IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Civilization As We Know It Is Unsustainable., The wrecking of our life support system.

lunk
post Dec 30 2010, 03:28 AM
Post #21



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Glaciers, yech, it's winter here, last thing i want to see this time of year.
It is a considerably colder winter than the last couple of years, but not the coldest, so far.
Though the humidity, is a way up for winter. Also there has been a huge increase in annual rain here, well above historical norms. Apparently, there is little difference between the global average temperatures today, and the temperatures during an ice-age.
The only difference is there just needs to be more water in the atmosphere, for an ice-age.(to make the miles thick continental ice sheets from precipitated snow)
The good news is, that the oceans will be going down at least 100 meters, giving everybody lots of new habitable, waterfront land.
My concern is, of course, how to defend oneself against a roving polar bear, with just an icicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jan 6 2011, 08:21 AM
Post #22





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Dec 28 2010, 05:28 AM) *
Apparently, there is little difference between the global average temperatures today, and the temperatures during an ice-age.

Somebody must be misleading you lunk. But then of course that statement of yours lacks quantification of what is meant by 'little difference'.

QUOTE
The good news is, that the oceans will be going down at least 100 meters, giving everybody lots of new habitable, waterfront land.
My concern is, of course, how to defend oneself against a roving polar bear, with just an icicle.

Because there is more water in the atmosphere in some areas does not mean that sea levels will fall. There is just to much heat being absorbed for the ocean waters to do anything but expand. And you should know what that means. Sea levels are rising that is a well established fact.

Remember that you are welcome to your own opinions but not your own facts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Feb 18 2011, 08:12 AM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Why worry about climate change when we have ongoing weather modification?

http://weathermodification.com/projects.php

Any weather can be modified, in any way, anywhere in the world,
for a price.
Any talk of drought, is fear mongering,
any strange weather is intentional.

We may control the clouds, but we don't control the sun, yet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Feb 18 2011, 01:01 PM
Post #24





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 16 2011, 11:12 AM) *
Why worry about climate change when we have ongoing weather modification?

http://weathermodification.com/projects.php

Any weather can be modified, in any way, anywhere in the world,
for a price.
Any talk of drought, is fear mongering,
any strange weather is intentional.

We may control the clouds, but we don't control the sun, yet.

Maybe it is time for all those who have been recently pissed on in a big way go after this bunch of hooligans.

Clearly they have a long way to go before they get it right. Don't you think that if they were that clever then California would not get alternately fried and swamped and Lake Mead would be at full capacity?

Come on folks, start thinking with your heads instead of your butts!

EDIT: PS

still ignoring my direct questions lunk,
QUOTE
Whilst on ice, there is a certain South American glacier that has vanished ahead of expected by some glaciologists as melting rate tripled. There, that is a little home work assignment for you - name the glacier and elaborate.


that's what the likes of Plimer, Monckton and Delingpole do evade awkward facts and keep coming back with many times debunked fallacies and straw men arguments.


EDIT-EDIT.
Video embed still not working despite following info supplied for datars.

Huh. Suddenly the video clip is here. Has a Mod interceded?

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Feb 18 2011, 01:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Feb 21 2011, 12:52 AM
Post #25



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Hmm, name a glacier...

i don't know, if that's the right approach...
some are shrinking, but some are growing, it depends where they are.
i'm still trying to figure out if the gulf current, has really stopped.

What we do know, is that they have only been adding "leap" seconds to calibrate the Earths daily rotation with extremely accurate atomic clocks, about half a minute worth, just in the last century!
This implies to me, that the actual rotation of the Earth is slowing down. This slight change in daily rotation will cause, the Earth to lose its' gyroscopic oblate-ness.
And this would cause the polar circles to move closer to their poles. (and cause glaciers in those latitudes, to melt, too).
Also, we should see an increase in earthquakes and volcanism towards the equator, as the solid crust of the Earth, must contract in circumference. The poles would stretch out, as the world becomes more spherical, as it slows down.

We are seeing lower sea levels, and earlier sunrises in Northern latitudes. (and probably Southern ones, too.)

But, none of this is man made.

