OT:NEWS:Scientists say global warming is undeniable
nil...@invalid.com.au
Scientists say global warming is undeniable
[excerpts]
Scientists in the United States say they have confirmed
beyond doubt that climate change is being caused by human
activity.
The scientists have presented their findings to the annual
meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science in Washington.
---------
The debate over whether or not there is a global warming
signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.
"Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet."
----------
She added that a circulation system called the Ocean
Conveyer Belt is in danger of shutting down. The last time
that happened, northern Europe suffered extremely cold
winters.
She said the changes were already causing droughts in the
west of the United States, and Greenland's ice cap, which
contains enough ice to raise sea levels globally by seven
metres, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly.
[[[[ 7 meter ~ 7.6 yard = 23 feet ]]]]
Ms Curry said freshwater is already percolating down,
lubricating the base and making it more unstable.
Animals left homeless
[more at]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1306233.htm
Terry Lomax
> [[[[My comments in brackets]]]]
>
> Scientists say global warming is undeniable
>
> [excerpts]
> Scientists in the United States say they have confirmed
> beyond doubt that climate change is being caused by human
> activity.
>
> The scientists have presented their findings to the annual
> meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
> Science in Washington.
> ---------
> The debate over whether or not there is a global warming
> signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.
> "Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet."
> ----------
> She added that a circulation system called the Ocean
> Conveyer Belt is in danger of shutting down. The last time
> that happened, northern Europe suffered extremely cold
> winters.
The global warming then was mainly caused by a population spike in
India and subsequent removal of forests to grow crops for their
vegetarian lifestyle. Population increases in Europe also contributed
to this. The huge increase of CO2 spewed by the millions of new
humans, combined by the huge loss of trees that would have absorbed the
carbon, caused a temperature increase that melted the polar ice caps,
sending water barely over 32 degrees F [[[for Nilkids, that's 0 C]]] up
the North Atlantic Current, resulting in the infamous "Little Ice Age"
that hit northern Europe and froze the Thames solid.
> She said the changes were already causing droughts in the
> west of the United States, and Greenland's ice cap, which
> contains enough ice to raise sea levels globally by seven
> metres, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly.
>
> [[[[ 7 meter ~ 7.6 yard = 23 feet ]]]]
>
> Ms Curry said freshwater is already percolating down,
> lubricating the base and making it more unstable.
> Animals left homeless
Did the article mention polar bears as one of the species expected to
become extinct?
> [more at]
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1306233.htm
Got a "page cannot be displayed" error.
Looks like a good article; thanks for posting this, Nilkids, but can
you post a link to a working page if you find one?
One sports newsgroup I read might as well be renamed
"talk.politics.republican.deny-global-warming". I pointed out that
last summer's unseasonable cold was because of global warming: some
trees started to change color in the first half of August, when there
were lows in the 40s and people at the baseball games often wore heavy
coats. Some people on that newsgroup are so stupid, they condone the
local radio station's decision to broadcast Rush Limbaugh (their
leader) instead of baseball games. They're obviously not true fans.
Next time one of them tries to deny global warming, I'll post a link to
the photo of Brian Moran, who wears a shirt with the team's logo.
Global warming is evident here. For at least a week, the daffodil
shoots have been tall with several bulbs. The frogs sang earlier this
week when it was over 70 degrees. Way too early; they were probably
fooled by the huge amounts of rain so far this year. The huge amount
of rain is caused by global warming, which usually results in drought
but when it does rain and snow, there's a huge amount of precipitation.
Peleus
"Terry Lomax" <Lom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108783090.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Not that I disagree with your take on global warming, but you may want to
look up "Sporer minimum" & "Maunder minimum" before attributing the "Little
Ice Age" to anything other than solar output.
Geoff Miller
Terry Lomax <Lom...@hotmail.com> writes:
> The global warming then was mainly caused by a population spike in
> India and subsequent removal of forests to grow crops for their
> vegetarian lifestyle.
You mean their vegetarian *diet.* There's quite a bit more to a
person's lifestyle than what he chooses to eat.
Why is it that the significance of a single facet of people's
existence, when different from the norm, is so often inflated
to represent their entire style of life? Some may dismiss that
as an accident of phrasing, but I disagree. I think it offers
insight into the way some people's minds actually work.
I first began thinking about this when I realized how often I was
hearing the expression "gay lifestyle." I'd always figured that
gay people went to work, had weekends off, went to the supermarket,
paid bills and mortgages, washed their cars, went on vacations, and
went to bed at night and got up in the morning pretty much like any
other subset of society. So how, I wondered, does how and with whom
they have sex equate to an entirely different "lifestyle?" It would
never occur to anyone to refer to a "heterosexual lifestyle." I see
the same thing here with the phrase "vegetarian lifestyle." There's
a lot more to a person's way of living than what he eats.
Living on a houseboat in Sausalito is a lifestyle. Sleeping in alleys,
spending the days drunk on cheap wine, and getting one's meals out of
dumpsters is a lifestyle. Being vegetarian is a dietary choice, not
an entire way of living.
> Looks like a good article; thanks for posting this, Nilkids, but
> can you post a link to a working page if you find one?
Watch it, Nil; he's trying to ingratiate himself with you, too.
