quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Can we please keep the bickering to a single thread? Like maybe the one that is already in the trash? I'm talking equally to both of you BTW. Because (s)he started it ceased to be a valid defense after kindergarden.

Are we there yet!?

Don't make me turn this thread around!

Global Bullshit

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Global Bullshit

i thought we'd established that it was Global Bullfarts.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: i thought we'd established that it was Global Bullfarts.

Would both be considered "beef byproducts"?

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Can you say Hitlery? As for John Galt, he's pretty busy lately. I think he is being audited by the IRS and has been subpeanoed to testify before the House Select Committee on monopoly charges. I'm pretty sure he is in violation of some UN resolution that was voted on by every western nation except the United States and his union is threatening to go on strike if he doesn't pay his employees 50% more than similar employees earn with his competitors.

HA HA Well said!

It all started here:

"...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary. which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations..." - Maurice Strong , opening speech at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development

The UN blueprint for global transformation, sounds good to many well meaning people. Drafted for the purpose of creating "sustainable societies", it has been welcomed by nations around the world. Political, cultural, and media leaders have embraced its alluring visions of social justice and a healthy planet. They hide the lies behind its doomsday scenarios and fraudulent science. Relatively few consider the contrary facts and colossal costs.

After all, what could be wrong with preserving resources for the next generation? Why not limit consumption and reduce energy use? Why not abolish poverty and establish a global welfare system to train parents, monitor intolerance, and meet all our needs? Why not save the planet by trading cars for bikes, an open market for "self-sustaining communities," and single dwellings for dense "human settlements" (located on transit lines) where everyone would dialogue, share common ground, and be equal?

Achieving that consensus meant painting scary scenarios of a hurting, dying planet that frighten children, anger youth, and persuade adults to submit to the unthinkable regulations. (See "Saving the Earth") It means blaming climate change on human activities and ignoring the natural factors that have - throughout time - brought cyclical changes in climate, storm patterns, wildlife migration, and ozone thinning (there has never been a "hole").


Natural factors you seldom hear about:
the earth's orbit around the sun
the gravitational pull of the moon (affects tidal forces and trigger volcanoes which cool the earth and produce El Ninos)
major volcanic eruptions which affect the ozone layer far more than all human activity
sunspot activity (times of great solar turbulence which heat the earth and recurs every nine to thirteen years)
the earth's relationship to other stars and planets
storm tracks
the earth's magnetic field (deflects storm tracks)
the annual decrease of stratospheric ozone each southern winter (our summer) when the sun's seasonal absence prevents ultraviolet rays from interacting with oxygen and producing ozone.

This ties in with the UN plan to eventually get everybody onboard http://www.crossroad.to/tex...les/hab2.html#Agenda

------------------

3.4L S/C 87 GT www.fierosound.com
2002/2003/2004 World of Wheels Winner &
Multiple IASCA Stereo Award Winner

Gabriel Fahrenheit was the inventor of the first accurate thermometer in 1714. After the invention of the telegraph in 1844, crude, real-time weather observation networks were set up, and in 1870 the National Weather Service began.

Most global warming zealots insist the world is billions of years old (which is unprovable).

It stands to reason, then, that the amount of data we do possess is insufficient to back up their claims or discount what might be normal long-term (read: centuries) climate cycles. The burden of proof is on those who claim something is. I am not convinced.

Besides....we still haven't resolved this.

..............................

Ban volcanoes now!

------------------
Who is John Galt?

[This message has been edited by fogglethorpe (edited 02-25-2007).]

I believe than can date the planet. Carbon dating would be close enough. I have no doubt as to the 4-5 billion number myself. But like you, not one person has given me a hint of being correct predicting weather. Our own weatherman whos been here for 40 years, predicted 52* for us on saturday. We got 32*, he was only off by 45-50%, lol....and that was only a few days in advance. Like Im going to ask him what its going to be like on June 10, 2050.

I just wanted to bring up a point, First off that Global Warming is real, and often misunderstood. and secondly the effects of global warming are greatly reduced by Global Dimming. Let me explain:

Global Dimming:

What is it? - A measured change (reduction) in the amount of radiant energy reaching the earth’s surface is an undeniable fact. This trend has been monitored recently with high dollar electronics, but for about 100 years it has been monitored with Pan Evaporation. Simply put a pan of water sits on level ground, and the researcher/farmer records how much water he needs to put in it on a daily basis, and is corrected for rain and other precipitation.