(though we may be able to encourage earthquakes with HAARP, and start asphalt volcanoes erupting on the seafloor, with ocean drill rigs. and augment the snow-pack in watersheds by cloud seeding...)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Feb 22 2011, 09:07 AM
Post #26





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 19 2011, 02:52 AM) *
Hmm, name a glacier...

i don't know, if that's the right approach...

Lunk, I am trying to get you to do some research to support your as yet unsupported theorising about all manner of stuff. By researching you will learn the real truth, that is if you are capable of filtering out all the disinformation on the web.

QUOTE
some are shrinking, but some are growing, it depends where they are.

That is true as far as it goes but only a very few, somewhere about one percent, of glaciers are growing due to increased precipitation. The vast majority are losing mass and the mass loss is accelerating and at a faster rate than glaciologists had anticipated only 5 years ago.

This accelerating mass loss, and the resultant acceleration in one of the factors affecting sea level rise, is one of the reasons why the estimates for 21st century sea level rise have such a large range. The IPCC FAR explicitly left out any calculations of sea level rise from ice mass loss in Greenland and the Antarctic - that is one reason why many scientists were unhappy with the FAR, not, as the likes of Delingpole would have it, that anthropogenic global warming was a non issue.

QUOTE
i'm still trying to figure out if the gulf current, has really stopped.

Which gulf current?

QUOTE
What we do know, is that they have only been adding "leap" seconds to calibrate the Earths daily rotation with extremely accurate atomic clocks, about half a minute worth, just in the last century!

Yes that is well understood.

QUOTE
This implies to me, that the actual rotation of the Earth is slowing down.

Yes it is but any effect on the 'oblateness' of the Earth is going to evolve over so long a period that the build up of GHGs are going to swamp any signal from:
QUOTE
This slight change in daily rotation will cause, the Earth to lose its' gyroscopic oblate-ness.
And this would cause the polar circles to move closer to their poles. (and cause glaciers in those latitudes, to melt, too).


QUOTE
We are seeing lower sea levels,

An illusion due to the combined effects of isostatic rebound and thrusting up of the western seaboard as the Pacific, and related plates, are subducted underneath.

QUOTE
and earlier sunrises in Northern latitudes. (and probably Southern ones, too.)

This is partially due to a loss of ice mass which means the sun appears earlier, no ice in the way on the surface, therefore the effect in Antarctica is going to be less. Also as more moisture rises into the atmosphere this causes a higher degree of refraction of the suns rays and thus a slower set. It is well recognised that at higher latitudes the refraction allows the sun to remain in view after it has physically slipped below the horizon.
On ice cover and glaciers watch this through:



This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Feb 22 2011, 09:08 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Feb 22 2011, 02:03 PM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Omega, this is from research, i've done after going through many "theories", verified observations and documentation from official sources.

The ocean gulf current is the one that goes from the gulf of Mexico to Europe, and is thought to be responsible for keeping the Northern European latitudes warmer and moderating the climate there.

LOL you were the one who got me looking into the Earths' "oblateness", caused by the daily rotation of the Earth!

Perhaps we may have to soon subtract leap seconds from atomic clocks, but until we do, the Earth must be slowing down.

This could cause a rapid contraction of the Equator and a stretching out of the poles,
and a drop in sea level. Because a sphere is more compact, than an oblate spheroid.

If continental rebound was taking place, then the West coast of N. America has risen over a foot, in the last 40 years. i think it is more likely rather, that just sea level has dropped, there.
(Low tide is has been lowering, lower, than ever recorded, while high tide, has gotten no higher)

It's the result of the sea level dropping, not the land rising, seems to me.
...or we are seeing some sort of sea change.

A large pane of solid glass has some flex to it, The crust of the Earth has lots of silica in it, too.
The general curve of the Earth would have to flex to become more spherical.

If, the Earth is losing it's oblate-ness, what would we expect to see?

The sun, as seen from Earth in the Northern and Southern latitudes would be appearing higher above the horizon.
Earthquakes around the Equatorial regions, as the oblate-ness reduces, probably with the rising and falling of lands too, as the solid crust around the Equator must lose it's girth.
Oh, and lots of underwater volcanoes erupting where the crust is the thinnest and weakest, heating the oceans. Pressure makes heat.
(ever wondered how sunlight can heat miles of water, from just shining on the surface? It can't.
The oceans of the world are kept warm by underwater volcanic activity.)