Methinks ol' Terry has come to the realization that his puppydog
behind couldn't keep up with his alligator (Oz: crocodile) mouth,
and his instinct for self-preservation has begun to kick in.
> One sports newsgroup I read might as well be renamed "talk.pol-
> itics.republican.deny-global-warming".
I don't think many people would deny that global warming is a fact.
The debate centers around the cause(s) and whether or not it may be
a natural, cyclical phenomenon.
> I pointed out that last summer's unseasonable cold was because of
> global warming: some trees started to change color in the first
> half of August, when there were lows in the 40s and people at the
> baseball games often wore heavy coats.
You have no way of knowing that without access to, and a painstaking
evaluation of, a mountain of statistical data. There have been early
autumns all throughout history. Last summer's could've been the
result of randomness, for all you know. Pointing to a single cool
August in a single geographical location and insisting that it was
evidence of a planetary climatic phenomenon is ludicrous. It's just
the sort of credulous, know-nothing hysteria that environmentalist
zealots have come to be known for. To the increasing detriment of
their credibility, I might add.
> Some people on that newsgroup are so stupid, they condone the local
> radio station's decision to broadcast Rush Limbaugh (their leader)
> instead of baseball games. They're obviously not true fans.
Preferring Limbaugh over baseball makes one "not a true fan," and
therefore stupid? Wow. Thank you for this revelation, Zen Master.
The assumption that one's political adversaries are stupid by
definition is a uniquely liberal conceit. Ponder this, Terry:
Baseball, like all team sports, bores me to tears. I, too, would
rather have Limbaugh than baseball; at least I'd be entertained.
And yet, I'm obviously not stupid. You may have noticed, for
example, that I'm plenty smart enough to tear you up like a rabid
Rottweiler with a Raggedy Andy doll in the arena of debate.
> Global warming is evident here. For at least a week, the daffodil
> shoots have been tall with several bulbs. The frogs sang earlier
> this week when it was over 70 degrees. Way too early; they were
> probably fooled by the huge amounts of rain so far this year. The
> huge amount of rain is caused by global warming, which usually
> results in drought but when it does rain and snow, there's a huge
> amount of precipitation.
Let me get this straight. Heavy precipitation, which has always
showed up from time to time and for greater or lesser periods of
time, was heretofore the result of severe winter (AKA "the cold
season"). But now that it's become fashionable to obsess about
climatic change, heavy precipitation is now the result of global
warming. Got it. "We have always been at war with Oceania."
Geoff
--
"The only way you could get sperm in you
is if you blindfold your dog." -- thunderr
Veronique
>
> Looks like a good article; thanks for posting this, Nilkids, but can
> you post a link to a working page if you find one?
>
Here's a link from SFGate:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/19/MNGE1BECPI1.DTL
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Terry Lomax
Veronique wrote:
> Here's a link from SFGate:
>
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/19/MNGE1BECPI1.DTL
Thanks for sharing the link. Good article; the only problem I have
with it is one word choice; they should have said "Inuit" as the name
of the Arctic indigenous people who are being adversely affected by the
warming.
nil...@invalid.com.au
Message-ID:<1108783090.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
posted on 18 Feb 2005 19:18:10 -0800, Terry Lomax wrote:
>nil...@invalid.com.au wrote:
>> [[[[My comments in brackets]]]]
>>
>> Scientists say global warming is undeniable
>>
>> [excerpts]
>> Scientists in the United States say they have confirmed
>> beyond doubt that climate change is being caused by human
>> activity.
>>
>> The scientists have presented their findings to the annual
>> meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
>> Science in Washington.
>> ---------
>> The debate over whether or not there is a global warming
>> signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.
>> "Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet."
>> ----------
>> She added that a circulation system called the Ocean
>> Conveyer Belt is in danger of shutting down. The last time
>> that happened, northern Europe suffered extremely cold
>> winters.
>
>The global warming then was mainly caused by a population spike in
>India and subsequent removal of forests to grow crops for their
>vegetarian lifestyle.
Let us not forget the destruction of a significant
percentage of the Amazonian rainforest for "slash and burn"
agriculture and to provide beef for the export market.
Jungles may look rich and productive but are often on
lateric soils which set like concrete a year or so after
being cleared.
> Population increases in Europe also contributed
>to this.
In the ultimate analysis, population increases anywhere
contribute to the problem. As does industrialization of
previously primarily agricultural countries.
> The huge increase of CO2 spewed by the millions of new
>humans, combined by the huge loss of trees that would have absorbed the
>carbon, caused a temperature increase that melted the polar ice caps,
>sending water barely over 32 degrees F [[[for Nilkids, that's 0 C]]] up
>the North Atlantic Current, resulting in the infamous "Little Ice Age"
>that hit northern Europe and froze the Thames solid.
Actually, I grew up with the US system but am familiar with
both. Metric is much easier, of course. One wonders why
the US persists in the "olde English" system when they could
convert to metric and join the rest of the world.
Perhaps it is a God-given handicap? The Chinese had the
first known civilization, and if they had a simpler written
language would have probably owned the world long before we
were born.
