Global Warming

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:19 am

On 2006-06-22 11:05, Shroomz wrote:
...Peoples' inactiveness is more fear of being eliminated or jailed for protesting or taking action than anything else. ...

no, it's like they GaryB wrote: herd creatures wired to follow their leader, the most convenient way etc.
btw you're the living proof with your frequent use of 'we'

We are the problem.

then would you like to contribute to the solution by blowing your head off ?
using a few ounces of accelerated lead and not some weed or colored pills, if you had the skillz...

your lack of consequence is symptomatic for a whole bunch of wafflers, and those 'better' people are a part of the herd, too.

You're not living in the Sahel facing starvation every day, so there IS something you can DO to hurt that 'system' you obviously dislike so much.
And 'something' definetely doesn't mean (or include) riots with moli throwing (as it's called here), a modern form of adventure tourism with high adrenaline factor

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2006-06-22 12:21 ]

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:58 am

That's bollocks. What are you doing?

I don't answer to anybody. Don't follow any leader, so you're full of shit mate.

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:45 pm

This study just came out available at the National Academies of Sciences and it's in the news:

WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added.

Now the credentials if any "doubts" will arise:

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate

Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Gerald R. North (chair)
Distinguished Professor of Meteorology and Oceanography and
Harold J. Haynes Endowed Chair in Geosciences
Texas A&M University
College Station

Franco Biondi
Associate Professor of Physical Geography
University of Nevada
Reno

Peter Bloomfield
Professor of Statistics and of Financial Mathematics
North Carolina State University
Raleigh

John R. Christy
Professor of Atmospheric Science, and
Director
Earth System Science Center
University of Alabama
Huntsville

Kurt M. Cuffey
Professor of Geography
University of California
Berkeley

Robert E. Dickinson1,2
Professor
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta

Ellen R.M. Druffel
Professor of Earth System Science
University of California
Irvine

Douglas Nychka
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colo.

Bette Otto-Bliesner
Scientist
Climate and Global Dynamics Division;
Head
Paleoclimate Group; and
Deputy Head
Climate Change Research Section
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colo.

Neil Roberts
Head
School of Geography
University of Plymouth
Plymouth, United Kingdom

Karl K. Turekian1
Sterling Professor of Geology and Geophysics
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

John M. Wallace1
Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, and
Director
Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean
University of Washington
Seattle

RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF

Ian Kraucunas
Study Director

1 Member, National Academy of Sciences
2 Member, National Academy of Engineering

[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-06-22 17:46 ]

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:58 pm

NASA confirms impact of global warming on polar caps:

In the most comprehensive survey ever undertaken of the massive ice sheets covering both Greenland and Antarctica, NASA scientists confirm climate warming is changing how much water remains locked in Earth's largest storehouse of ice and snow.

Other recent studies have shown increasing losses of ice in parts of these sheets. This new survey is the first to inventory the losses of ice and the addition of new snow on both in a consistent and comprehensive way throughout an entire decade.

The survey shows that there was a net loss of ice from the combined polar ice sheets between 1992 and 2002 and a corresponding rise in sea level. The survey documents for the first time extensive thinning of the West Antarctic ice shelves and an increase in snowfall in the interior of Greenland, as well as thinning at the edges. All are signs of a warming climate predicted by computer models.

The survey, published in the Journal of Glaciology, combines new satellite mapping of the height of the ice sheets from two European Space Agency satellites. It also used previous NASA airborne mapping of the edges of the Greenland ice sheets to determine how fast the thickness is changing.

MikeRaphone · Post by **MikeRaphone** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:26 pm

Guys, guys, guys,
it's not oil, it's not global warming, it's not globalization or nukes in the bush or police states. The sweet water is running out! We shit in it, and soon world will become, even if flooded and whipped by thunderstorms, a very dry place in deed!
The next global conflict will be about sweet water resources...

Sarvamangalam

Post by **garyb** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:18 pm

that's probably true.
Shroomz, i'm confused,who advocated anarchy?

