Slashdot Mirror
Big Arctic Perils Seen in Warming
gollum123 wrote in with news of a new study of warming in the Arctic, showing that warming from greenhouse gases is causing vast changes in the region. If your lifestyle depends on cold and frozen rather than mild and damp, you're in deep trouble.
Woohoo! Suck on it bitches!
global warming isn't happening anyway, so there is no problem, right ?
The timing of this article suggests a political motive. There was a political add right at the top. Are the Democrats trying to incite their own type of fear?
I must be gay because I read that as "Big Arctic Penis"
Out come the enviro-trolls.
1: Show me ACCURATE 1 million year tempature records. Wait!! We only have 80 years of records
2: Show me this hasnt happened before.
3: Tell me the "scientists" studying arent also getting grants from... greenpeace or ELF..
4: WHY exactly is global warming bad? Wont it give more landmass (eg, melts permafrost siberia) and lessen the "nice tropical -120F on antartica?
I guess I'll be buying property in Antartica. "The Sunshite State - Reloaded"
Huge big dong-related perils are seen in my underpants.
News at 11!
More like politically motivated moderating.
Shame. I thought we were promoting discussion, not censorship.
Oh come on... we all know that this is just a LIEberal scam to get more money to "protect the environment". [/sarcasm]
Meh.
I'm not trolling I just have an honest question...
When that big lump of ice out there in the North Pole melts, will we *notice* it at all?
My reasoning is that most of the ice is underwater, and ice takes up more cm than water, so there would be a smaller volume of water than there is ice. Sure some of the ice is above sealevel but surely the difference in volume compensates for this?
Where am I wrong?
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
If you read the article, rather than the blurb on Slashdot, it doesn't unequivocally state that greenhouse gases are responsible
... comprehensive four-year study ...
What? Do they have any idea how short that is in geological time? That's a fraction of a jiffy compared to the real history of Earth's warming and cooling cycle. After that line, it's not even worth reading the article.
A four year warning trend doesn't really mean anything. You can take any graph, chop out a whole lot of it, and only look at a portion that is trending upwards or trending downwards, but it doesn't tell you anything about the big picture. It'd be like making bond decisions based on nothing more than a five minute window of some graph. Maybe it's trending upwards in that five minute window, but 15 minutes on either side you can't see could be causing the whole thing to trend downwards.
Four year study? Give me a break. Do a 4,000 year study and then we'll talk. 4,000 years is still short, but it's a little better than four.
this is my sig
Hasn't the artic been warming for the last 10,000 years since the last Ice Age? I'm sure mankind is contributing somehow to this process but why is what seems to be a natural cycle of the earth an inherrently bad thing? Its just another natural phenomenon we must learn to deal with with like earthquakes, volcanoes, storms etc.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
...and we should accept it. Is it fault of humans? Maybe, maybe not. But remember there were times where glacier covered half the Europe, there were times when Sahara was a green country, when what today is mediterran sea was a valley of a huge river... It just happens. Now just be wise and prepare to face it instead of looking who is to blame.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Let's see: the Sun is at an 8000-year high for solar activity, Mars is emerging from its own Ice Age and its polar caps are disappearing, and the Earth's magnetic field strength is approaching nil before it reconstitutes with an opposite polarity. And we are to believe that human activity is somehow solely resposible for global warming?
I live in the Northwest Territories (Canada) and I can say in the last 15 years the winters have become much warmer. I remember stretched where is was -35 C for 3 weeks at a time. Now it only reaches that occasionally. I cannot speak for long term trends however. And yes, I did walk to school both ways uphill.
Now you can't say the cold was holding you back.
...people will soon start to realize the potential harm these issues can do to our society as a whole. I cannot understand how any sane person is able to ignore the simple fact of environmental problems getting worse over time.
The US government still manages to deny cooperation on the Kyoto Protocol with most stupid arguments, a treaty already ratified by 125 countries all over the world.
"The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere." -- George W. Bush
???
The greenhouse gas problem will grow at a steady level for decades after we have started countermeasures, I hope then there's enough time left afterwards.
On the assumption of ignorance, as it is like that the AC cannot read the article, the publication of the report was delayed. The delay may or may not be political. It was requested by the US, agreed to by the diplomats. It is interesting that, once again, Bush ignored the scientist, in much the same way he ignores the soldiers, and just assumes his beliefs are facts.
To answer the AC directly, the leak was absolutely political. Most leaks, reports, and articles are. This is good as in the US we have a democracy and the game of politics is what makes the system work. It is agressive, adversarial, and productive. If it bother's anyone, I hope you already live in a dictatorship.
I am prepared to send two of my ex's to the north and south poles respectively. Those cold hearted frigid bitches will soon put an end to any thawing going on.
All I ask for saving humanity is a tropical island paradise where I can be surrounded by nubile maidens.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Heh, typical. *"piece of cake", *"that even US govt."
One theory I'd heard is that one short term result is that more icebergs than 'normal' would descend into warmer waters, thus cooling them (because the vast bulk is underwater, and slowly melting). If enough icebergs descend into the Gulfstream it'll cool down enough to severely worsen the Western European winter climate. This would make winters here bitter cold, and summers less attractive than they are now. This, I think, people would notice.
"Suffering effects of global warming; send blankets."
To summarize some thoughts:
That big lump of ice out there probably has a large effect on global climate in general. The mass-concentration and distribution at the poles might somehow be important to the rotation of the earth? I think the volume of ice underwater will shrink more than the above-surface portion will provide (certainly after shrinking)
IANAE (Environmentalist)
Blame Bush! Everybody else does........ Skuz
~UltraSkuzzi
This comment is liscensed by SCO.
the new york times is not to be trusted for a news source anymore.
www.timeswatch.org
start thinking for yourself. Humans are not the
reason for global warming.
