U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-14-2010, 09:18 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
25,544 posts, read 23,026,679 times
Reputation: 9545

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
so you are in favor of what...population control??
No, at least not beyond the responsibility of the individual.
I have no solution, maybe there simply is none should we really get severe climatic problems... I just hope we won't lose our humanity when it comes to helping others out.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-14-2010, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
32,611 posts, read 18,370,257 times
Reputation: 10963
Quote:
Originally Posted by brattpowered View Post
So, NASA has released sets of data showing that this January to June has been the hottest January to June on record.

I'm expecting the people who offered snowflakes in Podunk, TX as proof against global warming to now make a 360 and say it is now a reality due to this new data.

Right? Right? Bueller?

The story: NASA: First half of 2010 breaks the thermometer

The data, in case you don't want to believe the source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
The predictions are due to the behavior of the Jet Stream and ocean currents, not freaking CO2.

NASA will focus on whatever 0bama tells them to focus on, whether its Muslim relations, or even to have them push global warming so as to help him ram thru his green energy agenda.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 09:43 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
25,544 posts, read 23,026,679 times
Reputation: 9545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
The predictions are due to the behavior of the Jet Stream and ocean currents, not freaking CO2.

NASA will focus on whatever 0bama tells them to focus on, whether its Muslim relations, or even to have them push global warming so as to help him ram thru his green energy agenda.
Everything is connected.
Where does that hate for green energy come from? I have observed it so often on this board and don't understand it. Why would anyone prefer conventional to green energy or saving energy?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 09:47 AM
 
13,056 posts, read 12,476,953 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Examples, evidence? You know what the world population today is and you know what it was just 2000 or 5000 years go, let alone tens of thousands of years ago. Add to that the political borders and egoism that were not there during the stone age... Today humans can't withdraw or move to another region if disaster strikes in their home region. It is obvious. Asking me for evidence is like asking me for evindence I like pizza. It is already happening, Australia already said it is not willing to accept any people from those islands in South Pacific that are already disappearing in the ocean as we speak.
Climate Change: Micronesia, Island Nations Threatened by Global Warming - ABC News
Don't be obtuse. Not evidence of each little claim individually, but how you are linking them together to support your conclusion. You claim there are events happening due to climate change. That is my issue with you. You skate over the facts of an occurrence and jump right into the conclusion as if you have proper evidence to support it. I wanted to see your example so I could see the "evidence" you use to link them together.

Now, you provided a link concerning Micronesa. There is a problem with your evidence, it is garbage and unsupported scientifically. It also has been shown to be bunk when this issue occurred. You are informing yourself on media sites which are nothing more than unsubstantiated claims.

Let us look at your issue:

Macronesia is suing the Czech over the issue claiming that thier Co2 emissions caused this.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/

The above link discusses key factors that are claimed to support this occurrence and evaluates them scientifically in their claims.


The 3 main claims are as follows:
Quote:
1. Increasing CO2 causes increased sea level rise.


2. Sea level rise causes salt water to intrude into the freshwater lens


3. Sea level rise gravely endangers low-lying coral atolls like Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Maldives. A mere 1 metre rise would see them mostly washed away.
From the first claim:

Quote:
Claim 1. Does increased CO2 cause increased sea level rise?

Short answer, data to date says no. There has been no acceleration the rate of sea level rise. Sea level has been rising for centuries. But the rate of the rise has not changed a whole lot. Both tidal stations and satellites show no increase in the historic rate of sea level rise, in either the short or long term. Fig. 1 shows the most recent satellite data.



Figure 1. Change of sea level over time. Radar data from the TOPEX satellite. The light blue line is sea level with monthly anomalies removed. The interval between data points is usually ten days. The gray line is the 1993-2004 linear trend projected to the end of the timeline. Gaussian average using a 71-point filter. Photo taken at Taunovo Bay Resort, Fiji.

Up until about the end of 2004, there was little change in the rate of sea level rise. Since then the rise has slowed down. The average (dark blue line) does not stray far from the trend (black line) up until 1994. Since then, it is well below the projected trend (gray line). We were supposed to be seeing some kind of big acceleration in the sea level rise caused by increased CO2. Instead, we are seeing a decrease in the rate of sea level rise. So the first claim, that increasing CO2 will cause increased rates of sea level rise, is not supported by the evidence.


Note that I am not saying anything about the future. The rate of sea level rise might go up again. What we can say, however, is that there is no hint of acceleration in the record, only deceleration. Claim 1 is false to date.
The second claim:

Quote:
Claim 2. Can a sea level rise cause salt water to intrude into the freshwater lens?