Bingo, yeah, whatever.
the texas academy of sciences gave Erik Pianka a standing ovation and an award for calling for mass genocide with airborne weaponized ebola. some of these people have strange agendas.
the south pole is NOT melting. the water there is not ADDED to the system(it's part of it). be mad at me if you like.
there have been plenty of times that the accepted explanations have been wrong. you haven't even read any of my links, though i've read yours, including those pretty pictures showing most of the ice beds to be below sea level. i'm not panicking about "global warming" when there are people with means looking for reasons to kill 85-90% of the humans while making the humans feel it's their own fault. period.

i know these high level scientists like the guy who sarted JPL in pasadena, Aliester C's right-hand-man Jack Parsons, here's what he did for fun as told by his...ummm..daughter http://www.babalon.net/

no seriously, my grandfather started a scientific dept for a very high level defense contractor. i've a real idea what goes on...scientific "knowledge" changes daily. the story in the press takes decades to change.

the weather will ALWAYS change and it may not change in ways people like no matter what people do. HAARP(or it's ilk) is a bigger threat than global warming.

man, i hope you are all enjoying this spectacle as much as i...

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2006-06-22 20:20 ]

Post by **hubird** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:20 pm

it's getting hot in here...

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:45 pm

On 2006-06-22 20:18, garyb wrote:
you haven't even read any of my links, though i've read yours, including those pretty pictures showing most of the ice beds to be below sea level.

You "read" those pictures wrongly. Please stop reading my links.

[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-06-22 21:01 ]

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:03 pm

we all know the real danger of antarctica melting away is all those baby shoggoths just waiting to crawl out.

Post by **garyb** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:45 pm

On 2006-06-22 20:45, BingoTheClowno wrote:

You "read" those pictures wrongly. Please stop reading my links.

no need to get mad about it.
stop posting them then.

really, i'm just stupid, i guess. i'm not trying to insult you. i should have followed my own advice to stop posting on the subject. it's all very interesting, though...

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2006-06-22 22:48 ]

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:35 am

Bingos' pictures show some hard facts, which is nice.

For example they clearly display the EAIS as being *above* sea level. This particular sheet is one that's very concerning. Although it's unlikely to melt in a hurrry, the EAIS would indeed significantly raise sea levels if it did melt. Possibly by up to 200ft....

The WAIS is proven by many scientists to be already melting pretty quickly, just like Greenland & other ice globally.

What was once South Americas' largest glacier is dissappearing as are many others around the world.

Try telling the people who's homes get flooded every year at increasing levels that the sea level isn't rising. It's been slowly rising for decades & it's believed to be cetainly a possibility that it could speed up & that sea levels could raise dramatically over short periods of time. There's nothing to despute there. Check out the looming crisis that faces Bangladesh for example. Half of Bangladesh could be under water within 10-20 years. The people there know it's coming, but don't know what to do other than go on with their daily lives & deal with dissasters when they happen...

Cochise · Post by **Cochise** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:30 am

Sorry, I write this in the hope you wanna grant a bit of space for the idiocy coming out at the moment from my boiled brain.

How about going on with some serenade to the apocalypse?

Post by **garyb** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:00 am

Shroomz, you are correct about rising sea levels and the way the map reads(imo). you are also correct in the FACT the the chances of that bad bad thing of the eastern cap melting is about the same as the sun suddenly blinking out of existance. the OTHER ice melts are unlikely to be making sea levels rise. there are a lot of other factors which are much more likely to make the sea level rise as i already pointed out. pacific volcanoes and tectonic movement are first and foremost. tidal forces from slight changes in planetary orbit(yes, this happens) also have an effect. in short, there are so many factors, it's staggering(glaciers melting will NOT make the oceans rise. also, antartic winter ice was as massive as it ever was last season, summer ice was lower). this system is a little more complex than the argument is letting on to. if people want to be angry at my saying so, fine. i'm not saying "use all the oil you want, it doesn't matter"! oil is dirty(but more than plentiful). even if i don't do it here, i'll mock this ice melt doomsday. also as i said before, any climatic situation where the poles completely melt would mean death to all surface life(the swiss would be fine in their bunkers for a few years) long before the melt was finished.

greenland's icepacks are certainly melting faster than ever and the ice rivers are moving faster than ever, but at the same time, the packs are thicker than ever(not at the coast, but inland). it's not clear WHAT's going on since the ice has advanced and retreated MANY times in the earth's existance. once more i'll appropriate the word DYNAMIC to describe the system. SOME high level scientists swear that human activity is the main cause of these things. OTHER high level scientists say no. the agendas and loyalties of both groups are in question. there aren't many in science whose approach is pure. WE KNOW NOTHING ON THE SUBJECT. the newest theories say that global warming will make a new ice age in many parts of the world! these things are hard to predict. add manmade weather(from military techniques) and nothing weather-wise can be projected long-term. short term weather prediction is shaky at best.

sure, changing coastlines are a problem! just like building on sand, building on the coast is dangerous. the coastline has ALWAYS changed, often rapidly, in the history of the earth.

my point is that these types of doomsday scenarios are just another form of terrorism. there are those with the resources and ability to abate and remedy the worst of human mistakes on the planet if they cared. instead, they'll leave us screaming and running in circles waiting for the sky to fall.

