 |
New Civilization News: Weatherman |
Category: Environment, Ecology 9 comments 24 May 2006 @ 06:43 by bushman : But,what was the weather like at the poles "before" the iceage? And what caused the iceage we are comming "out" of now? Was it a nuclear winter, a Comet? Layers upon layers of Earth don't lie. Antartica a landmass hidden in ice, but only there are old maps of that hidden landmass, how could this be, unless the ice wasnt there? Spose there could of been beings here with ground penetrating radar satilites back then. Or has it always been mankind's folies, over billions of years, that turned this planet to cinders, over and over again? 25 May 2006 @ 07:35 by koravya : The Earth don't Lie One can google “ice age cycles” and get a whole dirtbag full of articles about the complete set of theories that cover the last one billion years. Article at Wikipedia right at the top of the list wraps it all up in a nice little Wikipedia nutshell. I like the sentence describing the time, before time, when this globe was all but a complete iceball, with global sheets extending into the equatorial zones. One can follow the fluctuations of smaller cycles within a single cycle of the larger series of cycles, those that last many millions of years from one to the other. This dear planet is an old hand at this kind of stuff. She can turn dinosaurs into birds, so there’s no telling what she might be fixin’ to turn all of us into. In any case, this is our little teapot now, and we are init. And if someone wants to tell me that this is all out of our hands, I will probably have to agree with him or her, although I will suggest that it has been the industrial machine of the last two hundred years, all fossil fuel generated, that has been a very significant and perhaps primary catalyst for what we are about to witness. I’m not much of a physicist, but I do recall a little image about momentum. Once a little thing gets rollin’, like a snowball down a hill, initially propelled only by the constant force of gravity, accumulates mass, and starts rollin’ down that hill, bigger and bigger and faster and faster until it crosses the threshold of the avalanche. The atmosphere has been primed with an industrially generated load of carbon dioxide. For all our seemingly wild fluctuations in temperature on a day-to-day and season to season basis from one region to another, the whole test tube, especially considering that the oceans and attendant waters occupy two-thirds to three-fourths of the surface area, and certainly some large volume within the crustal basin, I get the impression that the world balance of equilibrium for any given state and between one state and another is very delicate, and when the researchers talk about one degree change in surface temperature, or in temperature at some depth of water, especially the sea floor, they are not talking trifles. We’ve made a little snowball of carbon dioxide and tossed it into the air. Hope you don’t mind the mixed metaphors. The little snowball is starting to roll down the hill. It’s gonna get bigger and its gonna roll faster. Why should you care, and why should I care? I’ve not been here for the first four billion years of the earth’s existence, and after a few more years, I’ll not be here for the next four billion years of this planet’s lifespan. She’ll go through ice ages and transform life forms like nobody’s business, and all of that will have nothing to do with either you or I. So like, What? Me Worry? It’s out of my hands, dude. Are we the self-appointed stewards of the Earth? And the cornucopia of its life forms, from the luscious rainforests to every nook and cranny you can stick your finger into. Are we the guardians? Obviously, not enough people have either the intelligence or will to care in an effective manner, because the deed has been done, and virtually nothing is standing in the way of the juggernaut. /// About the piri reis map, well, that's another interesting subject. http://www.sacred-texts.com/piri/pirireis.jpg What lies under that Antarctic icesheet is certainly an extremely interesting mystery. As for ancient technologies and insight, one need only look to the Egyptian pyramid complex, Stonehenge, and Tiahuanaco, Peru, and other such phenomena to begin to appreciate the possibilities of what once might have been./// 26 May 2006 @ 06:19 by jobrown : Hmmmmm..... .... like Tony likes to say! ; ) ... Been thinking a lot lately, hehhehe. Believe it -or not! ; ) The realization I have come to is how very little we can truly claim to know!... Who knows; maybe the way scientists have explained "everything" to be is totally off the ("TRUE" ; Cosmic) wall, so to speak! How can we be so sure, that the conclusions we've drawn (the scientists, that is ) are correct?!?!?!? We might see it all "that way", coz we're told to! On the other hand; scientists admit openly and freely that none of them UNDERSTANDS -not even- the Nature of Water, let alone anything more "complicated"!... So.... beats me! : ) 26 May 2006 @ 07:08 by bushman : Not so complicated, lol. But intresting :} "Scientist, scholar and author, Paul LaViolette presents astronomical and geological evidence of the occurrence of a global conflagration, catastrophic deluge, and mass extinction at the end of the last ice age. He links this with ancient records, revealing that an advanced antediluvian culture had met with an untimely demise. He shows that this climate altering event was triggered by intense cosmic ray winds arriving from the galactic center. He explains how the ancients have left us sophisticated messages encoded in myths and lores warning us of this recurring disaster which will arrive again with little warning." {http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/seakings.html} 26 May 2006 @ 20:41 by jmarc : because of gobal warming In 15 years, Al Gore said, there will be no more glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro. That is quite true, but the reason the glaciers are melting on Kilimanjaro is not global warming, but is most likely caused by a change in the local climate conditions due to deforestation along the base and lower slopes of the mountain. The forests provided a lot of moisture to the air that rose along the slopes of the mountain. As the warm moist air rose, it eventually cooled, condensed, and fell as rain and snow on and around the summit. No precipitation, no ice, no