Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1321 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s October 23 - 03:03am EDT 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / Global warming, fact or farce?
 

  Re: Global warming, fact or farce? 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Next >>
thebell Apr 11, 2008, 07:15am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?

Want to enjoy less advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
dark41 Apr 11, 2008, 02:01pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Well Fredric, I quoted you because I didn't want a misunderstanding.

Fredric Georgsson said:
The economy to be worst hit, and first, by the increasing costs of resources, will be the US. No doubt about it.


There are already many countries whose economies have been hit by the increasing costs of resources, so the USA cannot be first. Sweden is apparently one of them. Australia is another, and I'm waiting for the Brits to chime in as they've been feeling it for awhile now too.

And as I stated earlier, I doubt the USA will get it the worst because they will keep flooding their economy with USD which has no basis for value. They've done this since 1972 and continue to do so every time there's a hint of a recession. Maybe someday their government will learn that you can't change the factors that cause a recession by flooding the economy with money that has no basis, but obviously they haven't learned yet. But gas prices there are still ridiculously low compared to everywhere else in the world who doesn't produce their own. I suspect that when they fall, they will fall hard. I'm quite sure their news will report it as the worst thing to ever happen to any country in history, but I doubt many Americans will have to live as poorly as some 3rd world countries are already living. I still think 3rd world countries and some others will get it much worse later too.

Australia may be the 1st country to offer an affordable electric car to the public. Australia has also been using wind mills for electricity in areas where the land is already devalued, and we have the entire outback to fill with wind mills if need be. No one can live there as drinking water is not available.

I'd be the first to point out that Australia is not perfect, but at least they've taken steps in the right direction and will be more proactive that way now that the Howard (Bush ass-kissin') government is gone. As far as the economy goes, it's a very good time to be in Oz. Not that Oz hasn't felt the repercussions from lack of resources, but the people and government have adapted along the way. :)

EX38-DS5
E8500@4.0GHz (445x9, 1.40v) TRUE Black
Corsair HX620W
2x2gb Kingston HyperX 9600
HIS IceQ4 HD4850
2X1TB F1s (RAID 0) XP Pro/Win7 Ult 64
Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1
Cambridge Soundworks 500w 5.1
G5, Antec 1200
dark41 Apr 11, 2008, 02:14pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Gerritt said:
I have not been able to get a job in the USA in the last 5 or 6 years.
Niether I or my spouse will ever be able to have the capability to retire at any reasonable age.
Gerrittt


I'm really sorry to hear that Gerritt.

Here we have all kinds of IT jobs available, but Visa issues are preventing qualified people from entering the country. One major thing I like about Australia is they watch very closely who enters the country. There's also a big demand for skilled tradesmen (plumbers, carpenters, etc.). All of these jobs pay pretty well.

I keep telling my kids in the USA to keep an open mind about moving here some day as they can make a good living here with a decent education. And regardless of what anyone else thinks, I still believe the USA offers a pretty good education.



EX38-DS5
E8500@4.0GHz (445x9, 1.40v) TRUE Black
Corsair HX620W
2x2gb Kingston HyperX 9600
HIS IceQ4 HD4850
2X1TB F1s (RAID 0) XP Pro/Win7 Ult 64
Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1
Cambridge Soundworks 500w 5.1
G5, Antec 1200
Gerritt Apr 11, 2008, 09:30pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Dark,

Don't get me wrong, I am working, just all my clients are overseas. The Caribbean, S. and C. America primarily, though I did have a short contract in England a while ago. But due to my being self employed, I don't have the option of a 401k or any other type of retirement package. My wife has been at her present job as a temporary employee for about 15 years now, and they finally made her a permanent employee last year, so we could finally get some sort of reasonablly priced (reletively speaking) health insurance, and she is now taking part in their retirement package. The bad news is that they are closing the office in about 2 years as JAXA (the Japanese Space Agency) has gotten fed up with NASA and the US government, so will be partnering closer with the ESA (European Space Agency) from then on.

