The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center which covers the Pacific Ocean was established in 1949. The 2004 quake you refer to was in the Indian Ocean which wasn't covered at the time. Since then the PTWC has extended its coverage to the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean Sea until suitable centers can be organized there.
The models the PTWC uses are quite accurate, especially as to time frames, and so are very useful in sending out timely warnings. But if you're close enough to feel the quake you shouldn't expect to get a warning. You should just head to high ground if you're in a tsunami zone.
No one I know is saying human activity is the one and only effect on the climate. But the evidence that the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, primarily CO2, is the cause of most of the current warming is strong. And the evidence that human activities are the primary cause of increases in GHG's during the current period is also strong.
There is little or no evidence that other planets in the solar system are experiencing similar climate change.
It doesn't matter if the thermometers from 100 years ago couldn't measure to 100th of a degree of accuracy. When you combine lots of measurements the increased accuracy is warranted. For example say you had 100 thermometers and you take an average of them. Next you take another measurement and 99 thermometers read the same as before but one had a 2 degree change. If you're accuracy is only to a whole degree you're unlikely to see any change in the overall average but if you're accuracy goes to 100ths of a degree you're more likely to see that a change has happened.
So now is NASA going to start publishing on the other side of the issue since the current House of Representatives is trying to defund climate science research? Science doesn't work that way. If you start pushing BS you're going to get called out on it.
The thinking that says, "Hmm, the earth seems to be warming a bit. People burn a lot of fossil fuels. Therefore people must be the cause.," is not necessarily correct.
Your chain of logic is a little short there. It should be more like "Hmm, the temperature on the surface of the Earth is governed mostly by the amount of incoming solar energy and the greenhouse gases and clouds that capture the outgoing radiation that is reflected or re-radiated. Without any greenhouse gases the average temperature on the surface of the Earth would be around 0 degrees F instead of 58 F. The level of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 is increasing. Human burning of fossil fuels releases about twice as much CO2 as it takes to raise the atmospheric level by the amount it is rising from year to year. Therefore people must be the cause."
Anyone who brings up the "They predicted global cooling in the 70's" meme is not doing their research. In a survey of papers on the subject from 1965 to 1970 there were over 40 papers published on the subject of global warming and less than 10 on global cooling. And several of the global cooling papers were talking about it in the context of the increasing release of aerosols by human industrial activities. 1970's global cooling is a failed meme.
Also, please give me some examples of the incorrect predictions from the 1990's.
You are making some pretty glib assumptions about how easy it will be start farming in more northerly areas. In much of northern Canada the soil is thin and acidic. Also, you'll still have long summer days and short winter days. Day length is significant for some crops.
The maximum potential for sea level rise is about 2 meters by 2100 but it doesn't necessarily stop there. If all of the ice on Greenland melts that about 20 feet of SLR. If all the ice on Greenland and Antarctica were to melt you would get over 200 feet of SLR. It would take several thousand years for all of it to melt though. So, maybe up to 6 feet by 2100, probably less than 20 feet by 2200. I imagine by then we'll realize what we're doing and take action but it's too late for Florida then.
The problem I have with saying life begins at conception is that something like 60-70% of fertilized eggs either never implant or are spontaneously aborted in the first week before a woman even knows she could be pregnant. If life begins at conception that's a lot of souls that are dying before they even get a chance.
My personal view is that until the fetus is able to survive outside the womb, separate from the mother then it's nobody's business but the mothers (and perhaps the fathers).
And, in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments there are passages that imply life begins with the first breath. Where are the Bible literalists on that?
... with the mechanism by which many diverse complex species are created from simple atoms and molecules.
Of course evolution does not speculate on abiogenesis, how life got started in the first place, but only on how life, once it got started, developed into the myriad of forms we see in the fossil record and the living species we see today. Until you understand that difference there's not much point in talking to you about it.
Yes but it won't be 8 degrees warmer in 2200. It's not a binary situation, the sooner we do something and the more we do about it the less worse it gets.
To answer spun's question, probably too much bad karma on the old one.
Of course, you're also ignoring the fact that Mt Saint Helens put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of mankind before that point, so we really aren't making that big of a dent.
LOL. You just shot down everything else you said by writing that. Mangu posted the links.
I kind of think that SCO sued IBM in hopes that IBM would just buy them out rather than go to the expense of defending themselves. When that didn't work out then they had to expand their suits in hopes they might get something from someone else.
I think he's just talking about the small building over the wellhead where the pump is located. Any pipes that feed the house and other outbuildings go back into the ground in the well house and buried deep enough to be safe from freezing. One light bulb is all he needs, or maybe two 20's now.
Lots of city folk have no idea of what it's like getting water from a well and maintaining their own private water system. They've just never had to think about it.
It shows a remarkable lack of imagination to think we can't have a good life without using fossil fuels as we currently do. Certainly it will be different but that doesn't mean it can't be a good life.
Slashdot Mirror
The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center which covers the Pacific Ocean was established in 1949. The 2004 quake you refer to was in the Indian Ocean which wasn't covered at the time. Since then the PTWC has extended its coverage to the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean Sea until suitable centers can be organized there.
The models the PTWC uses are quite accurate, especially as to time frames, and so are very useful in sending out timely warnings. But if you're close enough to feel the quake you shouldn't expect to get a warning. You should just head to high ground if you're in a tsunami zone.
