Atlantis Online
March 29, 2024, 05:36:41 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Comet theory collides with Clovis research, may explain disappearance of ancient people
http://uscnews.sc.edu/ARCH190.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

An Inconvenient Truth

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: An Inconvenient Truth  (Read 6855 times)
0 Members and 111 Guests are viewing this topic.
Brandon
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2235



« Reply #105 on: March 27, 2007, 03:20:17 pm »

Quote
You're right though... If you have watched the whole event - begining to end, then the two of us have completely different opinions of what transpired. If however, you only watched the soundbites on CNN, you missed what I spoke of and you really cannot comment. It just so happens that I had a relative covering that event who also shared my opinion - so I feel vindicated.

I watched the whole debate from beginning to end, and it impresses me how many lawmakers have gotten beyond the idea of whether global warming is actually happening (and whether human beings are the prime factor) to what we can actually do to make a difference.  I'm disappointed that some people still think that there is a debate going on in science (there isn't), but I suppose there will always be a few skeptics somewhere. 
Report Spam   Logged
Allison
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4489



« Reply #106 on: March 27, 2007, 08:44:05 pm »

Quote
The fact that Boxer came to Al's resuce made him look pathetic and Boxer look petty. Inhofe, if you remember, was laughing as well. The difference is, he wasn't in a room full of supporters like she was. So, of the two of them - she was smiling because she finally had a chance to look tough on TV, and he was smiling because she squandered the opportunity by looking petty.

Your funny, Merlin.  How many drinks did you have before you came up with that one?  How would you like it if anytime you wrote one of your responses at AR, Smiley ran around and deleted it, or worse, yet, edited it for content.  Is that fair?  Nope.  But that's just what Imhofe was trying to do to Gore by not letting him answer.  Really funny how that point would never hit home unless it was first tried on you!

As for Boxer "squandering an opportunity by looking petty," may I ask to who? She was on all the talk shows after that and was practically being congratulates.  Imhofe was on one, too - whining to FOX News! 

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
You know, even Joe Lieberman and John MCcain believe in global warming and even co-sponsored legislation on it.
They are both conservatives - so that must mean....... What exactly? I have no idea why you made this comment in the middles of your thought process.

Only because you aren't trying.  Yep, both are conservatives and both believe human beings are causing global warming!  Which means (once again) yours is the minority viewpoint.  Not to worry, I'm sure you think you're still right - that and some loose change will still buy you a nice cup of coffee.  Smiley

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
I know you have a dislike of Gore, but it amazes me how two people can see the same thing so differently.
       

Actually, I don't have any feelings either way for him. He's like any other "celebrity personality" as far as I'm concerned. Just like Sean Penn, The Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon and her wife Tim Robbins - they attempt to trade on their "popularity" as if it is some form of credibility. That's what Al's doing.

Gee, care to mention the stands of any conservative celebs in there, or is it all about bashing liberals?  Don't you have a platform to cite your views, if so, why on earth would you begrudge any other celeb theirs?  Everyone has a right to an opinion.

Quote
You're right though... If you have watched the whole event - begining to end, then the two of us have completely different opinions of what transpired. If however, you only watched the soundbites on CNN, you missed what I spoke of and you really cannot comment. It just so happens that I had a relative covering that event who also shared my opinion - so I feel vindicated.

I watched the whole thing, I make it a point to see as many of the global warming hearings as I can, and it wasn't anything even remotely like you are saying. You said you had a "relative" who shared your opinion and it made you feel vindicated. I imagine if you're biased against Gore and/or the idea that human beings are behind global warming, that wouldn't take much, now would it?

