Reply With Quote
Scientists predicted long ago that global warming would increase climatic instability, higher/longer heat waves, lower/longer cold waves.
SA had 60 triple-digit days in 2009. I can remember many summers when it never go above 95F.
How do these s say this with a straight face?
Last edited by DarrinS; 01-12-2010 at 12:19 PM.
Scientists predicted long ago that global warming would increase climatic instability, higher/longer heat waves, lower/longer cold waves.
SA had 60 triple-digit days in 2009. I can remember many summers when it never go above 95F.
Climatic instability existed before humans. So these scientists have successfully predicted something that has already been happening for millions of years. Good job.
You do these s?
Come again?
Corrected.
That's much clearer, thanks.
What your take on it?
Gettin old for you, too?
I've mentioned this before in another thread but the correlation between CO2 and the melting ice glaciers/caps has been do ented (at least in my mind) by Richard B. Alley who is the Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences at Penn State. His research do ents that with the rise of CO2 there is a coresponding increase in the melting of glaciers/caps. He do ented this over many thousands of years - approx. 750+IIRC - and showed a pattern of rise and fall having an approx. 135,000 - 150,000 year cycle. His research at the time - I think 2005/06 - showed that the Earth was reaching a previous high. His conclusion was that this is a natural cycle of the Earth and is somethng that we need to take into account. He believes that we are accelarating this cycle but not the cause of it.
So in my mind the Earth isn't the one in trouble - we are. It's been here for billions of years and until the sun goes nova will continue. We might not though.
What to do? We have the intellectual power to come up with solutions but do the leaders/politicians of this world have the courage to make the sacrifices neccessary? Going green would be helpful and if I'm not mistaken the sun provides in one day all the energy this world consumes in one year. Now how to harness it. In London they are developing a power source that would be equal to the sun's but it wont be ready until 2030 if that. I would feel a little uncomfortable living in London if I knew that the British government had a power plant that could generate the energy of the sun. That is going to be a hard sell IMO since if it ever malfunctioned like Chernoybol? God save the ???? Wont be anything left to save.
This world has been given the opportunity - if that is an accurate term - to solve a problem of epidemic proportions and in the process come together to solve other ones. What will happen I really don't know but something is going to give in the next decade or two. Where the threshold of no return is I haven't a clue but it's always out there and one day we will cross it.
In the meantime continue and increase the development of:
Nuclear power - Hydrogen is the most abundant and cleanest source of energy available in the universe.
Wind and Solar Power - as a complimentary step to combine with nuclear when it becomes more available and safer.
ocean/River currents - promising source but not real sure of the economics even though as of now there are projects successful at harnessing this source on a limited basis- I think the Brits/Irish are in joint a venture in the Norht Sea and NYC has a projrct, too. It's long term feasibility remains uncertain IMHO.
That's my two cents. Hey this may be irrelevant if what many believe will happen on 12/21/2012 will come true though.
So what bites us in the ass first? 12/21/2012 or global climate change? Or something completely different?
What makes you believe there is a problem of "epidemic" proportions? By piont of no return, are you referring to so-called "tipping points"? If a point of no return existed, why didn't "global warming" spiral out of control back when the Earth's temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration was much higher than today?
Great stuff. I could make a career out of this guy.
See how clever it is? It doesn't require a shred of proof.
Most paranoid delusions are intricate, but this is brilliant.
Gibbs' job is to give away nothing. If Gibbs disclosed a bias for certain previously disclosed conclusions abut the matter -- as I thought he did --- one might rationally conclude he meant to say so. But has he really said anything?
...sounds like bs. I think Gibbs can say practically literally anything about "what he thinks scientists will tell you", and not ever be telling a lie, technically.I think scientists will tell you that...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