Do you find such alternative history "what if" questions
interesting? Consider that at the time of the American
Revolution, England had colonized an appreciable fraction of
the world. If Americans hadn't chosen to revolt, or the
revolution hadn't been successful, the English access to the
riches of the American portion of the North American
continent would probably have led to them ruling the world.
>
>> She said the changes were already causing droughts in the
>> west of the United States, and Greenland's ice cap, which
>> contains enough ice to raise sea levels globally by seven
>> metres, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly.
>>
>> [[[[ 7 meter ~ 7.6 yard = 23 feet ]]]]
>>
>> Ms Curry said freshwater is already percolating down,
>> lubricating the base and making it more unstable.
>
>> Animals left homeless
>
>Did the article mention polar bears as one of the species expected to
>become extinct?
Not directly, but stated that their environment was fast
disappearing. Other articles, though, have predicted
extinction in 20 years.
Many species are probably on the way out in the next
generation or so due to the increase in human population.
Many have disappeared from simple human greed, such as the
well known case of the Passenger Pigeon [_Ectopistes
migratorius_] in the USA. Following info from The Cousteau
Almanac, 1980 Dewey Decimal classification 304.2, L/C card
number 79-7862, ISBN 0-385-14876-3 [paperbound] Pages
337,338
A few excerpts, but you should read the full article:
----
What he witnessed in the fall of 1810 was the approach of an
estimated *two billion* migrating passenger pigeons as they
swept over Kentucky in a flock 240 miles (386 kilometres)
long and a mile (1.6 kilometres) wide.
-----
. . . the last great nesting colony was obliterated in a big
killing spree, near Petoskey, Michigan. In the spring of
1878 an estimated 136 million birds flew into the region and
laid their eggs. In one month hunters delivered 300 tons of
birds to the marketplace--five freight car loads a day for
thirty days.
By this time passenger pigeons had vanished from New
York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, and remaining flocks
were growing smaller.
----
The last wild pigeon was seen in Babcock, Wisconsin, in
1889, with only a few unconfirmed sightings after that.
------
Hardly anything that the human race cannot *flock* up, eh?
[Note to the humorless, this is a pun.] :-)
According to some sources, the great herds of Africa had
largely disappeared by 1920 or so, to be replaced by hordes
of humans. Who are now being decimated by HIV/AIDS.
>> [more at]
>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1306233.htm
>
>Got a "page cannot be displayed" error.
>
>Looks like a good article; thanks for posting this, Nilkids, but can
>you post a link to a working page if you find one?
Just checked it, works for me. However, will reprint it
with a few comments below. Those who object to the length
of this post need not read it of course.
In passing, Geoff, has it occurred to you that their refusal
or inability to read long posts may be a form of Darwinian
selection? Denial is not a good survival characteristic,
after all.
[[[[[ My comments in brackets ]]]]]
=============Last Update: Friday, February 18, 2005. 6:30pm
(AEDT)
Oceans offer up evidence of global warming.
Scientists say global warming is undeniable
Scientists in the United States say they have confirmed
beyond doubt that climate change is being caused by human
activity.
The scientists have presented their findings to the annual
meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science in Washington.
They say a parcel of studies looking at the oceans and
melting Arctic ice leave no room for doubt that it is
getting warmer, people are to blame and the weather is going
to suffer.
[[[[ However, some people will still prefer to deny
reality. Possibly those with waterfront property?
In Queensland, there are many expensive "estates" on
reclaimed land, where one can live in an area served by both
roads and canals, so residents can anchor their boat or
yacht at the edge of their yard.
Now, of course, this means that the house is not really all
that far above the storm surge mark or even the high tide
mark.
So about the time that global warming started to be a public
issue, and The Australian was pointing out that rising
temperatures would raise the sea level by at least a metre
merely by thermal expansion of sea water, presuming no
icecap melting there were some special TV reports on the
issue.
One of these included an interview with some residents of
these Queensland estates. As you can imagine, many would
have served as nice examples of the psychological mechanism
of "denial". :-)
Remember that in Australia beaches are public property up to
the high tide mark. A rise of a meter in some cases could
allow strangers to wade through your house.
A greater permanent rise in sea level makes it
uninhabitable, and insurance policies don't usually cover
inundation.
Am sure you are aware of the psychological self-defense
mechanisms, such as "denial". Which is one of the more
logical reasons why some people choose to killfile my posts.
The truth frightens them. ]]]]]]
Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography told
the meeting that new computer models that look at ocean
temperatures instead of the atmosphere show the clearest
signal yet that global warming is well under way.
Mr Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures
were weak because most of the evidence for global warming is
not even there.
"The real place to look is in the ocean," Dr Barnett told a
news conference.
Debate over
His team used millions of temperature readings made by the
US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to
calculate steady ocean warming.
"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming
signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.
[[[[Unfortunately, many if not most humans are not
particularly rational, and tend to believe what they wish to
believe. ]]]]
The report was published one day after the United Nations
Kyoto Protocol took effect, a 141-nation environmental pact
the United States government has spurned for several
reasons, including stated doubts about whether global
warming is occurring and is caused by people.
Dr Barnett urged US officials to reconsider.
"Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The
answer is clearly no," Dr Barnett said.
Dr Barnett's team used US government models of solar warming
and volcanic warming, just to see if they could account for
the measurements they made.