Anonymous Coward.
Free Flat Screen HERE!
Anyone else wipe the sleep from their eyes as they read "Big arctic Penis seen...".
Yeah, it was only me. Dear lord, im going back to bed.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Correction: the ice replaces exactly the amount of water it occupies when floating (=law of Archimedes). Proof: take a glass of water, put in ice cube, fill up glass to the edge (but not overflowing!). Ice melts, and water is still exactly up to the edge.
Secondly: the bigger part of ice masses aren't floating, but piled hundreds or thousands or metres thick on top of land masses. And a glacier isn't usually found in an ocean or lake either. So if these ice masses melt, you get more water -> sea level up -> less land for people to live on.
My next comment will be ready soon, but subscribers can't beat the rush or see it early!
What about increased erosion? Erosion is a big problem for many coastal areas. Also should some of the largest coastal ice sheets in antarctica break loose; we would be looking at higher ocean levels and flooding out of coastal lands and islands around the world. That would displace a good amount of the world's population and wipe out many species that depend on salt-water marsh areas.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
CO2 is not a pollutant, It is not toxic at ppm concentrations. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, and the key to the food chain. It also has little to do with global warming, even at it current level. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. The greenhouse effect lets solar radiation in, but, like a blanket over the planet absorbs some IR heat that would otherwise radiate out. This keeps the Earth's mean temperature somewhere around 15 C, instead of roughly -15 C. This vital 30 C swing is the reason that the Earth is habitable. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The little ice age around 1600, when the Thames was frozen over and Europe was dieing off from famine and disease), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2. Incidentally, the 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases, and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools. I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They didn't consider the effects of cosmic radiation on low level cloud formation. Recent studies, an article summing it up can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm
show it goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic reduce cloud formation. Increased low level cloud formation increases reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). The difference from active Sun to inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.
Finally, and most damningly, the "Global warming from manmade greenhouse gasses" hypothesis, requires that the upper atmosphere must warm up first, and then cause warming at the surface. Satellite data from the 70s to the present shows no significant warming in the troposphere. Since basis for all current computer models predicting warming is invalid, NO VALID CONCLUSIONS can be based on their results.
Please, to all who have bought into the Global Warming hype: Climate change is normal and unavoidable from century to century. Question authority, and do some of your own research before swallowing everything the green lobby feeds you. The best protection against climate change is a rich, technoligically advanced society that can adapt to natural variation. Don't damn the 3rd world to extended time in poverty by crippling the world's economy.
</sarcasm>
ELF has less organization than your average local Linux User's Club. They don't give grants you moron.
As far as question four, Refer to the end of my second sentence.
and Republicans and "Liber-I-always-vote-for-republicans-tarians" will say "The flooded costal cities are big lie that the liberals are pushing. What we need are bigger SUVs and more logging."
http://undoit.org/ - Global Warming: Undo It is an Environmental Defense campaign that addresses the critical issue of climate change. Our number one objective is passage of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, which would dramatically cut polluting emissions.
What is this, some sort of weather-nerd porn?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I KNOW principals involved in this research. You think politicians are crooked? Some of these guys will write anything to get their next round of funding. Some will FORGE RESULTS! Others are trying to do honest science. All of you who claim BUSH is employing the hysteria of insecurity to garner votes need to realize that the same mentality exists in the scientific community. You see it in business too. Even the honest execs don't want to 'rock the boat' when the money is flowing in. Reading a scientific report on a hot, highly fundable subject is an exercise in weedoing out the real science from the money grubbing science.
IMO, while there is some correlation between projections of the effects of 'greenhouse gasses' and observation, it's still a stretch to infer causality.
Furthermore, the associated hysteria is unwarranted. There have been rapid warming periods in the past. There have also been rapid cooling periods. Through it all, life goes on.
Sigh. no I'm sure we are somehow responsible for that too. Those remote-controlled SUV's we sent over there is surely the cause
wanted: one clever sig,apply within
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What do 'conservatives' seek to conserve exactly?
Seems to me they're mostly intent on destroying stuff (environment, foreign people, wildlife, dissenters etc.).
1993 called and it wants its news back.
Article is archived here.
There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras - and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large
These issues were raised last year at the Sierra Club, but unfortunately, LaRaza and various other racist groups began tagging the concerned members (of the Sierra Club) as "racists" or "bigots". As a result, the Sierra Club voted down a proposal to designate population growth and unfettered immigration as an environmental concern.
Anyone who supports unfettered immigration is basically feigning concern about the environment and is a hypocrite who should be ignored.
Death is a natural end to life. But I don't contribute to mine by sucking on an exhaust pipe.
--
make install -not war
I don't see what the problem is.
Canada and the US export a substantial majority of their grain to the rest of the world, something like 90%. I don't think it will affect the US or Europe.
Certainly large numbers of people will die in the turd world, but who cares what happens to them. The fewer there are of them, the better.
I think this is great, bring on the ice age!
I don't read or respond to AC posts
You are totaly right about the temperature/volume will matter. The problem is that it will not only be melting ice that will change the volume. Water getting warmer than 4 degrees celsius will also expand, and from what I have understood this change is bigger than the difference caused by melting underwater ice at the northpole.
No matter which, there should be no doubt that the human impact on the climate is big, and that it will change our life in the future.