Short answer, no. To understand what is really happening with the freshwater lens, we’ll start with the geology. Here is a cross-section of a typical atoll that I drew up.




Figure 2. Typical cross section through a coral atoll. The living coral is in the ring between the dotted green line and the beach. The atoll used for the photo in this example is Tepoto Atoll, French Polynesia.

Note that the sea water penetrates throughout the porous coral rubble base. Because fresh water is lighter than salt water, the freshwater lens is floating on this subsurface part of the ocean. The weight of the fresh water pushes down the surface of the sea water underneath it, forming the bottom of the “lens” shape. The lens is wider where the atoll is wider. The amount of fresh water in the lens is a balance between what is added and what is withdrawn or lost. The lens is only replenished by rain.


The important thing here is that the freshwater lens is floating on the sea surface. It’s not like a well on land, with an underground freshwater source with a water-tight layer below it. There is no underground freshwater source on an atoll. It is just a bubble of water, a rain-filled lens is floating on a sea water table in a porous coral rubble and sand substructure. If there is no rain, the fresh water will eventually slowly mix with the salt water and dissipate. When there is rain, you get a floating lens of fresh water, which goes up and down with the underlying sea water.


So the second claim, that a sea level rise can cause the sea water to intrude into the fresh water lens, is not true either. The fresh water lens floats on the sea water below. A rise in the sea level merely moves the lens upwards. It does not cause salt water to intrude into the lens.
and the third claim:

Quote:

3. Would a sea level rise gravely endanger low-lying coral atolls?

Regarding atolls and sea level rise, the most important fact was discovered by none other than Charles Darwin. He realized that coral atolls essentially “float” on the surface of the sea. When the sea rises, the atoll rises with it. They are not solid, like a rock island. They are a pile of sand and rubble. There is always material added and material being lost. Atolls exist in a delicate balance between new sand and coral rubble being added from the reef, and atoll sand and rubble being eroded by wind and wave back into the sea or into the lagoon. As sea level rises, the balance tips in favor of sand and rubble being added to the atoll. The result is that the atoll rises with the sea level.


Darwin’s discovery also explained why coral atolls occur in rings as in Fig. 2 above. They started as a circular inshore coral reef around a volcanic rock island. As the sea level rose, flooding more and more of the island, the coral grew upwards. Eventually the island was drowned by the rising sea levels, and all that is left is the ring of reef and coral atolls.


Why don’t we see atolls getting fifty feet high? Wind erosion keeps atolls from getting too tall. Wind increases rapidly with distance above the ocean. The atolls simply cannot get taller. The sand at that elevation is blown away as fast as it is added. That’s why all atolls are so low-lying.
When the sea level rises, wind erosion decreases. The coral itself continues to grow upwards to match the sea level rise. Because the coral continues to flourish, the flow of sand and rubble onto the atoll continues, and with reduced wind erosion the atoll height increases by the amount of the sea level rise.


Since (as Darwin showed) atolls float up with the sea level, the idea that they will be buried by sea level rises is totally unfounded. Despite never being more than a few metres tall, hey have survived a sea level rise of up to three hundred plus feet (call it a hundred metres) within the last twenty thousand years. Historically they have floated up higher than the peaks of drowned mountains.


So the third claim is not true either. Atolls are createdby sea level rise, not destroyed by sea level rise.
So why is it happening? Read the explanations in the link and you will see.

This is why I wanted you to support your position. You are being misinformed on the issue. This is a political issue as I said and ABC is reporting sensationalist material, not scientific fact. They don't even properly cite the sources they claim that leads to their story. Why would you even accept that anyway? Seriously, do you accept what the media tells you at face value? Do you not look up the facts of the claims when they are made?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Source for the heat wave that could shut down German power stations from next weekend on:
Flusswasser zu warm: Atomkraftwerken droht der Hitzestopp - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Wirtschaft
Maybe Google can translate it for you
Sorry, nothing in there that supports your claim of climate change. It isn't research, it is simply a news story which you picked to link to the climate change issue. The story does not state that this is unprecedented heat, nor does it even try to attach this issue to a "climate oddity".

And for a group who loves to say "weather isn't climate", you sure jump at any change to use it as supporting evidence. Again, see why you need to provide sources? Because then we see your claims for what they are, hot air. Maybe the only real warming we are experiencing that is unprecedented is that expelling from all of the fear mongers who attempt to link every occurrence to their agenda? Nah, we have a good historical record that people have been spewing hot air for a long long time.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
I don't know about the details of Climategate, nor do I care about them. Still, there have been at least two independent investigations into it, probably three if I remember those stories correctly that I have read over the past year or so. And none could find evidence for any unscientific manipulation (although the behavior of some scientists regarding their disclosure policies was criticized) . Not to mention that most climatologists who had nothing to do with Climategate also haven't changed their minds. It's not that there are only a few climatologists in the world, who were all involved in Climategate. Most have nothing to do with it and still come to similar conclusions.
Ahh, so you don't know anything. no worries, none of us had mistaken you for having any real knowledge or understanding of the topic. Your anecdotal conclusions are just ignorance of the subject.