Education like real estate is totally dependent on three things....location, location, location.
The schools here can be pretty hit or miss, depending on how affluent your neighborhood is. One of the reasons I'm mortgaged up to my eyeballs is that I can send my two girls to some of the highest rated schools in Florida. Florida education overall isn't much to be proud of, but this school is very progressive....my fifth grader brought home a math/science question about mass, joules and ergs...I had to go look it up! Unfortunately due to GWB, and his brother Jeb, the poorest schools don't get any additional moneys or help, but get moneys taken away from them, so they can't afford the good teachers, and most move into more affluent schools. Am I taking advantage of this, yes, but for those that can't afford it, it totally sucks.
China and India are cranking out more technology graduates than the US. The US cranks out MBAs and Lawyers, and people wonder why nothing gets done here anymore.

Gerritt

Ad Astra Per Aspera
(A rough road leads to the Stars)
We all know what we know, and everyone else knows we are wrong.
System Specifications in BIO
thebell Apr 12, 2008, 05:08am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
dark41
Seems like the race has already begun then. :) Australian people have taken huge steps I agree, Kevin Rudd signing the Kyoto protocol was really nice.

You seem to agree that when the US "fall", they will fall hard. I think the US gov has protected the American people from the truth for far too long, even using the army to do so, and that when that nation has to correct it's way of thinking it will be a really tough task. Perhaps they weren't the first, and they might not fall the hardest as you say. But we will probably see enormous amounts of American outcry in media. ;)

dark41 Apr 12, 2008, 05:20am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Gerritt,
I agree, location is everything for a decent education. My kids and I all went to smaller primary and high schools in WI. I'm pretty happy with the smaller class sizes (20-30 kids per class) and level of teachers. It's not big money, so the teachers that are there really care about their students and take pride in them. My daugthers will both be going to UW. The oldest will start at UW Stout in September, and then transfer after 2 years to UW Madison to get more specialized courses for weather/weather control. My 2nd oldest will do 4 yrs at UW Madison. It's not ivy league, but I think it has a very good reputation. Medicine is probably UW's strong point, but no kids show an interest in that field. But yea, if they were interested in IT I'd have to look at sending them internationally. Lucky for my wallet they're not. :)

EX38-DS5
E8500@4.0GHz (445x9, 1.40v) TRUE Black
Corsair HX620W
2x2gb Kingston HyperX 9600
HIS IceQ4 HD4850
2X1TB F1s (RAID 0) XP Pro/Win7 Ult 64
Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1
Cambridge Soundworks 500w 5.1
G5, Antec 1200
Gerritt Apr 14, 2008, 06:28pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Fredric,
I, like you, believe that the USA is in a downslide, and that most folks here are not aware of it.
(Start of Rant)
Unlike you, I believe that if we (the USA citizens) are properly informed (usually by a good smack of a 2x4 upside our extremely dense skulls), that WE will raise out of the consumeristic coma that we've been put into by governmental and commercial influences, to overcome whatever challenge there is for us to achieve. This will not be changed by just who is in office, or thier party affiliation, but by seeing that these affiliations have little impact on our lives, and that we need to think differently about ourselves as a whole.
Even today, it is by the efforts of USA companies, and thier offerings, that permit other countries to adopt more reasonable policies, but at the same time seem to preclude thier implementation here at "home". For instance, windmills are not ugly, especially as seen from 1 or 2 miles, but our wonderful "elite" just don't give a.....well you know.

I am a proud citizen of the USA. There are times that I'm less proud of my country, thus my postings and talking about what makes me less proud. I and others are willing, or starting to be willing, to be held accountable for our global impact.

If the structure that we have is lying or even as you've said: "No my fact was just exaggerated, not false. "The other side", those who say that global warming is a scam, lie in a different manner." how does that make it better for the general populace to see a difference between the sides. It is in our exaggerated sense of self-worth, based upon the exaggerated statistics fed to us that we remain resistant to the necessary changes in our lives. Honestly, these changes, if extrapolated over a period of 20 years or more, are very minimal indeed. Thus my questioning of your exaggeration.