" Workweek Causes Climate Fluctuations"
--
make install -not war
RE: your sig:
Having moderated I am starting to get sick of using the "overrated" tag because it does not actually express the factual inaccuracy I sometimes mod people down for. A post that contains bullshit that is later refuted with evidence is usually not a "Troll" or "Flaimbait" because the author is just plain ignorant. It isn't "Redundant" either.
I read this thread at -1, and let me tell you a "Refuted" or "Wrong" or "Factually Challenged" tag or something like that would have applied to something like 25% of the posts here.
The other problem is that if someone posts bullshit, and then someone else posts good evidence to the contrary, and then based on that evidence, the parent gets modded down, then that effectively punishes both submissions because when the parent gets below a reader's threshold, all replies to it go to the bottom of the list, after more complete threads. Though maybe that's a prefs setting I could change, I haven't checked.
So right now I am inclined to leave factually wrong posts at level 1. If I see one modded up beyond that, I will mod it down. If I see an anon coward that has a 0, with a lot of good replies attached to it, I'll mod it up to 1. That would give good results to anyone who filters at 1. It would be better to have a +1 "Strawman" tag or something to do the latter with as well.
Someone had to do it.
Once again, the Conservative mind is completely, 100% absolutely right. Anything anyone has ever attempted to say about the earth, environment, EVOLUTION, and other politically movitated liberal sciences is questionable. There is no way we can say anything intelligent about living on the planet earth unless we have a controlled experiment. That means two identical planets: one where Bush and the consume until we drop SUV crowd lives...and another where the conservationists live.
Speaking of which, if someone is planning on doing this experiment...I would like to live on the planet with the conservationists...
Yes; it's kinda funny how many people completely fail to understand this basic concept. A couple of years ago, I saw a full-page ad in an issue of National Geographic, warning about the dangers of global warming. Their visual demonstration was, you guessed it, a glass of water in which was suspended a picturesque iceberg, complete with water spilling over the side. :-/
POOOOP!!! POOOP!!!
meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.
./ experts on greenhouse gasses, fossil fuels, and politics is that shit will be so bad in ten years that it won't matter. I'm grabbing that cash while I can and spending it!
Show me a meteorologist who can tell me anything reliable more than three days out and I'll show you a liar.
This ten year food calamity will occur right about the same time as peak oil.
I don't know about you but I'm going to go ahead and go to an adjustable rate mortgage and negative amortization. What I read from all the
I'm not worried at all about this 'global warming' thing.
... that there is no way possible that global warming could be true.
Dubya Bush, the guy who can't pronounce nuclear properly, says it's all crap, therefore I have nothing to fear from it.
Bush feels so strongly that 'global warming' is crap that he's paid his own science advisors to eliminate any government records that support global warming, and to produce contrary false evidence to counter the thousands of scientists around the world that have run unbiased, scientific tests that have shown global warming is real.
Dubya feels so strongly about this global warming thing, fighting so hard against all the evidence
I love Dubya.
This major climatological disaster brought to you by: The Day After Tomorrow, now availabel on DVD.
NOTHING! We know nothing. Not all scientists agree on what happened in the past. Not all scientists agree on what is happening now. And we can't say that we will never agree on what is going to happen! Also, human knowledge is constantly changing.
So many theories! These are generalizations of theories proposed in the past: The world is flat. The world is a round. The world is an oblate spheroid. We get sick because we have evil spirits. We get sick because of microbes. Antibiotics will kill all microbes. Microbes can't survive at temperatures above 100 degrees C. Microbes live in volcanic ocean vents in the ocean at 240+ degrees C. Global warming will cause us all to roast. Global warming will cause us to freeze. Ozone is a pollutant at surface level, but a vital protective barrier at altitude. C'mon people, when are you going to realize that we really don't know what's going on... just be responsible and polite and don't step on my toes.
BTW, Why did the first "Earth Day" protest tout the horrors of global cooling???
Just because something is changing from the way you found it doesn't mean it is worse. We live on a dynamic, changing, planet, get used to it. And we are part of it and part of what changes it. We need to bend nature to our will, for our own good, and not try to patch things that are broken. Let the freakin spotted owl go extinct!
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
While it is true the waterlevel will not be affected when the ice is melting, I think trouble might start when the extra water reaches a temparature over 4 degrees centigrade, wich is the temperature where water has it's highest density (and thus smallest volume). Above and below that water will expand, and at a certain point will take more volume then it displaced as ice. Don't ask me at wich temperature that would be, but I'm not at all sure it won't be reached.
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
You're correct that the US would have to reduce the highest amount of greenhouse gases of all Kyoto Protocol participants.
Have you ever asked yourself if that might be because the US is the worlds largest greenhouse gas producer, therefor also earning the most money on cost of natural resources?
Or if ecological politics might be bad for people having to feed their family everywhere in the world, because there always has to be an economic price for ecological measures?
We are all sitting in the same boat...
Thinking of current economics being more important than a stable environment is both shortsighted and stupid. No offense, but wether the current global warming has natural or human causes, working towards destroying our environment will have serious long term effects.
Disclaimer: I am European.
Well, the coastal cities of the US are where all the liberals live. So why should we care about what happens there at all? Sounds like a useful bit of "urban renewal" to me.
Coastal cities tend to vote democratic, so they probably wouldn't mind so much.
It is bad because it will cause temp extremes, we will lose the moderating effect that the frozen poles and ocean currents cause. You see, as the poles melt off their ice, they dump huge quantities of ice cold fresh water into the salty seas. These hit ocean currents like the gulf stream and japanese current, which bring heat to the northern latitudes, moderating the cold. When this new and huge qwuantity of ice cold fresh water hit the currents, they slow them down, and depending on how much ice melts, they could almost stop. What happens then is the lower atlantic and gulf regions get really hot and stay hot,which means there's a lot more hurricanes and probably way too much rain in the south east,along with more tornadoes, and the northern regions of North America on the east coast and northern europe will get REALLY cold and stay cold longer in the season.