While the distance between the N and S poles increases as they un-flatten.
This would also cause a melting of the edges of the polar caps as the sun would be shining more directly down upon them, as the Earth changes into more of a sphere.
Also, with the poles stretching up, or "rebounding" from a gyroscopic-ally flattened sphere, we may see the melting of the poles, too.

Ah CO2 again...
did you know that the less CO2 in the air, the greater the panic?
Hyperventilation can be caused by the fear that one is not getting enough oxygen, and is remedied by breathing into a paper bag.
This increases the CO2, which is essential to regulating our breathing.)

i think that we are going through major Earth changes, right now. And these changes will become more frequent.
But this is part of a natural cycle.
...as the Earth turns round.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Feb 23 2011, 09:00 AM
Post #28





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 20 2011, 04:03 PM) *
Omega, this is from research, i've done after going through many "theories", verified observations and documentation from official sources.

The ocean gulf current is the one that goes from the gulf of Mexico to Europe, and is thought to be responsible for keeping the Northern European latitudes warmer and moderating the climate there.

Yes I know about that of course but wanted you to be specific as to which 'gulf' you were on about, there is more than one in the world you know.

QUOTE
LOL you were the one who got me looking into the Earths' "oblateness", caused by the daily rotation of the Earth!

Laugh all you like but your wild ideas about how things work smack of pseudoscience sources for information.

You rarely specify your sources and use loose language that is often ambiguous and you never answer direct questions with a straight answer.

QUOTE
If continental rebound was taking place,

It is. Do some research.

QUOTE
then the West coast of N. America has risen over a foot, in the last 40 years. i think it is more likely rather, that just sea level has dropped, there.

What I have been trying to do is encourage you to search for accredited sources so that you can form a picture of the truth rather than half baked ideas.

But it looks like I am going to have to feed you, again with Waves in the bathtub but that does not mean that your land isn't rising. GPS devices strung out along the the western seaboard of the US and Canada tel the story that the land IS rising. And seismic sensors are providing information about one factor in this. As I wrote, a combination of isostatic rebound and subduction lifting. This latter proven by the type of volcanic rock ejected by that chain of moutains that extend along there.

QUOTE
A large pane of solid glass has some flex to it,

I repeat, glass can be thought of as a fluid which over time flows to the lowest point. This is one reason why old church stained glass distorts the light rays passing through. The subsidence of the Tibetan plateau is evidence that the Earth's crustal rocks are also fluid.
QUOTE
If, the Earth is losing it's oblate-ness, what would we expect to see?

The sun, as seen from Earth in the Northern and Southern latitudes would be appearing higher above the horizon.

As I said, this would be too slow a process to explain the rapidity of recent change.

Did you watch that video clip at all? Seems not.

QUOTE
Ah CO2 again...
did you know that the less CO2 in the air, the greater the panic?
Hyperventilation can be caused by the fear that one is not getting enough oxygen, and is remedied by breathing into a paper bag.
This increases the CO2, which is essential to regulating our breathing.)

i think that we are going through major Earth changes, right now. And these changes will become more frequent.
But this is part of a natural cycle.
...as the Earth turns round.

The addition of thousands of tons of extra CO2 through human activity over about 200 years, proven by isotopic analysis, is not a part of a natural cycle.

Study this, you can download some informative Chapters from David Archers book 'Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast' under the heading Sample Chapters and you can watch his lectures here PHSC 13400: Global Warming.

Perhaps, and I keep hoping, that eventually a breakthrough will prevent you acting like Wendy Wright when interviewed by Dawkins. Wright kept on insisting that Dawkins show here the evidence, for evolution, when he had but motor-mouth Wendy kept up her vacuous talkng points, mantra, and so did not comprehend that Dawkins was telling her where she could find the evidence.

Don't be a Wendy Wright. BTW She injected a vocal LOL very much during her interview, another danger sign.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Feb 23 2011, 01:51 PM
Post #29





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



OK Lunk, and others, lets have a look at some of the tactics that the unscrupulous use to baffle you with bullshit. Your responses are all too clearly based on ill-informed prejudice.