Additionally, the question of 6+ Billion humans, vs. 2 Billion humans. I maintain that our support of the triple population is making it more difficult, if not impossible for us to overcome our present situation. This is just my take on it given my background and the explosive population growth over the last 50 years. There are studies that indicate that the human population DECREASE due to disease in the 15, 16 and early 17 hundreds actually reversed some earlier warming trends. My family's giving to charities that extend life expectancy in the 3rd world, may actually be contributing to the warming factor, but I am not without some sense of compassion, so still give, in hopes that some of the children in the 3rd world economies will grow to be capable of changing them into 2nd or 1st world over the long term, and thus allow for the 6 Billion + population stresses that we have world wide.

I'm not sure if it was you or someone else that brought up Methane as a "greenhouse" gas. The largest impact by gas between carbon-dioxide and methane by humans is via methane. This is caused by the reliance of agricultural societies on using paddies, or flooded beds for the purpose of growing rice. The use of large rangelands for cattle is a distant 2nd if not 3rd. What is pertinent to the conversation is that the USA has one of the lowest per capita densities per square mile of any of the 1st world populations/economies, thus allowing less impactful agricultural utilization, while at the same time being agriculturally less efficient utilization to be of less impact per capita. At the same time our impact on the power usage is much, much higher.

If we were to extrapolate a USA population growth, and the food required to feed that growth from the Indian or Chinese growth figures over the next 100 years, it would not matter how energy efficient the USA became, we'd all still loose. Controlled population growth, as well as power consumtion, need to be included in any reasonable, sustainable environment for the human race.
(End of Rant)

Gerritt

Ad Astra Per Aspera
(A rough road leads to the Stars)
We all know what we know, and everyone else knows we are wrong.
System Specifications in BIO
dark41 Apr 15, 2008, 03:24am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
I always believed that vanity was the ugliest human trait, and that some day it'll lead to our end.

And yea, isn't it strange that the Chinese government allows their people to reproduce like rabbits, yet treats them all like mushrooms? :)

EX38-DS5
E8500@4.0GHz (445x9, 1.40v) TRUE Black
Corsair HX620W
2x2gb Kingston HyperX 9600
HIS IceQ4 HD4850
2X1TB F1s (RAID 0) XP Pro/Win7 Ult 64
Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1
Cambridge Soundworks 500w 5.1
G5, Antec 1200
Gerritt Apr 15, 2008, 04:28am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Point taken Dark.

Ad Astra Per Aspera
(A rough road leads to the Stars)
We all know what we know, and everyone else knows we are wrong.
System Specifications in BIO
thebell Apr 15, 2008, 04:56pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Gerritt:
I am very happy to hear that there are sane Americans as well! For a while I was a bit sceptic that such an American existed, sorry. :D For example see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KR8SigWQuY . It shows some deep problems that I don't think will be so easy to change as you say they will be. It will take a lot of time and also changes needs to be made to both education systems as well as the culture in itself.

About my exaggerated fact:
it was one single fact among a very large amount of facts, some 50 or 100 or so? I haven't counted them but anyway. I was hoping that Sanders would actually read anything of what I had written but it seems like he hasn't. The article is still displayed on the front page even though it's obviously a document of faith, not facts. So was my exaggeration a bad move? Perhaps. If I was aiming for telling the absolute truth it would've been. But my goal was to state facts to inspire people to read more, and to try to figure out more about how the world works, and also what the scientific method is all about. There will be errors in many reports. It's the readers responsibility to be sceptic and try to find evidence for the arguments. And the author is doing the right thing only if he/she corrects the mistakes and changes his/her world view after discovering that he/she was wrong.

That no one has spotted my exaggerated fact also tells me that no one really cares much about the matter anyway. They believe what the want and don't care about what the research behind that "fact" says. It also tells me why the other side can get away with anything.

The way I see it we have two sides in an information war.

The scientific side HAS to play by the rules you say...
The other side can say whatever they want to???
Most people hear what they want to hear in my experience.

The side who doesn't care about facts, the ones who are saying that there is absolutely no problems associated with burning fossil fuels, are obviously lying in extreme amounts, but who cares? It sounds good, people believe in it. They don't "need" to check the facts.