Dr Barnett says the results were a resounding no, and the
effects will be felt far and wide.
"Anywhere that the major water source is fed by snow or
glacial melt ... the debate is what are we going to do about
it," he said.
Homeless polar bears
Other researchers found clear effects on climate and
animals.
Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found
that melting ice was changing the water cycle, which in turn
affects ocean currents and, ultimately, climate.
"As the earth warms, its water cycle is changing, being
pushed out of kilter," she said.
"Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet."
[[[[ If heard a recent early morning radio report
accurately, by truly astonishing amounts. However, will
have a look for more online evidence before reporting on
this phenomenon.]]]]
She added that a circulation system called the Ocean
Conveyer Belt is in danger of shutting down. The last time
that happened, northern Europe suffered extremely cold
winters.
[[[Not surprisingly, considering their latitudes]]]
She said the changes were already causing droughts in the
west of the United States, and Greenland's ice cap, which
contains enough ice to raise sea levels globally by seven
metres, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly.
Ms Curry said freshwater is already percolating down,
lubricating the base and making it more unstable.
[[[[ Of course, the Greenland icecap only involves a
seven meter rise. Shall we discuss the rise if the
Antarctic icecap goes? Have a look at an topographic map or
even a color coded one of the US east of the Rockies. High
ground is starting to look very good, isn't it, readers?
Assuming that I have other readers than Geoff, but I
don't really care how many I have. I provide info, and if
they don't believe it, then "tough shit!"
It should be enough that we lead them to accurate info, not
spoon feed it to them. There an old proverb along the lines
of you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him
drink.
As a corollary, you can lead an ignorant or stupid horses
ass to information but you cannot make them think or even
follow logical conclusions. ]]]]
Animals left homeless
Sharon Smith of the University of Miami found melting Arctic
ice was taking with it algae that formed an important base
of the food supply for a range of animals.
And the disappearing ice shelves meant big animals such as
walruses, polar bears and seals were losing their homes.
"In 1997 there was a mass die-off of a bird called the
short-tailed shearwater in the Bering Sea," Dr Smith told
the news conference.
The birds, which migrate from Australia, starved to death
for several years running when warmer waters caused a
plankton called a coccolithophore to bloom in huge numbers,
turning the water an opaque turquoise colour.
"The short-tailed shearwater couldn't see its prey," Dr
Smith said.
-Reuters
>
>One sports newsgroup I read might as well be renamed
>"talk.politics.republican.deny-global-warming". I pointed out that
>last summer's unseasonable cold was because of global warming: some
>trees started to change color in the first half of August, when there
>were lows in the 40s and people at the baseball games often wore heavy
>coats. Some people on that newsgroup are so stupid, they condone the
>local radio station's decision to broadcast Rush Limbaugh (their
>leader) instead of baseball games. They're obviously not true fans.
>Next time one of them tries to deny global warming, I'll post a link to
>the photo of Brian Moran, who wears a shirt with the team's logo.
>
>Global warming is evident here. For at least a week, the daffodil
>shoots have been tall with several bulbs. The frogs sang earlier this
>week when it was over 70 degrees. Way too early; they were probably
>fooled by the huge amounts of rain so far this year. The huge amount
>of rain is caused by global warming, which usually results in drought
>but when it does rain and snow, there's a huge amount of precipitation.
Weather extremes have long been predicted as the first signs
of the effects of global warming, and a large number of
weather records have been set in the past decade or two.
Tropical and subtropical animals are moving northwards in
the Northern hemisphere, as are insects carrying formerly
sub-tropical and tropical diseases.
Hell, Geoff, before we know it, the US might be invaded by
monkeys. No, not those humans with the apparent
intelligence of such primates, but actual monkeys which
could offer much more actual amusement. :-)
nil...@invalid.com.au
posted on Sun, 20 Feb 2005 01:19:23 GMT,
nil...@invalid.com.au wrote:
Re correction to following post: Apology to Terry!
>From: nil...@invalid.com.au
>Newsgroups: alt.support.childfree
>Subject: Re: OT:NEWS:Scientists say global warming is undeniable
>Message-ID: <ktif11tbq7i0hhclp...@4ax.com>
After sending, noted that had written the post as a reply to
Geoff!
Sorry about that, Terry, but many of your recent posts
directed at me seemed pretty critical, so I naturally
assumed that Geoff had originated it.
A significant mistake, as Geoff seems to want to deny the
Greenhouse effect.
My sincere apologies and will try to pay more attention to
the originator of the post in the future. Generally, am
only really interested in content, not who actually wrote
the post.
Which is why I don't bother to killfile anyone. One never
knows who might originate worthwhile comments. Even Caine,
Mroo, and Veronique manage to say something clever
sometimes.
Regards,
"nilkids"
Which is why
nil...@invalid.com.au
Message-ID:<1108783090.5...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
posted on 18 Feb 2005 19:18:10 -0800, Terry Lomax wrote:
>nil...@invalid.com.au wrote:
>> [[[[My comments in brackets]]]]
>>
>> Scientists say global warming is undeniable
>>
>> [excerpts]
>> Scientists in the United States say they have confirmed
>> beyond doubt that climate change is being caused by human
>> activity.