How does it happen? – Soot, basically in a traditional sense clouds are formed by water condensing on “dust” particles in the atmosphere. Soot also gets condensed upon creating clouds, but soot although inert is much larger in dimension than the dust it displaces, and therefore more water can condense on it. Effectively the larger water molecules in the clouds create a bigger “mirror” reflecting solar energy back out of the atmosphere.

How strong is it? – Very, 9-11 brought a lot of things into perspective, but one useful thing about this timeframe was being able to quantify this effect. In the few days following all air traffic over the continental US was grounded, removing the jet contrails from the sky. They are small, inert, “clouds” of water condensing on the small soot matter produced by the engines of the jet. I am saying that these are harmless, don’t get me wrong. That said, there is a mean temperature average that is the average of the high temp and low temp in a day that monitors the trend line changes in temperature throughout a month period. This trend line showed a 3-5degree spike, for the days following 9-11, and then when air flight returned the temp dropped back to normal expected range. So what does that say, That this is very real, and very strong. Global dimming is a much more serious problem because of the rapid response nature of this system. Since theirs soot laced clouds are returning to earth in the form of rain, changes in this cycle happen rapidly, and can have drastic effects.

So back to Global warming

Global Warming is real, and masked by Global Dimming. Imagine a Atmospheric Tug o War, each pulling temps their way, and altogether the rope moves very little, hence why we can have “controversy” of the effects of Global warming.

Here’s the real truth about why you’ve never heard of global dimming

We cant fix it…. Yet, and the eco people know that if they give government an excuse to maintain the current soot level then no new laws will be passed. Anything we do to decrease the emissions of our vehicles, power plants and other soot generating sources will unmask the effects of global warming, and leave us on one very hot planet. But the eco heads (as you can tell I don’t really like these people telling me about things they don’t understand) won’t let down form their save the earth stance, and the real truth is we have trashed our planet, but there is a natural balance to everything and we haven’t suffered.

My answer… Spend more money on research, this balance happened on it’s own, and we do need to take steps to correct it, but there are several fundamental flaws.

1) Ecoheads don’t know everything, and need to sit down and take a back seat to real science. Hire some Engineers (like me) to figure it out, rather than rely on guesses and speculation. A real explanation, and calculation regarding a corrective course of action must be found, not just “clean up” as that may only aggravate the situation.
2) All countries need to adopt future environmental policies, this needs to work on a global scale, everyone has to be onboard for it to work.
3) Everyone has to give up preconceptions on how global temperature is controlled, and agree to look at the situation with an unbiased eye

There’s my two cents

quote In the few days following all air traffic over the continental US was grounded, removing the jet contrails from the sky. They are small, inert, “clouds” of water condensing on the small soot matter produced by the engines of the jet.

Contrails are the ice particles that freeze out of the water vapor produced by combustion of hydrocarbons, not condensation of existing water on soot particles produced by the engines.

I'm sorry, Maybe I missed you, but there is not necessarily Ice Particles in the wake of the jet. The hydrocarbons that are produced is the soot I am referring to, and the water will condense on those particles causing the above mentioned situation. Whether it was ice or water is thermodynamically specific depending on where the final state can be found on a temperature pressure diagram, and obviously if the ambient temp was low Ice can be a byproduct, but it’s simply a matter of phase change, regardless the water needs a solid to condense on, and that hydrocarbon is it.

quote Originally posted by DMaxME: .... How strong is it? – Very, 9-11 brought a lot of things into perspective, but one useful thing about this timeframe was being able to quantify this effect. In the few days following all air traffic over the continental US was grounded, removing the jet contrails from the sky. They are small, inert, “clouds” of water condensing on the small soot matter produced by the engines of the jet. I am saying that these are harmless, don’t get me wrong. That said, there is a mean temperature average that is the average of the high temp and low temp in a day that monitors the trend line changes in temperature throughout a month period. This trend line showed a 3-5degree spike, for the days following 9-11, and then when air flight returned the temp dropped back to normal expected range. So what does that say, That this is very real, and very strong. Global dimming is a much more serious problem because of the rapid response nature of this system. Since theirs soot laced clouds are returning to earth in the form of rain, changes in this cycle happen rapidly, and can have drastic effects. ....