Compare these two statements:

"There's no problem. Just go about your daily life. Humans aren't doing it, so you have no responsibility. The one's who tell you something else is lying. It's not you who are responsible, it's the sun! It's the volcanoes! It's the sea! Carbon dioxide is great, plants love it!"

To this:

"There is a 90 % probability that humans are causing global warming. Global warming can lead to increases in sea level, severe droughts, floods and a scarcity of food and clean water."

One side doesn't require you to do anything, the enemy is external and cannot be controlled. The other is just offering probabilities. They don't even know for sure! They can obviously not be relied on.

Do you see the problem when science has to compete with the entirely fictional arguments of "the other side"? That doesn't mean I think the scientific side should lie. Obviously as you say that would make the two sides equally big liers and losers. :) But how do one go about inspiring people to try to learn as much as possible and to check the facts for themselves? To be sceptic of information offered by both sides and really try to figure out what is going on instead of just taking the easy way out? I don't have the answer.

I still think it was a rather interesting experiment. There is to my knowledge as I have said only one exaggerated fact in my first post. The rest is based on recent and sound science. Quite disturbing arguments in my opinion.

Finally I will now correct my exaggerated fact:

"Without green house gasses our planet would have a mean temperature about 200 degrees C colder than it is today. That is a fact. Look up green house effect on wikipedia for starters and verify your sources. Look it up for yourself."

Should read:

"Without green house gasses our planet would have a mean temperature about 33 degrees C colder than it is today..."

I even specifically wrote you should check the source. :(

Gerritt Apr 16, 2008, 01:37am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Fredric said:
I am very happy to hear that there are sane Americans as well! For a while I was a bit sceptic that such an American existed, sorry.

SANE?!? Did you say SANE!!!? OMFG, what ever gave you that idea? I am a semi-rational mind in a irrational world, at best!
You keep bringing up science, and the scientific method, like a religion. Unlike religion, science talks about probabilities, not absolutes. If any scientist states a %100 certainty, they are as much of a religious nut as any Creationist! For instance, I am %99.9999 certain that I exist as a individual entity, but am only about %80 sure that my perceptions about myself are accurate....more collaborative study needed by outside sources....

Fredric said:
"There is a 90 % probability that humans are causing global warming. Global warming can lead to increases in sea level, severe droughts, floods and a scarcity of food and clean water."

Even that statement is unclear. Though you stated a probability, you stated it in a manner that was ambiguous, and still up to misinterpretation. Global warming is a fact; though the present trend is not open ended, but a specific provable variation, which in this case is cyclic; but the scientific method requires that we look at it in a slightly different manner. I would modify the quote to be:
Though global thermal cycles have been shown to exist, it is highly probable; at a 99% degree of certainty; that humans are contributing the the acceleration of the present warming trend. Global climatic changes on the scales being discussed could lead to increases in sea level, severe droughts, floods and a scaricity of food and clean water in different areas. These stresses on the local level could and have led to social, political and physical impacts in the real world. A continued trend in this direction indicates that the impact will be catastrophic to the human race. The question remains where the cycle will peak, and if humans can survive at the peak, and if not, what actions can we take now to either lower the peak to an acceptable parameter, or offset the unacceptable peak to a future date at which time we will have other manners in which to deal with it.

I was going to insert some other quotes of Fredrics here, but after writing the above, I do not think it necessary. The two quotes that I was going to insert here were the original and the editted versions. Green House Gases. Are these bad things? NO! On one hand, they are here because life is here, but (isn't there always a but?), if they get out of balance, then we have a problem. (that's a period). So we have a problem. (that's another one!).
How soon we deal with the problem, and how, is what we need to be discussing. Not who or what caused it.
A lot of folks that are trying to do something about this are the ones building Nuclear Power Plants, but these are bad things. Why? I don't know. When they work properly, and we have many, many of these things working around the world, but if one or two or six screw up, then they're prevented. So lets look at the day to day damage done by properly operated coal fired power plants ( the majority of power production in the world), vs. the daily impact of a Nuclear power plant. Even with the damage caused by TMI and Chernobol, the environmental impact of these types of plants are much less than that of coal or oil fired plants over a period of time.

