|
So much for global warming . . .
"katy" wrote in message . com... KLC Lewis wrote: As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely subjective. I'm sure the dinosaurs were quite happy with the levvels of greenhouse gasses present during their existence...as were teh whooly mammoths during theirs. The earth changes. It always has, it always will and the living beings on the earth either adapt or die. The onl;y difference between us and the dinasaurs or mammoths is that we possess the hubris to think we are capable of changing the earth to any but but slight variances. I'm not saying that we should not be careful and guard what we do for the preservationof our own species, but the idea that we are responsible for global climitazation alone? The facts are that this earth is cyclical and that it is presently entering a new cycle. Yes, clean up the mess so we don't have to breathe it, eat it, or live in swill but realize that the warming and cooling of the earth is beyond our control short of a nuclear war. Yup, that's pretty much my feelings on the matter as well. I'm entirely in favor of converting to "clean" and "green" as much as is economically and technologically viable, and I'm more than confident that it's a relatively short matter of time before petroleum is consigned to history. But as you say, these things are to be done mostly because it's in our own best interest not to poop in the pool. I'm also confident that if there was a way that we could extract out own energy directly from the atmosphere with no need for power companies, power companies would still exist and find a way to charge us for that power. |
So much for global warming . . .
wrote in message ... On 8 Jan 2009 11:46:02 -0600, Dave wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:28:47 -0500, said: There was a time not so long ago, when the general worldwide consensus was that you could dump as much garbage in the oceans as you pleased because it was so vast that it could absorb it without any ill effects. It now appears they were wrong. Very wrong. Ya mean the conventional wisdom of the day, the "consensus," sometimes proves to be wrong? I'm shocked. Shocked. Could never happen to today's scientific "consensus." Then there was that whole "Flat Earth" thing when you were a boy. Ya, and Pluto was a planet five years ago. |
So much for global warming . . .
KLC Lewis wrote:
wrote in message ... On 8 Jan 2009 11:46:02 -0600, Dave wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:28:47 -0500, said: There was a time not so long ago, when the general worldwide consensus was that you could dump as much garbage in the oceans as you pleased because it was so vast that it could absorb it without any ill effects. It now appears they were wrong. Very wrong. Ya mean the conventional wisdom of the day, the "consensus," sometimes proves to be wrong? I'm shocked. Shocked. Could never happen to today's scientific "consensus." Then there was that whole "Flat Earth" thing when you were a boy. Ya, and Pluto was a planet five years ago. But there really is a Santa Claus.... |
So much for global warming . . .
"katy" wrote in message . com... KLC Lewis wrote: Ya, and Pluto was a planet five years ago. But there really is a Santa Claus.... Of course there is. He lives in Virginia. |
So much for global warming . . .
"katy" wrote in message
. com... KLC Lewis wrote: As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely subjective. I'm sure the dinosaurs were quite happy with the levvels of greenhouse gasses present during their existence...as were teh whooly mammoths during theirs. The earth changes. It always has, it always will and the living beings on the earth either adapt or die. The onl;y difference between us and the dinasaurs or mammoths is that we possess the hubris to think we are capable of changing the earth to any but but slight variances. I'm not saying that we should not be careful and guard what we do for the preservationof our own species, but the idea that we are responsible for global climitazation alone? The facts are that this earth is cyclical and that it is presently entering a new cycle. Yes, clean up the mess so we don't have to breathe it, eat it, or live in swill but realize that the warming and cooling of the earth is beyond our control short of a nuclear war. The dinosaurs lasted for 100M years, likely until a catastrophic event wiped them out over a very short period of time. The changes that are being discussed have happened over a period of less than 200 years, almost all of it is due to the industrial revolution. There's no doubt that the earth's climate varies a lot. There's also no doubt that the recent changes have been dramatic. If we don't address our own pollution, we won't have to wait very long. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et... wrote in message ... On 8 Jan 2009 11:46:02 -0600, Dave wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:28:47 -0500, said: There was a time not so long ago, when the general worldwide consensus was that you could dump as much garbage in the oceans as you pleased because it was so vast that it could absorb it without any ill effects. It now appears they were wrong. Very wrong. Ya mean the conventional wisdom of the day, the "consensus," sometimes proves to be wrong? I'm shocked. Shocked. Could never happen to today's scientific "consensus." Then there was that whole "Flat Earth" thing when you were a boy. Ya, and Pluto was a planet five years ago. Bzzzt. Pluto is a cartoon dog. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:16:20 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: Ya, and Pluto was a planet five years ago. Hell, a progressive was a liberal five years ago. I'm a liberal and a progressive. Bush is an idiot. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
"Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... Ya, and Pluto was a planet five years ago. Bzzzt. Pluto is a cartoon dog. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com So then what's Goofy? |
So much for global warming . . .