3-5 degrees? from airplane & exhaust shadows?
while I dont doubt the temps - I do doubt the explanation. a 3-5 degree change from one day to the next is usually thought of as "normal". especially in september - there is no "normal" temp to actually referance.

quote Originally posted by DMaxME: I'm sorry, Maybe I missed you, but there is not necessarily Ice Particles in the wake of the jet. The hydrocarbons that are produced is the soot I am referring to, and the water will condense on those particles causing the above mentioned situation. Whether it was ice or water is thermodynamically specific depending on where the final state can be found on a temperature pressure diagram, and obviously if the ambient temp was low Ice can be a byproduct, but it’s simply a matter of phase change, regardless the water needs a solid to condense on, and that hydrocarbon is it.

What I am saying is that the source of the water is the jet exhaust itself, not the ambient atmosphere. Otherwise contrails wouldn't form in dry air (and they do, they just sublime back to vapor). Because modern jet engines do not produce any signifigant sources of solid hydrocarbons. Solid hydrocarbons are wasted jet fuel and jet fuel is to expensive to waste. As further proof, note these pictures from a Delta IV launch. The Delta IV first stage and second stage both use hydrogen and oxygen as the fuel. Since there is no carbon in the fuel, there are no unburnt hydrocarbons to produce condensation nucleai.

You may wonder what is the point to this nitpick? The point is that if the contrail is caused by solid particles of unburnt fuel, then it is possible to eliminate contrails. Since the contrail is formed from water vapor, it is impossible to get rid of them since any known liquid fuel will produce water vapor when burned. Even if jet engines used liquid hydrogen as fuel, we'd still have contrails.

fully understood the jet exhaust creates water, the argument was the soot that the water condenses upon, it needs a bas like any crystalline structure

also the 3-5 degree change was the average between high and low temps, which are much more stable than the daily high temp

quote Originally posted by DMaxME: fully understood the jet exhaust creates water, the argument was the soot that the water condenses upon, it needs a bas like any crystalline structure

What soot is present in the exhaust of hydrogen and oxygen combustion when rocket fuel creates a contrail?

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: What soot is present in the exhaust of hydrogen and oxygen combustion when rocket fuel creates a contrail?

airborn soot does not have to come from the rocket exaust
it is in the air allready
pluss your hydo fuel dumps far more water in a much smaller volume of air
then a turbo fan motor will
but ice or water drops need a seed bit of soot or dust to form on

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

doesnt matter - what matters is if airplanes not flying will raise the temps 3-5 degrees, because they are no longer casting the planes and the exhaust shadows.
rockets were not in the equation at all.

My F4 didnt leave contrails.........it left thick black streaks of unburned raw fuel and carbon in the air.........lol.......... If the bombs missed em, we tried to suffocate em.

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 02-28-2007).]

quote Originally posted by fierosound: Natural factors you seldom hear about: 1 the earth's orbit around the sun 2 the gravitational pull of the moon (affects tidal forces and trigger volcanoes which cool the earth and produce El Ninos) 3 major volcanic eruptions which affect the ozone layer far more than all human activity 4 sunspot activity (times of great solar turbulence which heat the earth and recurs every nine to thirteen years) 5 the earth's relationship to other stars and planets storm tracks 6 the earth's magnetic field (deflects storm tracks) 7 the annual decrease of stratospheric ozone each southern winter (our summer) when the sun's seasonal absence prevents ultraviolet rays from interacting with oxygen and producing ozone. This ties in with the UN plan to eventually get everybody onboard http://www.crossroad.to/tex...les/hab2.html#Agenda

bad science or just WRONG
1 VARYS VERY LITTLE AND ONLY OVER VERY LONG TIME PERIODS
and as we are near mid cycle that just ain't it at all
2 thats just loonie El Ninos are hot surface water cool ones are la nina
neathor have anything to do with the moon or tides
3 yes but volcanic eruptions send up stuff that falls out quickly with rain
O3 stays up far far longer and so do CFCs that kill the O3
so volcanic stuff does not build up over time like CFCs do
spike at the eruptions and drops off quickly while CFC grows over time
4 sun spots cool the sun and mostly effect earth by magnetic storms and flares of charged particals
bad for radio but no effect on weather or temps
5 NO just wrong and worse then the loonie idea
6 NO magnetic storm in outer space yes
but no effect on weathor storms or global warming
7 close but incomplete the CFC distroy the O3 faster then it can be made
cold winds keep the hole over antartic land mass

6 wrong and one 1/2 way try again with some real facts

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: doesnt matter - what matters is if airplanes not flying will raise the temps 3-5 degrees, because they are no longer casting the planes and the exhaust shadows. rockets were not in the equation at all.

