| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Anonymous" |
| Date: |
14 Mar 2005 06:58:57 PM |
| Object: |
Temperature IS Rising |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
WHILE THE WORLDLY "scientists" will argue all day long for and
against the reality of short-term and long-term global warming,
depending categorically on who's writing his or her paychecks
to skew measurements and interpretation of the data one way or
the other, unlike scientists, ice doesn't lie! In fact, ice is
melting significantly faster than it is accumulating worldwide.
And the exponential rate at which global warming is occurring
is much faster than is being reported even by its proponents
(meaning of course those who acknowledge that global warming
is happening, in contrast to others who effectively advocate
global warming by refusing to acknowledge that it's occurring).
But of course, the worldly will never admit to their own lies
and self-deluding subterfuge, and that's the way it's always
been. Global catastrophes have always been the ONLY way that
the worldly have been literally forced by the Gods to openly
confess that there is a man-made problem. Only when it happens
do the worldly curse God, spewing forth the usual immature and
foolish lies like "How could a loving God let such a terrible
tragedy happen to me?" and other such blasphemous projections
for which the worldly God-haters are so historically renowned.
With lakes recently appearing at the north pole, giant chunks
of ice breaking off Antarctica, glaciers melting all over the
place, rising rates of hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, storms,
etc. et cetera, the following is just another of myriad clear
examples of observable and tangible effects of global warming:
[begin quote http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/news/news.cfm?uNewsID=19111]
"Water crisis looms as Himalayan glaciers retreat
14 Mar 2005
Gland, Switzerland - Himalayan glaciers are among the
fastest retreating glaciers globally due to the effects of
global warming, and this will eventually result in water
shortages for hundreds of millions of people who rely on
glacier-dependent rivers in China, India and Nepal, warns
WWF, the global conservation organization.
A new WWF report - An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier
Retreat and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China -
reveals the rate of retreat of Himalayan glaciers
accelerating as global warming increases. The report
states that glaciers in the region are now receding at an
average rate of 10-15 metres per year.
"The rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers will first
increase the volume of water in rivers, causing widespread
flooding," said Jennifer Morgan, Director of WWF's Global
Climate Change Programme. "But in a few decades this
situation will change and the water level in rivers will
decline, meaning massive economic and environmental
problems for people in western China, Nepal and northern
India."
Himalayan glaciers feed into seven of Asia's greatest
rivers (the Ganges, Indus, Brahmaputra, Salween, Mekong,
Yangtze and Huange He), ensuring a year-round water supply
to hundreds of millions of people in the Indian
subcontinent and China. As glacier water flows dwindle,
the energy potential of hydroelectric power will decrease
causing problems for industry, while reduced irrigation
means lower crop production.
Nepal has an annual average temperature rise of 0.06* C
per year. The report shows that three of Nepal's snow-fed
rivers have shown declining trends in discharge. In China,
the report shows that Qinhai Plateau's wetlands have seen
declining lake water levels, lake shrinkage, the absence
of water flow in rivers and streams, and the degradation
of swamp wetlands. In India, the Gangotri glacier, which
supports one of India's largest river basins, is receding
at an average rate of 23 metres per year.
The report is released on the eve of a two-day ministerial
roundtable of the 20 largest energy using economies in the
world, including China and India, followed by a G8 meeting
of development and environment ministers focusing on
climate change and on Africa. Both meetings are hosted by
the UK government in London from 15-18 March. WWF has sent
a letter to participating ministers, stressing the need to
recognize climate change as an issue that seriously
threatens security and development prospects.
"Ministers should realize now that the world faces an
economic and development catastrophe if the rate of global
warming isn't reduced," said Jennifer Morgan. "They need
to work together on reducing CO2 emissions, increasing the
use of renewable energy and implementing energy efficiency
measures."
[end quote]
Now, recall C. Hapgood & A. Einstein's well-informed theory:
"In a polar region there is continual deposition of ice,
which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole.
The earth's rotation acts on these unsymmetrically de-
posited masses, and produces centrifugal momentum that
is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth. The
constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in
this way will, when it has reached a certain point pro-
duce a movement of the earth's crust over the rest of
the earth's body..."--Albert Einstein, from his foreword
to professor C.H. Hapgood's 'Earth's Shifting Crust' p.1
Hapgood's geological estimations for previous catastrophic
crustal displacements agreed with Edgar Cayce's extensive
psychic readings, altogether which this table is based on:
PATH OF THE POLES
epoch geographical north pole new position
200,000 BC Equatorial Guinea to ?? ?? ??
???,000 BC ?? to Yukon 63N 135W
50,000 BC Yukon to E. of Greenland 72N 10E
28,000 BC Greenland Sea to Hudson Bay 60N 73W
10,100 BC Hudson Bay to Arctic 90N 0E
Quoting from an article dated 11/30/2001, similar crustal
displacement was observed to occur on Jupiter's moon Europa,
conspicuously without giving credit to Hapgood and Einstein
who'd very specifically described it decades before:
"'This extra thick layer of ice near the poles wants to
spin out toward the equator'... But because the ice is
locked into a global crust, it cannot simply spin out
in all directions. Instead, the entire shell of the
moon wanders. This effect was originally predicted by
Gregory Ojakangas and David Stevenson in 1989."