There's other stuff that will happen, the ocean currents keep things stirred up and are an important part of ocean animals life cycles, so it will mess with the food supply there as well as on land.
Just think, to make it easier, where humans mostly live now, in what we call the temperate zones, the normally warmer areas now will get much hotter, and the cooler areas will get much colder, as in ice age style action.
No, we don't know the time limits on this happening, and we don't know exactly when and where a tipping over point might be, but it's happened in the past over and over again.
So it IS cyclical, but some scientists think that it can also be partially induced by human activity with burning fuels. ( I don't see how it couldn't really) So, I tend to agree it is from *both methods*, not one or the other. We are also at a solar activity maximum point which is thousands of years cyclical, so we have that as well to contend with.
Could get real interesting quickly, might take a hundred years or something, so ya gotta ask yourself..feeling lucky?
Greenland, as well as much of Antarctica is covered by mile high glaciers, much of it indeed piled up on dry land. If much or all of this ice melts, the result will be much like dropping an ice cube into a glass of water, in that it will raise the level in the glass. If you own real estate in the Netherlands or much of the southeastern US, as well as other low lying parts of the world, you can kiss it goodbye under a rising sea level. Unfortunately, this also includes a number of large coastal cities, which will require their relocation inland to make way for the expanding coastal fishing areas. Our skyscrapers will make good structure for sheltering marine life, and will one day be on many sea captain's list of fishing hotspots. If the Antarctic and Greenland glaciers melt, the sea level could rise 200 feet. All of the current major seaports would be inundated, and cities on rivers even hundreds of miles inland would be at least partially inundated by the rising waters.
Not to make your comment worthless, but it's not "interesting", moderators. We're talking about a 15-year time period (where real trends are measured at least in 50 years, if not 50,000). Over the past 15 years here, in beautiful, exciting Delaware (USA), we've had some mild winters but we've also had some cold winters with lots of snow. Ask ten people in the Northeast about the biggest storm we've had in the past 10 years (all which broke records) and you'll get 10 different answers. Last winter was really snowy, but we had one in 1996 I believe (maybe?) where schools closed because temperatures dropped to 255 Kelvin, er 0 degrees, and below and remained there for a week. Sadly, no one's regional reports are really going to establish anything.
That being said, the driest, hottest, summers in the past couple of years around here have been followed by colder, wet winters. This summer was relatively mild, and certainly wet enough. I expect this winter then to be mild and with little precipitation.
In other words, really boring.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Was that "study" done by the same frauds who predicted mass starvation in the '90's?
I clicked on this article specifically to see the Libertarian environment trolls come out and scream about how it's all a left-wing conspiracy and climate change is just fine, and boy, I was not disappointed.
Well, I was disappointed in the human race I guess
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
, if our changes are expensive (which they are, and "expensive" automatically translates into human lives)
...unless you are an entrenched energy company, in which case you short-sightedly see new energy technologies as a potential threat to YOUR revenue stream.
Uh, excuse me-- how does expensive "automatically" translate into human lives (which if I'm not misunderstanding, you mean lives ENDED)?
Besides, short-term expenses in this area would translate into long-term savings. Investing now in environmentally-conscious technologies, whether alternate fuel sources, more efficient engine and factories, recycling, or whatever-- all this creates new high-end jobs (cutting-edge research, manufacturing, etc.), it increases effeciency and reduces waste overall, SAVES money overall, and it makes you a leader in this technology (meaning you can license your inventions to others). AND it's friendlier to the environment.
It's a win-win.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Cars do kill the environment, despite what dubious, paid-by oil companies, "scientists" say. Check this out. It's written by the same people who claimed that Linux was not written by Linux (and that it's Minix instead).
The Raven
Apparently the parent poster doesn't realise that ice occupies more space than it's equivalent amount of water. Example: if you have a million molecules of water and freeze it, it will occupy more space as ice (but still be 1 million molecules). It's mass will be the same, but it's volume will be different. Try this little experiment at home if you don't believe me: Pull out a glass tumbler and fill it with water, then put it in your freezer. Wanna bet the glass tumbler breaks when the water turns to ice? Water turned to ice is responsible for breaking rocks, causing asphault and concrete roads to break, and other serious damage. The molecular mass is identical. The volume grows because of the way ice forms (it's related to the 212 degree angle the hydrogen atoms relate to the oxygen atom in the water molecule). This expansion process is also what kills plants. When a flower or vegetable freezes, the water in the cells expand, causing the cell wall to burst. When the thawing process occurs, the cell wall is broken (actually all of the plants cell walls), and the plant is soft/mushy/wilted/dead. Root vegetables are less succeptable due to the lower volume of water they store in their cells.
Well, now we know why you have so many ex's.
Arctic ice is melting at such a fast rate that the Northwest Passage is going to be navigable by commercial ship traffic within 20-30 years, something that in all of recorded history has never been possible. That means that even in the medium term (centuries) the trend is a warming one.
Some background on the Northwest Passage: the ancient European explorers had long been seeking a shorter route for trade with the Orient, and some, like Magellan did find a route, but it was a very long one, by rounding the tips of the southern continents. No similar consistently navigable route through the North was found at the time. This seems to show that the temperatures in the Arctic have been colder in the past (or that northern explorers were more incompetent than southern explorers). Even today, only a few ships have ever made it through, and it is certainly too dangerous for commercial shipping.