It mattered because the claim was made that controls on the soot production would unmask the effects of global warming by reducing global dimming from contrails. My point was that (regarding contrails at least), no matter how good the emissions got, there would still be contrails.

But I see rayb has entered the discussion so I guess facts are now moot.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: It mattered because the claim was made that controls on the soot production would unmask the effects of global warming by reducing global dimming from contrails. My point was that (regarding contrails at least), no matter how good the emissions got, there would still be contrails. But I see rayb has entered the discussion so I guess facts are now moot.

ok Steve I wait on your explaination of how the moon causes EL NINO
or how the earth's magnetic field (deflects storm tracks)

I do know far more science then most
and mostly post corrections to bad facts or data
now if you political spin does not allow facts to interfear with the program
so be it but I donot post BS

btw did you see the fed's chairman's speach on the riseing debts
and the problems they are causing, that was made today

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

You mean this one??

quote Before discussing that longer-run outlook, I will comment on recent budget developments. As you know, the deficit in the unified federal budget declined for a second year in fiscal year 2006, falling to $248 billion from $318 billion in fiscal 2005. So far in fiscal 2007, solid growth in receipts, especially in collections of personal and corporate income taxes, has held the deficit somewhat below year-earlier levels. Of course, a good deal of uncertainty still surrounds the budget outcome for the year as a whole. Federal government outlays in fiscal 2006 were 20.3% of nominal gross domestic product (GDP), receipts were 18.4% of GDP, and the deficit (equal to the difference of the two) was 1.9% of GDP. These percentages are close to their averages since 1960. The on-budget deficit, which differs from the unified budget deficit primarily in excluding receipts and payments of the Social Security system, was $434 billion, or 3.3% of GDP, in fiscal 2006.2 As of the end of fiscal 2006, federal government debt held by the public, which includes holdings by the Federal Reserve but excludes those by the Social Security and other trust funds, amounted to 37% of one year's GDP. Official projections suggest that the unified budget deficit may stabilize or moderate further over the next few years. Unfortunately, we are experiencing what seems likely to be the calm before the storm. In particular, spending on entitlement programs will begin to climb quickly during the next decade. In fiscal 2006, federal spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid together totaled about 40% of federal expenditures, or 8½% of GDP.3 In the medium-term projections released by the CBO in January, these outlays increase to 10¾% of GDP by 2017, an increase of about 2 percentage points of GDP in little more than a decade, and they will likely continue to rise sharply relative to GDP in the years after that. As I will discuss, these rising entitlement obligations will put enormous pressure on the federal budget in coming years.

Yes, not only was he warning about the expenses, he was saying exactly where the increase was going to come from. But I'm sure you didn't notice THAT part.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by ray b: ok Steve I wait on your explaination of how the moon causes EL NINO or how the earth's magnetic field (deflects storm tracks) I do know far more science then most and mostly post corrections to bad facts or data now if you political spin does not allow facts to interfear with the program so be it but I donot post BS btw did you see the fed's chairman's speach on the riseing debts and the problems they are causing, that was made today

you can have my rampant consumerism when you pry it out of my dead cold hand. i'm doing the world a service. someone's got to keep all those chinese factory workers occupied.

quote Originally posted by ray b: ok Steve I wait on your explaination of how the moon causes EL NINO or how the earth's magnetic field (deflects storm tracks) ......

while the moon does not cause El Nino - it does effect all ocean flows. ALL. even tho El Nino is not directly a ocean flow - it is affected by ocean flow.
ever see northern lights? where you think that comes from? do you think its cause and effect are completely inert?

quote Originally posted by lurker: you can have my rampant consumerism when you pry it out of my dead cold hand. i'm doing the world a service. someone's got to keep all those chinese factory workers occupied.

What's the alternative? Money does absolutely NO good unless it changes hands.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: while the moon does not cause El Nino - it does effect all ocean flows. ALL. even tho El Nino is not directly a ocean flow - it is affected by ocean flow. ever see northern lights? where you think that comes from? do you think its cause and effect are completely inert?

and the effect on global warming and the weather is??????
I understand solar wind and charged particals and the northern lights
but how does that effect the weather???? or weather storms tracks???

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by ray b: and the effect on global warming and the weather is?????? I understand solar wind and charged particals and the northern lights but how does that effect the weather???? or weather storms tracks???

and yet atmosphereic CO2 content/mythical greenhouse gasses have earth shattering effects....