I could keep going, about thermal, solar or wind energy, but I'm sure that most are happy for me to say....enough for now.

Thoughts? Anyone?

Gerritt

Ad Astra Per Aspera
(A rough road leads to the Stars)
We all know what we know, and everyone else knows we are wrong.
System Specifications in BIO
w wigus May 24, 2008, 02:32am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Some problems here.

The greenhouse effect, though misnamed, is simple physics. It is due to the differential behavior of greenhouse gases (CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4 (methane), H2O (water), ...) with regard to their interaction with electromagnetic radiation. They are each transparent to visible light, but absorb and re-radiate infrared radiation. The plain thermodynamics is that absorbed energy eventually degrades to heat and is re-radiated as infrared. By absorbing and then re-radiating that energy, the greenhouse gases return some of it (crudely 1/2, but the 3D geometry has to be taken into account as does additional absorption and re-radiation) in the direction of the Earth, where it is reabsorbed and raises temperatures of the stuff that has reabsorbed it.

It's not that CO2 vibrates with sunlight as stated. It's a thermodynamics and quantum mechanics thing and without any surprising aspects, at least for the physics side of it. In fact, were it not for some greenhouse effect, the Earth would be on average a great deal less habitable. At it's distance from the Sun, it would be something like 20 deg F (or C, I can't quite remember) colder.

A further consideration is residence time in the atmosphere. Water is continually evaporated from land, sea, plants, animals, ..., but it has a limited residence time in the atmosphere. Typically days. Methane is produced by many processes, mostly digestion (those infamous cows, and the termites, and the dogs, and the people), or decay (also called swamp gas). It's very efficient as a greenhouse gas (something like 15 times CO2). Considerable amounts (not well quantified as no one has really looked) are stored in seafloor ooze (very cold, just above freezing and very unstable) and in permafrost mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. As temperatures rise (sea, land, air), both of these will be released in large quantities. Fortunately, methane has a short residence time in an oxidising atmosphere such as ours, a few years. Unfortunately, when methane reacts with oxygen, it releases CO2 and H2O, both greenhouse gases.

And CO2 is the major kicker here. Its atmospheric residence time is in the hundreds of years. It's absorbed by liquid water (and acidifies in so doing with likely large, but not completely understood effects on marine life), and is built into some animal skeletons such as coral and assorted microorganisms; it's stored as carbonate or one type or other. But the rate of absorption is a little hard to pin down in detail (though not in gross form; we burn this and so fossil fuels and the atmospheric CO2 goes up by something less, so the difference was absorbed somewhere). And we can easily see that the carbon sinks that exist are not sufficient to prevent CO2 concentrations from going up in lockstep with our energy use since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The measurements, largely ice core samples, are very sensitive. They can pick up the increased use of lead (smelters and such) in classical civilization 2000 years ago.

The climate computer models are complex, attempting to include all the known issues (did you suspect that soot on snow is a significant effect? the climate scientists did and experimented to get the values right, and adjusted them to fit the observed real world situation), and fitting the models into the available computer hardware. There are now several independent full on models, and they have been converging in the quality of their historical predictions (can it predict what happened in 1985? 95? 00? ...) and in their future predictions. They are a major part of the reason the UN Climate Change Panels have reached the conclusions they have. Venus ans an example (albeit wiht different greenhouse gases) is probably another, lesser factor. It's greenhouse gone mad, and the next thing to Hell on an Earth's twin planet. Brimstone, even....

Those who claim it's a political plot (by politicians, most of whom couldn't recognize nearly any of the issues; by scientists looking for funding -- there are few climatologists and they already employed; by the media, most of whom couldn't recognize nearly any of the issues) bear a considerable burden, logically. Those who make extraordinary claims bear an extraordinary burden. Simply asserting your conviction of a conspiracy is insufficient; easy to say, but not so easy to produce evidence of. The most likely conspirators are those whose interests will be affected (fearfully believed to be adversely) by any attempt ot ameliorate the problem of climate change. And much of this possibility has been either demonstrated (by examining the sources of funding for this or that climate change skeptic) or admitted. Exxon-Mobil is a major player.