If you want to read more about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_passage
Ah ha.
:-\
Chalk that up to my lack of education...I've never heard of the law of Archimedes, and didn't realize that the North Pole had a landmass beneath...and forgot about glaciers
Super Volcano's
Yellowstone is one huge volcano. There is a measured magma pocket that is 50km by 30km by 10km deep and if/when that thing blows it will spew ash across the whole US, effectively killing the majority of our crops under 6 feet of ash. Not to mention blacking out the Sun for a long long time. Anyone living near the site will be killed by an enormous shockwave.
A hillside above the magma pocket is near the lake and it has risen enough to move the lake many feet over the last 50 years.
Supposedly blows every 600,000 years or so and we are about due for an eruption.
FACTSHEET: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Center for the Study of CO2 and Climate Change
? id=24
DETAILS
P.O Box 25697 Tempe, AZ 85285-5697
Phone: 480-966-3719
Fax: 480-966-0758
The Center's current mission is to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content."
When the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change's web site debuted September 23,1998, The Western Fuels Association-funded Greening Earth Society issued the press release announcing The Center's new site. Fred Palmer, head of Western Fuels, stated in the release, "The Center's viewpoint is a needed antidote to the misleading and usually erroneous scientific claims emanating from the Federal scientific establishment and adopted by leading politicians, such as Vice President Al Gore." The Center has since tried to distance itself from the Western Fuels Association, but still regularly publishes articles on the Greening Earth Society website. The Center is run by Keith and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. Keith Idso, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Arizona, was a paid expert witness for Western Fuels Association at a 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing in St. Paul, MN, along with MIT's Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Robert Balling. (The Heat is On). According to news from Basin Electric, a Western Fuels Association member, Craig Idso produced a report, "The Greening of Planet Earth." Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," in January 1998 for the Western Fuels Association. (The Center also came into being in January 1998, according to information provided by the Center). (Basin Electric Latest News no date given)
FUNDING
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $65,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
1998
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list
2000
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
project support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990
2003
$40,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change Activities
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
---
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
and you expect us to believe that this site is the "truth" ?
haha you people are more stupid that you act
1. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is, in fact, the lifeblood of the planet, required for growth of vegetation. It is the cornerstone of the food chain. The increased CO2 aerial fertilization effect has contributed to the greening of the planet, as confirmed by satellite photography.
2. Water vapor is by far the primary contributor of the greenhouse effect, accounting for 96 to 99%. CO2 accounts for 1 to 3%. Methane and others trace gasses account for 3. During the current interglacial period, the Earth has been about 2C cooler (The "Little Ice Age" around 1600-1700, when the Thames regularly frozen over), and it has also been about 2C warmer (The medieval warm period around 1200, when Greenland was colonized by the Vikings.) We are currently about in the middle of this natural variation, which occurred without manmade CO2.
4. The 500k year Vostok ice core data: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm/ shows CO2 either in phase or lagging temperature by up to 1000 years, over four temperature oscillations. This means the CO2 does not drive temperature, but that temperature drives CO2. The most likely explanation is that the ocean outgases and releases more CO2 when temperature increases, and holds more dissolved gasses as the oceans cools.
5. I'm not disputing the Earth may be getting relatively warmer (as we are coming out of the little ice age). One reason is likely the unusually active Sun. This report: http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aah4688.pdf/ shows that over the last several centuries, solar activity is at its highest levels. The IPCC determined that the Sun's variation in energy output were too small to explain global warming. They dismissed the sun as a likely source of Earth changing climate!. Here is a link to a recent study showing how the sun's variation could have a feedback that would drive earth's climate change: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133. stm/ The theory goes like this: When the sun is highly magnetically active, the increased solar wind shields us from cosmic radiation. Low levels of incoming comic reduce cloud formation. Reduced low level cloud formation reduces reflectivity (i.e., the Earth's albedo). More energy is absorbed instead of reflected, and the temperature increases. The difference from an active Sun to an inactive Sun was about 3% global cloud coverage. The correlation in the study is remarkable. The jury is still out, but it could explain the correlation between the Maunder minimum of the 1600's and the little ice age, and account for the warming in the last 3 decades that corresponds with unusually high solar activity at the same time.
6. In November 1991, Danish scientists Eijil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, startled the climatological world with a paper in "Science" describing a 0.95 correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature (IPCC version). "Science" writer, Richard Kerr described it as "one dazzling correlation". The blue line is temperature, the red line is solar cycle length.) As can be seen, global temperature has tended to increase in lockstep with shortening of the solar cycle length (ie. solar maxima becoming more frequent) I hope you follow the link, because one look at it, and you are forced to say, "Its the Sun, stupid." The graph is at the bottom of this link: http://http//web.dmi.dk/sol-jord/projekter/rum_vej r/oversigt.html/
7. The best protection against climate change is a rich, technologically advanced society that can adapt to natural variation. Don't damn the 3rd
-I should know better than trying to use the "less than" symbol in an html format. -Sorry
Is the USA willing to start a war over it?
If global warming gets worse, and the USA is seen to be the major culprit, then it's concievable that quite a few countries might gang up on the USA to prevent future abuses...
Well, the coastal cities of the US are where all the liberals live. So why should we care about what happens there at all? Sounds like a useful bit of "urban renewal" to me.
Of course, not coincidentaly, it's also where most of the money is made, most technology developed, and most progress occurs.
The downside would be that all of the welfare states would have to start paying their own way instead of having the evil liberals subsdize their power, phones, etc. etc.