glacier. The deforestation wasn't caused by global warming but by people cutting firewood or clearing land for farming. According to [Douglas R.] Hardy, [a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst], forest reduction in the areas surrounding Kilimanjaro, and not global warming, might be the strongest human influence on glacial recession. "Clearing for agriculture and forest fires—often caused by honey collectors trying to smoke bees out of their hives—have greatly reduced the surrounding forests," he says. The loss of foliage causes less moisture to be pumped into the atmosphere, leading to reduced cloud cover and precipitation and increased solar radiation and glacial evaporation. That's but one example of the so-called truths that Al Gore and others point to as proof of anthropogenic global warming. Claims have been made by many that we're polluting the air and water as we never have before, that we're making our country unlivable and killing off wildlife in the process. Pete Du Pont says otherwise. Since 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, America's population has increased by 42%, the country's inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has grown 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the United States has more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven has increased by 178%. But during these 35 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%. When it comes to visible environmental improvements, America is also making substantial progress: • The number of days the city of Los Angeles exceeded the one-hour ozone standard has declined from just under 200 a year in the late 1970s to 27 in 2004. • The Pacific Research Institute's Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that "U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000." • While wetlands were declining at the rate of 500,000 acres a year at midcentury, they "have shown a net gain of about 26,000 acres per year in the past five years," according to the institute. • Also according to the institute, "bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs." Environmentally speaking, America has had a very good third of a century; the economy has grown and pollutants and their impacts upon society are substantially down. So who do you believe? I'll let you do the research so you can make up your own minds. But I know who it is I'm inclined to believe, and it isn't Al Gore. 26 May 2006 @ 20:54 by bushman : And still All the rest of the planets are showing signs of global warming as well. Let the super enviormentalists blame it on the spacecrafts we have sent, lol. Then again , simply that mankind is creating Hell on Earth, its the Hell thats heating everything up? 26 May 2006 @ 22:56 by jobrown : I think you hit a Human Consciense Nerve,Tony! ; ) "...its the Hell, that's heating everything up? " I think you nailed it right on, Buddy! : ) We are -after all- now starting to 'know' -through Dr Emoto's research- that even Water reacts to our emotions/mood, -let alone the impact of our actions and behaviour! -...so why not weather too!?!?... -or the very Climate Itself?!?!?!? Check out Emoto's web-site" www.hado.net So... What else is "out there" ?... yup; this is "out there" heheheh ; ) http://www.groveatlantic.com/grove/bin/wc.dll?groveproc~genauth~1497 27 May 2006 @ 07:17 by koravya : Thoughts Thank you, jmarc, for you input. I’ve looked at some of your sources. Pete duPont, a very successful former Republican governor of Delaware, Contributing this article to the Wall Street Journal Opinion Page, http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008416 also affiliated as an expert with the National Center for Policy Analysis http://eteam.ncpa.org/about/pete-du-pont http://www.ncpa.org/newdpd/index.php He refers to the Pacific Research Institute ***“The mission of the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) is to champion freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility for all individuals by advancing free-market policy solutions.” Which has just published the 2006 Index of leading environmental indicators http://www.pacificresearch.org/about/index.html from which is this excerpt. “What made the findings so surprising was that up to three-quarters of respondents said they expect the U.S. to suffer a biological or nuclear attack at some point in the next 20 years. Yet only a third considered global warming to be a significant threat. “We found this relative lack of concern surprising, given the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is occurring now, and that if unchecked, could be disastrous,” said Dr. Cheryl Kennedy, a psychiatrist at the New Jersey Medical School. http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/enviro/06_enviroindex/index.html# ***************-----__ With reference to the Kilamanjaro case, Here is a comment one might take into consideration. Of Risks and Denial by Oldtimer, May 5 2006 09:54 AM http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2006/04/29/195594/comments.html?comid=41622&f=item Competent scientists have built serious cases regarding the risks of peak oil and the human role in climate change. To crudely dismiss their conclusions as “idiocy” and “junk science” is disrespectful and imprudent in the extreme. Too much is at stake to indulge in cavalier attitudes regarding risks that are inconvenient and/or politically incorrect to acknowledge. In the case of climate change, especially, dismissing the accumulation of multiple lines of evidence for a human role in global warming has a ring of frantic denial. Anomalies – such as the local explanation for ice loss at Mount Kilimanjaro – have been cherry-picked to “prove” that greenhouse warming cannot and must not be occurring. True conservatism warrants dealing responsibly with threats for which serious evidence has been presented and that present real risks to human society, even if their timing and magnitude have not been pinned down to the nth detail. I leave this discussion with an excerpt from a recent speech that Senator Richard Lugar delivered to the Brookings Institution. Senator Lugar sums up our energy dilemma as cogently as any: “My message is that the balance of realism has passed from those who argue on behalf of oil and a laissez faire energy policy that relies on market evolution, to those who recognize that in the absence of a major reorientation in the way we get our energy, life in America is going to be much more difficult in the coming decades … In the absence of revolutionary changes in energy policy, we are risking multiple disasters for our country that will constrain living standards, undermine our foreign policy goals, and leave us highly vulnerable to the machinations of rogue states.” (Full text of Senator Lugar’s March 13, 2006 speech is on line at http://lugar.