The Gulf Stream has abruptly changed it's flow in the past, hasn't it? That would be an incalculable problem for Europe. (much less anywhere else)
just wanted to say that there is real science here. and it is a very very real concern. i recently read an article on rediverting the major Russian rivers, and one of their chief beneficial impacts is the fact that reduced warm/freshwater flowing into the arctic will delay the erosion of the ice caps. at current rates, it is really only a matter of time before human activities disrupts the ocean currents sufficiently to turn off the gulf stream and europe is plunged into an ice age. we're talking about some real serious **** going down. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994637
Exactly. Man-made global warming is a huge hoax and if it were true, I'd much rather things be warmer anyhow. It's been a cold ass winter here.
I have no idea whether this quick doomsday prediction is correct. I tend to think not, though it does seem to be coming. I think that it is quite sad Jorge, Bama and many of the followers of the GOP feel the need to discount science due to concern with momentary GOP politics. Hopefully one day they can rise to the sophistication of the Bush twins who apparently put environmental concerns above such petty partisanship.
glynch -- i certainly can't speak for those guys...but my guess is they acknowledge the possibility of global climate change but feel that man's role in bringing that about is minimal, at best. or feel it's something that, if happening, is something we can't possibly stop.
Max, that is possible. They should try to argue on the basis of scientific evidence. They really don't. At best they take the few scientists who support their beliefs and fund the dispersal of their ideas. It is a continuation of the trend of slanting the scientific, economic or intelligence data to fit their momentary goals. When all is said and done global warming and the environment should not be based on momentary GOP or Democratic Party politics. I really think the problem is the short term next quarter outlook of corporations, particularly energy companies. There is great campaign cash to be had by not interfering with the status quo for the oil and auto industries, to name two industries. The environment is the original reason I lost faith in the market system as an entirety and view it as something to be used only in situations where it can factor in all the costs.
A few short decades ago, the scientist wonks were doing their chicken little routine about....global cooling. Make up my mind. I'll discount science.....junk science. IT is a theory and one with more holes than a fresh batch of swiss cheese. Quit living in fear, the sky is not falling. No reason to destroy our economy to correct a problem that likely does not exist.
Bamma, I don't think you understand the word 'theory' in a scientific sense. Theory doesn't not mean educated guess. Theory's have been tested, and the results have been verified. Germs causing infection, disease, etc. is a theory. Gravity is a theory. If a theory has holes in it, it is not a theory. That being said, I'm not sure that global warming is a full fledged theory yet.
So the best anti - war thing is to give people food and water and an energy supply We could then not have to worry? So instead of humanitarian aid the idea is to bulk up on War Arms Rocket River
Here's an article about the main reason we need to be in space, to be able to save the planet: Scientists want to be ready to block asteroid from hitting Earth GARDEN GROVE, California (AP) --The asteroid believed to have wiped out dinosaurs 65 million years ago was rare but hardly unique, say scientists gathered to discuss ways of aggressively defending our planet from another such space rock, including by detonating nukes in space. Asteroids capable of inflicting damage on a global scale hit the Earth roughly every million years, and we shouldn't dawdle in developing a method of deflecting them, say the scientists attending a four-day planetary defense conference in suburban Orange County. Scientists have proposed a variety of strategies to nudge an asteroid off course. The list is the stuff of science fiction and includes using lasers, mirrors or atomic weapons launched from Earth. Unlike any other type of natural hazard, an asteroid impact could kill billions of people. But it's also the only natural hazard that can be prevented, at least in principle, scientists said. "It's a thing we know will happen sometime in our future so the responsible thing is for people to do something about it," said William Ailor, of The Aerospace Corp., which sponsored the conference with the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Astronomers estimate there are between 900 and 1,100 near-Earth asteroids one kilometer -- about six-tenths of a mile -- or larger in diameter. Of those, nearly 700 already have been discovered and cataloged. It's not clear what sort of damage one of those rocks could cause were it to strike Earth, although destruction on a global scale is likely. "We don't know what they would do, and we don't want to conduct a science experiment to find out," said David Morrison of NASA's Ames Research Center. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, introduced a bill this month to bolster NASA spending on the search for near-Earth asteroids 100 yards or more across. Even something of that size, were it to strike, say, the Pacific Ocean, could generate a tsunami capable of destroying the major cities along the West Coast, Ailor said. Early detection of an inbound asteroid could provide years to decades of warning -- enough time to mount a mission to push it off course, Ailor said. Slowing an asteroid down by even a few inches a second could change its trajectory enough to prevent its ever crossing paths with the Earth. The Earth moves in space the equivalent of its own diameter in just six minutes. So to move an Earth-bound asteroid off target, it would be enough to delay its arrival time by six minutes, allowing it to harmlessly sweep past, Morrison said. http://cnn.space.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+
A main result of global warming would be exactly what you wrote, namely a cold ass winter. While aggregate yearly temperatures do rise, seasonal fluctuations are expected to be far larger, hence hotter summers and colder winters. Whether you believe that humans are causing global warming, you must realize that many of the climatological phenomenon witnessed in the past 20 years have been very consistent with the science behind it. Personally, I don't think we're impacting global warming very much. But the following are facts: 1) aggregate yearly temperatures have been rising 2) we've set more record lows in winter and record highs in summer over the past 20 years than over any other 20 year period in recorded history 3) Incidences of periodic climatological phenomenon (El Nino, La Nina) have become more frequent 4) The above facts are consistent with the theory behind global warming. It's a big jump in my mind to say that WE are the ones behind it all. That said, we need to realize that things are happening, and regardless of the cause, they have very real and important ramifications for ourselves and our future (and that future is relatively immediate, that is, over the course of the next century we'll be seeing the impacts of rises in global temperature).