Lecture yesterday by PHD Dr. Timothy Ball, Professor of Climatology Sciences

just a few facts HE gave.

1. Slightly more than 3% of greenhouse gases is composed of carbon dioxide. Of that , .04% is human produced. 95% is water in various forms.

2. Plant life thrives with higher CO2 and thereby produces more oxygen.

3. Overall ice coverage worldwide is more or less constant, and varies by less than 4% annually.

4. Polar bears have INCREASED in numbers, not decreased as others would lead you to think.

5. Over last century, roughly 50% of glaciers have receded, and the other 50% has increased. Glasiers are controled by snowfall, NOT temperature.

6. Feedback, although not completely understood right now, is when water evaporates, leaving more landmass exposed. That landmass radiates more heat causing more evaporation putting moisture in the atmosphere to recool the planet. Therefore acts as a 'thermostat' keeping average mean temps.

7.Melting ice at the north polar cap does not increase water depth as it is a free floating ice mass already in the water. Melting ice cubes in a glass, do not melt and make the glass run over.

Those are just a few highlites........dont argue with me, do it with him. Hes more knowlegable than I on the matter. I just took the notes.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: 7.Melting ice at the north polar cap does not increase water depth as it is a free floating ice mass already in the water. Melting ice cubes in a glass, do not melt and make the glass run over.

good notes. gives us things to specifically check up on and refute, confirm, or scratch our collective heads over.

in the short term, the last one caught my eye. IIRC, ice melting in a glass actually lowers the fluid level in that glass, because the frozen water displaces more fluid than it actually consists of.

what i wonder is if this is also true of sea ice. does anyone know how salt in solution affects displacement? in other words, does a cube of salty ice floating and melting in salt water cause that water's level to rise or fall?

in any case, i was never given the impression that arctic thawing was supposed to be significantly responsible for sea-levels going up. i'm pretty sure i'd always heard that attributed to antarctic and glacial thawing.

edit: it appears that the good dr. ball is somewhat notorious in canada.

edit 2: item 6 appears to directly contradict the process of desertification.

edit 3: i wonder what portion of the arctic ice cap is sea ice, and what, snowfall. i would expect the glacial (snow) component to be pretty high... the melting of which would contribute to sea-levels rising, since it's not frozen out of the surrounding water. though there is the question of how much the level of that water can be attributed to the weight of that snow (bearing in mind the buoyancy of seawater). numbers. need numbers here.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 03-01-2007).]

He said feedback works both ways, one is positive and other is negative. I didnt take any other notes on that. All the global warming people ive heard seem to want to say the coast are going to be submerged because of all the melting ice ???

just some reading material........http://www.fcpp.org/main/pu...detail.php?PubID=864

I really liked this part....

" Yes, when David Anderson or the federal government says we are going to stop climate change, it is the most ludicrous statement in the history of the world. The climate changes all the time and dramatically. All you have to do is sit here in Manitoba and imagine that just 20,000 years ago, which in the Earth’s history is nothing, you would have been sitting under about 1,000 meters of ice. In fact, 20,000 years ago there was an ice sheet covering Canada that is larger than the current Antarctic ice sheet. All that ice melted in less than 5,000 years and we are not even sure where all the heat energy and the causes of that melting that occurred came from. So to suggest that the fractional amounts of CO² that humans are putting up has any influence on global climate is really quite ludicrous."

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 03-01-2007).]

ice is ice most of the salt is expelled
leaving mostly water without much salt in sea ice
while floating ice has no net effect to water levels
the artic ice cap is getting thinner and also covers less area
and ice cover on greenland is the sea level rise risk
along with the antartic cap on land

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: What's the alternative? Money does absolutely NO good unless it changes hands.

i'm not really sure what to think about modern materialist society. i think it's wonderful that we have so many things to choose from, and that we live so much farther from poverty, hunger and death than humanity as a whole has ever experienced. i also recognize that with more people than ever before, we've all got to do something, and *in general* the market system is as good or better than any other system for deciding what gets done and who does it. so there's just no use in us all trying to be hunter-gatherers or pastoralists or yeoman farmers.

i do find it a little disturbing that so much of our "worth" is tied up in non-productive activities like spectator sports and entertainment. and the amount of trash we generate is incredible. must everything be packaged in a plastic bubble? in a sense, fiero owners routinely do their part by keeping mostly-functional machines out of crushers and not demanding a new car every 3 years.