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
Gore was studied and detailed on his testimony, and always polite. Many of his Republican questioners, on the other hand, came across as argumentative, petty, and a joke.
Of course, it could also be said that Gore was measured, unresponsive and evasive to the simply put - easy to answer questions that he did not, or could not answer honestly, on TV, without contradicting previous statements. I was hearkened back to the days of him as a senator, dodging questions like a bumblebee in rush hour traffic. His lawter-speak was pretty telling, unless of course, you were a staunch supporter and believe everything he says; bar none. You say tomato - I say…

Gore has always been long-winded, that's just the way he talks.  As for being "evasive," well, hey, in order to be evasive, you first have to be given the chance to answer a question - which he wasn't.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
They will be playing that exchange between Imhofe and Boxer for years, for instance. It was like a kid being taken to the woodshed, people even cheered and applaused when it happened.
In some opinions, yes, maybe it did look that way. In others, she looked like an abused child taking her anger out on a pet (that was the one reference I heard this morning on the radio that rang true with me - some others were just awful). I doubt they'll be playing it much longer once the whole transcript makes the rounds of the papers. The "soundbites" on the news don't really paint the picture of how petty she was being, but the transcript does. The transcripts also tell the tale of just how much time Al spent hiding behind the hem of her skirt.

You're so funny, Merlin, but repetition of your misinformation doesn't make it anymore true.  Anyone with eyes can see that Imhofe was trying not to let Gore answer the questions, still acting like he was in charge of the committee, and got called on it by Boxer when it came to a head.  You're seeing it through your overly-partisan eyes doesn't make it anymore true.

Careful, Merlin, I know you don't like Boxer or Gore, but if you keep this up, you're going to wind up looking so blinded by your dislike for the two of them that you will have lost all grasp of reality.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
I'd also like to add that if she would have hit him in the head with the gavel, he would have deserved it.

That would have made the abused child analogy a lot more clearly I suppose, but resorting to violence never helps solve anything in a debate. It's a sign of a weak mind to become violent when you aren't getting your way.

Of course, I was kidding - maybe not. Smiley

Quote
It really wasn't my intent to get off the subject of The Inconvenient Truth - any comments on the "Gore on Climate Change: Scientists Respond" article? If I remember correctly, it was you who said that I was THE ONLY SCIENTIST in the world that disagreed with Albert, or that GW hasn't been proven to be man-made... By my count, the "skeptics" are numbering in the thousands now.

Yeah, hope they aren't all "relatives" that share your opinion of Gore.  I never said you were the ONLY SCIENTIST  that didn't believe in global warming, I said, that you were in the minority (which you are) and that climatologists are better off to judge whether global warming is happening than physicists (which they are).

I go where the truth is, Merlin! It has nothing to do with Al Gore, at least not for me.  One one hand, we have the earth clearly warming up and we have the rise of greenhouse gases and the VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS saying that human beings are responsible.

On the other hand, we have oil company funded propaganda, the Bush Administration editing scientific reports to play down global warming, and seemingly everyone who doesn't believe in global warming also bashing AL GORE. 

We can get into the scientific data, but only the least objective people would believe the second argument.

Toodles Smiley
Report Spam   Logged
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #107 on: March 28, 2007, 11:48:12 am »

Anyone have the transcript of Gores testimony?  I thought we would start a separate topic on that and see exactly what was said, and by whom.
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #108 on: March 28, 2007, 04:06:06 pm »

I apologize in advance - I had to keep it short today.

Your funny, Merlin.  How many drinks did you have before you came up with that one?  How would you like it if anytime you wrote one of your responses at AR, Smiley ran around and deleted it, or worse, yet, edited it for content.  Is that fair?  Nope.  But that's just what Imhofe was trying to do to Gore by not letting him answer.  Really funny how that point would never hit home unless it was first tried on you!

First, I don't visit AR anymore because of a similar situation with the Smiley One.  I stick by my convictions.  Thank you however, for noticing that I am humorous - it shows that you might not actually be a lost cause.  I'm not much of a drinker though - so I cannot blame CH3CH2OH for my words.  I guess this is your attempt to get back at me for asking you if you were drunk at AR?  Touche - I think we're even now.  Wink

As for Boxer "squandering an opportunity by looking petty," may I ask to who? She was on all the talk shows after that and was practically being congratulates.  Imhofe was on one, too - whining to FOX News! 

I didn't see Inhofe whining to anyone.  I watched an interview with him on MSNBC and PBS a couple of days later, but all I saw was him answering questions - no extraneous commentary.  You ask who she looked petty to?  Well, here's my take on it from what I saw & heard; she looked petty to:  Me, to the commentators on MSNBC who discussed it (Ad Nauseum) for an hour the following evening, to the reporters at the Nashville Post, the reporters for the Washington Post, to any number of colleagues at the university I was at - watching the circus, and a large number of other sources that I hurried through at Google News.  You must have missed it because you weren't looking for it.