We can see with your generalized claims that you are just spewing more hot air by using appeals to authority in the face of the facts of the investigations (the other two are just as bad and can be shown exactly as to why) and then jumping on the non-scientific consensus claim to which you are also ignorant concerning the details of.

You speak in general terms, vague mentions and the like. Just like your above two ignorant claims, these are the same. It shows your knowledge on the subject is limited to that of the boob tube and politically motivated administrative summaries.

You are welcome to discuss the "facts" of the issue if you like. I would be happy to dig into the details of the issue. Oh, that's right, you don't care. What you care about doing is spewing your ignorance to others as if it were fact.

Wasn't it the skeptics who were deniers and didn't deal in fact and ignored the science? Oh wait, nope... that again.. as it was with other responses earlier on this thread who "mysteriously" disappeared, is your side.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 10:17 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
25,544 posts, read 23,026,679 times
Reputation: 9545
Not all islands down there are atolls. And even regarding atolls scientists do not agree on the future of such islands.

Why anyone would sue the Czech, no idea...

Any deviation and climate change should be a reason to worry. No matter whether sea levels rise too much or too little compared to the calculations.

By the way, I did not see any sources for your quotes and charts. Anyway, maybe the sea level rise is slowing (if it is in the first place) because of warming. After all warmer air and water means more water will evaporate.



I used to live in Germany for decades, the issue of rivers becoming too warm has increased steadily, it has not been the same 30 or 20 or even 10 years ago. My parents still live where I grew up and winters there have become milder and milder all the time, summers hotter and hotter. One way this shows is that snowfall has steadily decreased in the course of just a few decades. When I grew up we always had a lot of snow, now there is much less according to my mom, not enough anymore for building iglos in the garden the way we used to. Sometimes it is still very cold there, but precipitation changed a lot, which is, like any climatic change whatsoever, a potential cause for concern.



Indeed I don't care for the details. I am no climatologist, nor do I want to become one. There are more than enough already and they largely contradict you.

I find it amazing that anyone thinks all the stuff we emit in large quantities into nature will not have consequences
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 10:36 AM
 
13,056 posts, read 12,476,953 times
Reputation: 2613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Not all islands down there are atolls. And even regarding atolls scientists do not agree on the future of such islands.

Why anyone would sue the Czech, no idea...

Any deviation and climate change should be a reason to worry. No matter whether sea levels rise too much or too little compared to the calculations.

By the way, I did not see any sources for your quotes and charts. Anyway, maybe the sea level rise is slowing (if it is in the first place) because of warming. After all warmer air and water means more water will evaporate.



I used to live in Germany for decades, the issue of rivers becoming too warm has increased steadily, it has not been the same 30 or 20 or even 10 years ago. My parents still live where I grew up and winters there have become milder and milder all the time, summers hotter and hotter. One way this shows is that snowfall has steadily decreased in the course of just a few decades. When I grew up we always had a lot of snow, now there is much less according to my mom, not enough anymore for building iglos in the garden the way we used to. Sometimes it is still very cold there, but precipitation changed a lot, which is, like any climatic change whatsoever, a potential cause for concern.



Indeed I don't care for the details. I am no climatologist, nor do I want to become one. There are more than enough already and they largely contradict you.

I find it amazing that anyone thinks all the stuff we emit in large quantities into nature will not have consequences
Nothing that you have presented is a valid evidential claim. You are simply again, generalizing, using common sense fallacy reasoning, speculating while being ignorant of the details (to which you admit you don't care about). The point is, your discussion is no different than gossip at the local coffee shop.

You don't know anything about the climate science issues past headlines and yet again, you generalize that they are right about issues you know nothing about?

Well, you really are oblivious to the validity of your position, this we know to be evident.

edit: By the way, I know you didn't read anything I provided. Your position is simply a carry over from your last one. Reading is too much detail work as well?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 11:12 AM
 
372 posts, read 208,338 times
Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by brattpowered View Post
So, NASA has released sets of data showing that this January to June has been the hottest January to June on record.

I'm expecting the people who offered snowflakes in Podunk, TX as proof against global warming to now make a 360 and say it is now a reality due to this new data.

Right? Right? Bueller?