I suggest there are considerable missing logical bits in the skeptic arguments I've seen. Lots of name calling, lots of attempts to corrupt the language of discourse, lots of stressing the debate (of which very little remains amongst the climatologists) in an attempt to poison the well. Logical fallacies all, and suggestive evidence of an absence of better arguments. Sufficient for me to suspect conspiracy by those with an interest which might be threatened by action. The economic downside is large, the upside of the industrial techniques which will be developed to increase energy use efficiency. to find sources of non polluting energy is large, and those who would object are those who economic intersts would be threatened by those advances.

I remain skeptical about claims without much credible evidence, but I smell someone blowing smoke when credible evidence is derided, when personal / professional aspersions about those who believe differently are evident or when non-credible claims are elevated to the status of a reasonable respectable opposing view. Consider anyone who suggests that a new steam engine design is an improved aircraft engine. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary support.

FordGT90Concept May 24, 2008, 03:02am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
All I can say is look how reliable predictions are of your 5-7 day forecasts are (completely unreliable). Conclusions are being drawn off of either 500,000 year old ice or about a century of thermometer records. The earth is over 4.7 billion years old. The not enough information whistles are wailing in my head. Yes, it is reasonable to believe that we are having an impact on the environment (deforestation, catching entire schools of fish, domesticating animals, etc.) but, I feel we do not have enough data to draw a decisive conclusion on whether or not CO2 is causing major problems as it is made out to be. In the natural order of things, that should mean vegetation is thriving--which it isn't. Something is amiss; hence the skepticism.

Oh, and if you really think about it, the only reason to really fight global warming is to keep low lying cities (coastal cities) from getting submerged under water. Other than that, what's wrong with a little climate change? Survival of the fittest, no?

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
Gerritt May 24, 2008, 04:26am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Ford,
It is the wildly exagerated claims by both sides that I have an issue with.
Ice cores can show data from an annual cycle, not just 500,000 years ago.
Some greenhouse gas is absolutely necessary for our survival, but the escallation in this warming cycle is higher than has been recorded in recent history.
On a per capita basis, the average world citizen actually produces less greenhouse gas than they have historically, unfortunately the number of humans living and consuming, at whatever levels has increased by 50% over the last 50 years.
This fact alone seems to indicate that we have to modify our consumption and emision standards to take this one fact into consideration.

ww, though a new member that joined for no other reason than to post a well though out argument, did, indeed, give food for thought....you on the other hand, posted the same stale underthought arguments that you've posted in the past. Based upon my past corospondence with you, I would have expected better.

P.S. It does take a period of time for the global gas/ash/etc to show up in artic and antartic snowfalls, so even though you can get a seasonal/annual template, it is delayed; however, tree rings are only delayed by about one season, but are regional.

Ad Astra Per Aspera
(A rough road leads to the Stars)
We all know what we know, and everyone else knows we are wrong.
System Specifications in BIO
FordGT90Concept May 25, 2008, 01:27am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Gerritt said:
Ice cores can show data from an annual cycle, not just 500,000 years ago.

You got me. Vostok ice-core samples have failed to date back farther than 160,000 +/- 15,000 years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

If you throw greenhouse gasses into the detection algorithms, you get approximately 420,000 years of data (mind you, this appears to be one of those "global warming" promo sites...).

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Ice ebbs and flows. It really has never been an accurate measure for, well, anything. Take it with a grain of salt but keep the salt away from the ice as it might ruin the results. :X

...

If you haven't noticed, seismic activity is getting more and more prominent in recent years with growing frequency and strength of events. I really see no point in pointing fingers. I say prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Obviously, the greatest threat that is rapidly approaching is that of the northern ice cap melting. Whether or not human activity has anything to do with it is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that most people live on or near coasts. As such, it is best to make preparations for people to move inland now. Failure to act now is destined to lead to widespread panic and rapid evacuation of millions in the USA and billions globally. We all know how that worked out in New Orleans when Katrina struck--imagine a much, much broader scale.

