How THEY handled rising sea levels

[kbs2244]

The idea that we, as humans, have anything to do with this whole climate change this is a classic example of the size of the human ego.

I still remember a day in 7th year science class. We were due to start the geology section of the class book. The teacher had an orange fruit on his desk that he passed around the class. He told us to be sure to look at the bumps and dimples in the skin.

Then came the kicker. In ratio, the distance from the top of Mt Everest to the bottom of the Philippine Trench was less than the distance from the top of one of the bumps on the orange to the bottom of one of its dimples.

The point is, that as small as the Earth is in the universal scheme of things, it is way too big to be threatened by anything something as small as humans can do.

Those who think they can stop climate change will have as much success as the legendary king that tried to stop the tide.

[Digit]

Those who think they can stop climate change will have as much success as the legendary king that tried to stop the tide.

I'm with you, and with Min, on this. I doubt we can counteract the forces involved, but as Min says, we could do a lot less damage in our time here.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

The point is, that as small as the Earth is in the universal scheme of things, it is way too big to be threatened by anything something as small as humans can do.

Then your teacher missed the point. There is an interesting series of shows out called "Life After People" which, in essence, points out that once we disappear natural forces on earth will obliterate any trace of our existence within a million years or so and demonstrates how all of our monumental buildings will not stand up to the ravages of time.

The issue is not, and really never has been, can man destroy the planet? The issue is can we turn the planet into something which will destroy US. Forget the power plants and cars for a moment. 4 billion people every day light cooking fires. To suggest that this does not add to greenhouse gas emissions is naive. 4 billion of anything is a lot.


Anyway, the late, great, George Carlin touches on the idea.

http://green.thefuntimesguide.com/2009/ ... comedy.php

[E.P. Grondine]

I can think of much better reasons to go all nuclear.
Fission for the 21st century, fusion for beyond.

It's funny how none of the AGW folks consider that an option.

[Digit]

AGW isn't science as presented EP, it's religion!

Roy.

[kbs2244]

As is usual, George says it well.
It is a comment on the state of human affairs that you have to be a comic to be able to get a message like this out.
But then Samuel Clemens had the same problem.
And probably some Greek guys I don’t know about.

[Minimalist]

I can think of much better reasons to go all nuclear.
Fission for the 21st century, fusion for beyond.

It's funny how none of the AGW folks consider that an option.

Creating radioactive waste that will stay "hot" for a quarter of a million years seems like an odd way to solve a "pollution" problem.

[Minimalist]

As is usual, George says it well.
It is a comment on the state of human affairs that you have to be a comic to be able to get a message like this out.
But then Samuel Clemens had the same problem.
And probably some Greek guys I don’t know about.

A fair point, kb.

We've reached the stage where only comics can state facts.

[Rokcet Scientist]

I can think of much better reasons to go all nuclear.
Fission for the 21st century, fusion for beyond.

It's funny how none of the AGW folks consider that an option.

Creating radioactive waste that will stay "hot" for a quarter of a million years seems like an odd way to solve a "pollution" problem.

That kind of nuclear waste is created only with nuclear fission processes, Min. So we need to store it – very carefully, of course – for only a century. Until we have nuclear fusion processes online. Fusion is so incredibly hot (think of the sun's interior) that we can then simply evaporate all that stored nuclear fission waste in the fusion reactors' plasma.
End of 'nuclear waste problem'. For good.

[E.P. Grondine]

AGW isn't science as presented EP, it's religion!

Roy.

Yes, but the AGW sceptics refuse to look at the holes in the ozone layer over the poles as well.

See my earlier comment in this thread on the Cambridge Conference, and my own unintended role in all of this.

When Bush Jr refused to ratify the Kyoto accords, he promised more money for climate research, and that money did not come through. If it had, we'd have a yeah or nay on this now, one way or the other, with certainty, and would not be howling at each other on various bbs. This bbs is supposed to center on archaeology, for example, and there are other bbs devoted to other topics where similar exchanges have occurred.

Given the sums of money involved, the one question I do have is who hacked the CRU computers. Whoever it was had plenty of time to put their own spin on the emails and timed their release very well.

Whether AGW is real or not, we have got to have a better energy policy in the US, and implementing it will not cost money, but save it. Also, it strikes me that as there are 6,000,000,000 people living on this planet, it would probably be a good idea to stop using our atmosphere as a dump. We can see what we've already done to our oceans and fish stocks.

[Digit]

I agree fully with that last para EP, but I would take you to task about the E-Mail hacking.
To my knowledge no one involved at the CRU or elsewhere has claimed that the hacked E-Mails are anything but genuine. They are threatening legal action against all concerned, if the find 'em. There would be no need for that if the leaked mails were altered, just release the originals.
Case won!

Roy.

[kbs2244]

I posted this a few days ago on the Global Warming thread.
The last rumor I heard on who leaked the e-mails was the Russians.
I don’t know the motive.

But…

This guy has connected all the dots.
And you can download his trail.
It seems to be well named by those that call it “ClimateGate.”

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming ... -timeline/

There was a famous quote that came out of the original “gate.”

“Follow the money.”

Here are some from him on this one.

“The story that emerges is not of a smoking gun, but of a 30-year time bomb whose fuse was lit in 1981, when — despite only a handful of scientists supporting it — the AGW theory was championed, without question, by the Press.”

“Lest there be any doubt that these scientists did anything wrong, Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology explains what the CRU documents reveal: “They are unambiguously dealing with things that are unethical and in many cases illegal. … We have scientists manipulating raw temperature data. … The willingness to destroy data rather than release it. The avoidance of Freedom of Information requests.” [66] Consequently while, the UEA and Pennsylvania State University said they were investigating the matter, the UK Met Office (which works closely with the CRU and relies heavily on its product) announced a three-year project to re-examine 160 years of temperature data, signaling its own lack of confidence in the CRU-based temperature record.”

And his conclusion?

“Science has come full-circle, taking a page from the medieval Church by using fear and persecution to silence skeptics. The oppressed have become the oppressors. Given that most professional scientific bodies and peer-reviewed journals have been active accomplices in this scandal, one wonders how many other so called scientific consensuses have been similarly engineered and waiting for their own ClimateGates before truth is known.”

The only problem with all this is that there has been too many powerful people that have been convinced to spend too much money for the truth to ever be acknowledged.

[Digit]

Going by the adverts today in the press and on TV the CO2 bandwagon rolls on!

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2008120428 ... opped.html

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12 ... th-plimer/
and here we have a list of refs at the end to support Moonbat's views, funnily enough most of the refs are by Moonbat!
He even argues that using the highest recorded temp year, and then claiming that the temps are dropping is wrong, that we should use a different year to show that temps have risen.
This is rubbish, temps have peaked and have fallen since, end of show.
His view isn't even a sensible argument!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Something is happening.





The accompanying text.

Alpine glaciers all over the world are retreating. The terminus of Switzerland’s Steigletcher receded while the ice thinned dramatically from 1994 to 2006. (Photographs copyright Jürg Alean and Michael Hambrey Glaciers, Online.)

[Digit]

That's perfectly valid Min, it does not alter the fact that temps peaked in '98 and have fallen each year since, whilst man made CO2 has risen during the same period.
Any argument based on GW being caused by our CO2 production must address that anomaly.

Roy.