Only because you aren't trying.  Yep, both are conservatives and both believe human beings are causing global warming!  Which means (once again) yours is the minority viewpoint.  Not to worry, I'm sure you think you're still right - that and some loose change will still buy you a nice cup of coffee.  Smiley

You seem to equate being in the minority as: a) "A bad thing" or b) Meaning that it somehow makes me incorrect.  I contend that neither are correct.  You see - I have spent my life being in the minority (for a time) until I wind up (in many cases) being surrounded as the majority builds around me.  I remember very well another case where the "Majority" thought that I (and another) were completely off our rockers for believing in a physical theory that required 11-dimensions in order to explain the nature of things.  It was dubbed "Supergravity" although it was really a wholisitc view of Membrane Theory.  I worked in and on that theory for 8 years until I was told that "String Theory" had taken over and my research was yanked - I joined the civilian world...  3 years later, when M-theory solved the problems of String Theory (making them "super" as in "super gravity") by using our theories, math and science - I was suddenly in the majority...  I preferred being in the minority; the limelight is no place for a scientist.  The research grants were being thrown at us like flowers at a parade... 

I was also part of a little known team in 1987 that theorized (and published research) the existence of particles so energetic that they could actually violate all of our theories & predictions for cosmic ray's origins and mechanism.  We were laughed at by everyone from Weinberg to Ovrut, Hawking to Green...  4 years later, the "Oh-My-God-Particle" was trapped in a proving ground over Utah.  Again, the funding came rolling in like clowns at a circus.  Both are examples of how "The Majority" can be so majorly wrong - even though they are popular, their theories are popular, their math seems correct, their observations seem correct, and the media hails them as "The Ones in the Know". 

Paradigm - it's a fascinating word.  Look it up sometime and I think you'll find out that, to switch from a theory to a paradigm is not a good thing.  All-in-all, I'm very much at home in the minority - I do not seek to bask in the glory of success like so many others - I just look for facts and enjoy the hunt.  Once the "truth" has been revealed (whether I'm right or not), I just move along to the next mystery -satisifed that 'we' know the answer; whatever it may be.


Gee, care to mention the stands of any conservative celebs in there, or is it all about bashing liberals?  Don't you have a platform to cite your views, if so, why on earth would you begrudge any other celeb theirs?  Everyone has a right to an opinion.

I only named them because they were recent examples - not because of their politics.  In fact, without looking it up, I couldn't tell you what Sarandon & Robbin's politics are.  Should I have included Pitt & Jolie instead?  To be honest, I don't keep them categorized in my mind based on politics...  Tom Selleck?  The actor who played Moses?  Hell - I don't know.  Anyway, they all are certainly allowed to preach from whatever pulpit these create for themselves - I don't care one iota.  My point was: Their popularity lends absolutely nothing to their credibility!  I thought it was clear, let's not belabor this point.  Al is not a scientist, he doesn't use the science available correctly (see my previous post where scientists referred to him as a "popularizer"), and he's a celeb - using his status to popularize a theory. 

I watched the whole thing, I make it a point to see as many of the global warming hearings as I can, and it wasn't anything even remotely like you are saying. You said you had a "relative" who shared your opinion and it made you feel vindicated. I imagine if you're biased against Gore and/or the idea that human beings are behind global warming, that wouldn't take much, now would it?

I can see how you and I would have completely different views of the same event - you cannot even read what I write and quote me properly...  It's frustrating really, considering that I have been so consistent.  I've already said that I do not have any feelings at all about Gore other than believing hehas made his bed for himself.  The reputation he has is well earned, and he is a popularizer - just as the article stated.  I also said, in a previous post, that I didn't vote for him because of his partner (Kerry).  The rest of my impression is formed from his actions since he was a senator.  I have been specific in my comments about him.  Also, I am not "biased against" the theory that humans are behind GW.  No matter how many times you ignore what I say and then spout off the same rhetoric - it won't become true.  To say that I "am biased" indicates an emotional response and an intentional decision to ignore one item and support another; I have done no such thing.  I have merely said that there is no IRREFUTABLE PROOF that GW & GCC are linked to each other or that the two are linked to mankind's actions.  They have managed to create a list of coincidences while ignoring everything that refutes the theory.  That is NOT BIAS AGAINST that you are seeing from me, that is the scientific method being applied to a scientific problem.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
Gore has always been long-winded, that's just the way he talks.  As for being "evasive," well, hey, in order to be evasive, you first have to be given the chance to answer a question - which he wasn't.