The fact that so many people assume that such simple things have been overlooked is just more evidence of the anti-science attitude in the US.
Now that's an insightful comment.
No one I know is saying human activity is the one and only effect on the climate. But the evidence that the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, primarily CO2, is the cause of most of the current warming is strong. And the evidence that human activities are the primary cause of increases in GHG's during the current period is also strong.
There is little or no evidence that other planets in the solar system are experiencing similar climate change.
It doesn't matter if the thermometers from 100 years ago couldn't measure to 100th of a degree of accuracy. When you combine lots of measurements the increased accuracy is warranted. For example say you had 100 thermometers and you take an average of them. Next you take another measurement and 99 thermometers read the same as before but one had a 2 degree change. If you're accuracy is only to a whole degree you're unlikely to see any change in the overall average but if you're accuracy goes to 100ths of a degree you're more likely to see that a change has happened.
So now is NASA going to start publishing on the other side of the issue since the current House of Representatives is trying to defund climate science research? Science doesn't work that way. If you start pushing BS you're going to get called out on it.
The thinking that says, "Hmm, the earth seems to be warming a bit. People burn a lot of fossil fuels. Therefore people must be the cause.," is not necessarily correct.
Your chain of logic is a little short there. It should be more like "Hmm, the temperature on the surface of the Earth is governed mostly by the amount of incoming solar energy and the greenhouse gases and clouds that capture the outgoing radiation that is reflected or re-radiated. Without any greenhouse gases the average temperature on the surface of the Earth would be around 0 degrees F instead of 58 F. The level of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 is increasing. Human burning of fossil fuels releases about twice as much CO2 as it takes to raise the atmospheric level by the amount it is rising from year to year. Therefore people must be the cause."
Anyone who brings up the "They predicted global cooling in the 70's" meme is not doing their research. In a survey of papers on the subject from 1965 to 1970 there were over 40 papers published on the subject of global warming and less than 10 on global cooling. And several of the global cooling papers were talking about it in the context of the increasing release of aerosols by human industrial activities. 1970's global cooling is a failed meme.
Also, please give me some examples of the incorrect predictions from the 1990's.
You are making some pretty glib assumptions about how easy it will be start farming in more northerly areas. In much of northern Canada the soil is thin and acidic. Also, you'll still have long summer days and short winter days. Day length is significant for some crops.
The maximum potential for sea level rise is about 2 meters by 2100 but it doesn't necessarily stop there. If all of the ice on Greenland melts that about 20 feet of SLR. If all the ice on Greenland and Antarctica were to melt you would get over 200 feet of SLR. It would take several thousand years for all of it to melt though. So, maybe up to 6 feet by 2100, probably less than 20 feet by 2200. I imagine by then we'll realize what we're doing and take action but it's too late for Florida then.
What are you talking about? The vast majority of abortions are performed long before the fetus has any chance of survival outside the womb.
The problem I have with saying life begins at conception is that something like 60-70% of fertilized eggs either never implant or are spontaneously aborted in the first week before a woman even knows she could be pregnant. If life begins at conception that's a lot of souls that are dying before they even get a chance.
My personal view is that until the fetus is able to survive outside the womb, separate from the mother then it's nobody's business but the mothers (and perhaps the fathers).
And, in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments there are passages that imply life begins with the first breath. Where are the Bible literalists on that?
... with the mechanism by which many diverse complex species are created from simple atoms and molecules.
Of course evolution does not speculate on abiogenesis, how life got started in the first place, but only on how life, once it got started, developed into the myriad of forms we see in the fossil record and the living species we see today. Until you understand that difference there's not much point in talking to you about it.
Yes but it won't be 8 degrees warmer in 2200. It's not a binary situation, the sooner we do something and the more we do about it the less worse it gets.
To answer spun's question, probably too much bad karma on the old one.
Of course, you're also ignoring the fact that Mt Saint Helens put more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of mankind before that point, so we really aren't making that big of a dent.
LOL. You just shot down everything else you said by writing that. Mangu posted the links.
There is lots of available wind energy in the Upper Midwest, particularly the Dakota's. That's not along the coasts.
You forgot the /sarcasm tag.
True but of the 3 types of fossil fuels petroleum, the one most used for transportation, is the one that's going to be in short supply soonest.
I kind of think that SCO sued IBM in hopes that IBM would just buy them out rather than go to the expense of defending themselves. When that didn't work out then they had to expand their suits in hopes they might get something from someone else.
I don't disagree with anything you said. Mercury is important but so is CO2.
I think he's just talking about the small building over the wellhead where the pump is located. Any pipes that feed the house and other outbuildings go back into the ground in the well house and buried deep enough to be safe from freezing. One light bulb is all he needs, or maybe two 20's now.
Lots of city folk have no idea of what it's like getting water from a well and maintaining their own private water system. They've just never had to think about it.
Even in a perfect world people would find things to complain about.
Coal power plants are generally more efficient power producers than internal combustion engines.
That might have something to do with the quality of his work.
It shows a remarkable lack of imagination to think we can't have a good life without using fossil fuels as we currently do. Certainly it will be different but that doesn't mean it can't be a good life.
Antarctic sea ice has increased for some interesting reasons but the Antarctic ice sheet has been losing mass.