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=252509) With rebuttal following. Kilamanjaro seems to be a convenient basketball used on both sides of the issue, The Alarmists and the Non-Alarmists, as fodder for their arguments. Pesky scientific facts – doonesbury http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060305 Be all of that as it may, There are other places one might look to for information. Real climate – contributors http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10 RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=238 which includes a review of Al Gore’s movie. Al Gore’s movie by Eric Steig http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/#more-299 Along with various Seattle business and community leaders, city planners and politicians, a large group of scientists from the University of Washington got a chance to preview the new film, An Inconvenient Truth, last week. The film is about Al Gore's efforts to educate the public about global warming, with the goal of creating the political will necessary for the United States to take the lead in efforts to lower global carbon emissions. It is an inspiring film, and is decidedly non-partisan in its outlook (though there are a few subtle references to the Bush administration's lack of leadership on this and other environmental issues). Since Gore is rumored to be a fan of RealClimate, we thought it appropriate to give our first impressions. (more) *************---__- Another comprehensive useful source of information. Union of concerned scientists global warming science http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/ Global warming is already under way. The evidence is vast and the urgency of taking action becomes clearer with every new scientific study. Some of the most obvious signs are visible in the Arctic, where rising temperatures and melting ice are dramatically changing the region’s unique landscapes and wildlife—as well as people’s lives and livelihoods. Across the globe, other early warning signs include melting glaciers, shifting ranges of plants and animals, and the earlier onset of spring. Global warming is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that are emitted primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of forests. These gases remain in our atmosphere for decades or even centuries. The profound impact rising temperatures have had in the Arctic provides a window into a future we may all experience. With continued warming, we can expect more extreme heat and drought, rising sea levels, and higher-intensity tropical storms. At risk are our coastal property and resources, the livability of our cities in summer, and the productivity of our farms, forests, and fisheries. We can’t avoid all the consequences of global warming, but committing ourselves to action today can help ensure our children and grandchildren inherit a healthy world full of opportunity. Lots of stuff in there. Here is an item from some comments in review of a recent novel. Crichton's Thriller State of Fear: Separating Fact from Fiction http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/crichton-thriller-state-of-fear.html Michael Crichton's latest book State of Fear has characters debating data (complete with graphs and footnotes) and concepts that cast doubt on the validity of global warming evidence. This doubt is echoed in the author's message at the end of the novel and in public interviews. Readers may understandably take away some misconceptions from his book. To clear up these misconceptions, we have selected some representative cases to discuss; the list below, however, is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the errors in Crichton's book 1. How was Crichton able to take the same data that climate scientists use and come to the conclusion that global warming isn’t a real threat? Anyone can delve into the climate literature and come to a deeper understanding of global climate change evidence. Yet the literature examples Crichton picked, and the way they are presented, seem to make a case against global warming. Scientists with climate expertise have considered not just the narrow sampling of the scientific literature that Crichton cites but many hundreds of additional papers in order to understand the full complexity of the climate system. Climate scientists agree on the most basic key points while they continue to refine such questions as the magnitude and rate of climate change. The National Academy of Sciences, The American Geophysical Union, The American Meteorological Society, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have all issued statements affirming that climate change is underway, the impacts are significant, and humans have influenced recent climate changes. Although Crichton likes to claim that consensus is not relevant in science, we disagree. When scientists with climate-relevant expertise evaluate the data and the majority comes to the same basic conclusion, this is an important result. ***********---___--* I appreciate the dialogue. 29 Apr 2016 @ 09:07 by Bandar Togel @103.12.162.4 : brilliant! I would like to share this ar Togel Online Singapore Togel Online Hongkong Bandar Togel Singapore Bandar Togel Togel Online Terpercaya Bandar Togel Online Terpercaya Togel Online Agen Togel Online Terpercaya Agen Togel Online Other entries in Environment, Ecology 12 Jul 2010 @ 09:06: Human Energy Cap and Freeze 2010 27 Jun 2010 @ 09:37: Flood in Draguignan 31 May 2010 @ 09:12: The New Norm 29 May 2010 @ 10:27: The Transition Movie 28 May 2010 @ 01:03: Survival of the Enlightened 16 Apr 2010 @ 21:01: The Cloud - or Last call / Final Calling wake-up call ? 12 Mar 2010 @ 13:04: One photo and the memory it contained. . . 7 Mar 2010 @ 18:16: Sunday . . . at my computer 12 Nov 2008 @ 22:37: HAPPY SIXTH DAY - MAYAN CALENDAR CHANGE! 20 Apr 2008 @ 17:08: The Redemption Of Spring
|
24 May 2006 @ 04:16, by John Ashbaugh