recurring event, depending on the relative positions of the sun and moon), St. Mark's Square in Venice (you know--all the tourists and the pigeons) suddenly found itself under four feet of water. The rising mean sea level is turning out to be a major problem in Venice. Hip-waders have become an essential part of local dress. Centuries-old buildings are being undermined by the rising sea level, inundation of areas of the city are becoming a chronic problem there, and they're considering building a massive sea-wall to keep the water out. Problem: prohibitively expensive. A harbinger of things to come? Beach property is not a really good long-term investment. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 05 - 02:42 PM Facts is facts, Doug. Viewpoints enter in when interpretation is added, but that is not what I am talking about. The melting of permafrost is a fact, as far as I know. The enormous calving of icebergs is a fact. I assume the reports of rising water-levels and weaker ice seasons is also factual. I have to take it on authority that these are historically unusual as I haven't been measuring myself. But these facts, and this history, are being reported by people who are professionals at gathering physical universe information in a rigorous way. By imputing that it is all opinion, you again duck into the obscurity of non-substance and avoid the question. Which facts do you wish to rebut? Or haven't you gotten around to reading the source material being cited? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: DougR Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:52 PM Factual from whose point of view, Amos? I'm waiting to see what Molly Ivens or Maureen Dowd has to say about it before I make up my mind. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:39 PM In the absence of facts, DougR, your retreat into cynical sarcasm is unbecoming and unarticulate. Which of the factual representations from the series I pointed to do you wish to rebut? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: DougR Date: 04 Aug 05 - 01:01 AM Run for your life, Freda! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: TIA Date: 03 Aug 05 - 09:31 PM There has been HONEST study of the problem. It is CLEARLY not due in any significant way to recent volcanic activity. There is widespread (essentially unanimous) agreement among scientists that man's activites have contributed significantly to global warming. Fox and the Bush administration have scoured the globe for people with a hint of credentials to dispute this, but for each semi-pseudo-scientist they can trot out (e.g. Fox interviewed an MD the other morning...shall I have a climatologist take my tonsils out?), there are thousands of scientists who agree. No one has claimed that ALL warming is due to man. But everyone HONEST scientist agrees that man's activities are causing major climate changes with as-yet unknown consequences. Shall we just wait and see how bad it gets? Yes, sea level has risen significantly since the Wisconsinan glaciation. But before we use that fact to make a politically-motivated "see its natural and no big deal argument", perhaps we should compare human populations (both number and distribution), lifestyles, and infrastructure between today and 18,000 years ago. Also, you might want to compare the modern and early Holocene RATES of warming and sea level rise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Aug 05 - 07:51 PM Amos, "If all glaciers and ice caps melt, the projected rise in sea-level will be around 0.5 m. If the melting includes the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (both of which contain ice above sea level), then the rise is a more drastic 68.8 m. [3] " from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise I do not dispute any of the facts you have presented- BUT I would differ as to the cause of the effects you note. You ignore the recent volcanic eruptions, and place the blame for ALL changes on human activity. I am not so sure, though I agree there should be HONEST study of the problem- the impact of man on the environment. "The sea level has risen more than 120 metres since the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. The bulk of that occurred before 6000 years ago. " ... about the same time period as the deforestation of the Sahara region by humans introducing goats to the then savana. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: Amos Date: 03 Aug 05 - 07:38 PM Oh stop already with the fringe stuff, wouldja? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: jpk Date: 03 Aug 05 - 06:01 PM ed dains,supposed to be ex mil[a major in something]trained by the cia to be a,remote veiwer/mind reader,or some such,100% govt trained for spying,btw he has some school or such and will teach you to be too,for a price.he is a big shot on the show |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Politics and Global Warming From: jpk Date: 03 Aug 05 - 05:51 PM oh hell,just blame it on the phlogistic nature of the elements. |