>>
>> The scientists have presented their findings to the annual
>> meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
>> Science in Washington.
>> ---------
>> The debate over whether or not there is a global warming
>> signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.
>> "Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet."
>> ----------
>> She added that a circulation system called the Ocean
>> Conveyer Belt is in danger of shutting down. The last time
>> that happened, northern Europe suffered extremely cold
>> winters.
>
>The global warming then was mainly caused by a population spike in
>India and subsequent removal of forests to grow crops for their
>vegetarian lifestyle.
Let us not forget the destruction of a significant
percentage of the Amazonian rainforest for "slash and burn"
agriculture and to provide beef for the export market.
Jungles may look rich and productive but are often on
lateric soils which set like concrete a year or so after
being cleared.
> Population increases in Europe also contributed
>to this.
In the ultimate analysis, population increases anywhere
contribute to the problem. As does industrialization of
previously primarily agricultural countries.
> The huge increase of CO2 spewed by the millions of new
>humans, combined by the huge loss of trees that would have absorbed the
>carbon, caused a temperature increase that melted the polar ice caps,
>sending water barely over 32 degrees F [[[for Nilkids, that's 0 C]]] up
>the North Atlantic Current, resulting in the infamous "Little Ice Age"
>that hit northern Europe and froze the Thames solid.
Actually, I grew up with the US system but am familiar with
both. Metric is much easier, of course. One wonders why
the US persists in the "olde English" system when they could
convert to metric and join the rest of the world.
Perhaps it is a God-given handicap? The Chinese had the
first known civilization, and if they had a simpler written
language would have probably owned the world long before we
were born.
Do you find such alternative history "what if" questions
interesting? Consider that at the time of the American
Revolution, England had colonized an appreciable fraction of
the world. If Americans hadn't chosen to revolt, or the
revolution hadn't been successful, the English access to the
riches of the American portion of the North American
continent would probably have led to them ruling the world.
>
>> She said the changes were already causing droughts in the
>> west of the United States, and Greenland's ice cap, which
>> contains enough ice to raise sea levels globally by seven
>> metres, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly.
>>
>> [[[[ 7 meter ~ 7.6 yard = 23 feet ]]]]
>>
>> Ms Curry said freshwater is already percolating down,
>> lubricating the base and making it more unstable.
>
>> Animals left homeless
>
>Did the article mention polar bears as one of the species expected to
>become extinct?
Not directly, but stated that their environment was fast
>> [more at]
>> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1306233.htm
>
>Got a "page cannot be displayed" error.
>
>Looks like a good article; thanks for posting this, Nilkids, but can
>you post a link to a working page if you find one?
Just checked it, works for me. However, will reprint it
with a few comments below. Those who object to the length
of this post need not read it of course.
In passing, Geoff, has it occurred to you that their refusal
or inability to read long posts may be a form of Darwinian
selection? Denial is not a good survival characteristic,
after all.
[[[[[ My comments in brackets ]]]]]
=============Last Update: Friday, February 18, 2005. 6:30pm
(AEDT)
Oceans offer up evidence of global warming.
Scientists say global warming is undeniable
Scientists in the United States say they have confirmed
beyond doubt that climate change is being caused by human
activity.
The scientists have presented their findings to the annual
meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science in Washington.
They say a parcel of studies looking at the oceans and
Debate over
"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming
signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.
[[[[Unfortunately, many if not most humans are not
Homeless polar bears
pushed out of kilter," she said.
"Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet."
[[[[ If heard a recent early morning radio report
accurately, by truly astonishing amounts. However, will
have a look for more online evidence before reporting on
this phenomenon.]]]]
She added that a circulation system called the Ocean
Conveyer Belt is in danger of shutting down. The last time
that happened, northern Europe suffered extremely cold
winters.
[[[Not surprisingly, considering their latitudes]]]
She said the changes were already causing droughts in the
west of the United States, and Greenland's ice cap, which
contains enough ice to raise sea levels globally by seven
metres, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly.
Ms Curry said freshwater is already percolating down,
lubricating the base and making it more unstable.
[[[[ Of course, the Greenland icecap only involves a
Animals left homeless
-Reuters
>
>One sports newsgroup I read might as well be renamed
>"talk.politics.republican.deny-global-warming". I pointed out that
>last summer's unseasonable cold was because of global warming: some
>trees started to change color in the first half of August, when there
>were lows in the 40s and people at the baseball games often wore heavy
>coats. Some people on that newsgroup are so stupid, they condone the
>local radio station's decision to broadcast Rush Limbaugh (their
>leader) instead of baseball games. They're obviously not true fans.
>Next time one of them tries to deny global warming, I'll post a link to
>the photo of Brian Moran, who wears a shirt with the team's logo.
>
>Global warming is evident here. For at least a week, the daffodil
>shoots have been tall with several bulbs. The frogs sang earlier this
>week when it was over 70 degrees. Way too early; they were probably
>fooled by the huge amounts of rain so far this year. The huge amount
>of rain is caused by global warming, which usually results in drought
>but when it does rain and snow, there's a huge amount of precipitation.