Personally, I've read as much information that says that we have only seen a very slight increase in temperature as putting forth the chicken little argument that the sky is falling. We've only studied the Earth's climate for over 100 years! Because of that, I think that any radical change in our way of life (which many scientists say will make little difference, if all) would be unneccessary. It's just more enviro-paranoia. When the media in this country blindly buys into agenda-oriented science (like they have here, in this case, an anti-American, anti-capitalist agenda), it whips people into a froth, like every summer when they claim it is the hottest summer on record (or the summer of the shark). Needless to say, I don't watch much news. Scaring me into watching is not going to get me interested.
somewhat off the topic, but does anyone know what kerry's stance is on global warming? if he's for Kyoto, i might just vote for him on that basis alone....
He doesn't weigh in specifically on Kyoto (that I found), but here you go. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy/
Earth almost put on impact alert By Dr David Whitehouse BBC News Online science editor Astronomers have revealed how they came within minutes of alerting the world to a potential asteroid strike last month. Some scientists believed on 13 January that a 30m object, later designated 2004 AS1, had a one-in-four chance of hitting the planet within 36 hours. It could have caused local devastation and the researchers contemplated a call to President Bush before new data finally showed there was no danger. The procedures for raising the alarm in such circumstances are now being revised. At about 30m wide, the asteroid was cosmic small fry, not the type of thing to wipe out the dinosaurs or threaten our species, but still big enough to cause considerable damage after exploding in the atmosphere. In a paper presented at this week's Planetary Protection conference in California, veteran asteroid researcher Clark Chapman calls it a "nine-hour crisis". He explains how word reached the astronomical community of an asteroid that had just been discovered by the twin optical telescopes of the Linear automated sky survey in New Mexico. The Minor Planet Center in Massachusetts - the clearing house for such observations - posted details on the internet requesting attention from astronomers, one of whom noticed something peculiar. The object was expected to grow 40-times brighter in the next day - a possible sign that it was getting closer, very rapidly. For some astronomers, events reached a crescendo when Steven Chesley, a researcher at Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, looked at the available data and sent an e-mail saying the asteroid had a 25% chance of striking the Earth's Northern Hemisphere in a few days. It was then that astronomers Clark Chapman and David Morrison, chair of the International Astronomical Union's Working Group on Near Earth Objects, contemplated picking up the telephone to the White House. Many astronomers recognise that they a false alarm could have brought ridicule on their profession. They are calling for more planning and less panic if it should happen for real next time. And 2004 AS1? It turned out to be bigger than anyone had thought - about 500m wide. It eventually passed the Earth at a distance of about 12 million km - 32 times the Earth-Moon distance, posing no danger to us whatsoever. Full: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3517319.stm
It's very possible that the next major strike will have little or no warning, which should concern everyone. Why the detection of asteroids and comets, and research into preventing a strike if one is found, doesn't get priority and major funding is a mystery to me. If Bush had made an announcement about this subject instead of the Moon and Mars, I think the reaction of the scientific community would have been far different. I guess it wasn't "sexy" politically.
More fuel for the fire... Most Great Barrier Reef Corals Dead by 2050 Feb. 23, 2004 — The brightly colored corals that make Australia's Great Barrier Reef one of the world's natural wonders will be largely dead by 2050 because of rising sea temperatures, according to a report released Saturday. Authors Hans and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg — the head of Queensland University's marine studies center and his economist father — spent two years examining the effects of rising sea temperature on the reef for Queensland tourism authorities and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF). Their 350-page report found no prospect of avoiding the "chilling long-term eventualities" of coral bleaching because greenhouse gases were already warming the seas as part of a process it said would take decades to stop. Organisms reliant on coral would become rare or even face extinction, the report said. Full: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20040223/coralreef.html
Got to agree with you there. I think I'd be far more worried about an asteroid the size of Delaware striking the Earth than some silly 1 or 2 degree rise in temperature. But, if we did get hit by a big asteroid, guess that global warming thing would go away for a while.
Nice metaanalysis of the coverage of the report. These reports forecast the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1983 and the crashing of airliners into the world trade center in 1995. http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2004/0227/dailyUpdate.html?s=entt . . . Earlier this month, the Financial Times reported that an independent panel commissioned by The World Bank called for the phasing out of all fossil fuels within the next eight years. The panel warned or dire consequences caused by global warming if their recommendations were not heeded. The World Bank, however, decided to reject the recommendations of its panel. http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/SC0402/S00100.htm . . . http://www.boston.com/dailynews/057/wash/Pentagon_study_poses_unthinkab:.shtml . . . Still, the authors, Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, said their scenario was ''not implausible'' and would challenge U.S. national security in ways that should be considered immediately. Schwartz is a co-founder of Global Business Network, based in Emeryville, Calif., which says it uses ''out-of-the-box'' thinking in its consulting services to business and government. Hetlage said the Pentagon paid about $100,000 for the report. Schwartz and Randall asserted the plausibility of severe and rapid climate change is higher than most scientists and nearly all politicians think. They also concluded it could happen sooner than generally believed. . . .