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2006-06-23 11:04 ]

Cochise · Post by **Cochise** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:39 am

Involved variables are really quite a huge number and I agree with Garyb about the uncertainty of every forecast; even if we can't ignore what the tendency is.
What I don't share is considering one of the opinion trends as a form of terrorism.
Although apocalyptic forecasts can bring negative consequences to the behaviour of some people, the only common point they could have with terrorism is that they also strike fear.

In fact, IMO, if a bit of that fear can help to somehow reduce human contribution to global warming and other human misbehaviours toward the environment, then that fear could improve life quality.

Even if it would has to be discussed what really quality of life is, and there could be very different opinions on that.

[ This Message was edited by: Cochise on 2006-06-23 12:41 ]

Post by **garyb** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:20 pm

i'll say it another way.
scaring the sheep will only make them scatter and feed the wolves. the shepherds must properly guide the flock to keep it from destroying it's pastures.

unfortunately, the shepherds are wolves in disguise....

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2006-06-23 13:21 ]

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:18 am

On 2005-11-12 02:07, stardust wrote:
two planets meet.
first asks: How are you ?
second one: honestly, it could be better.
first one: why ?
second: I have a mankind
first: Oh, dont worry, you ll get over it.

This is funny

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:34 am

On 2006-06-23 12:39, Cochise wrote:
Involved variables are really quite a huge number and I agree with Garyb about the uncertainty of every forecast; even if we can't ignore what the tendency is.

I'm not sure what are you saying: we can't ignore the tendencies, but you agree with Gary to ignore them?

[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-06-24 08:35 ]

Cochise · Post by **Cochise** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:02 am

Unfortunately, considering symptoms, it looks quite clear which the tendencies are.
And definitely them mustn't be ignored, in my opinion.
But, as Garyb, I'm convinced no forecast can exactly outline the significance nor the time required by this tendencies to become catastrophic.
I'll repeat: excess of catastrophism can be damaging; sane dread and good consciousness can help.

Ehi Garyb, one of this day I'll PM you for talk about the HAARP and similar techs based on that principle.
Another argument scaring me quite a lot is about misused new techs...

Post by **garyb** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:59 am

one scientific principle that always stands is that when making statistical predictions(like what EXACTLY is driving weather changes and what those changes will do), you must have a sufficiently large sampling. this article illustrates the problem we have with this warming issue. it's clear that the earth IS getting warmer. it's also clear that there have been many warm and cold periods. what's NOT clear is how long these periods normally are and exactly what IS normal. still, predictions are made(as cochise says, bettter safe than sorry). the only time there is a problem is when BELIEF is parroted as KNOWLEDGE...

here's an article whose headline sez it all. this is the warmest it's been since 1600. they can't really even speak with any certainty before that, really not even before about 1850! (no reliable measurements....) that is a VERY small sampling of the many thousands of years of human existance and millions of years of earth's existance. it is too small to be sure of anything. scientists(real ones...) THINK it makes sense that hhuman activity is responsible for at least SOME of the temperature rise, MAYBE even all of it for SOME of this period, but what is NOT clear, is what effect if any, our actions will have in any long time period(even 50 years). the system is to a large part, self regulating. the sun and other natural components potentially are much bigger factors...

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic ... ARMING.xml

let's not panic. it's not certain we can do anything anyway, but if it IS the use of petroleum that is the problem, those that run things can allow us to use something else. there ARE alternatives. it will have to be the false god overlords who give up some of their control(they sell oil and operate all the activities that profit from that sale, i.e. refineries, manufactureing etc.) and THEIR wealth, not the common person who has done nothing wrong except to run the programming given to him...

[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2006-06-24 11:00 ]

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:51 am

On 2006-06-22 20:18, garyb wrote:

Bingo, yeah, whatever.
the texas academy of sciences gave Erik Pianka a standing ovation and an award for calling for mass genocide with airborne weaponized ebola. some of these people have strange agendas.
the south pole is NOT melting. the water there is not ADDED to the system(it's part of it). be mad at me if you like.

The following article that you referenced:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic ... ARMING.xml

links to the article that I posted which you rejected giving the above reason. Have you changed your mind now?

[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2006-06-24 11:53 ]