Weather extremes have long been predicted as the first signs
andy o'neill
<nil...@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
news:mlpf11pmmmm962vor...@4ax.com...
> A significant mistake, as Geoff seems to want to deny the
> Greenhouse effect.
Hows about you go away, and find out the difference between global warming
and the greenhouse effect. Perhaps you could also try and work out where
greenhouse gases fit into all of this. Then once you are armed with this
(very basic) knowledge which you seem to lack, perhaps you will be in a
position to preach to the rest of the world.
It always astonishes me how many people, who think they are experts on this
subject, use the terms "greenhouse effect" and "global warming"
interchangeably.
Anyway... as you were :-)
nil...@invalid.com.au
on Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:30:38 GMT, andy o'neill wrote:
>
><nil...@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
>news:mlpf11pmmmm962vor...@4ax.com...
>
>> A significant mistake, as Geoff seems to want to deny the
>> Greenhouse effect.
>
>Hows about you go away, and find out the difference between global warming
>and the greenhouse effect.
I'm aware of the difference. The greenhouse effect is the
cause, the global warming the result.
> Perhaps you could also try and work out where
>greenhouse gases fit into all of this.
In how much detail? Which ones?
-----
Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere when solid
waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood
and wood products are burned.
Methane is emitted during the production and transport of
coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result
from the decomposition of organic wastes in municipal solid
waste landfills, and the raising of livestock. More
information on methane.
Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial
activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and
fossil fuels.
Very powerful greenhouse gases that are not naturally
occurring include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6),
which are generated in a variety of industrial processes.
Each greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in
the atmosphere. HFCs and PFCs are the most heat-absorbent.
Methane traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than
carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide absorbs 270 times more
heat per molecule than carbon dioxide. Often, estimates of
greenhouse gas emissions are presented in units of millions
of metric tons of carbon equivalents (MMTCE), which weights
each gas by its GWP value, or Global Warming Potential. For
more on greenhouse gases and global warming potential, see:
Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potential Values -
Excerpt from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2000 (73.6 KB)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric
Programs, April 2002. This excerpt describes the
characteristics of each of the various greenhouse gases and
discusses the concept of Global Warming Potential (GWP)
values. Both direct and indirect greenhouse gases are
addressed. A detailed comparison of GWP values from the
IPCC's Second Assessment Report (SAR) and Third Assessment
Report (TAR) is also made, including the effect of a change
in GWP values on U.S. greenhouse gas emission trends.
Overall, revisions to GWP values do not have a significant
effect on U.S. emission trends.
> Then once you are armed with this
>(very basic) knowledge which you seem to lack
In your estimation, apparently. Pity it isn't valid.:-)
>perhaps you will be in a
>position to preach to the rest of the world.
Am in a fine position, thanks! Would you like to hear my
thoughts on the Bible as well?
>
>It always astonishes me how many people, who think they are experts on this
>subject, use the terms "greenhouse effect" and "global warming"
>interchangeably.
Careless usage does not imply lack of knowledge. What is
your position on the matter? Don't you believe the AAAS
consensus?
>
>Anyway... as you were :-)
And are.
Regards,
"nilkids"
>
andy o'neill
<nil...@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
news:k12i11d7c9h7hnrdi...@4ax.com...
> In Message-ID:<i8WRd.15$Q4...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net> posted
> on Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:30:38 GMT, andy o'neill wrote:
>><nil...@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:mlpf11pmmmm962vor...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> A significant mistake, as Geoff seems to want to deny the
>>> Greenhouse effect.
>>
>>Hows about you go away, and find out the difference between global warming
>>and the greenhouse effect.
>
> I'm aware of the difference. The greenhouse effect is the
> cause, the global warming the result.
This isn't a clear enough explanation and implies lack of proper
understanding.
Why suggest Geoff doesn't believe in the Greenhouse Effect? No scientist
worth his salt denies that there is a Greenhouse Effect on Earth and Geoff
made no such claim. If there were no such thing as the Greenhouse Effect,
well then humans wouldn't even be here to worry about global warming. The
"significant mistake" here is yours.
I'll just make it clear for you, so you can understand. Denying that there
is the phenomenon currently defined as "Global Warming" is not denying that
there is a Greenhouse Effect.
>>It always astonishes me how many people, who think they are experts on
>>this
>>subject, use the terms "greenhouse effect" and "global warming"
>>interchangeably.
>
> Careless usage does not imply lack of knowledge.
In this case it does.
PS: Cutting and pasting stuff does not prove that you understand a subject.
It does not demonstrate understanding in any way whatsoever. At least when
I've seen plagiarism, the students are smart enough not to use the top
ranking google result. They also change the words a bit :-)
Fairly OK Butthead
Terry Lomax <Lom...@hotmail.com> writes:
[igloo-dwelling blubber scarfers]
> Thanks for sharing the link. Good article; the only problem I have
> with it is one word choice; they should have said "Inuit" as the name
> of the Arctic indigenous people who are being adversely affected by the
> warming.
So in addition to all your other problems, you're a political correctness
zealot. Why doesn't _that_ surprise me?
The word is *Eskimos.* Just like their southern brethren are known as
"Indians." The Canadians are welcome to call them "Inuit" and "Natives,"
respectively, but We Don't Do That Down Here.