I like the way they say "originally", as if Hapgood and
Einstein never existed! (That's typical of the worldly.)
But by all accounts of global warming proponents, for the
polar ice to be melting off BEFORE a crustal displacement,
this polar melt-off is historically unprecedented, giving
rise to the very real possibility--even probability--that
the melting ice will soon yield to the centrifugal momentum
of Earth's own asymmetrically-distributed crust, such that
we'll realize that it was the previously-stable polar ice
that was compensating for the asymmetry of Earth's crust,
thereby preventing the (contemporary) crustal displacement.
Had the industrial revolution and therefore man-made global
warming not've occurred, then polar ice would've continued
to build up, and yet another crustal displacement would've
probably ensued in any case. So the argument can be made
that global warming or not, catastrophic displacements of
Earth's crust are an inevitable condition, reflection, or
more precisely the *RESULT* of mans fallen Adamic nature.
This points ultimately to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ
in 31 AD, and his eternal and unassailable Dominion over
the entire planet Earth--down to its very core. Think of
it. Rather than causing just a crustal displacement, the
whole bulk mass of the Earth--crust and all--will return
to a more stable and perpendicular aspect of rotation to
the ecliptic, such that Earth's terrestrial equator and
caelestial equator will gradually become nearly co-planar,
not 23.4 some-odd degrees oblique like they are situated
today. So global warming is serving a far greater purpose
than just destabilizing the Earth, and we who are called
apocalyptic millenarianists have much to look forward to.
By contrast, the worldly have much to fear, much indeed...
In Vigilance,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.geocities.com/daniel_joseph_min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
Download Free Books by Daniel Joseph Min:
http://danieljosephmin.tripod.com/
http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/danieljosephmin/
http://www.freewebs.com/danieljosephmin/
http://danieljosephmin.95mb.com/
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
http://www.geocities.com/daniel_joseph_min/
http://danieljosephmin.0catch.com/
http://danieljosephmin.50megs.com/
http://danieljosephmin.150m.com/
http://danieljosephmin.741.com/
http://danieljosephmin.faithweb.com/
http://danieljosephmin.greatnow.com/
http://danieljosephmin.action-links.net/
http://free.hostdepartment.com/d/danieljosephmin/
http://danieljosephmin.arcadepages.com/
http://www.danieljosephmin.netfirms.com/
http://www.webhosting4free.biz/danieljosephmin/
http://danieljosephmin.aboutme.com/
http://danieljosephmin.freespaces.com/
http://danieljosephmin.freeweb.to/
http://danieljosephmin.mvhosted.com/
http://www.web-space.tv/danieljosephmin/
http://danieljosephmin.wtcsites.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQjXub5ljD7YrHM/nEQKI2ACeLpvhZ8vd7IZ/jimJkWRT+P0kwNEAnj4A
ABthcg3zm3VLxBIQI6yLZBfv
=HjE2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
14 Mar 2005 11:53:36 PM |
|
|
"Anonymous" <nobody@bikikii.ath.cx.invalid> wrote in message
news:X6F2IW5038425.7909375@anonymous.poster...
With lakes recently appearing at the north pole, giant chunks
of ice breaking off Antarctica, glaciers melting all over the
place, rising rates of hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, storms,
etc. et cetera, the following is just another of myriad clear
examples of observable and tangible effects of global warming:
<Big snip>
Lakes appearing at the north pole? Its a fucking ocean!
.
|
|
|
| User: "mikelist mutterer@notime" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
15 Mar 2005 03:26:09 PM |
|
|
George wrote:
"Anonymous" <nobody@bikikii.ath.cx.invalid> wrote in message
news:X6F2IW5038425.7909375@anonymous.poster...
With lakes recently appearing at the north pole, giant chunks
of ice breaking off Antarctica, glaciers melting all over the
place, rising rates of hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, storms,
etc. et cetera, the following is just another of myriad clear
examples of observable and tangible effects of global warming:
<Big snip>
Lakes appearing at the north pole? Its a fucking ocean!
It wasn't a good description, but ice is melting on top of the ice, and
in some places, unprecedented amounts of open, fresh (from ice
melt)water exist where it is usually ice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
15 Mar 2005 05:45:28 PM |
|
|
"mikelist" <mutterer@notime> wrote in message
news:42374f67$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
George wrote:
"Anonymous" <nobody@bikikii.ath.cx.invalid> wrote in message
news:X6F2IW5038425.7909375@anonymous.poster...
With lakes recently appearing at the north pole, giant chunks
of ice breaking off Antarctica, glaciers melting all over the
place, rising rates of hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, storms,
etc. et cetera, the following is just another of myriad clear
examples of observable and tangible effects of global warming:
<Big snip>
Lakes appearing at the north pole? Its a fucking ocean!