"katy" wrote in message
. com... KLC Lewis wrote: Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see just how much "concern" remains. At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should be studied. Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread? If you take the money away, the problem will go away, right? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message . com... KLC Lewis wrote: As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely subjective. I'm sure the dinosaurs were quite happy with the levvels of greenhouse gasses present during their existence...as were teh whooly mammoths during theirs. The earth changes. It always has, it always will and the living beings on the earth either adapt or die. The onl;y difference between us and the dinasaurs or mammoths is that we possess the hubris to think we are capable of changing the earth to any but but slight variances. I'm not saying that we should not be careful and guard what we do for the preservationof our own species, but the idea that we are responsible for global climitazation alone? The facts are that this earth is cyclical and that it is presently entering a new cycle. Yes, clean up the mess so we don't have to breathe it, eat it, or live in swill but realize that the warming and cooling of the earth is beyond our control short of a nuclear war. The dinosaurs lasted for 100M years, likely until a catastrophic event wiped them out over a very short period of time. The changes that are being discussed have happened over a period of less than 200 years, almost all of it is due to the industrial revolution. There's no doubt that the earth's climate varies a lot. There's also no doubt that the recent changes have been dramatic. If we don't address our own pollution, we won't have to wait very long. ANd maybe that's a good thing... |
So much for global warming . . .
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
... On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:02:18 -0500, hpeer wrote: As I said, my review has led to the conclusion that the arctic ice sheet is BOTH losing surface area and thinning. The VAST majority of information sources lead in one direction, Global Warming. Although still a bit of a skeptic I have to agree that the artic ice evidence is fairly compelling. There have been lots of historic variations in artic ice of course, none of which had anything to do with human activity. That is the crux of the issue in my opinion: Is the warming a result of some natural influence over which we have no control, or is it indeed a result of fossil fuel combustion, or some combination of both? I think the jury is still out and likely to remain so for quite a while. The quest for alternate fuels is a good thing however and should proceed full speed ahead regardless. There's nothing wrong with skepticism. That's a healthy, scientific mindset. There's a lot wrong with cynicism, which is what I've been reading in this thread. If you look at the data, it's pretty obvious that the dramatic difference is in the last 150 years or so. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
"Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... "katy" wrote in message . com... KLC Lewis wrote: Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see just how much "concern" remains. At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should be studied. Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread? If you take the money away, the problem will go away, right? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com That is partially my point, yes, but not entirely. Remove the "boondoggle" aspect, including all the government handouts, corporate welfare, grants, etc., and the clamor over "We've go to act NOW!" will likely diminish significantly. None of this is about "Saving the Planet," as it is being touted. Rather, it's about keeping the planet static -- which is an impossibility. In the course of human history, we have adapted to an ever-changing planet. That is what has allowed us to thrive. The most rational reaction to coastal flooding is to move further inland -- not to attempt to keep the oceans from rising. If Las Vegas runs out of water, it's not a national disaster, but chickens coming home to roost. The human ability to modify our environment only goes so far -- in the end, we have to accept that the Earth itself is far more powerful than we are, and adapt to its changes. |
So much for global warming . . .