Well, for whatever reason, it appeared to me that he was cut off whenever he diverged from answering the question, or, whenever he began prostlytizing (selling his 'canned rhetoric') - which had nothing at all to do with the question.  Inhofe's actions were no different than a lawyer's in a court room when the witness goes on a tangent...  Al knew what was going on.  In fact, it appeared as though he was using it to his advantage. 

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
You're so funny, Merlin, but repetition of your misinformation doesn't make it anymore true.  Anyone with eyes can see that Imhofe was trying not to let Gore answer the questions, still acting like he was in charge of the committee, and got called on it by Boxer when it came to a head.  You're seeing it through your overly-partisan eyes doesn't make it anymore true.

Nope.  And in your words, "..repetition of your misinformation doesn't make it anymore true."  No matter how much you sell it, Allison, I'm not going to buy it - the truth is out there for all to see, and my interpretation is based on what was said and done.  I'm not a partisan, in fact, I made my opinion of the two men you so obviously dislike quite apparent from the outset (I'm not a fan of either one).  Additionally, I thought all of them looked unprofessional.  It was a staged event that had no purpose beyond flouting Gore.  He's the democrat's "rock-star of the moment" and they wanted to show him off.

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
Careful, Merlin, I know you don't like Boxer or Gore, but if you keep this up, you're going to wind up looking so blinded by your dislike for the two of them that you will have lost all grasp of reality.

Then you know very little Allison, and your refusal to read what I write is boring.  Aside from saying that Boxer looked petty for lashing out the way she did, I have not said anything here that would enable you to think I feel negatively about her.  Gore is an even better example of your failure to read and comprehend though.  Not only have I said that I don't dislike him, I have actually credited him with specific accomplishments!  This certainly is not a case where I have allowed emotion to cloud my judgement - how about you?

Quote
Quote from: Allison on March 22, 2007, 09:27:00 pm
Of course, I was kidding - maybe not. Smiley

I abhor violence for the sake of it.   It's a never ending cycle until the resources run out or someone comes to their senses; I'm all for conservation in every form.  I have no further opinion on the subject.

Yeah, hope they aren't all "relatives" that share your opinion of Gore.  I never said you were the ONLY SCIENTIST  that didn't believe in global warming, I said, that you were in the minority (which you are) and that climatologists are better off to judge whether global warming is happening than physicists (which they are).

As I stated earlier - my "relative" is a journalist; also a liberal.  Anyway, there were debates in the other forum where you, Brandon, Byron and Katrina intimated that I was in a very - very small minority.  A couple of you even claimed I was alone.  I claimed otherwise, and I went so far as to say that the numbers would continually increase as this issue becomes more poularized and experts begin to see what we have to lose by rushing headlong into the fire.  That is happening now, and will continue to for years to come.  I agree, however, climatoligists are better suited to tell us about the weather than physicists are.  The thing is, I'm not looking for a weather prediction - I'm looking for evidence of a theory that is practically unprovable due to its scope, size and complexity.  This theory requires the insight and contribution of paleoclimatologists, archaeologists, geologists, historians, chemists, physicists and theoreticians of every discipline because of the "all-encompassing" nature of it.  Who do you think is doing the vast majority of the "physical modelling" and the molecular interativity determinations?  Physicists!  If it were me, I would welcome all of the assistance I could get - EVEN IF IT WAS CRITICAL.  I don't mind being here in the minority - it's cozy and quiet (not a bunch of buzzing) and it makes getting my work done really easy.


I go where the truth is, Merlin! It has nothing to do with Al Gore, at least not for me.  One one hand, we have the earth clearly warming up and we have the rise of greenhouse gases and the VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS saying that human beings are responsible.