It wasn't a good description, but ice is melting on top of the ice, and in
some places, unprecedented amounts of open, fresh (from ice melt)water exist
where it is usually ice.
That I can believe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tedd Jacobs" |
|
| Title: REQ: trim your groups!! was: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
15 Mar 2005 06:37:13 PM |
|
|
most of usenet (or at least most of the participants in the listed groups)
dont care about min, his predictions, _or_ those who respond. unfortunately
there are those who insist in creating a thread based upon his crossposts
and do so without trimming the groups they post to.
in the past two days this one thread has resulted in over fourty off-topic
crossposts by fifteen users.
please, in the interest of common courtesy, if you must reply; trim the
non-relevant groups so that those of us who have min killfiled are not
subjected off topic crossposting pollution that results in so many flame
wars between groups.
we allready know his posts are crap anyway. thanks.
(f-ups set)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
15 Mar 2005 03:34:19 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics mikelist <mutterer@notime> wrote:
George wrote:
"Anonymous" <nobody@bikikii.ath.cx.invalid> wrote in message
news:X6F2IW5038425.7909375@anonymous.poster...
With lakes recently appearing at the north pole, giant chunks
of ice breaking off Antarctica, glaciers melting all over the
place, rising rates of hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, storms,
etc. et cetera, the following is just another of myriad clear
examples of observable and tangible effects of global warming:
<Big snip>
Lakes appearing at the north pole? Its a fucking ocean!
It wasn't a good description, but ice is melting on top of the ice, and
in some places, unprecedented amounts of open, fresh (from ice
melt)water exist where it is usually ice.
And how is this a problem of any sort?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mikelist mutterer@notime" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
15 Mar 2005 08:27:55 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In sci.physics mikelist <mutterer@notime> wrote:
George wrote:
"Anonymous" <nobody@bikikii.ath.cx.invalid> wrote in message
news:X6F2IW5038425.7909375@anonymous.poster...
With lakes recently appearing at the north pole, giant chunks
of ice breaking off Antarctica, glaciers melting all over the
place, rising rates of hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, storms,
etc. et cetera, the following is just another of myriad clear
examples of observable and tangible effects of global warming:
<Big snip>
Lakes appearing at the north pole? Its a fucking ocean!
It wasn't a good description, but ice is melting on top of the ice, and
in some places, unprecedented amounts of open, fresh (from ice
melt)water exist where it is usually ice.
And how is this a problem of any sort?
In itself it isn't. However, it's an indication of more water being
released into the oceans as less of it is locked up as a solid in
glacial accumulations. Not much of a problem unless the cycle really is
intensifying, but indications are that it is.
If you don't understand how this could be a problem, you shouldn't be
tootling your favored view in public. It may or may not be substantially
caused by human intervention, but it is happening.
.
|
|
|
| User: "I.E_Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
15 Mar 2005 08:55:52 PM |
|
|
"mikelist" <mutterer@notime> skrev i meddelandet
news:4237961f$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics mikelist <mutterer@notime> wrote:
George wrote:
"Anonymous" <nobody@bikikii.ath.cx.invalid> wrote in message
news:X6F2IW5038425.7909375@anonymous.poster...
With lakes recently appearing at the north pole, giant chunks
of ice breaking off Antarctica, glaciers melting all over the
place, rising rates of hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, storms,
etc. et cetera, the following is just another of myriad clear
examples of observable and tangible effects of global warming:
<Big snip>
Lakes appearing at the north pole? Its a fucking ocean!
It wasn't a good description, but ice is melting on top of the ice, and
in some places, unprecedented amounts of open, fresh (from ice
melt)water exist where it is usually ice.
And how is this a problem of any sort?
In itself it isn't. However, it's an indication of more water being
released into the oceans as less of it is locked up as a solid in
glacial accumulations. Not much of a problem unless the cycle really is
intensifying, but indications are that it is.
If you don't understand how this could be a problem, you shouldn't be
tootling your favored view in public. It may or may not be substantially
caused by human intervention, but it is happening.
The problem for this to be related or unrelated to human intervention can be
seen on almost every study there is. First of all what's 'absolutely'
certain is that the 1930's peak of a shorter warmer period wasn't seen every
where so goes for all other shorter or longer periods where the temperature
fluctuate from 1800 to today. We have too short sequences of analysing and
the analyse data is weak. We work with medium temperature not from one area
but from several, still we don't cover can't cover all places on earth so
the observations that are put into it for us to receive a
'mediumtemperature' for each year donesn't cover more than 66% of our Earth.
Which in itself is a lot since more than 66% of our Globe's surface is water
not land.
Now comes the weak part of the mathematic formula used for a potential
scenario: They don't have correct data for Bronze Age......... None of the
studies has taken into consideration what we know from artifacts found,
biologic data from preserved animals that need certain temperature and
vegetation to live etc. For Scandinavia there is a descrepance of 4 degrees
in the calculation of medium temperature and what's estimated. Several
regions of the world haven't such data to be used at all....
While it's certain that freons and PCB are a major problem one way or an
other, the way we today 'take care of' our wastes in many cases are more
dangerous than the old depositions. Chemicals are needed in process of
recycling. Some of them have a much larger impact on nature than anyone
today seem to understand. It's also a problem when people tend to live
concentrated in or around major cities. Of course one would think that the
infrastructure helped prevent to much transportation, but that's not the
case. Too many people live too far away from where food, and other things,
are produced. Thus food needs to have added chemicals or procedure to remain
'fresh' until eaten. Transportation of food 'costs' leakage from
transportsystems. Some more than other. Not to mention that minerals and
such are transported here and there to be used in productions which in older
ages were done closer to home and thus the waste products will be found in
other areas then where the containing chemicals origin were gained to be
used in production. That's a problem.
The problem of melting Ice in Arctic and Antarctic isn't such a problem as
many seems to belive. If those who tries to put this forward had gone thru
the historic data from Ice Ages and such they would have known that much
less Ice existed in the Arctic as late as during Viking Age. But of course
that's one thing we aren't supposed to discuss. Never the less when I was
one of those who were responsible for a symposium in late 1970's discussing
these questions most of the scholars at that time were certain(!) that
before the end of 1990's the medium Ocean level should have risen at least 5
meters(!) and that the Netherland and other low countries would have been
completely flooded. I don't have the actual figure - but we aren't there and
we probably would have had same figure as today human activity or not.
What's a problem is that due to the angle between incomming sunshine and the
angle of inclination that we have today happens at the same time as we are
having normal fluctuation and the earth is at the present distance in the
'Eclipse' orbite around the Sun. The impact of all this is that the cold
melting water causes major divergences than 'usual'(what we are accustomed
with) and that the impact from that factor causes large changes on the
hydrologic situations as well as on the Ocean's wind and sea-systems. Cold
water might not have been a problem hadn't it been that it happened exactly
when earth is in it's present 'position' in orbit.
Inger E
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
15 Mar 2005 08:41:50 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics mikelist <mutterer@notime> wrote:
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics mikelist <mutterer@notime> wrote:
George wrote:
"Anonymous" <nobody@bikikii.ath.cx.invalid> wrote in message
news:X6F2IW5038425.7909375@anonymous.poster...
With lakes recently appearing at the north pole, giant chunks
of ice breaking off Antarctica, glaciers melting all over the
place, rising rates of hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, storms,
etc. et cetera, the following is just another of myriad clear
examples of observable and tangible effects of global warming:
<Big snip>
Lakes appearing at the north pole? Its a fucking ocean!
It wasn't a good description, but ice is melting on top of the ice, and
in some places, unprecedented amounts of open, fresh (from ice
melt)water exist where it is usually ice.
And how is this a problem of any sort?
In itself it isn't. However, it's an indication of more water being
released into the oceans as less of it is locked up as a solid in
glacial accumulations. Not much of a problem unless the cycle really is
intensifying, but indications are that it is.
If you don't understand how this could be a problem, you shouldn't be
tootling your favored view in public. It may or may not be substantially
caused by human intervention, but it is happening.
You do know the Arctic is all ocean and the volume of ice+water is
greater than melted ice+water?
So how is this a problem?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cloud dreamer" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
15 Mar 2005 10:30:46 PM |
|
|
wrote:
You do know the Arctic is all ocean and the volume of ice+water is
greater than melted ice+water?
In other words, the Arctic Ice Cap melt will have neglible effect on
ocean levels......but....
So how is this a problem?
The problem is that the 2 mile thick ice field on Greenland is not in
the water and as it melts, it will increase ocean levels (as will any
other ice field on land in the Arctic and on the Antarctic continent).
It may take more than a century (or several) for the entire Greenland
icefield to melt but it will result in an ocean level increase that will
be a problem in this century (a predicted one metre rise before 2100 -
swamping the coastlines of place like Florida and Bangladesh, where 17
million people live less than a metre above sea level).
The real problem with the Arctic ice cap melt has to do with introducing
large volumes of fresh water into the ocean as explained here:
"Under normal circumstances, the famous warm waters of the Gulf Stream,
carrying heat absorbed in the tropics, move up the East Coast of the
United States and southeastern Canada and then angle toward Europe,
warming the overlying atmosphere and surrounding land as they go. As the
Gulf Stream system carries warm, salty water north, the atmosphere cools
it, making it dense enough to sink to great depths. The plunge of that
great volume of water helps propel a global system of currents sometimes
called the great ocean conveyor. But add too much fresh water, and North
Atlantic waters become less salty and less dense. They stop sinking. The
Gulf Stream slows or is redirected southward. Winters in the North
Atlantic region get significantly colder."
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_oped.html
This is why global warming means cooler temps for Eastern Canada and NW
Europe.
And this is only one effect of the melting ice cap. It would be
devastating to the Inuit people and the animals that rely on the ice to
survive.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
15 Mar 2005 11:08:13 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
You do know the Arctic is all ocean and the volume of ice+water is
greater than melted ice+water?
In other words, the Arctic Ice Cap melt will have neglible effect on
ocean levels......but....
So how is this a problem?
The problem is that the 2 mile thick ice field on Greenland is not in
the water and as it melts, it will increase ocean levels (as will any
other ice field on land in the Arctic and on the Antarctic continent).
It may take more than a century (or several) for the entire Greenland
icefield to melt but it will result in an ocean level increase that will
be a problem in this century (a predicted one metre rise before 2100 -
swamping the coastlines of place like Florida and Bangladesh, where 17
million people live less than a metre above sea level).
100 years is roughly 4 generations; plenty of time to decide about a
different place to live.
The real problem with the Arctic ice cap melt has to do with introducing
large volumes of fresh water into the ocean as explained here:
"Under normal circumstances, the famous warm waters of the Gulf Stream,
carrying heat absorbed in the tropics, move up the East Coast of the
United States and southeastern Canada and then angle toward Europe,
warming the overlying atmosphere and surrounding land as they go. As the
Gulf Stream system carries warm, salty water north, the atmosphere cools
it, making it dense enough to sink to great depths. The plunge of that
great volume of water helps propel a global system of currents sometimes
called the great ocean conveyor. But add too much fresh water, and North
Atlantic waters become less salty and less dense. They stop sinking. The
Gulf Stream slows or is redirected southward. Winters in the North
Atlantic region get significantly colder."
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_oped.html
This is why global warming means cooler temps for Eastern Canada and NW
Europe.
So the people, once again, move elsewhere.
And this is only one effect of the melting ice cap. It would be
devastating to the Inuit people and the animals that rely on the ice to
survive.
Who would then mover farther north or find other ways to survive, or
are the Inuit incapable of learning something new?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan McShane" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 08:38:41 AM |
|
|
<jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
news:d18evt$e5$1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_oped.h
tml
This is why global warming means cooler temps for Eastern Canada and NW
Europe.
So the people, once again, move elsewhere.
And this is only one effect of the melting ice cap. It would be
devastating to the Inuit people and the animals that rely on the ice to
survive.
Who would then mover farther north or find other ways to survive, or
are the Inuit incapable of learning something new?
<sarcasm on>
Just relocate, like the American Indians were forced to do, right?
That worked out very well for them.
<sarcasm off>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 09:06:47 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics Dan McShane <dgmoptics@erols.com> wrote:
<jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com> wrote in message
news:d18evt$e5$1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_oped.h
tml
This is why global warming means cooler temps for Eastern Canada and NW
Europe.
So the people, once again, move elsewhere.
And this is only one effect of the melting ice cap. It would be
devastating to the Inuit people and the animals that rely on the ice to
survive.
Who would then mover farther north or find other ways to survive, or
are the Inuit incapable of learning something new?
<sarcasm on>
Just relocate, like the American Indians were forced to do, right?
That worked out very well for them.
<sarcasm off>
Non sequitur, try again for a culture that moved or disappeared due to
climate changes.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Killian" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 12:08:08 AM |
|
|
cloud dreamer wrote:
The problem is that the 2 mile thick ice field on Greenland is not in
the water and as it melts, it will increase ocean levels (as will any
other ice field on land in the Arctic and on the Antarctic continent).
It may take more than a century (or several) for the entire Greenland
icefield to melt but it will result in an ocean level increase that will
be a problem in this century (a predicted one metre rise before 2100 -
swamping the coastlines of place like Florida and Bangladesh, where 17
million people live less than a metre above sea level).
OK, lets assume it all melts in a warmer climate. Doesn't warm air hold
more moisture than cooler air? Why should we assume that all of the melt
will end up in the oceans as liquid water? Shouldn't a significant
fraction stay in the warmer atmosphere as vapor? And what of rain that
might fall in formerly arid regions like the Sahara or Gobi deserts? I
suspect a large fraction would be trapped in the soils and remain in
those areas, and therefore would not be available to raise sea levels.
Computer climate models are wonderful tools for speculation and
research. But once you scratch the thin veneer of the underlying
assumptions, their limitations are all too obvious. IMO anyone who
advocates use of these naive models for developing public policy or to
allocate resources is playing the worst kind of politics.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "I.E_Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 01:51:17 AM |
|
|
cloud dreamer,
how about starting with having correct date for where the Norse Greenlander
lived in late 10th century up to 1550's? If you then check with maps up to
1544 and seacharts from 14th-16th century(there are such you know) where
it's shown that Greenland as we see it today doesn't at all look like the
one island on older maps - check the information from the maps and seacharts
with the latest known data for Greenland from the satelite-photos,
then you will know that a lot of the 'melting' Ice you speak of today never
was Ice at all during the Viking Age to late Medieval Age. That you can find
older Ice in it today depends on the way that Ice moves... it doesn't only
move on top you know.....
Compare the figures of the study above, it will only take you about 2-4 days
to get the data and maybe a week to analyse it... and go for old information
about the sealevel for the areas you discuss. Florida never had any Ice Coat
during the last Ice Age so it's not been rising.... but..... and so on.
You will find that you are creating a disasterous rumor and myth spreading.
Is it your goal to frighten people or are you interested in presenting
correct data?
Inger E
"cloud dreamer" <invalid@invalid.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:113fdjhnfprf19d@corp.supernews.com...
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
You do know the Arctic is all ocean and the volume of ice+water is
greater than melted ice+water?
In other words, the Arctic Ice Cap melt will have neglible effect on
ocean levels......but....
So how is this a problem?
The problem is that the 2 mile thick ice field on Greenland is not in
the water and as it melts, it will increase ocean levels (as will any
other ice field on land in the Arctic and on the Antarctic continent).
It may take more than a century (or several) for the entire Greenland
icefield to melt but it will result in an ocean level increase that will
be a problem in this century (a predicted one metre rise before 2100 -
swamping the coastlines of place like Florida and Bangladesh, where 17
million people live less than a metre above sea level).
The real problem with the Arctic ice cap melt has to do with introducing
large volumes of fresh water into the ocean as explained here:
"Under normal circumstances, the famous warm waters of the Gulf Stream,
carrying heat absorbed in the tropics, move up the East Coast of the
United States and southeastern Canada and then angle toward Europe,
warming the overlying atmosphere and surrounding land as they go. As the
Gulf Stream system carries warm, salty water north, the atmosphere cools
it, making it dense enough to sink to great depths. The plunge of that
great volume of water helps propel a global system of currents sometimes
called the great ocean conveyor. But add too much fresh water, and North
Atlantic waters become less salty and less dense. They stop sinking. The
Gulf Stream slows or is redirected southward. Winters in the North
Atlantic region get significantly colder."
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_oped.h
tml
This is why global warming means cooler temps for Eastern Canada and NW
Europe.
And this is only one effect of the melting ice cap. It would be
devastating to the Inuit people and the animals that rely on the ice to
survive.
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 11:14:10 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In sci.physics mikelist <mutterer@notime> wrote:
In itself it isn't. However, it's an indication of more water being
released into the oceans as less of it is locked up as a solid in
glacial accumulations. Not much of a problem unless the cycle really is
intensifying, but indications are that it is.
If you don't understand how this could be a problem, you shouldn't be
tootling your favored view in public. It may or may not be substantially
caused by human intervention, but it is happening.
You do know the Arctic is all ocean and the volume of ice+water is
greater than melted ice+water?
So how is this a problem?
You do know that the seas contain *brine* and not pure water?
The density of polar sea water at 0C is around 1.028 g/cm^3.
Consequently ice floating in the polar regions when it melts will
displace about 3% more volume as water in the sea. This should be easily
verifiable in a school chemistry lab with modest equipment for the
sceptics and denialists...
Anyway the major sea level rises come from land based glaciers melting
and also from bulk thermal expansion as the oceans warm up.
Regards,
Martin Brown
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 12:02:14 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics mikelist <mutterer@notime> wrote:
In itself it isn't. However, it's an indication of more water being
released into the oceans as less of it is locked up as a solid in
glacial accumulations. Not much of a problem unless the cycle really is
intensifying, but indications are that it is.
If you don't understand how this could be a problem, you shouldn't be
tootling your favored view in public. It may or may not be substantially
caused by human intervention, but it is happening.
You do know the Arctic is all ocean and the volume of ice+water is
greater than melted ice+water?
So how is this a problem?
You do know that the seas contain *brine* and not pure water?
The density of polar sea water at 0C is around 1.028 g/cm^3.
Consequently ice floating in the polar regions when it melts will
displace about 3% more volume as water in the sea. This should be easily
verifiable in a school chemistry lab with modest equipment for the
sceptics and denialists...
Anyway the major sea level rises come from land based glaciers melting
and also from bulk thermal expansion as the oceans warm up.
Regards,
Martin Brown
OK, so over a couple of generations sea levels rise and people move
inland.
So what?
Maybe the Gobi Desert will turn into a jungle again.
If you expect anything in life to remain static you're in for a huge
disappointment.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cloud dreamer" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 01:01:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
OK, so over a couple of generations sea levels rise and people move
inland.
So what?
That has to be the most short-sighted, if not idiotic, statement I've
ever seen. If you can't understand the problems associated with moving
100's of millions of people "inland" then you are in need of a great
deal of education.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 01:58:53 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
OK, so over a couple of generations sea levels rise and people move
inland.
So what?
That has to be the most short-sighted, if not idiotic, statement I've
ever seen. If you can't understand the problems associated with moving
100's of millions of people "inland" then you are in need of a great
deal of education.
You want some cheese and crackers with that whine?
Population centers have been shifting since the cave man days and that
is not about to change.
We're talking about something that would happen over several generations,
not a couple of days.
You have to build new buildings, roads, etc. anyway over that time span
as stuff becomes antique and wears out.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cloud dreamer" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 02:16:54 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
wrote:
OK, so over a couple of generations sea levels rise and people move
inland.
So what?
That has to be the most short-sighted, if not idiotic, statement I've
ever seen. If you can't understand the problems associated with moving
100's of millions of people "inland" then you are in need of a great
deal of education.
You want some cheese and crackers with that whine?
Population centers have been shifting since the cave man days and that
is not about to change.
We're talking about something that would happen over several generations,
not a couple of days.
You have to build new buildings, roads, etc. anyway over that time span
as stuff becomes antique and wears out.
Like I said - absolutely no comprehension of what massive population
displacement would mean.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 02:42:36 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
OK, so over a couple of generations sea levels rise and people move
inland.
So what?
That has to be the most short-sighted, if not idiotic, statement I've
ever seen. If you can't understand the problems associated with moving
100's of millions of people "inland" then you are in need of a great
deal of education.
You want some cheese and crackers with that whine?
Population centers have been shifting since the cave man days and that
is not about to change.
We're talking about something that would happen over several generations,
not a couple of days.
You have to build new buildings, roads, etc. anyway over that time span
as stuff becomes antique and wears out.
Like I said - absolutely no comprehension of what massive population
displacement would mean.
You would be hard pressed to find 10's of millions of people world wide
living so close to the coast, let alone 100's of millions.
In any given location, maybe a million, but still not likely except for
a few places like New York or Hong Kong.
Yeah, the sky is falling.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
17 Mar 2005 04:50:02 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
wrote:
OK, so over a couple of generations sea levels rise and people move
inland.
So what?
You lose a lot of low lying fertile river delta land that happens to
among the most densely populated on the planet.
Like I said - absolutely no comprehension of what massive population
displacement would mean.
You would be hard pressed to find 10's of millions of people world wide
living so close to the coast, let alone 100's of millions.
It isn't living close to the coast that is the issue. It is living below
some contour line when the sea level rises. Most of Florida will go for
a start - perhaps that would serve as a wake up call to the US?
London isn't very close to the sea but it is still subject to serious
risk of tidal flooding and has active flood defences. Few places in the
UK are more than 50 miles from the sea. Most Australians live pretty
near the edge of the continent - they at least have plenty of
uninhabited space to retreat into. The same is not true elsewhere.
In any given location, maybe a million, but still not likely except for
a few places like New York or Hong Kong.
And many other coastal major/capital cities of the world like Tokyo.
Several populous and low lying entire countries are especially
vulnerable like The Netherlands and Bangladesh.
Regards,
Martin Brown
.
|
|
|
| User: "DustyMars" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
18 Mar 2005 06:47:22 AM |
|
|
In article <d1bncm$8sj$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk says...
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
OK, so over a couple of generations sea levels rise and people move
inland.
So what?
You lose a lot of low lying fertile river delta land that happens to
among the most densely populated on the planet.
Like I said - absolutely no comprehension of what massive population
displacement would mean.
You would be hard pressed to find 10's of millions of people world wide
living so close to the coast, let alone 100's of millions.
It isn't living close to the coast that is the issue. It is living below
some contour line when the sea level rises. Most of Florida will go for
a start - perhaps that would serve as a wake up call to the US?
London isn't very close to the sea but it is still subject to serious
risk of tidal flooding and has active flood defences. Few places in the
UK are more than 50 miles from the sea. Most Australians live pretty
near the edge of the continent - they at least have plenty of
uninhabited space to retreat into. The same is not true elsewhere.
In any given location, maybe a million, but still not likely except for
a few places like New York or Hong Kong.
And many other coastal major/capital cities of the world like Tokyo.
Several populous and low lying entire countries are especially
vulnerable like The Netherlands and Bangladesh.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Bull
--
RustyMars
"Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us
only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep."
.....Ralph Waldo Emerson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
17 Mar 2005 08:46:30 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
OK, so over a couple of generations sea levels rise and people move
inland.
So what?
You lose a lot of low lying fertile river delta land that happens to
among the most densely populated on the planet.
Like I said - absolutely no comprehension of what massive population
displacement would mean.
You would be hard pressed to find 10's of millions of people world wide
living so close to the coast, let alone 100's of millions.
It isn't living close to the coast that is the issue. It is living below
some contour line when the sea level rises. Most of Florida will go for
a start - perhaps that would serve as a wake up call to the US?
London isn't very close to the sea but it is still subject to serious
risk of tidal flooding and has active flood defences. Few places in the
UK are more than 50 miles from the sea. Most Australians live pretty
near the edge of the continent - they at least have plenty of
uninhabited space to retreat into. The same is not true elsewhere.
In any given location, maybe a million, but still not likely except for
a few places like New York or Hong Kong.
And many other coastal major/capital cities of the world like Tokyo.
Several populous and low lying entire countries are especially
vulnerable like The Netherlands and Bangladesh.
Regards,
Martin Brown
And eventually existing mountains will fall and new ones will arise.
Let's get our knickers in a knot over that while we're in panic mode.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
17 Mar 2005 10:40:43 AM |
|
|
Martin Brown wrote:
You lose a lot of low lying fertile river delta land that happens to
among the most densely populated on the planet.
It isn't living close to the coast that is the issue. It is living
below
some contour line when the sea level rises. Most of Florida will go
for
a start - perhaps that would serve as a wake up call to the US?
London isn't very close to the sea but it is still subject to serious
risk of tidal flooding and has active flood defences. Few places in
the
UK are more than 50 miles from the sea. Most Australians live pretty
near the edge of the continent - they at least have plenty of
uninhabited space to retreat into. The same is not true elsewhere.
And many other coastal major/capital cities of the world like Tokyo.
Several populous and low lying entire countries are especially
vulnerable like The Netherlands and Bangladesh.
So.
Change happens.
You can't stop it.
You *can* prepare and adapt.
You won't make any friends (at least among *productive* people) through
interminable whining.
The earth is getting warmer. It doesn't matter why, and pointing
fingers of blame will not do anyone any good.
What *will* do some good is developing heat-tolerant crops and planning
for the coming changes in climate.
What are *you* doing about it? I've selected a home well above sea
level.
"Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature's inexorable imperative." - H.
G. Wells
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cloud dreamer" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 03:19:34 PM |
|
|
wrote:
You would be hard pressed to find 10's of millions of people world wide
living so close to the coast, let alone 100's of millions.
In any given location, maybe a million, but still not likely except for
a few places like New York or Hong Kong.
Sixteen million in Bangladesh alone.
Another seventeen million in Vietnam.
That's only two countries out of how many?
Hundreds of millions more are in India, Thailand, Indonesia, the
Sechelles, Maldives, Sri Lanka, China, Taiwan, Japan, the Koreas,
Africa, South America, the Caribbean, the Mediteranean, The US,
Canada....etc etc etc.
You do the math.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "spiral_72" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 03:31:53 PM |
|
|
I think we should colonize the moon and ship all the extra people there.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 03:44:09 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
You would be hard pressed to find 10's of millions of people world wide
living so close to the coast, let alone 100's of millions.
In any given location, maybe a million, but still not likely except for
a few places like New York or Hong Kong.
Sixteen million in Bangladesh alone.
And how many live right on the coast?
Another seventeen million in Vietnam.
And how many live right on the coast?
That's only two countries out of how many?
Hundreds of millions more are in India, Thailand, Indonesia, the
Sechelles, Maldives, Sri Lanka, China, Taiwan, Japan, the Koreas,
Africa, South America, the Caribbean, the Mediteranean, The US,
Canada....etc etc etc.
And how many live right on the coast?
You do the math.
Los Angeles County has a population of just under 10 million. Of that,
a few thousand at most live right on the coast.
You do the math or are you too busy watching Water World?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cloud dreamer" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 04:22:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Los Angeles County has a population of just under 10 million. Of that,
a few thousand at most live right on the coast.
The figures I quote come from studies that tabulated how many would be
affected by rising water levels NOT just how many lived on the coast.
You do the math or are you too busy watching Water World?
Insulting remarks are a sign of a lost argument.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 05:24:04 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com wrote:
Los Angeles County has a population of just under 10 million. Of that,
a few thousand at most live right on the coast.
The figures I quote come from studies that tabulated how many would be
affected by rising water levels NOT just how many lived on the coast.
Define "affected".
Over several generations, Balboa Harbor goes away to be replaced with
something else. Hundreds of boat owners are affected. Big deal.
New Orleans has been sinking into the ocean since the day it was
settled. Are people there affected? Yes. Shall we run through the
streets wailing and rending our shirts in agony?
You do the math or are you too busy watching Water World?
Insulting remarks are a sign of a lost argument.
And your insulting remarks aren't? Pot, kettle, black.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cloud dreamer" |
|
| Title: Re: Temperature IS Rising |
16 Mar 2005 05:53:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In sci.physics cloud dreamer <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
wrote:
Los Angeles County has a population of just under 10 million. Of that,
a few thousand at most live right on the coast.
The figures I quote come from studies that tabulated how many would be
affected by rising water levels NOT just how many lived on the coast.
Define "affected".
Over several generations, Balboa Harbor goes away to be replaced with
something else. Hundreds of boat owners are affected. Big deal.
New Orleans has been sinking into the ocean since the day it was
settled. Are people there affected? Yes. Shall we run through the
streets wailing and rending our shirts in agony?
You do the math or are you too busy watching Water World?
Insulting remarks are a sign of a lost argument.
And your insulting remarks aren't? Pot, kettle, black.
Calling your arguments shortsighted, which they continue to be, isn't
insulting. It's a fact.
..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