Case in point is straw men arguments and as an illustration we have the one that suggests that climate scientists claim that CO2 increase has always led temperature:

.
When you have watched that have a look at the originating site and note the latest item 450 more lies from the climate change Deniers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Feb 23 2011, 11:51 PM
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Feb 23 2011, 09:51 AM) *
OK Lunk, and others, lets have a look at some of the tactics that the unscrupulous use to baffle you with bullshit. Your responses are all too clearly based on ill-informed prejudice.

Case in point is straw men arguments and as an illustration we have the one that suggests that climate scientists claim that CO2 increase has always led temperature:

.
When you have watched that have a look at the originating site and note the latest item 450 more lies from the climate change Deniers.


Excellent photo, refractive indexes.
Fascinating stuff. Different transparent materials can slow the speed of light, differently.
Causing the light to "appear" to bend, when on an angle between transparent substances.

Even non-transparent materials, like gold, have a refractive index, that can be calculated by the amount they bend the light when they are dissolved in glass.
Red stain glass is caused by dissolved gold in the glass.

Pure water is invisible as steam, water and ice. Each has a different refractive index, meaning, to us, that the speed of light is different in each.
Obviously different gasses, such as methane, CO2 and Nitrogen will have different refractive indexes, and that refractive index will probably increase with pressure, even though those gasses should remain transparent.

Of course there is very little pressure in the upper atmosphere and the refractive indexes of all these gasses should be about the same closer to the vacuum, where the speed of light is the fastest.

Oblate-ness, does sound better than a squished ball.

(edit) added, oh, that was a video.

i really don't like the use of the word "denier." It's so "psycho-linguistic" and weighted with very negative connotations that have absolutely nothing to do with the weather. Even "straw man"
is becoming a loaded expression, to many, meaning much more than a flawed method of argument.

i do think we are seeing a climate change, and possibly the start of another ice age.
They can come on rather suddenly, They are still finding woolly mammoths frozen in ice and they appear to have been grazing on spring flowers, at the time.

It starts to snow,
and there's no place to go,
and the next thing we know,
is it's covered in glacier.

i sure hope it is 20,000 years in the future, not now.
As that would be an catastrophic miscalculation.

In 1974 there was a terrible flood in Queensland Australia.
Hydrological engineers figured out a plan of dams and dikes to mitigate it ever happening again.
But climate change experts dissuaded the locals from following through with that plan, and instead of dams to direct the water away, it was thought that the money would be better spent on desalinization plants.

Brisbane then re-flooded, with its' now mothballed desalinization plant.

The recent flooding of Brisbane was completely the fault of global warming enthusiast.


BTW, to get mile thick ice sheets, it first must precipitate a lot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Feb 24 2011, 02:20 PM
Post #31





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 22 2011, 01:51 AM) *
Of course there is very little pressure in the upper atmosphere and the refractive indexes of all these gasses should be about the same closer to the vacuum, where the speed of light is the fastest.

Quite, quite wrong. The sun is already known to have dipped below the horizon before it disappears from sight. It also gets squashed inappearance as it approaches the horizon due to light from the lower part being refracted more through the thicker atmosphere nearer the ground. As the content of GHGs increases this
effect also increases. Its due to physics.

Here is an idea Lunk. There is a new The Feynman Lectures on Physics, boxed set: The New Millennium Edition recently published. Could be worth a look. I have a copy and I can see that it will fill in many of your gaps.

QUOTE
(edit) added, oh, that was a video.

My turn for LOL, in fact laughing1.gif !

QUOTE
i really don't like the use of the word "denier." It's so "psycho-linguistic" and weighted with very negative connotations that have absolutely nothing to do with the weather.

Ah! But! There you see you mention weather when here we are discussing climate change. The two, although conected are different.

You, by thinking up all manner of reasons for polar warming are trying to argue that climate change is nothing to do with the activities of humans if I am not mistaken. Thus you are denying that humans have input a big signature into global warming and resultant climatic changes. If you don't like it then study the non-pseudo-science.

QUOTE
Even "straw man" is becoming a loaded expression, to many, meaning much more than a flawed method of argument.

Well simple, do not use such arguments.

QUOTE
i do think we are seeing a climate change, and possibly the start of another ice age.

On what basis?

QUOTE
BTW, to get mile thick ice sheets, it first must precipitate a lot.