I thought that you might be on to something in the beginning of your reply, but then you fizzled out at the end.  If you were really "going where the truth is", the following sentences wouldn't allow you to arrive at a conclusion; ANY CONCLUSION.

"We have the earth clearly warming up".  --  Do we? 
"..and we have the rise in greenhouse gases"  --  Alright...
"..and the VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS saying that human beings are responsible."  --  Not necessarily, but I'll stipulate to it for the sake of argument.

We begin with an assertion, we state a fact, and then we conclude with a comment.  That arrangement does not, in any way, constitute a complete or compelling argument.  Most of all, it still doesn't make any of Al's "science" correct; particularly his conclusion.  You have to acknowledge that every detail Al gave was at the extreme.  There are no scientists standing behind his "SPECIFIC PREDICTIONS", and many are running away from the de-glaciation data; the ice caps are moving - not disappearing in many areas.

On the other hand, we have oil company funded propaganda, the Bush Administration editing scientific reports to play down global warming, and seemingly everyone who doesn't believe in global warming also bashing AL GORE. 

Well, that's an extremely one-sided and minimalist commentary that serves only to propagandize the debate - not locate a solution; kind of like The Inconvenient Truth.  Are there detractors that are funded by the oil industry?  Yes.  Has the Bush Administration edited scientific papers to de-emphasize aspects of documents that they disagree with? Yes.  Are people who disagree with GW, as offered by AL, questioning him?  Yes.  However, you don't bother asking any followup questions, so I took the liberty for you:  Are there detractors of GW (as offered by AL) outside of Big Oil?  Yes - many  Has any other administration ever edited science papers?  Every one of them  And, finally - Why would anyone else be questioned about the science in "The Inconvenient Truth" except ALRhetorical question

We can get into the scientific data, but only the least objective people would believe the second argument.

I must misunderstand this comment.  Since there is no such thing as subjectivity in the scientific method, objectivity isn't really an issue.  If you have data - bring it.  I haven't seen you post anything other than newspaper articles or cuts & pastes from the Wiki on the subject, so, by all means - trot the evidence out that supports AL's specific predictions or even his overall conclusion!  Prove his case, he certainly hasn't.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2007, 08:31:32 pm by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #109 on: April 01, 2007, 07:37:11 pm »

The Solution to Global Warming
A $10 Billion Sun shield for planet Earth
Last update:  06/11/2006
 

       


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Executive Summary
     The proposal is to build a very large orbiting shield which will intercept sunlight before it reaches the Earth and reflect it back into space.  The shield will consist of a very thin metal foil covering a sparse matrix of ribs.  In order to minimize the cost, the materials needed for this shield will come from the Moon.  The shield will be built robotically both to save cost and because humans are not suited to working in space.  How large a shield will be necessary?  Our initial estimate is 6 percent of the cross-sectional area of the Earth.  Since the cross-sectional area of Earth is about 50 million square miles, the shield will need to be about 3 million square miles (roughly the size or area of Australia).  Since the shield will orbit the Earth, it will only intercept sunlight when it is on the sunny side of the Earth.  Thus the effect of the shield will be to reduce incident radiation from the Sun by about 3%.   How long will it take to build this shield?  Suppose that we could build one square mile in the first year of assembly.  By doubling the effort each year thereafter (through the expansion of our Lunar manufacturing facilities), we could complete the shield in about 22 years.  Including three years of startup, the entire project could be completed in 25 years.  One additional year would double the size of the shield to 6 million square miles and give a reduction of 6% in the incident sunlight (if this were deemed necessary).

      The cost of this project would be surprisingly low.   Since the very very vast majority of material would come from the Moon, that part will be FREE.  All we need to pay for is the startup facilities.  The startup facilities would consist of a large electromagnetic projectile launcher (EMPL) built on Earth and configured to throw its payloads to the Moon - as in Jules Vern's Moon gun (cost about $5 billion).  We would require just one robotic mission to the Moon to put in place the initial manufacturing capability (cost about $1 billion).  Other costs include sending additional materials to the Moon via the EMPL. These would include robots, computers, and other parts which could not be built easily on the Moon from materials found there (cost about $2 billion).  We will also require one mission to the orbital site of the shield which would put the initial assembly equipment in place (cost about $1 billion). Finally, there would be the cost of supervising the construction of the shield over 22 years (cost about $1 billion).  Thus the total cost of the Sun shield which would solve the global warming problem would be about $10 billion.   