where to draw the line? i don't know. i routinely do useless things like post on internet forums and shoot holes in targets, which produce nothing but a sense of personal satisfaction and jobs for sysadmins and the people who make paper plates, my target of choice. i suppose if they didn't have jobs, they'd be getting into some other kind of trouble.

quote Originally posted by lurker: i'm not really sure what to think about modern materialist society. i think it's wonderful that we have so many things to choose from, and that we live so much farther from poverty, hunger and death than humanity as a whole has ever experienced. i also recognize that with more people than ever before, we've all got to do something, and *in general* the market system is as good or better than any other system for deciding what gets done and who does it. so there's just no use in us all trying to be hunter-gatherers or pastoralists or yeoman farmers.

What the market system has going for it is value. You get from the market what you bring to it. Not a big difference between what you brought to an ancient bazarre or what you put on ebay.

quote i do find it a little disturbing that so much of our "worth" is tied up in non-productive activities like spectator sports and entertainment. and the amount of trash we generate is incredible. must everything be packaged in a plastic bubble? in a sense, fiero owners routinely do their part by keeping mostly-functional machines out of crushers and not demanding a new car every 3 years.

I agree about the trash. There must be a better way. On the other subject...must everything we do be "productive"? All work and no play, you know? I think it makes life better than one which revolves only around production.

quote where to draw the line? i don't know. i routinely do useless things like post on internet forums and shoot holes in targets, which produce nothing but a sense of personal satisfaction and jobs for sysadmins and the people who make paper plates, my target of choice. i suppose if they didn't have jobs, they'd be getting into some other kind of trouble.

And that's the final point. We have almost 5 billion people. That's a lot of jobs to fill. I don't think we need that many farmers.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: And that's the final point. We have almost 5 billion people. That's a lot of jobs to fill. I don't think we need that many farmers.

are we having an agreement here?

quote Originally posted by lurker: are we having an agreement here?

Oh, crap. One of us musta made a wrong turn.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ray b:
the artic ice cap is getting thinner and also covers less area
--along with the antartic cap on land

Untrue. same area is covered within 4% - /+ . Some has shunk, some has increased.

--ice cover on greenland is the sea level rise risk

IFGreenland completely thawed, level of water on planet MAY increase as much a .02 of an inch. I think Id still keep my beach house.

i'd be interested where you've picked up the idea that most people suggesting the risks of climate change have warned about the "submergence" of coastlines.

the significance of rising sea levels, of course, depends on where you are. in the pacific oceans, at least one inhabited island has been evacuated, and i seem to recall that another one has effectively disappeared. vanuatu is probably under some threat.

here in the states, the marshlands would be threatened. which may or may not matter to you... it's a question of ecology.

while googling the question, i found this set of images, illustrating the actual submergence of coastal areas based on different levels of sea-level rise. it's interesting, but are many people seriously suggesting that the sea is going to rise 2 or more meters?

i don't think so. but, these are static maps. as we've seen, the real issue is tides, and how they're affected by the weather. i've not yet done the googling on it, but i rather suspect that even a one-inch increase in sea level will have a dramatic influence on the flood risk faced by many, many people.

more interesting:

http://news.nationalgeograp...28-mars-warming.html

Sure _seems_ to indicate that the current global warming trend may be related to solar, not (necessarily) man...

Thoughts?

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: [QUOTE]Originally posted by ray b: the artic ice cap is getting thinner and also covers less area --along with the antartic cap on land Untrue. same area is covered within 4% - /+ . Some has shunk, some has increased. --ice cover on greenland is the sea level rise risk IFGreenland completely thawed, level of water on planet MAY increase as much a .02 of an inch. I think Id still keep my beach house.

NOT EVEN CLOSE
artice sea ice was tracked by nuke subs opperation
they used sonar to track thickness of ice
avg thickness droped by over 1/2 in last 50 years
and total area is shrinking too not as much but far more then 4%
sat photos conferm this too

Greenland ice cap would rase water levels about 20 feet
if it all melts
.02 of an inch is not a real number for greenland found in any real study
just made up BS

your hooters girls may be cute
but are not a good teck data source
esp the blonds

http://news.nationalgeograp...41109_polar_ice.html

http://www.usatoday.com/wea...ting-polar-ice_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/wea...arctic-warming_x.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-b...ING.TMP&type=science

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?