The story: NASA: First half of 2010 breaks the thermometer

The data, in case you don't want to believe the source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
Your Title is disingenuus, so I can only find everything else suspect. "Ever" is a long time, Millions of years, so NASA has no info on the weather for any particular year, say 30,000 years ago.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 11:18 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
25,544 posts, read 23,026,679 times
Reputation: 9545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Nothing that you have presented is a valid evidential claim. You are simply again, generalizing, using common sense fallacy reasoning, speculating while being ignorant of the details (to which you admit you don't care about). The point is, your discussion is no different than gossip at the local coffee shop.

You don't know anything about the climate science issues past headlines and yet again, you generalize that they are right about issues you know nothing about?

Well, you really are oblivious to the validity of your position, this we know to be evident.

edit: By the way, I know you didn't read anything I provided. Your position is simply a carry over from your last one. Reading is too much detail work as well?
What do you want? Since you obviously have your own agenda, I don't believe anything you say or write or quote (especially without source), accept it. You are like a lawyer trying to get a murderer free If I had to sacrifice either the world's economy or the world's safety, you can bet it would be the former to be on the safe side.

Again and for the last time as I am tired of those pointless discussions with you, I don't have to bring any evidence for my position as most of it is based on common sense as well as my own observations and those of family and friends, I trust myself and them more than you. Earth is like a garage. And we are locked inside while the engine of the car is running... Can that be healthy in the long run?

And regarding the islands, I watched a documentary on that, they showed what is going on there. I don't remember which island it was, but it doesn't matter, whether it was an atoll or not. It was plain to see those people were desperately trying to keep the ocean at bay and loosing at that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Long Island
30,383 posts, read 17,439,920 times
Reputation: 8765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
And regarding the islands, I watched a documentary on that, they showed what is going on there. I don't remember which island it was, but it doesn't matter, whether it was an atoll or not. It was plain to see those people were desperately trying to keep the ocean at bay and loosing at that.
they are trying to keep the ocean at bay from EROSION, not rising sea levels


one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the dramatic levels that the globalwarming community scream about are nearly impossible.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.

Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.

•For more information, see Dr Mörner on YouTube (Google Mörner, Maldives and YouTube); or read on the net his 2007 EIR interview "Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud"; or email him – morner@pog.nu – to buy a copy of his booklet 'The Greatest Lie Ever Told'

In 1842 the "Isle of the Dead" in SE Tasmania was selected for the site of a "Mean Sea Level" refernce mark by Capt. James Clark Ross. Today this mark can clearly be seen 35 cm ABOVE the current mean sea level.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2010, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Long Island
30,383 posts, read 17,439,920 times
Reputation: 8765
NO-ONE is speaking against pollution...NO-ONE is speaking against the fact that us humans waste and abuse

we all want clean air/land/water

do we humans pollute...yes
do we humans waste...yes
do we humans overdevelop and cut trees(a natural radiant cooler and co2 user/o2 PRODUCER)...yes
are we humans the cause of ENVIROMENTAL CHANGES.........YES
are we humans the cause of the earths CLIMATE changes........NO



the problem here is that people are using BAD FALSEIFIED SCIENCE to scare people about warming or cooling and they are using c02 as a scapegoat

guess what our co2 levels are currently around 350ppm

co2 levels were over 700 ppm 20 thousand years ago....so what's the big deal

guess what, by science no less...the ideal co2 ppm for most plants is....700 ppm


As the air's CO2 content rises, most plants exhibit increased rates of net photosynthesis and biomass production. Moreover, on a per-unit-leaf-area basis, plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration, as they tend to display lower stomatal conductances. Hence, the amount of carbon gained per unit of water lost per unit leaf area - or water-use efficiency - should increase dramatically as the air's CO2 content rises. In the study of Serraj et al. (1999), soybeans grown at 700 ppm CO2 displayed 10 to 25% reductions in total water loss while simultaneously exhibiting increases in dry weight of as much as 33%. Thus, elevated CO2 significantly increased the water-use efficiencies of the studied plants.

In summary, it is clear that as the CO2 content of the air continues to rise, nearly all of earth's agricultural species will respond favorably by exhibiting increases in water-use efficiency. It is thus likely that food and fiber production will increase on a worldwide basis, even in areas where productivity is severely restricted due to limited availability of soil moisture. Therefore, one can expect global agricultural productivity to rise in tandem with future increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration.

so more co2 is actually GREENER...its not theroy, its scientific fact

science shows that humans use oxygen and expele (exhale) co2

science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expeles o2

science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 325 of today is is much lower than the 750-800 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago

science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times

science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush furtile land, not covered in ice

science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice

science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of graciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)

science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER

common sense states that as the earths polulation expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.......yet the global warming people only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:05 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top