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:16:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message yareasolutions... No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less than 1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political will. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the "scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling, caused by -- wait for it -- human activity. Only at *your* school. Time Magazine. Read the article. Get educated. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663607/posts Same stupid unfounded hysteria - only about the coming, man-caused ice age. Wilbur Hubbard How come, Wilbur? How come the pro-global warmers have no comments about this? A liberal magazine like Time? Should be their Bible. It is NOW that Time's on their side? Why do they ignore it when it's not on their side? Who's going to take them seriously THIS time? Other dimbulb people? Cheers, Gwen Ives |
So much for global warming . . .
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et... "Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... Ya, and Pluto was a planet five years ago. Bzzzt. Pluto is a cartoon dog. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com So then what's Goofy? Umm... talk to goofball. lol -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
"katy" wrote in message
. com... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message . com... KLC Lewis wrote: As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely subjective. I'm sure the dinosaurs were quite happy with the levvels of greenhouse gasses present during their existence...as were teh whooly mammoths during theirs. The earth changes. It always has, it always will and the living beings on the earth either adapt or die. The onl;y difference between us and the dinasaurs or mammoths is that we possess the hubris to think we are capable of changing the earth to any but but slight variances. I'm not saying that we should not be careful and guard what we do for the preservationof our own species, but the idea that we are responsible for global climitazation alone? The facts are that this earth is cyclical and that it is presently entering a new cycle. Yes, clean up the mess so we don't have to breathe it, eat it, or live in swill but realize that the warming and cooling of the earth is beyond our control short of a nuclear war. The dinosaurs lasted for 100M years, likely until a catastrophic event wiped them out over a very short period of time. The changes that are being discussed have happened over a period of less than 200 years, almost all of it is due to the industrial revolution. There's no doubt that the earth's climate varies a lot. There's also no doubt that the recent changes have been dramatic. If we don't address our own pollution, we won't have to wait very long. ANd maybe that's a good thing... You have a point, but I don't want to be miserable in the waiting room. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
... "Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... "katy" wrote in message . com... KLC Lewis wrote: Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see just how much "concern" remains. At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should be studied. Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread? If you take the money away, the problem will go away, right? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com That is partially my point, yes, but not entirely. Remove the "boondoggle" aspect, including all the government handouts, corporate welfare, grants, etc., and the clamor over "We've go to act NOW!" will likely diminish significantly. None of this is about "Saving the Planet," as it is being touted. Rather, it's about keeping the planet static -- which is an impossibility. In the course of human history, we have adapted to an ever-changing planet. That is what has allowed us to thrive. The most rational reaction to coastal flooding is to move further inland -- not to attempt to keep the oceans from rising. If Las Vegas runs out of water, it's not a national disaster, but chickens coming home to roost. The human ability to modify our environment only goes so far -- in the end, we have to accept that the Earth itself is far more powerful than we are, and adapt to its changes. Interesting way to look at the disaster that's our own making... I think we need to fix our problems, urgent problems that affect the hordes of people who would move away from the coasts (for example) but are unable to do so. There's an economic issue that is being swept under the rug with this sort of argument. Not only are the vast numbers of poor unable to "just move," but the cost of relocating them and/or populations centers is non-trivial, and would make the currect financial debacle look like a zit on a flea's butt. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
"katy" wrote in message
. com... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message . com... KLC Lewis wrote: As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely subjective. I'm sure the dinosaurs were quite happy with the levvels of greenhouse gasses present during their existence...as were teh whooly mammoths during theirs. The earth changes. It always has, it always will and the living beings on the earth either adapt or die. The onl;y difference between us and the dinasaurs or mammoths is that we possess the hubris to think we are capable of changing the earth to any but but slight variances. I'm not saying that we should not be careful and guard what we do for the preservationof our own species, but the idea that we are responsible for global climitazation alone? The facts are that this earth is cyclical and that it is presently entering a new cycle. Yes, clean up the mess so we don't have to breathe it, eat it, or live in swill but realize that the warming and cooling of the earth is beyond our control short of a nuclear war. The dinosaurs lasted for 100M years, likely until a catastrophic event wiped them out over a very short period of time. The changes that are being discussed have happened over a period of less than 200 years, almost all of it is due to the industrial revolution. There's no doubt that the earth's climate varies a lot. There's also no doubt that the recent changes have been dramatic. If we don't address our own pollution, we won't have to wait very long. ANd maybe that's a good thing... I like George Calin's joke about global warming and saving the planet... something like... the planet will be just fine, but the people won't be around... pack your bags folks.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
