Environmental Issues

[cableguy]

dear lord, i hope those two nuts havent started writing another debacle that runs counter to the first amendment... what a bad joke that turned out to be, and President Bush and the supreme court get shares of the blame as well... that crap should never have been put on paper, voted on, passed, or allowed to stand...

iceberg, whats wrong with gmos?? next, what is so great about organics?? seems to me, if you make a crop stronger and able to have a higher yield, there is more to go around, more people can be fed, and more things can be produced from said crops... i do love the eu... just when America seems to be reverting to the dark ages, europe kicks itself in the nuts--again... good socialism is still worse than bad capitalism..

 

[mindido]

One of the first examples of people being forced to move, apparently being attributed to global warming:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051205...wJrAlMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[cableguy]

saw it, its crap... vestigal storm surge is all that is... there is no permanent raising of sea level... it is proof of paranoia and evidence that some people make the right decision after getting flooded out... no mention of the frequency or height of previous "king tides" makes this article journalistically irresponsible and absent any true perspective or meaning...

that piece, and i mean that more than one way, is the result of looking at an action and comparing it to a preconcieved notion, then making an unjustified conclusion that includes a causative relationship between things that may not have anything to do with each other, or may not even exist... believe leftist reporting or the "there is no corruption, deciet, or dishonesty here" un if you want... i will stick to factual data...

the facts:
--king tides are higher tides, likely due to cyclonic activity (storms)
--king tides are not a new thing
--coastal villages get flooded out by king tides sometimes
--this village is relocating further inland after four floods due to king tides
--it is unknown if the island is subsiding (sinking)
--two islands disappeared in 1999, CAUSE UNKNOWN

the earth is covered with tectonic plates... these plates move in all three dimensions, meaning the elevation at a given point in time can CHANGE due to tectonic activity...

this article, like so many others, is primarily hype, panic, and speculation...

 

[cableguy]

however, a day later, this gem appeared... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1910322,00.html

apparently some rather large jellyfish have been found in disproportionate numbers away from where they usually are... because global warming is listed as a possible cause of this, i hereby submit that, having met the necessary criteria of "it might be," that this is further CONCLUSIVE proof that global warming IS DEFINITELY the cause of this abberation, and further, that mankind--specifically the American type-- is to blame...

in other news, the eskimos have filed a complaint in the to date unrecognized by the US (for a wide and diverse number of legitimate reasons) icc against the US for causing global warming... i have for some time now hoped that this very suit would be filed, though i would prefer it to be filed in a non-kangaroo court (apologies to endy)...

a legal case requires proof, and i look forward to the back and forth that will surely take place... i predict this complaint will end up being tossed out as frivolous, groundless, baseless, and hysterical... i also predict much gnashing of teeth and whining when this happens... i further predict that the followers of the religion that is "global warming caused by the US is the end of the world" will dwindle in numbers when the source of the data they worshipped is revealed for what it is--a farce...

meanwhile, the RECORD cold temps across signifigant portions of this great land will be trumpeted as either weather unrelated to climate, or as more proof of global warming... yep, record temps are unusual, and as all good students of global warming know, anything unusual is incontrovertible proof of global warming..

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html
http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif

 

[Iceberg]

saw it, its crap... vestigal storm surge is all that is... there is no permanent raising of sea level... it is proof of paranoia and evidence that some people make the right decision after getting flooded out... no mention of the frequency or height of previous "king tides" makes this article journalistically irresponsible and absent any true perspective or meaning...

that piece, and i mean that more than one way, is the result of looking at an action and comparing it to a preconcieved notion, then making an unjustified conclusion that includes a causative relationship between things that may not have anything to do with each other, or may not even exist... believe leftist reporting or the "there is no corruption, deciet, or dishonesty here" un if you want... i will stick to factual data...

the facts:
--king tides are higher tides, likely due to cyclonic activity (storms)
--king tides are not a new thing
--coastal villages get flooded out by king tides sometimes
--this village is relocating further inland after four floods due to king tides
--it is unknown if the island is subsiding (sinking)
--two islands disappeared in 1999, CAUSE UNKNOWN

the earth is covered with tectonic plates... these plates move in all three dimensions, meaning the elevation at a given point in time can CHANGE due to tectonic activity...

this article, like so many others, is primarily hype, panic, and speculation...

Complete and utter BULLSHIT!

See below:

http://www.cse.polyu.edu.hk/~cekslam/Paper/science39.pdf

http://funnel.sfsu.edu/courses/gm310/articles/GlblWrming20thCenturyCauses.pdf

http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/tuvalu.pdf (See Figure 12 on Page 22, especially.)

"Tide gauge data show that global average sea level rose
between 0.1 and 0.2 metres during the 20th century." (From page 4 of analysis below):

http://www.snvworld.org/cds/rgccre/Hyperlinks klimaat/IPCCscientificbase.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/16/8314.pdf

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BPPAL/$File/cost_of_holding.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/(alagce...l,20,101;linkingpublicationresults,1:100247,1

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/304/5677/1565

http://print.google.com/print?id=gf8tCa17nEcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&sig=sqnfEvjhal-2wJzz3INqkXmUWxE

 

[Iceberg]

Also, tectonic activity does not cause sea level rises at the rates we've seen over the course of the 20th century. They would cause rates of increase or decrease of maybe a few inches over the course of 10,000 years, not a few inches over the course of five decades.

King tides are eliminated from the data because the data are AVERAGES! The chaos in the system is, therefore, eliminated.

Blaming king tides is completely misleading, since these King high tides would be followed by King low tides. Tides are a cyclical system, not unbalanced as you seem to think they are.

The islands are stationary, having formed from undersea volcanic activity or being atolls. The sea levels are rising. Therefore, the water is inundating the islands.

Also, it is not "leftist reporting." It is reporting of the facts. Read Ross Gelbspan's "The Heat is On" and "Boiling Point," as well as Mark Lynas' "High Tide." You'll get the facts from there, as well as Bob Reiss' "The Coming Storm." In neither of these four books are there holes to be punched through their arguments.

 

[cableguy]

dude, i didnt post the article, and it did leave a LOT of room for speculation of any sort one wished to engage in... kindly re-read the article that was posted for us by nano, and then take what i posted in context to that article...

when i mentioned tectonic plates, it was not in relation to sea level, it was a rather reasonable suggestion that as these plates move, they affect the elevation of LAND, not of the sea... when an island sinks, it isnt always because the water level rose... similarly, if an island appears, it isnt always because the water level receded...

i challenge you to specifically point out where any of the facts i listed from that article are bullshit... please, enlighten us... what did i get wrong, aside from not buying into your assumption that global warming is causing ANY of this..

until such time as there is widespread agreement among scientists studying climate, i shall steadfastly refuse to add any of my hard earned dollars to the scare fund that has sadly manipulated you...

also, NOTHING on this planet is stationary... yep, i said it.. EVERYTHING moves... in all three dimensions... until your precious global warming theory is proven as fact, and until it is widespread among groups who arent liberal, any reporting in this vein is leftist, and it is a lie to say it isnt... it is also irresponsible, an example of poor journalism, and alarmist...

also, if there is such a thing as a king low tide, why was it not mentioned in this article?? a king tide is not cyclical, it is generally the result of a major storm (if i read that article correctly, and i believe i did)... this means that it is not a cycle, it is a singular event tied to a known occurrance...

regarding sea levels, again, the data set is statistically too negligible to mean anything outside a discussion of short term trends... you claim we have a century of sea level readings... i will counter that IF a mean sea level can be measured, it probably would have to be done so from orbit, meaning the data is no older than 40some odd years... in the life of a planet, that is only slightly more meaningless than the century you would like to claim... either way, its a drop in a large lake, and therefore meaningless...

update on king low tides... apparently they do exist, but i have better things to do than find out why... a king low tide apparently would have the effect of greatly INCREASING the land area of an island temporarily, just as a king tide would decrease it... apparently, king low tides are caused by global cooling... also, there was no mention in the brief search i did that ties a king low tide to a king tide...

fun stuff i learned from an individual who shares your thoughts on this subject... if one takes as a given (which i dont), a trend toward melting icecaps, both north and south, and also assumes that this will raise sea levels (i agree that this event, however unlikely, would have that effect), you are left with the curious case of greenland and some other coastal land masses that would actually grow despite rising sea levels... yep, if all the ice melted, and stayed melted for a few thousand years, greenland would rise up, leaving it a larger landmass than it is today... greenland is but a large island, and you claim islands dont move... interesting, eh??

 

[mindido]

Ice,

Don't you find it difficult to discuss any subject with someone who's primary source is a druggie? Seems like a real waste of time.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Speaking of shit moving, look what just fell into the sea!
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/02/D8E8E1C00.html

 

[t3sqr]

Hey Ice,
If you guys are really worried about all of this Global Warming crap, why don't you sweep it up in a pan and send it down to all of us here in High Mountain Desert area. Today it hit a HIGH temp for the day at 3 deg. F. (-16 C.) Three nights of below -10 F. (-23 C.) Hell's Bell's, it was warmer in Nome Alaska at 11 deg. F. (-11 C.) than it has been here. We'll take all of the global warming you got!!

 

[Iceberg]

also, if there is such a thing as a king low tide, why was it not mentioned in this article?? a king tide is not cyclical, it is generally the result of a major storm (if i read that article correctly, and i believe i did)... this means that it is not a cycle, it is a singular event tied to a known occurrance...

Then the term "King tide" is misplaced, because tides are cyclical in nature. If it came from a storm, then a storm surge would be far more appropriate.

fun stuff i learned from an individual who shares your thoughts on this subject... if one takes as a given (which i dont), a trend toward melting icecaps, both north and south, and also assumes that this will raise sea levels (i agree that this event, however unlikely, would have that effect), you are left with the curious case of greenland and some other coastal land masses that would actually grow despite rising sea levels... yep, if all the ice melted, and stayed melted for a few thousand years, greenland would rise up, leaving it a larger landmass than it is today... greenland is but a large island, and you claim islands dont move... interesting, eh??

What I meant by stationary was that it did not rise or decline by any noticeable rate over the last century. Of course, these islands rise or sink to some extent, but over millennia-scale periods.

The reason why the actual Greenland land mass would rise is decompression. The ice is such a great weight on the land that the land would act as a sponge or a mattress of sorts. When a weight is taken off the surface, the surface rises.

regarding sea levels, again, the data set is statistically too negligible to mean anything outside a discussion of short term trends... you claim we have a century of sea level readings... i will counter that IF a mean sea level can be measured, it probably would have to be done so from orbit, meaning the data is no older than 40some odd years... in the life of a planet, that is only slightly more meaningless than the century you would like to claim... either way, its a drop in a large lake, and therefore meaningless...

Sea levels can be monitored very well using very basic measurement techniques. For example, the use of metresticks (or yardsticks down there) and a permanent marker can yield very accurate results by averaging sea levels off a coast.

Satellites are not necessarily perfectly accurate in measuring changes in height, given that GPS systems cannot triangulate perfectly the location of an object, and can often be tens of metres off.

Hey Ice,
If you guys are really worried about all of this Global Warming crap, why don't you sweep it up in a pan and send it down to all of us here in High Mountain Desert area. Today it hit a HIGH temp for the day at 3 deg. F. (-16 C.) Three nights of below -10 F. (-23 C.) Hell's Bell's, it was warmer in Nome Alaska at 11 deg. F. (-11 C.) than it has been here. We'll take all of the global warming you got!!

There's where you're a bit confused about this issue. Climate change (or global warming) will likely result in more frequent and extreme weather and climatic events. The extra energy in the system brought on by higher temperatures will likely throw the jet stream into greater disarray, giving Central Alaska and the Canadian Territories a few winter days of -10 to 0 C (13 to 32 F) while sending cold Arctic air to places like Dallas and Atlanta, which may experience -15 C (0 F) days.

 

[cableguy]

once again, i was merely referencing an article that was neither written nor posted by me... the reference to king tides came from within that article, which your hysterical ally was using to proove global warming... the term is not mine, and i had never heard of it until i read that article...

a yardstick placed in any location wont tell you anything, other than what the local tide is for that specific spot... sea level is bigger than a specific point on a specific coastline... sea level itself is rather confusing to me, because although both ends of the panama canal open at sea level, they are at different elevations... dramatically different elevations...

perhaps there is a falling sea level somewhere that isnt being mentioned, that would accurately and scientifically account for your alleged sea level rise in the pacific... i dont know, and i wouldnt trust anyone believing in global warming to tell me of such a thing if they knew it existed... you see, IF this is true--and i will once again qualify it as the unscientific speculation of a non-scientist, which should lend it the same validity and credibility you give to global warming--it completely invalidates that part of the argument...

i was not joking when i was wishing for a global warming case to be filed in US court... that will be a very, very happy day for me... i doubt it will happen, though... it seems to me that it would have happened already if your side thought it had a solid case...

duke, the calving of a lava wall, similar to the calving of icebergs, is incontrovertable proof that President George W. Bush is solely to blame for global warming..

t3, wtf??? im used to those temps, and might even get a jacket out for them, but i assume you are in the American southwest somewhere, and that seems a bit off for that region... must be global warming... id loan you a jacket if i could, because they are saying teens and 20s for this weekend, with 30s likely saturday... i wont need one for that...

to all, because it pops up frequently... any oddity, whether it be weather-related, a geographical deformation, a new illness, or the french winning a war, should be attributed to global warming.... the science doesnt hold up, so hysteria and panic is the fallback position..

 

[endymion]

Scientists in the US have now said that in 50 years, the polar North Pole may be in Siberia.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051209/north_pole_051209/20051209?hub=World
Not neccesarily an envronmental impact item, just thought the idea of the magnetic poles moving was sort of interesting.
No-one has any idea why they move, or if they can actually (let's hope it doesn't) switch, but can you imagine if North Amerian became South America by a movement of the magnetic poles?

 

[mindido]

No-one has any idea why they move, or if they can actually (let's hope it doesn't) switch, but can you imagine if North Amerian became South America by a movement of the magnetic poles?

Hey endymion,

The article is correct in that we don't really know why the magnetic poles move, only that they do. But we also know that the magnetic poles do occasionally flip. If I remember correctly this happens about every 150,000 years or so. We know this because of magnetic readings taken at various places around the world. Perhaps the location most noted is at the seam between the North American and European plates. There has been a lot of research there that has demonstrated the magnetic pole flips.

 

[cableguy]

i have read similar things.. no recollection on the details, only that the poles switch periodically... not sure what effect, if any, that would have on anything that isnt a compass, though... magnetic north has also never to my knowlege been the same as true north... in the interest of many things, i believe that even if the poles swapped, the arctic would still be referred to as the north... too many map problems otherwise... we already have africa and its new nation du jour.. changing north to south and south to north would be too much work... also, would that alter the outcome of the war between the states??

 

[Iceberg]

Ahem...

"NOAA REPORTS WARMER 2005 FOR THE UNITED STATES, NEAR-RECORD WARMTH GLOBALLY HURRICANES, FLOODS, SNOW AND WILDFIRES ALL NOTABLE":

Dec. 15, 2005 — After a record-breaking hurricane season, blistering heat waves, lingering drought and a crippling Northeast blizzard, 2005 is ending as a warm year in the United States. It will come close to the all-time high global annual average temperature, based on preliminary data gathered by scientists at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. (Click on NOAA image for larger view of USA significant weather and climate events for 2005. Please credit "NOAA.")

(Continued...)

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2548.htm

 

[cableguy]

more indisputable proof of global warming...

 

[Iceberg]

Yes, indeed.

Another bit of proof:

Polar bears treading on thin ice

Climate change blamed for decline in population along Hudson Bay coast:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051224/POLAR24/TPEnvironment/

 

[cableguy]

dang, man... i must admit you may be on to something... there is also no more snow on my driveway or sidewalks... that is probably proof as well...

 

[Iceberg]

Not proof, but it just adds to the evidence supporting my point.