If the oceans were fresh water, yes, but they are not. The oceans are salty. Salty water is denser than fresh water. When the ice melts, as it is mostly fresh water, it will fill a space slightly larger than the space it displaces in the salty water.
As you point out, this effect is minor compared with the ocean rise potential of ice on land. There is about 0.4 cm of potential sea level rise from sea ice, and about 4 cm from ice shelves. These are minor compared with the 5 meters from Greenland, and the 75 meters from Antarctica.
But if the sealevel rises, and the coast line is redefined, then that is going to spur a huge economic boom during the rebuild. Think about this, war economies can spur growth with all the rebuilding after you've bombed the crap out of everything, just think about how much economic growth there will be to build all the new coastal cities.
Who knows, maybe the water line will end up being where some joe sixpack parks his trailer now, and suddenly he'll be sitting on top of a new economic opportunity.
I just hope they get some good camera angles when it happens, because I bet it's going to look a lot cooler than anything hollywood can produce on a render farm.
Yes, but volcanos also spit out other shit besides CO2, so at least give all the details, thank you.
= ns999 94321
But OTH, have you read other news about how OUR STAR, the SUN star, has been more active in the last 70 years than average for the last 8000 ???
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id
Quite possibly this could be causing warming too.
Also recent measurements of the amount of light reflecfed from the DAY SIDE of earth onto the dark side of the moon shows that is has increased, so thats another wierd effect. Again, caused by more crap in the air? or more light from the sun? or both? hmmm
Theres a lot of factors, but if the sun will go NOVA or mini NOVA or just 25% brighter, we cannot control it.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The thing is, there certainly IS evidence that at least a significant portion of the proven surface warming (we only have a couple decades of atmospheric data) is strongly correlated with natural phenomenon, it also seems to be correlated with human CO2 output after the start of the industrial revolution.
Look, there certainly is a correlation, both between human CO2 output and non-human effects on global climate. The problem is that due to measurement error, model specification, and the size of our data pool, it makes it very hard to come up with accurate estimates of the exact magnitute that each variable has on our climate. Thus, without solid information, the level of uncertainty makes it very hard to make any real solid recommendations about policy. Policy positions are more about politics (and economics?) than science.
(Well most public choice is about politics. Scientists are more qualifed than most of us to tell us the consequences of our actions, but they have no more "moral authority" than we do when it comes to making tradeoffs between multiple alternatives. The minute they imply that they do, they are imposing their values on the public.)
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
>>>Correction: the ice replaces exactly the amount of water it occupies when floating (=law of Archimedes). Proof: take a glass of water, put in ice cube, fill up glass to the edge (but not overflowing!). Ice melts, and water is still exactly up to the edge. actually wrong. if you do it that way the ice will melt to form less volume of water than ice (i.e. under the edge). This is because ice is less dense than water. This is why icebergs and icecubes float. the fact that water expands when it freezes is why your water pipes can burst in winter.
This is true, but you forget that these things come at a cost and that increasing energy efficieny happens at a decreasing rate. Thus, once past the low hanging fruit, you quickly end up driving inflation basically (assuming that everyone follows the rules.) If there was no cost to higher efficiency then we would all be doing it willingly now because we would save more $$$ than it costs. The other problem is that CO2 is much harder to reduce than other pollutants (which you can just "scrub out" or use "cleaner" technology (Since any fossil fuel consumption will produce it).
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
with no shoes, after doing a 15 hour shift in't pit through the night?
thats the yorkshire (england, uk) version of the story anyway.
(in't pit is yorkshire for working down in the mines, if you couldn't guess)
If you haven't noticed lately all the fuel economies are starting to shoot up on vehicles in anticipation of the new EPA emmissions standards as well as a marketing angle to counter act the price of gas. On top of that alternate forms of power have been severly dropping in price. Solar panels have twice the out put at half the price they had 5 years ago and windmills are going up like weeds here in California. I see a new one every week around town. Throw that on top of the extra money going into hydrogen research.
The only thing we should be helping the third world with is population control, which we do, whether it be by injection, the pill, contraceptives, or with precision munitions.
[anal-retentive screed]Once again?? When did Bush "ingnore the soldiers"? You may think that the battle plan in Iraq was poor, but it was the one the commanders decided on. Just like in any group, there was some disagreement about which plan would be best. But at the end of the day the majority of the commanders got their way. Of course we'll never know how well or poorly any alternative plan would have worked since we don't have an alternative copy of the universe to test this one out in.[/screed]
Who is presuming that his beliefs are facts? It's certainly not limited to Bush. (on the "other-side" many biologists etc have an almost religiouly dogmatic (Gaia) view of the environment) It's not just modern science that suffers from dogma. Humanity always has, because it is composed of humans. Individuals filled with beliefs and biases that frequently cannot be changed (at least without time) even with facts.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Actually I'd say that most of the scientists (at least the biologists and climatologists) don't work for Greenpeace or industrial polluters. They probably work for some government institution such as a University, NASA, USFWS, or NOAA. So their bias (and that of their collegues) is much more influencial than that of an industrial giant or even Greenpeace.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Gee, not speaking in broad generizations or painting with a broad brush or anything?? How exactly does immigration INCREASE the population?? And we are headed for global population decline well before the end of the century. The biggest problem for most of the "developed" world is the aging of the population and preventing a rapid fall in their population.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Global warming is a myth perpetrated by the left. It is hyped by liberals and atheists who want to destroy america and turn it into a replica of the soviet union. First they will come for our cars, then our houses and finally they will take our jobs and our families. Who wants to join the fight? I live in Austin, TX and the local Wise Use group is meeting this month to talk about what *direct* and *forceful* action we can take to stop the destruction of the traditional American way of life against these insane communists and satan worshippers who wish to destroy it. Please join us.