That depends much on where it snows alot.
More later.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 26 2011, 06:34 AM
Post #32





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 913
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Feb 22 2011, 05:20 PM) *
Quite, quite wrong. The sun is already known to have dipped below the horizon before it disappears from sight.


Omega, there exist few people like you, that to such extent spend his whole life quoting other sources,
thereby trying to appear knowledgeable, but are in fact, in this way, simply trying to hide the fact that he is
unable to think for himself. (It's a politicians way, and you do the same)!
What you quote above is silly and immature, which you would have found out if you had spend some small
time thinking about it!
I urge you to do this, and you'll hopefully see the stupidity of it all.

QUOTE
You, by thinking up all manner of reasons for polar warming are trying to argue that climate change is nothing to do with the activities of humans if I am not mistaken. Thus you are denying that humans have input a big signature into global warming and resultant climatic changes. If you don't like it then study the non-pseudo-science.


Humans have only an 'indirect' influence on the climate. (This for another time)!
All man made so-called co2 emissions, such that comes from power plants, coal fire stations, factories, exhausts,
fires etc. etc., has no influence on the climate. All these emissions simply revert back to their origin within a rather
short span of time.
The same apply to emissions from volcanic eruptions.

All these emissions are totally harmless, as they have lost their "vitality". They are no longer active or polarized.

Actually, 'active' co2 is very good for humankind.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Feb 26 2011, 06:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Feb 26 2011, 10:55 AM
Post #33





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 24 2011, 08:34 AM) *
Omega, there exist few people like you, that to such extent spend his whole life quoting other sources,
thereby trying to appear knowledgeable, but are in fact, in this way, simply trying to hide the fact that he is
unable to think for himself. (It's a politicians way, and you do the same)!

Your education system has failed you. I would ask for a refund if I were you.

The trouble with people like you is that you know so little that you haven't a clue as to how little you know.

QUOTE
What you quote above is silly and immature,

Pot meet kettle!

QUOTE
Humans have only an 'indirect' influence on the climate.

Well yes but via the accumulations of GHGs through agricultural and industrial process and the resultant consumerism.

QUOTE
All man made so-called co2 emissions, such that comes from power plants, coal fire stations, factories, exhausts,
fires etc. etc., has no influence on the climate. All these emissions simply revert back to their origin within a rather
short span of time.

Read the chapters of David Archer's book 'Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast' available at:

Sample Chapters

QUOTE
All these emissions are totally harmless, as they have lost their "vitality". They are no longer active or polarized.


Vitality, active and polarized being used without a clue as to what they mean.

Are you familiar with the concept of molecules and how some are arranged such that they can respond to specific wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum?

Time for you to study some real science so until you have done that quit the ad hominum attacks!

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Feb 26 2011, 10:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Feb 26 2011, 11:21 AM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Animals have been breathing, belching, and passing gas, forever.
It should be hotter than ever, today.
It isn't.

Weather changes day to day, season to season, year to year.
Ice ages happen regularly, and persist much longer, than any warm period, of recent.

Ocean levels drop, and ice crusts more of the continents.
Ice-ages appear to begin very quickly, and warm slowly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Feb 26 2011, 12:16 PM
Post #35





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Feb 24 2011, 02:21 PM) *
Animals have been breathing, belching, and passing gas, forever.

Animals have not been around for ever.

QUOTE
It should be hotter than ever, today.
It isn't.

Lunk you still avoid studying the science I see.

There is such a thing as a carbon cycle you know.

Here is some MORE help in understanding the key points:

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism

QUOTE
Weather changes day to day, season to season, year to year.

Yawn! Yeah I know, nobody says any different.

QUOTE
Ice ages happen regularly, and persist much longer, than any warm period, of recent.

Please quantify 'regularly', 'much longer' and 'recent'.

QUOTE
Ice-ages appear to begin very quickly, and warm slowly.

Warm slowly. Once again quantify 'slowly'.

Whatever, research shows that is not always the case. Check out stuff on Dansgaard-Oeschger Events in this How we know the sun isn't causing global warming artcle and also Heinrich Events and Milankovich Cycles.

Note the closing paragraphs in that article:

QUOTE
Ironically, prior to publishing a book in 2007 which blamed the current warming on D-O cycles, Singer argued that the planet wasn't warming as recently as 2003. So the planet isn't warming, but it's warming due to the D-O cycles? It's quite clear that in reality, neither of these contradictory arguments is even remotely correct.