Geoff
--
"Poor spelling or grammar is akin to mixing up variables in a
mathematical proof. Some people will understand what you meant
to say, some people will be confused, and all will consider you
sloppy, careless, and somewhat stupid." -- Dan Hillman
Rabbit
> The word is *Eskimos.* Just like their southern brethren are known as
> "Indians." The Canadians are welcome to call them "Inuit" and "Natives,"
> respectively, but We Don't Do That Down Here.
Ah, yes. Nothing like an Ugly American to tell people what they can or can't
call themselves.
Rabbit
nil...@invalid.com.au
2005 12:33:11 -0800, Fairly OK Butthead wrote:
>
>
>Terry Lomax <Lom...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>[igloo-dwelling blubber scarfers]
>
>> Thanks for sharing the link. Good article; the only problem I have
>> with it is one word choice; they should have said "Inuit" as the name
>> of the Arctic indigenous people who are being adversely affected by the
>> warming.
>
>
>So in addition to all your other problems, you're a political correctness
>zealot. Why doesn't _that_ surprise me?
>
>The word is *Eskimos.* Just like their southern brethren are known as
>"Indians." The Canadians are welcome to call them "Inuit" and "Natives,"
>respectively, but We Don't Do That Down Here.
Or even further down here!
>
>
>
>Geoff
nil...@invalid.com.au
Dunno, Rabbit. How would you identify yourself?
Will have at least provisionally agree with you since some
very ugly fellow Americans accuse me of being both female
and gay!
If the truth, neither would be particularly objectionable.
As both are lies, highly objectionable.
Memo to Geoff: If you still think there might be a civil
war or a revolution in the USA, perhaps a more important
objective would be to try to identify and eliminate the
deliberate liars? :-)
Those who have merely been misled could be re-educated,
after all...
Regards,
"nilkids"
nil...@invalid.com.au
Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:06:35 GMT, andy o'neill wrote:
>
><nil...@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
>news:k12i11d7c9h7hnrdi...@4ax.com...
>> In Message-ID:<i8WRd.15$Q4...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net> posted
>> on Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:30:38 GMT, andy o'neill wrote:
>>><nil...@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
>>>news:mlpf11pmmmm962vor...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> A significant mistake, as Geoff seems to want to deny the
>>>> Greenhouse effect.
>>>
>>>Hows about you go away, and find out the difference between global warming
>>>and the greenhouse effect.
>>
>> I'm aware of the difference. The greenhouse effect is the
>> cause, the global warming the result.
>
>This isn't a clear enough explanation and implies lack of proper
>understanding.
Your opinion, but I am not required to convince you.
>
>Why suggest Geoff doesn't believe in the Greenhouse Effect? No scientist
>worth his salt denies that there is a Greenhouse Effect on Earth and Geoff
>made no such claim.
Yawn. Thought he had. Perhaps should recheck his previous
posts.
In any case, it is now scientifically obvious that it is
happening, and the only possible [if useless] arguement is
just _why_ it has happened.
The only really logical argument is to accept that it is
happening and whether or not we can possibly do anything
about it. What may or may not be causing it is pretty
immaterial, isn't it?
Let me try to explain this to you in terms that you may
understand.
Suppose that you are walking down the street and some mugger
sticks a knife in you or shoots you.
Dunno your particular attitude, but do I think that most
people would be worried about whether or not you would
survive the attack.
Not who caused it, let alone their motives.
Or, alternatively, you are on a golf course or on a beach
and are struck by lightning. Do you wish to be resusciated
or not?
We could argue for years on whether the Germans had a
legitimate right to torpedo the "S.S. Lusitania", or why the
RMS Titanic sank on her maiden voyage with a large loss of
life.
> If there were no such thing as the Greenhouse Effect,
>well then humans wouldn't even be here to worry about global warming. The
>"significant mistake" here is yours.
>I'll just make it clear for you, so you can understand. Denying that there
>is the phenomenon currently defined as "Global Warming" is not denying that
>there is a Greenhouse Effect.
>
>>>It always astonishes me how many people, who think they are experts on
>>>this
>>>subject, use the terms "greenhouse effect" and "global warming"
>>>interchangeably.
>>
>> Careless usage does not imply lack of knowledge.
>
>In this case it does.
You have the right to your opinion, of course.
I have no idea as to your motive for rejecting my opinion,
nor do I even give a shit.
>
>PS: Cutting and pasting stuff does not prove that you understand a subject.
>It does not demonstrate understanding in any way whatsoever. At least when
>I've seen plagiarism, the students are smart enough not to use the top
>ranking google result. They also change the words a bit :-)
>
Perhaps unfortunately for you, I am not a "student". Well
beyond this. However, you can believe what you wish, as I
don't really give a shit if you wish to deny the reality of
global warming and the rise in sea level.
After all, your problem, not mine!
Hell, this is just as stupid as refusing to believe in God.
If I don't worry about what happens to your soul, why should
I possibly give a shit what happens to your body?
Your choice, your problem, and as a Protestant Christian I
don't give a shit if you spend eternity in Hell.
Your free choice.
Just as it is your "free choice" to live a couple of feet
above the "high water" mark.