That's funny. I clicked on it to hear the idiotarian liberal rhetoric. And what do you know, I got it! You guys seem to think that humanity is the problem and getting rid of us is the only solution, but I am here to inform you that we will NOT submit to your stupidity and scientific ignorance. We will fight you and we will prevail. Now go crawl back under a rock and join your anti-american friends in france and afghanistan or something.
How can you walk uphill bothways unless you happen to live in a part of the time space continum where you can go uphill bothways between 2 points!!
**Life is too short to be serious**
"Big Arctic Perils Seen in Warming!"
Big Solar Sun Seen in Warming!
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let me guess. You're an American, right?
This ought to make drilling for oil in the region a little easier and less expensive. Might give us more room for off shore drill up there too. What with the situation in the middle east, burning oil rigs and all, we really could use this.
Here is the explanation. The population in the USA is still growing, primarily due to the children of illegal aliens. Without unfettered immigration, the American population would decline gradually.
Population decline is not the biggest problem facing developed countries. The biggest problem facing developed countries is the fact that the 3rd world is brimming with angry people who want to flood into the 1st world.
Advocates of unfettered immigration play this strange spin game in which they insist that the only way for the 1st world to continue to enjoy a good standard of living is to constantly grow the population. Note that such a scenario is not sustainable. Nonetheless, these advocates continue to "invent facts" because they need such invented "facts" in order to support their agenda.
Anyone who refuses to admit that a larger population is more environmentally damaging than a smaller population is a bigot and should be ignored. There is plenty of such bigots in LaRaza.
Why are people ignoring deforestation? It seems to me that the biggest issue here is not just the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but also the amount of CO2 sinks on the planet the more rainforests we destroy the less chance we have of neutralizing the impact of the increased CO2 levels.
Why are conservatives so blind to environmental concerns? You would think that they're inflated self-interest would make them pay attention.
I'm from Alaska. It is very, very green in summer. It wouldn't be nearly so if it wasn't frozen for as much of the year as it is. Precipitation is fairly low (I've seen the interior referred to as "semi-arid"), but you wouldn't know it to look at it. That's because the northern parts of Alaska get a whole year's worth of precipitation dumped on them in just a couple of months, and the plants just love it.
Still, compare trees in AK to those elsewhere (note that I'm not sure how much of this is accounted for by them being different species, but I think they should be roughly comparable)...an interior Alaska white spruce is probably about twice as old as an Arizona ponderosa pine of the same diameter. And that isn't exactly a fast-growing tree or lush, green environment.
Oh, and who cares if volcanos put out more (of anything) than humans do? We're talking about complex dynamic systems here, where changing one input is going to affect so many other things you can't be exactly sure what it will do, and where small changes are just going to build into bigger ones.
In other words, shit not to be fucked with lightly.
Americans, I beg of you, SELL YOUR SUV's!
I think people will notice. What they will notice I am not sure.
The arctic ocean is not stagnant. it circulates, mostly pacific to altantic (top of Greenland).Ice can impeed this flow , lack of ice would likely speed it up.
Already the summer icefree area of the actic ocean
are growing. The water is also being diluted by more
fresh water, some russian river have been increasing in flow.
As for what this means , take a number....
sea levels rise some,
.....
Japan current gets partialy diverted thru Bering strait.
Warm Japan current flushes ice out of Acrtic Ocean.
Might plug up around north end of Greenland and stop
flow from Arctic Ocean. Would this change Gulf Stream?
Or might push lot of cold water into north atlantic, affecting European climate.
and so on and so on
I think maybe we don't know.
They won't notice the polutants. Can see 'um for the smog.
Global warming, or global cooling?
http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
Can somebody please get it right?
If global warming is really occurring, can anyone prove it's not directly caused by the Sun ?
No, you can't.
Well,
with this news, I think it's high time that we all grabo our clubs and go take the poor little seals out of their misery, babies first. Oh, and while we're at it, can we just get rid of all these stupid penguins???
or even, hmmm, perhaps the earth is warming up since the last ice age and we're not getting cooler yet as we have not reached the peak temperature that it will rise to before starting our cooling towards the next ice age? If it's warmer during this mid-ice-age period is it because the earth is growing older and things change in the universe with time? not one thing can be absolutely proven, the global warming freaks do what they can to scare, but the have nothing substantial to base any facts on.
screw them, let them go join a commune
The reporting over the last 7-10 of the NY Times has been a down right embarrassing example of journalistic bias. Above the fold it has been story after story after story of just non-stop Bush bashing.
Look at the collusion between the Times and CBS. What are they doing discussing holding back anti-bush stories to two days before the election? Stories based on information that is so muddled and unclear that they approach CBS's wonderful Bush memo. And people wonder why old media is dying (no, netcraft has not yet confirmed this).
I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
I for one would like to preserve the human race.
Ok; enough with the humans and mammals dealie.
Barring extreme global catasrophe of the world-ending variety, e.g. comet, asteroid impact of a huge magnitude, possibly a huge thermonuclear exhange (maybe), Sun going Nova - nothing, repeat nada, is going to eliminate every human from the face of the planet. It's not going to happen.
What will happen is civilization -as we know it- would end. Billions of people might die, maybe. Countries as we know them may end. But homo sapiens is not going anywhere.
There is enough energy on this planet from nuclear and non-nuclear sources (coal) to sustain humans for a very, very, very long time. A limited population centrally managed, a long damn time. It is quite easy to generate shelter, food, oxygen and clean water on earth provided you have a reasonable technological infrastructure and most importantly an abundant energy source and knowledge. Unlike prior times, engineering and scientific knowledge is extremely widespread in the world.
Would it suck to live in such a world? Likely.
It is quiet possible the natural course of events on this planet is the destruction of the ecosystem. Man is a part of nature; we are not aliens thrust upon the planet. There are many very serious challenges facing mankind in the near future and all of them have to do with one thing, and one thing only: ENERGY.
One thing I can guarantee you though, until that comet from the sky comes - and maybe even after - there will be a bunch of naked apes - somewhere - living nearby available energy.
Worry more about funding research into real clean sources of energy - highly efficient solar panels, fusion reactions, even the potential to extract energy directly from the vaccum of space itself. Once you have enough clean energy, we can make every other problem go away. If you do not believe such a source of energy is possible, then we are headed for global catastrophe of another kind anyway.
Period.
..don't panic
the world is melting... cnn is gonna need something to run with after the election is over.
All the torrents you could want.
Folks, this isn't about tree hugging or saving cute furry critter... well it is, but their kind of incedental. This is about preventing the extinction of a medium sized bipedal ape, that seems more concerned about being able to drive it's SUV, than preserving an environment capable of the continuation of it's own species.
The Arctic is melting... a whole bunch of critter are gonna go bye bye soon. The same can be said all over the planet. In the tropics the sea water is so warm, huge coral reefs are dying. For an in depth look at the variety of problems developing at this very moment as we write and read, check out National Geographic two months back... the whole issue is devoted to global warming and the impact of said warming. Oh, and if one had bothered to exercise google, there are now accurate and reliable methodologies for measuring climatic conditions going back hundreds, thousands, and millions of years... as well, we have cores of ice, permafrost, earth, sea mud, and a dozen other materials that give us exquisite information about atmospheric chemistry and environmental conditions going back tens of thousands of years.
The models are getting better every day and they are pointing to some very bad news if we don't start getting a whole lot more responsible about our use of fossil fuels. The permafrost is fast melting and the permafrost is itself a huge CO2 sink. If it should melt completely, global CO2 levels will double almost over night. The haline cycle is looking very unstable in the light of decreasing salinity and rising ocean levels. This would cause terrible climate changes, causing cold in the northern latitudes and concentrate a tremendous amount of heat in the tropics. Storms of unheard of proportion, as well as droughts and heat waves that would make normal agriculture nearly impossible in the tropics. At the same time the northern latitudes would be too cold for any but eskimos. This would force the entire world population into a narrow temperate belt only several hundreds of miles wide in both the southern and northern latitudes. The ecological collapse would be extreme and billions of people would die in the subsequent migration and battle of arable land.
There are so many things we can do now, to forestall or prevent such a disaster. So far, we're doing virtually none of them. The United States must be a world leader in establishing sustainable technological practices, and instituting new technologies for improving the quality of life. Instead, we've subsidized the very businesses causing the worst problems, and supporting the third world to jump in and make the same mistakes we have in the past.
Coming up with efficient, effective, and immediate means for reducing global atmospheric carbon, and moving our global economy away from fossil fuels to nuclear, and/or alternative renewable sources should be one of the highest priorities in our society. To continue to do as we have done, is to beg disaster.
Genda
One of the side effects that can turn out to be very alarming is the fact that when the ice caps melt, the earth will absorbe more sunlight because of the change in color.
This will speed up the global warming effect, and may lead to a very vicious circle.
ENMOD is the real reason behind arctic warming....not greenhouse gases or global warming which are just the foreign owned medias cover storys for this supposedly top secret nwo plan....the elite want the oil under the ice...and the minerals....seismic activity way up too in arctic area...wait till the balance at the poles is upset, as it will be soon, and the whole crust shifts, as has happened periodically here over and over again...you have seen these ops for the last four years, believe it or not, its real, and ENMOD is just one small aspect of the overall project.......go here:
M L
a s/index.h tml
YOUR LIFE AS A HUMAN TEST SUBJECT
By Bill Gallagher 051404
http://www.luxefaire.com/electro.html
PATENTLY OBVIOUS AEROSOL PROGRAMS
PATENT LIST
http://users.ev1.net/~seektress/patlist.htm
THE METHODIC DEMISE OF NATURAL EARTH
An Environmental Impact Overview
By Dr. R. Michael Castle
http://www.wnho.net/methodic_demise.htm
SOVIET SCALAR ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPONS
The Coin used by Russia to buy a BIG piece of the New World Order
At American Expense
http://www.luxefaire.com/SCALARRUSSIA.HT
THE SUNSHINE PROJECT
http://www.sunshine-project.org
ATMOSPHERIC CHARGED-ION PLASMAS
http://www.luxefaire.com/chargedionplasm
Light Happens.
C'mon people - typing the keywords "north pole ice melting sea level" into Google got a ton of answers to the question, the very first link of which was
m
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.ht
Could we please stop rewarding those who are too lazy to look stuff up ? It's one thing for someone to say " I read this article about warming and melting ice; does anyone have an opinion?" but this poster was just lazy.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Who read that as "Big Arctic Pen1s"....
I've been reading too many spam mails...
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
We need a long-term solution that eventually phases out the dominant role of fossil fuels as our main source of energy. But thats going to have to happen anyways as our use of energy expands and our we move forward in time. Bottom line, Kyoto is a very expensive feel-good proposition that doesn't truly address our problems, but it does drain resources away from potentially more productive solutions. Committing to Kyoto is like standardizing, early in the game, on an inferior strategy in the face of a panic that we have no strategy at all.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.