Capt. JG wrote:
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... "Capt. JG" wrote in message easolutions... "katy" wrote in message . com... KLC Lewis wrote: Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see just how much "concern" remains. At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should be studied. Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread? If you take the money away, the problem will go away, right? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com That is partially my point, yes, but not entirely. Remove the "boondoggle" aspect, including all the government handouts, corporate welfare, grants, etc., and the clamor over "We've go to act NOW!" will likely diminish significantly. None of this is about "Saving the Planet," as it is being touted. Rather, it's about keeping the planet static -- which is an impossibility. In the course of human history, we have adapted to an ever-changing planet. That is what has allowed us to thrive. The most rational reaction to coastal flooding is to move further inland -- not to attempt to keep the oceans from rising. If Las Vegas runs out of water, it's not a national disaster, but chickens coming home to roost. The human ability to modify our environment only goes so far -- in the end, we have to accept that the Earth itself is far more powerful than we are, and adapt to its changes. Interesting way to look at the disaster that's our own making... I think we need to fix our problems, urgent problems that affect the hordes of people who would move away from the coasts (for example) but are unable to do so. There's an economic issue that is being swept under the rug with this sort of argument. Not only are the vast numbers of poor unable to "just move," but the cost of relocating them and/or populations centers is non-trivial, and would make the currect financial debacle look like a zit on a flea's butt. It's somewhat ironic, the people who should be embracing this concept, that is that we should try to do something about global warming, man made or not, are the same who are saying "nothing can be done". There exists opportunity for making great gobs of money here. Just look at wind turbine production in the US. In 2006, there were only two blade production facilities in the US, by the end of 2008 there were eight. By 2011 the US is expected to exceed Germany in installed wind energy conversion plant. These things are not cheap, about a dollar a watt installed cost, and we are talking about thousands of megawatts, somebody is making money. That they are coincidently doing something positive for the environment is nice, but is certainly not the motive driving these installations. A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think tree huggers are providing the capital for these? Cheers Martin |
So much for global warming . . .
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... Interesting way to look at the disaster that's our own making... I think we need to fix our problems, urgent problems that affect the hordes of people who would move away from the coasts (for example) but are unable to do so. There's an economic issue that is being swept under the rug with this sort of argument. Not only are the vast numbers of poor unable to "just move," but the cost of relocating them and/or populations centers is non-trivial, and would make the currect financial debacle look like a zit on a flea's butt. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com By saying "just move," you trivialize the logistics of the problem, which is something I haven't done. I didn't say it would be easy, I didn't say it would be cheap. But there are many, many examples of former cities which are now under lots of water. Those who refused to move either grew gills or drowned. Probably doesn't matter a whole lot now, since they'd have died a few thousand years ago anyway, but my point remains. Building Pompeii and Herculaneum near the foot of Mt. Vesuvius was a reall bad idea, as it turned out. Those who moved before the blast got to live longer lives than those who were trying to build a big cork. |
So much for global warming . . .
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:58:20 -0500, Marty said: In 2006, there were only two blade production facilities in the US, by the end of 2008 there were eight. By 2011 the US is expected to exceed Germany in installed wind energy conversion plant. These things are not cheap, about a dollar a watt installed cost, and we are talking about thousands of megawatts, somebody is making money. That they are coincidently doing something positive for the environment is nice, but is certainly not the motive driving these installations. A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think tree huggers are providing the capital for these? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer money subsidizing these installations? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste in the environment as they feel like. Cheers Martin |
So much for global warming . . .