Why should I or others give a shit about your denial of
reality of climatic change?
Perhaps you wish to whine that no one has warned you of
this.
In which case, if you don't wish to believe me, you might
wish to consult Geoff Miller.
Not my problem. Geoff may be willing to provide you with
some info, but I wouldn't guarantee it.
After all, he doesn't even always believe me!
However, if both of you are scrambling for high ground, then
stop to rest for a moment, you might speculate that the old
bastard "nilkids" may be looking down from heaven and
laughing at you both.
Well, actually, in reality, Geoff and I may agree on most
issues more than you could believe, so both of us may be
laughing at your desperate efforts to "survive". :-)
Regards,
"Nilkids"
andy o'neill
<nil...@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
news:if4l11tslf9cvgp3n...@4ax.com...
> In Message-ID:<v%dSd.1$FV...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net> posted on
> Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:06:35 GMT, andy o'neill wrote:
>>This isn't a clear enough explanation and implies lack of proper
>>understanding.
>
> Your opinion, but I am not required to convince you.
I haven't rejected any of your opinions only your misuse/misunderstanding of
terms.
>>Why suggest Geoff doesn't believe in the Greenhouse Effect? No scientist
>>worth his salt denies that there is a Greenhouse Effect on Earth and Geoff
>>made no such claim.
> In any case, it is now scientifically obvious that it is
> happening, and the only possible [if useless] arguement is
> just _why_ it has happened.
It's been "scientifically obvious" for a long time that there is a
Greenhouse Effect. The "Greenhouse Effect" is simply the process by which
the Earth is heated by the Sun. Without this process life on Earth could not
be sustained.
Again, you miss the point. You simply don't seem to understand that the
Greenhouse Effect is not A Bad Thing. Without it we would not exist. I
understand that most media reports don't make this clear either but you
could at least read up about it.
If you mean "Global Warming phenomenon" rather than the "Greenhouse Effect",
why don't you just use the correct terms?
> Hell, this is just as stupid as refusing to believe in God.
Uhm... :-)
> Why should I or others give a shit about your denial of
> reality of climatic change?
Who denied anything? The climate is always changing.
Geoff Miller
Earlier I wrote:
[to Terry the 'Tard]
: The word is *Eskimos.* Just like their southern brethren
: are known as "Indians." The Canadians are welcome to call
: them "Inuit" and "Natives," respectively, but We Don't Do
: That Down Here.
Rabbit <rab...@sorryspammers.com> sniffs:
> Ah, yes. Nothing like an Ugly American to tell people what
> they can or can't call themselves.
That's a curious response, considering that it was Terry Lomax,
not I, who was objecting to the use of a certain term. All I
did was point out that despite what Terry said, "Eskimo" is,
in fact perfectly acceptable in the United States.
And why, pray tell, do you say that I'm an "ugly American?"
Are you a Canadian, to whom _any_ American fits that des-
cription?
Are you aware that the book of that title wasn't even about
an American who behaved badly, but who was physically ugly?
No? Didn't think so. The expression is almost universally
misused.
nil...@invalid.com.au
>
><nil...@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
>news:k12i11d7c9h7hnrdi...@4ax.com...
>> In Message-ID:<i8WRd.15$Q4...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net> posted
>> on Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:30:38 GMT, andy o'neill wrote:
>>><nil...@invalid.com.au> wrote in message
>>>news:mlpf11pmmmm962vor...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> A significant mistake, as Geoff seems to want to deny the
>>>> Greenhouse effect.
>>>
>>>Hows about you go away, and find out the difference between global warming
>>>and the greenhouse effect.
>>
>> I'm aware of the difference. The greenhouse effect is the
>> cause, the global warming the result.
>
>This isn't a clear enough explanation and implies lack of proper
>understanding.
>
>Why suggest Geoff doesn't believe in the Greenhouse Effect? No scientist
>worth his salt denies that there is a Greenhouse Effect on Earth and Geoff
>made no such claim. If there were no such thing as the Greenhouse Effect,
>well then humans wouldn't even be here to worry about global warming. The
>"significant mistake" here is yours.
I am aware that humans wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the
greenouse effect. The problem is that it is increasing,
leading to undesirable effects such as global warming.
>
>I'll just make it clear for you, so you can understand. Denying that there
>is the phenomenon currently defined as "Global Warming" is not denying that
>there is a Greenhouse Effect.
>
>>>It always astonishes me how many people, who think they are experts on
>>>this
>>>subject, use the terms "greenhouse effect" and "global warming"
>>>interchangeably.
>>
>> Careless usage does not imply lack of knowledge.
>
>In this case it does.
[Shrug] If you think so, you have a right to your opinion.
>
>PS: Cutting and pasting stuff does not prove that you understand a subject.
>It does not demonstrate understanding in any way whatsoever. At least when
>I've seen plagiarism, the students are smart enough not to use the top
>ranking google result. They also change the words a bit :-)
Yes, but I'm not trying to prove my understanding when I
quote something off Google. Nor is it plagiarism to cite
references.
Almost all scientists accept the reality of global warming.
Some idiots and shills of industry in the USA refuse to
accept it. If you want to put yourself in either or both of
the latter categories, be my guest. :-)
Regards,
"nilkids"
>