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
dark41 May 25, 2008, 06:54pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
What is relevant is that most people live on or near coasts. As such, it is best to make preparations for people to move inland now. Failure to act now is destined to lead to widespread panic and rapid evacuation of millions in the USA and billions globally. We all know how that worked out in New Orleans when Katrina struck--imagine a much, much broader scale
.

One thing to say move inland, another to be able to do it. I don't think many WI farmers will be willing to give up their land for all the city folk to move in next door. And if they did give up their land, there wouldn't be enough food to feed everyone anyway. In Australia people live on the coasts because there is no drinking water inland. I guess half of the 20 million Australians can just move to inland USA too.

And New Orleans is probably a poor example because it was built below sea level, and frankly with a half a$$ed plan for hurricanes. Many of us in other parts of the world figure that was an accident waiting to happen, and still is.

I don't pretend to understand the science of global warming, and wonder just how many of us are able to fully understand it. But mother nature has a way of evening things out. When the trees in an area become too tall and kill off the undergrowth, she provides a few lightning strikes to burn them off. We seem to accept this without much problem. When the world becomes to populated with people to support her other species.. hmmm. Maybe she floods the coasts, supplies a few earthquakes, etc. to get back to a level playing field?! But no, we're God's chosen people, so that could never be right. Ah, the vanity of it all.

I figure once we get everything in perfect harmony an asteroid field will wipe out the earth completely, or some alien beings will wipe us out for littering space. Not saying I don't/won't do my part to cut down in the energy that my family uses, but life has always been about irony for me and those things would seem to fit. :)

EX38-DS5
E8500@4.0GHz (445x9, 1.40v) TRUE Black
Corsair HX620W
2x2gb Kingston HyperX 9600
HIS IceQ4 HD4850
2X1TB F1s (RAID 0) XP Pro/Win7 Ult 64
Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1
Cambridge Soundworks 500w 5.1
G5, Antec 1200
FordGT90Concept Jun 03, 2008, 02:56am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
dark41 said:
One thing to say move inland, another to be able to do it.

If they don't, they will perish. It is really that simple if the current climate trends continue or grow worse.


NASA misled on global warming studies
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html

NASA's press office "marginalized or mischaracterized" studies on global warming between 2004 and 2006, the agency's own internal watchdog concluded.

In a report released Monday, NASA's inspector general office called it "inappropriate political interference" by political appointees in the press office. It said the agency's top management wasn't part of the censorship, nor were career officials.

NASA downplayed the report as old news on a problem that has since been fixed. NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage said the space agency's new policies have been hailed for openness by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

The report found credence in allegations that National Public Radio was denied access to top global warming scientist James Hansen. It also found evidence that NASA headquarters press officials canceled a press conference on a mission monitoring ozone pollution and global warming because it was too close to the 2004 presidential election.

continud on link

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
dark41 Jun 03, 2008, 04:09am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
FordGT90Concept said:
dark41 said: [quote]One thing to say move inland, another to be able to do it.

If they don't, they will perish. It is really that simple if the current climate trends continue or grow worse.


In Australia people live on the coasts because there is no drinking water inland.


Kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't. Either way they perish. Sad considering Australia is the cleanest country I've ever been to and takes fairly good precautions for this sort of thing.

EX38-DS5
E8500@4.0GHz (445x9, 1.40v) TRUE Black
Corsair HX620W
2x2gb Kingston HyperX 9600
HIS IceQ4 HD4850
2X1TB F1s (RAID 0) XP Pro/Win7 Ult 64
Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1
Cambridge Soundworks 500w 5.1
G5, Antec 1200
FordGT90Concept Jun 03, 2008, 06:45am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Build mobile or floating desalination plants (so it can move with the coast line) with extensive piping to get the fresh water where it is needed (inland). It is costly, yes, but feasible nonetheless.

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
SuPeR Xp Jun 03, 2008, 08:06am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Global warming is nothing more than a Conspiracy to control people. HOAX anybody.

-------------------------------------------------
Custom AMD HAF 932 Red Dragon GAMING MOD!!!
http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/2442.html

Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Next >>

 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.