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Sea ice at same levels as 1979. Another nail in the coffin of global warming alarmists and kook believers. Wilbur Hubbard From the National Snow and Ice Data Center http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ 2008 year in review Arctic sea ice in 2008 was notable for several reasons. The year continued the negative trend in summer sea ice extent, with the second-lowest summer minimum since record-keeping began in 1979. 2008 sea ice also showed well-below-average ice extents throughout the entire year. The ice cover in 2008 began the year heavily influenced by the record-breaking 2007 melt season. Because so much ice had melted out during the previous summer, a vast expanse of ocean was exposed to low winter air temperatures, encouraging ice growth. Although still well below average, March 2008 saw slightly greater ice extent at the annual maximum than measured in recent years. However, the ice was also thin: less than a year old and vulnerable to melting in summer. Even the geographic North Pole was covered with thin ice, capturing the imaginations of many in the media and general public. Would 2008 break the 2007 record low summer minimum extent? Would the geographic North Pole be ice free for the first time in the satellite era? From May through July, cooler temperatures and winds less favorable to ice loss slowed the decline in ice extent. Nevertheless, by August the rate of ice loss was much faster than average—even faster than in 2007—as the effects of a warm Arctic Ocean worked against the thin ice cover. The melt season became a race: waning sunlight versus rapid ice loss. Ultimately, summer 2008 finished with the second-lowest minimum extent in the satellite record, 9% above the 2007 minimum and 34% below average. A more diffuse ice cover and a thinner pack nevertheless suggested a record-low ice volume (ice area multiplied by thickness) at the end of summer. As the sun set in the Arctic with the advent of autumn, seasonal ice growth was initially quite rapid, but slowed during early November. Average ice extent in December was well below average and very close to that measured in 2007. Heading into 2009, the Arctic sea ice cover is again young and thin; given this set-up, a continuation of well-below-average sea ice extent in 2009 is a near certainty. |
So much for global warming . . .
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Sea ice at same levels as 1979. Another nail in the coffin of global warming alarmists and kook believers. Wilbur Hubbard From the National Snow and Ice Data Center http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ 2008 year in review Arctic sea ice in 2008 was notable for several reasons. The year continued the negative trend in summer sea ice extent, with the second-lowest summer minimum since record-keeping began in 1979. 2008 sea ice also showed well-below-average ice extents throughout the entire year. The ice cover in 2008 began the year heavily influenced by the record-breaking 2007 melt season. Because so much ice had melted out during the previous summer, a vast expanse of ocean was exposed to low winter air temperatures, encouraging ice growth. Although still well below average, March 2008 saw slightly greater ice extent at the annual maximum than measured in recent years. However, the ice was also thin: less than a year old and vulnerable to melting in summer. Even the geographic North Pole was covered with thin ice, capturing the imaginations of many in the media and general public. Would 2008 break the 2007 record low summer minimum extent? Would the geographic North Pole be ice free for the first time in the satellite era? From May through July, cooler temperatures and winds less favorable to ice loss slowed the decline in ice extent. Nevertheless, by August the rate of ice loss was much faster than average—even faster than in 2007—as the effects of a warm Arctic Ocean worked against the thin ice cover. The melt season became a race: waning sunlight versus rapid ice loss. Oh, and this too from the same people. http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html DECLINE CAUSES Greenhouse gases emitted through human activities and the resulting increase in global mean temperatures are the most likely underlying cause of the sea ice decline, but the direct cause is a complicated combination of factors resulting from the warming, and from climate variability. The Arctic Oscillation (AO) is a see-saw pattern of alternating atmospheric pressure at polar and mid-latitudes. The positive phase produces a strong polar vortex, with the mid-latitude jet stream shifted northward. The negative phase produces the opposite conditions. From the 1950s to the 1980s, the AO flipped between positive and negative phases, but it entered a strong positive pattern between 1989 and 1995. So the acceleration in the sea ice decline since the mid 1990s may have been partly triggered by the strongly positive AO mode during the preceding years (Rigor et al. 2002 and Rigor and Wallace 2004) that flushed older, thicker ice out of the Arctic, but other factors also played a role. Since the mid-1990s, the AO