      Of course there are several major hurdles to overcome before this shield could be built. The first question would be what latitudes would the shield cover.  Assume that we choose to build a shield which is 3000 miles wide and 1000 miles high.  We could orient this either North to South or East to West.  If it were oriented with its long side going around the Earth, it would cover about 50 degrees from East to West and about 17 degrees from North to South.  This could be from 8.5 degrees South to 8.5 degrees North on either side of the equator.  If the shield orbits Earth twice per day, then its shadow would take about 1.5 hours to pass overhead on each orbit.  If the shield were turned 90 degrees, it would cover 17 degrees from East to West and 50 degrees from North to South.  In this case it would cover from 25 degrees South latitude to 25 degrees North latitude and would pass overhead in only a half hour.  The second problem would be to put the proposal before the United Nations in an attempt to secure global approval for the shield.  We feel sure there will be plenty of people who will oppose this plan - either because they don't believe it can be accomplished or because they have some objection - such as worrying about the shield falling or because it will get in the way of astronomical telescopes.  There are even a few people who do not believe that global warming is actually happening.  However, the seriousness of global warming grows greater with each passing year and we need to do something before it is too late.

Problem solved  (* 07/13/2005 *)
      A possible problem with this shield proposal was that it would block satellite signals from satellites which orbit above it.   However, it appears that simply by punching a bunch of holes in the foil, we can eliminate this problem.  Thus the foil would look like a swiss cheese or a checkerboard.  This would allow the satellite signals to pass through with little attenuation.  Obviously this will require a somewhat larger shield area to make up for the holes - but this is not a problem either.

 

 
http://www.androidworld.com/prod60.htm
« Last Edit: April 01, 2007, 08:10:18 pm by Bee Cha » Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #110 on: April 01, 2007, 07:40:41 pm »

What is the evidence of global warming?
Carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) concentration increasing

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing steadily for 50 years.
First look at the CO2 concentration over 400,000 years from the Vostok ice cores



Compare this to Mauna Loa CO2 measurements over the last 50 years



Methane (another greenhouse gas) buildup

Methane trapped in frozen tundra may be a ticking time bomb. (* new 3/22/06*)  Aparently as much as 400 billion tons of methane may be trapped in the frozen tundra in the arctics.  This is about 3000 times the current methane content of the atmosphere.  Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.  The warming and thawing of the tundra may start a chain reaction which could release billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere which would greatly exacerbate the global warming problem.
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #111 on: April 01, 2007, 07:43:03 pm »

Surface temperature increasing

Global average temperatures are slowly increasing
Temperatures have risen about 0.7 deg Celcius over the last century.



Many of the hottest years on record are recent ones. The ten hottest years were:
 2005, 1998, 2002,  2003, 2004, 2001,  1997, 1995, 1990,  1999
Graphically you can see the trend starkly.



Temperature hit 100 in London (August 10, 2003) for the first time in recorded history.


Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #112 on: April 01, 2007, 07:44:29 pm »

Ocean temperatures increasing

Recent headline:  Caribbean coral suffers record die-off.    (* 3/31/06 *)
Costal ocean temperatures are so high that sea corals are being killed globally.
Up to 90% of corals are dead or dying in many areas.
It is now too late to derail or delay the disaster.
The increase in the temperature of the oceans is providing fuel for stronger and more frequent hurricances and typhoons - like last year when we saw a record number of hurricanes in the Caribbean.   Japan also set a record for the number of typhoons to hit Japan.
Sea levels are slowly increasing, threatening cities such as Venice, Italy
Sea level as measured at San Francisco, California, USA.

Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #113 on: April 01, 2007, 07:49:38 pm »

Glaciers melting

In Montana's Glacier National Park only 27 of the 150 glaciers which existed in 1910 remain today and they will be gone in only 20 years.
Glaciers are in retreat all over the world.
Here is a spectacular site by Gary Braasch called " World View of Global Warming"
He shows numerous "before" and "after" pictures of glaciers - such as the following:



Upsala Glacier         



Rhone Glacier


Over 90% of the ice shelf north of Ellesmere Island (Canada) is gone.
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #114 on: April 01, 2007, 07:51:38 pm »

Animals are dying

Animal ranges are changing due to changes in the local climates.
Walruses are starving in the Bering Sea because they are adrift on ice flows in water too deep to feed.
In Canada, polar bears are starving because Hudson's Bay is ice-free too long each year so they cannot catch enough seals to survive. Pregnant females are losing so much weight that they fail to produce enough milk for their cubs, which then suffer increased mortality. Once females fail to attain a minimum weight they won’t give birth at all, and scientists can already document a 15 percent drop in birth rates.
Also in Canada, river temperatures are so high now that salmon are being killed on their way to their spawning grounds - thus killing off the salmon FOREVER. 
Frogs are dying all over the world - not just a few frogs here and there but WHOLE SPECIES are dying off FAST.
Vanishing Frogs
Recent Amphibian Declines in Lower Central America
Amphibious Assault

Plants effected

Plants are germinating earlier and earlier and moving farther and farther North.
Nearly 4 million acres of mature white spruce forest on the Kenai Peninsula (in Alaska) have been killed by a growing population of spruce bark beetles (Dendroctonus rufipennis) since about 1987.
Louisiana (USA) is losing land at a rate of about 25 square miles per year.
This effect has now been shown to be primarily due to subsidence of
the land.  A new NOAA report  says that the northern part of the Gulf
of Mexico is sinking at a rate of 60 inches per century or about 0.6 inches
per year (whereas sealevel is only rising by 8 inches per century).   
Worldwide there are increases in droughts and forest fires.
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #115 on: April 01, 2007, 07:53:34 pm »

Study says sun getting hotter

WASHINGTON (AP) - The sun is getting hotter, adding heat to an Earth already thought to be warming from greenhouse gases.

Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986, when the current solar cycle was beginning, a researcher reports in a study to be published Friday in the journal Science. The finding is based on an analysis of satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight.

The increase is only a small fraction of the total heat from the sun, but in a century it would be enough to seriously aggravate problems of global warming thought to be caused by greenhouse gases, says Richard C. Willson of Columbia University's Center for Climate Systems Research.

Willson said that most researchers expect greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. Solar irradiance could add another 0.72 degrees F and ''that is not an insignificant number. It is smaller than the greenhouse effect, but it is not trivial,'' he said.

''This is a significant increase,'' said John Firor of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. ''It would increase the rate at which we go into warming.''

Firor said that based on the current estimate of how greenhouse gases will warm the planet over the next century, the solar heat increase found by Willson would boost that warming trend by about 20 percent.

Although studies show that the Earth has warmed about one degree in the last century and the trend continues, there is a division among scientists about what is causing it. Some believe it is a natural cycle for the planet, unrelated to humans. Others blame the warming on an increase in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide from the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood.

At an international meeting in Japan in three months, the United States and other nations will debate the need to reduce the burning of fuels in order to slow global warming.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #116 on: April 01, 2007, 07:58:47 pm »

Arctic changes are the greatest

Alaska data


Average temperature has risen 3 degrees C (= 5.4 degrees F) in the last 30 years.
The sea level around Alaska has risen a foot in the last century.
The permafrost is melting - which is causing buildings to sink into the mud.
98% of glaciers & sea ice are melting.
Alaska glaciers



Denali 1919 



2004
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #117 on: April 01, 2007, 08:01:29 pm »



Holgate 1909 



2004
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #118 on: April 01, 2007, 08:04:59 pm »



http://www.androidworld.com/Muir_glacier_1941.jpg



2004
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #119 on: April 01, 2007, 08:07:45 pm »

Over 90% of the ice shelf north of Ellesmere Island (Canada) is gone.
Scary pictures of the northern polar regions in 1979 & 2000 
Polar ice has been decreasing by 1% per year since 1979.


                                   
1979                                                            2000

Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy