Global Warming

[Katy]

Quite queer? LOL...

I think I won't respond to discourse at the level of Gene Ray.

Please, give poor Gene some credit!

[Unidian]

Good point, Katy.

[MindExpansion]

Why do males find mammary glands arousing?

[Orasis]

I am concerned that modern society is not that modern at all.

Global warming/cooling is not a "new normal" it is an old process which the earth goes through over and over again.

The medieval warm period, the "little ice age" the cooling of 535-536 A.D - the mass exodus'es to Rome due to climate changes.. on and on and on.

The world is going to end, so let's do what the high priests and politicians say of course.. the priests simply changed from one gown to another.

---
What exactly does a global tax do? - Nothing, it goes right back into the pockets of those that we think will be "punished" the most, namely - Oil corps, who today pretty much run the government.

One giant con game and I am amazed that so many people are falling for it in 2007...

[Unidian]

Global warming/cooling is not a "new normal" it is an old process which the earth goes through over and over again.

The medieval warm period, the "little ice age" the cooling of 535-536 A.D - the mass exodus'es to Rome due to climate changes.. on and on and on.

But scientists agree that this is not such an event. It is human-driven. There is no debate about this among credible scientists. The false appearance of scientific debate is carefully manufactured by big corporations and their media outlets to protect their own financial interests, which would be hit hard by widespread environmental reform.

[sue hindmarsh]

Faust13 asked a couple of pages back:

Elizabeth wrote:
Good gracious, he even got [Sue] to call herself a man. You have to know she wouldn't have done that if not for this "woman" philosophy, so you know that is not an example of thinking for herself - so ironically, by calling herself a man, she exhibits "woman" as bad as the worst of them. What a puppy.

David Quinn wrote:
It's funny, but Sue has often been mistaken for a man ever since I have known her. For example, shopkeepers would often address her as "sir", and little kids would often wonder loudly to their parents, "why is that man wearing a skirt?".

Which is the more repulsive? A woman who mindlessly apes a man and reflects everything he values? Or a woman who is genuinely mannish?

Does her face look more like a man's David? I'm just curious, maybe it's physiognamy.

Well, funny enough, Dan and I were talking last week and he asked me if I'd seen Dave Hodges picture, and noted how similar he and I look (in that photo). And yes, Dave without the beard is the spitting image of me. I had a look at another picture of Dave on his myspace site, and there is a resemblance.

I had a photo of me somewhere - I'll try and dig it up and show you.

[My respects to (my brother) Dave.]

-
Sue

[Jamesh]

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

This is published on the US Senate Committee's Environment site.

What do folks think. I detest the article because I know it will lead to a lack of effort being applied to reducing pollution. Global warming, whether man-made or not, should not be spearated from the impact of pollution generally - but it will be in the minds of decision makers due to articles such as the above.

Nor does one know how many of these people have been paid to reverse their decision - you can guarantee that some will have been.

[Rhett]

What a crock of shit. Men are *sometimes* more solitary---if they have no gang or group of their own. That isn't the norm. Men are vastly more people-oriented; sports, ---shit, look at any job that needs to be done fast and correctly, and you'll find a group of men working intuitively together, while women gibber and chatter and do nothing.

(Christ, what people could learn by being out living life rather than learning of others in textbooks...)

Men do. Women talk. Men toss balls around with one another in a field---women bicker over prices at the shoe store. They twitter and stuff their faces with chocolate and hang out in malls having fun. Object-obsessed---the "group" around them is a herd. Ego-obsessed. Safety in numbers. Extra girls = extra mirrors to see themselves and be utterly sure they're extra-special pretty today...

(Women are herbivores---even information-wise. They gather it and either process it or find a reason to dismiss it. They create absolutely nothing, do they? Some with balls do, but that's rare.)

It takes a great coach to get a group of females, for sports for example, to stop whining long enough, crying and hissing long enough, boob-size-and-ass-size-measuring long enough, to be clear about a single task and work well as a team to get it the hell done. A fuckload of a lot of work and great coaching. Christ, look at a reality TV show (perfect glimpse into women collectively in society; micro-cosmic example), or any group of females in a mall trying to decide to do something. Yap yap, plot, scheme, teehee, trying to organize, delegate---and not do.

Meanwhile, men do it. Just fucking do it. Quickly, actively, aggressively, all in a team of people; faster than words. Faster than deliberation---intuition: a vastly, overwhelmingly "masculine trait." Or right-brainedness.

Naturally, men work well with others. That doesn't make them inherently individualistic; that is incidental. Masculism or right-brainedness does simplify, "less-is-better" of course, but it's more often a small pack for men. A squad. Team. Gang. Whichever.

This could deserve a new thread, but then again, it might just attract another gaggle of gossipers intent on drowning it out.


.

[Iolaus]

There is no debate about this among credible scientists.

Oh, please. There are many credible scientists who disagree. Unless you've defined credible to mean only those who toe the party line.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2478442170

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/sanandaji9.html

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350746/posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4066189.stm

http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5219_0_3_0_C/

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Greenland icemelt series

The National Wildlife Federation put this series out. I linked to day one for obvious reasons, but the later editions are even more interesting.

[daybrown]

Aside from what the media says, is what my own eyes show me over the course of the last 30+ years in the Ozarks. Southern species are moving in from TX and LA. Road Runners, Armadillo, Prickly Pear, and Magnolias doing fine even at the highest elevations. The seed catalogues say my last frost should be April 15, and the first Oct 15. I have not seen a season that short since I dont remember when. My strawberry crop was ruined last winter because it was so far along when a late frost hit it.

The hardwoods had also fully leafed out, and for a while there it looked like fall with all the dead leaves falling. A dude just 20 miles south of me has to mulch them to get them thru the winters, but his *banana* plants look damn impressive now. Down on the Arkansas river, 40 miles south of me, they aint had frost since the middle of last February. This summer it was unusually wet for them because of the monsoonal flow that usta peter out by the time it got to Shreveport.

Last winter I had collards & turnips that stayed green all winter. I read that farmers who finished putting in rice, soybeans, & cotton, then loaded their machinery on trucks and drove up to the Yukon to put in oats, rye, and potatos. But more southern parts of Canada had a poor grain harvest because it was so warm and dry up in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Next year, some will prolly try warmer climate hybrids from the US. The same warmth melted off all the snowpack in the Rockies, dried out the forests, and produced all the forest fires.

But the problem is not stopping global warming; like farming in the Yukon, it is adapting to it. i put in more turnips, and if the weather holds like I expect, will harvest sweet peas in a week or so. Dont ask a climatologist, ask a farmer.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

daybrown,

I really appreciate the personal observations. That's the kind of stuff that I'm interested in.

This summer was just a bit warmer than usual in Florida - enough that technically it was hotter, but it didn't really feel any different than usual. The southeast was not hit by enough hurricanes to refill the water supply, so suddenly they're talking about like 80 days of water left a bit north of here, and then they are all out. People are mad that no one said anything sooner, but the officials kept expecting it to all come back in one or two major storms - but that didn't happen.

Although we are still in a drought in this area, we did get our usual summer rain pattern more often than in the last few years (usually it rains in the late afternoon in Florida in the summer, and usually really hard, but only for a couple of hours at the very longest). I think that of all places, the more inland part of Tampa's going to fare pretty well.

Currently, the morning, evening, and night weather are really comfortable, and the days are not that bad. The cardinals started flying into the back yard about a month earlier than usual. The only truly remarkable thing here is actually the unremarkableness of the weather right now.

[daybrown]

I remember Tampa. Graduated from USF in 1971. But the consistent diff will be in the winters. I already read what I thot for a long time, that warmer water is making more humidity over land, and that is damping the temp fluctuations. I see it out my window right now. Humid gulf air streams north, but then when it comes up into the Ozarks, the sudden change in elevation turns it into fog. This went on all last winter. foggy more than frigid.

The average may not be that different, but the standard of deviation is so much less that you wont see frost, just chill. Which makes a huge diff to the wildlife. I saw robins here last February. I would not be surprised if they dont bother flying to South America any more, but just hang out on the Gulf coast. Got hummingbirds? I stopped feeding the little bastards when I realized that the concentration mite cause disease problems.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Ice melting faster than experts previously predicted. Now they are guessing more like what I'd been predicting.

[daybrown]

I dont doubt Global Warming is going on. I see it in my own own neck of Ozark woods as species from Texas move in. But I saw the Greenland ice core chart, which shows that its been going on since the end of the ice age 10,000 years ago. Man may be making it worse, but no way are we going to stop it.

I read the Chinese glyph for opportunity includes that of danger, and vice versus. Hominids succeeded because of adaptability, while other species went extinct; that's gotten worse, but that also has been going on.

I would not worry so much about flooding in Fl and the gulf coast, as the likelihood that, as the ocean warms, the power of hurricanes will be increased, We can expect to see more, or bigger, a new cat 6, or both. But, YMMV. Seems like NM and AZ have been getting more rain from tropical storms. We know how TX has seen floods.

Before the ice ages, Europe was a subtropical rain forest. They could see that again. But the center of North America and Asia, like Minnesota and the Altai, far away from the moderating effect of the sea would still get colder than fuck every winter. The Ozarks are kinda inbetween that; too far north for hurricanes, but still hit with cold snaps. The only thing to stop the wind between the north end of my house up on this ridge and the Yukon- is barb wire fence.

Whatever Global Warming does, its gonna do it differently in different places, and that'll have a huge effect on how you live. I can see being hit with a 200 mph hurricane would be an attitude adjustment. Ditto for forest fires out West. Scrub in Northern NM and AZ will be great for the cattle range, but if it dries out enuf and catches fire, there'll be hell to pay.

This kind of shit has destabilized the housing market. Charlie's sister cant sell her house in Tuscon. She's spending a fortune on a solar panel system for a new house here anyway, but now, we've had a week of cloudy wet weather that I know has dropped output by 90%. that Yukon wind is great for power, but we've had the gulf breeze along with that, which is diddly. The hydropower is doing good tho.

I got my greenhouse up, but the light level's been so low the greens aint really growing much. I noticed another dude puttin up another on my way to town the other day. Mite be giving FL some competition here with home grown veggies. Global Warming mite be needed to get a lotta folks thru the winter who cant afford high fuel prices.

The link you provided mentions permafrost melting. But the ground temps here have risen so much that I can take plants right thru the winter without having to heat the greenhouse. Hominid adaptation still at work.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

NOAA determines that the artic could be ice-free in the summer in 30 years, not 100 as previously predicted.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

from the other thread

Or haven't you heard that global warming is a natural cyclic occurrence?

At least partially disagreeing with Carl on that point. Although there is a cycle where the globe warms and cools, we are leaping out of the natural parameters of that cycle. Ignoring that is like leaving someone in a burning building because he had a fever anyway.

Probably subject for a separate thread.

and a few posts above the above link

If you have evidence to the contrary -- showing that global warming is chiefly a human-caused phenomenon -- please post it.

Here is the NOAA climate index, and in the post above I linked to the predictions of the ide melting in closer to 30 years than 100, but saving the best for last, here, with graphs and charts you can see the real deal on global warming, including the links between human activity and global warming under point 2.

[Carl G]

Elizabeth,

If there was any evidence in those links that global warming is chiefly human-caused I missed it. Is there any specific section that speaks to that?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

here, with graphs and charts you can see the real deal on global warming, including the links between human activity and global warming under point 2.

emphasis added

2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

[Carl G]

So you're saying that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 parts per million to 380 ppm is the chief cause of global warming.

What about the fact that other planets are also warming, and what about the fact that the last recorded warming of Earth (back in the 1800s, I believe) was also a time of increased sun spot activity?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The last recorded warming of Earth did not warm this much, nor did it warm this much during any of the warming periods discovered by analyzing Ice core samples from Antartica. I'm not saying that CO2 is the only cause of global warming, but I am saying that it is enough to shift the balance enough to cause a nasty chain reaction. It's enough to cause melting of the polar ice caps, which previously reflected more of the sun's rays of the ocean. Without this reflection, the oceans are also warming, and also releasing CO2 previously trapped below. Humans are the catalyst that knocked Earth out of homeostasis.

I don't have data on other planets warming, or how much they might have warmed in other warming periods. It may well be that other planets are warming as well, and maybe even more than Earth is warming because they do not have Earth's atmosphere to stabilize them. It seems that Earth is the only planet in our solar system that is currently able to sustain life as we are familiar with it, so obviously there is something different about Earth.

One difference that NOAA did not mention is that we currently have about 6.7 billion people on the planet, as opposed to the 2 billion that the planet sustained for quite some time. That many of us exhaling and passing flatulence has to be some kind of contributor, although that would be somewhat offset by the lack of dinosaurs and decreases in other types of animals.

Other planets have not gone through such significant changes as Earth has recently. Changes in circumstances lead to changes in results. Other planets are more likely to have reactions to increased sunspot activity similar to what they previously experienced, but Earth has had changes that those planets have not. Granted, Earth is a big place and it would take a lot to affect it, but 6.7 billion is a lot of people, many of them doing a lot of industrialized damage to the planet.

[Carl G]

Well, first of all there's nothing definitive in what you wrote or linked to, to point to humans as the chief cause of global warming.

Secondly, I'm not going to research it myself in depth. I did scan several Wiki pages, and there's nothing definitive there either. I did note that it was during medieval times, in Europe that the last big warming occurred (800-1400 A.D., roughly), not quite as warm as now, but a big spike nonetheless, especially with the cooler lead-up time for that one. Clearly the earth's climate has been in constant change, with likely warmer periods than this one (during dinosaur times), as well as ice ages.

And third, with your concerns about overpopulation, I'm not sure why you see global warming as such a bad thing.

[Tomas]

.


-Katy-
Well, the good news is I survive global warming.

-tomas-
Let's hope your marriage to Kevin survives :-)


-Katy-
The bad news is my parents' vacation home won't,

-tomas-
Talk them into drilling for oil, then you'll be on Easy Street. Be sure to have a pre-nup agreement with Kevin .. leaving him out of all the royalty payments. Leave his part to Nature Conservancy..


-Katy-
and the part of my family left near NYC and in Florida won't.

-tomas-
The only people around those parts are ghetto-dwellers :-(


-Katy-
Actually - it's far less dramatic than I thought it was going to be.

-tomas-
Yup, don't worry, be happy :-)

Clear-cutting a good share of the forests the past 200 years in North America hasn't helped, though :-(

Ditto the Amazon and Indonesia areas..


PS - You're avatar is quaint!

PPS - Have you considered judging Alex v. Diebert in The Crucible?

The judges would be:

Greg Shantz
Elizabeth Isabelle
Victor Danilchenko
Katy (You!)
Steven Coyle

[Carl G]

Tomas,

Is there any particular reason you are replying to a 2-year-old post from a member who hasn't posted in 2 years?

Shits and giggles?

[Tomas]

Why do males find mammary glands arousing?

They're like two globes and they're warm to the touch.

In the winter, they keep the hands warm.