Inability to explain empirical observations

Aside from the fact that solar effects cannot physically explain the recent global warming, as with GCRs, there are several empirical observations which solar warming could not account for. For example, if global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at night. Instead we observe a cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night, which are fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect.

It's not the Sun

As illustrated above, neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years. As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming,

"That's a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one."


The links within that quote should be active.

I am pleased that you have made me link to Ray Pierrehumbert as he has recently had published, in a combined effort with David Archer, a book enclosing seminal scientific papers including those by Tyndall, Fourier and Arrhenius:

The Warming Papers

and note the others linked at Amazon in the 'Frequently Bought Together' section especially that on The Global Carbon Cycle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Feb 26 2011, 01:40 PM
Post #36



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environmen...1012-16hpq.html
QUOTE
Could the 1974 flood happen again?
Daniel Hurst
October 13, 2010


Then the budget for mitigating the 30 year flood, was spent on desalinization plants, as climate change science had predicted droughts NOT floods.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland...91111-i9d3.html

QUOTE
"The decision to stop the dam is a victory for people power and the thousands who campaigned against the Traveston Crossing Dam through submissions, marching, writing letters and voicing their objections in so many different ways," he said.

Greens Senator Bob Brown said Mr Garrett had shown great courage in acting for the environment.

"Australia faces mass extinctions in the coming century and this dam threatened to accelerate the process," he said.

"The dam threatened the lung fish, a species which shows how the spine was brought out of the ocean and taken up by land creatures. Peter has shown that spine today at its best."


They knew what was coming, and they had a plan,
but it was dismantled by the climate change parade of unlicensed air breathers,
just before the 2011 flood, for turtles and lungfish.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Feb 26 2011, 06:35 PM
Post #37





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



On glaciers just seen this comment at Weekend Open Thread,

QUOTE
Wyoming says:

February 26, 2011 at 12:26 pm

K. Nockels




I too am a small organic farmer. The last two years we have had unusual early warmth (a high in the 90’s in March) and late cold (frosts in early May). Played havoc with the fruit trees. On top of that we had a record hot summer with drought. A number of farmers had cabbage go directly to seed without forming heads. Fall brasicas in some cases never formed heads. Germination was poor due to the excess heat. Not to mention the bugs and molds which seem to be getting worse all the time. And now we have the Asian stink bug infestation to deal with. Times are going to be interesting for those who do not grow their own food in the future. I get mine first, everyone else gets seconds.

Note other comments WRT out of phase early warm spell encouraging sap rise which then gets the kill from a sudden freeze.

You see the natural world doesn't give a flying fig for what you believe.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Feb 27 2011, 12:13 AM
Post #38



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



That is just it, if we are told to believe it is going to be hot, when it is really going to get cold,
it's a little too late, once winter kicks in.

If it gets too hot,
i'll jump in a lake.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
André
post Feb 27 2011, 03:25 AM
Post #39





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,701
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Montreal
Member No.: 133



Civilization As We Know It Is Unsustainable

This would have been a great title for debate expanding our understanding of the situation we are in and hopefully begin to find solutions, but like everything else it seems it's all about our pet projects or perceptions of reality.

While I am not a believer in co2 global warming, even if it was true and you could convince everybody of the urgency to act, what would be the point when the agenda is the creation of co2 global trade market administered by the world bank which was given recently 100 billions to play with in the recent Cancun agreement with little oversight. Anybody here believe these greedy corrupt bankers give a shit about this planet sustainability.

The problems are much more profound and solutions cannot be found within a system that profits by creating problems, real or imaginary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Feb 27 2011, 08:42 AM
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Actually, i think that the human population of Earth has been strung along, up the garden path, by technology. We are almost totally dependent on wires, that connect the technology together.
If an event like 1859, were to happen today, all this will be disconnected, permanently.

"No phone, no lights, no motor cars, not a single luxury,
like Robinson Caruso, as primitive as can be."

Haunted by the theme song of an old sitcom.

It's not about sustainability,
it's our almost complete dependence on conductive wire,
for running industry, transportation, bank machines, computers, etc,
that is known to short out from severe solar storms.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st October 2014 - 08:41 AM