has largely been a neutral or negative phase, and the late 1990s and early 2000s brought a weakening of the Beaufort Gyre. However, the longevity of ice in the gyre began to change as a result of warming along the Alaskan and Siberian coasts. In the past, sea ice in this gyre could remain in the Arctic for many years, thickening over time. Beginning in the late 1990s, sea ice began melting in the southern arm of the gyre, thanks to warmer air temperatures and more extensive summer melt north of Alaska and Siberia. Moreover, ice movement out of the Arctic through Fram Strait continued at a high rate despite the change in the AO. Thus warming conditions and wind patterns have been the main drivers of the steeper decline since the late 1990s. Sea ice may not be able to recover under the current persistently warm conditions, and a tipping point may have been passed where the Arctic will eventually be ice-free during at least part of the summer (Lindsay and Zhang 2005). Examination of the long-term satellite record dating back to 1979 and earlier records dating back to the 1950s indicate that spring melt seasons have started earlier and continued for a longer period throughout the year (Serreze et al. 2007). Even more disquieting, comparison of actual Arctic sea ice decline to IPCC AR4 projections show that observed ice loss is faster than any of the IPCC AR4 models have predicted (Stroeve et al. 2007). Ultimately, summer 2008 finished with the second-lowest minimum extent in the satellite record, 9% above the 2007 minimum and 34% below average. A more diffuse ice cover and a thinner pack nevertheless suggested a record-low ice volume (ice area multiplied by thickness) at the end of summer. As the sun set in the Arctic with the advent of autumn, seasonal ice growth was initially quite rapid, but slowed during early November. Average ice extent in December was well below average and very close to that measured in 2007. Heading into 2009, the Arctic sea ice cover is again young and thin; given this set-up, a continuation of well-below-average sea ice extent in 2009 is a near certainty. |
So much for global warming . . .
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... Interesting way to look at the disaster that's our own making... I think we need to fix our problems, urgent problems that affect the hordes of people who would move away from the coasts (for example) but are unable to do so. There's an economic issue that is being swept under the rug with this sort of argument. Not only are the vast numbers of poor unable to "just move," but the cost of relocating them and/or populations centers is non-trivial, and would make the currect financial debacle look like a zit on a flea's butt. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com By saying "just move," you trivialize the logistics of the problem, which is something I haven't done. I didn't say it would be easy, I didn't say it would be cheap. But there are many, many examples of former cities which are now under lots of water. Those who refused to move either grew gills or drowned. Probably doesn't matter a whole lot now, since they'd have died a few thousand years ago anyway, but my point remains. Building Pompeii and Herculaneum near the foot of Mt. Vesuvius was a reall bad idea, as it turned out. Those who moved before the blast got to live longer lives than those who were trying to build a big cork. Like Venice and the Netherlands? My argument was that instead of spending trillions to move those who can't move on their own, why not spend far less dealing with the pollution, expanding sustainable energy technology, etc.? Makes sense to me, but oh-my-god the government might have to make it a priority. How terrible. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message . com... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message . com... KLC Lewis wrote: As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely subjective. I'm sure the dinosaurs were quite happy with the levvels of greenhouse gasses present during their existence...as were teh whooly mammoths during theirs. The earth changes. It always has, it always will and the living beings on the earth either adapt or die. The onl;y difference between us and the dinasaurs or mammoths is that we possess the hubris to think we are capable of changing the earth to any but but slight variances. I'm not saying that we should not be careful and guard what we do for the preservationof our own species, but the idea that we are responsible for global climitazation alone? The facts are that this earth is cyclical and that it is presently entering a new cycle. Yes, clean up the mess so we don't have to breathe it, eat it, or live in swill but realize that the warming and cooling of the earth is beyond our control short of a nuclear war. The dinosaurs lasted for 100M years, likely until a catastrophic event wiped them out over a very short period of time. The changes that are being discussed have happened over a period of less than 200 years, almost all of it is due to the industrial revolution. There's no doubt that the earth's climate varies a lot. There's also no doubt that the recent changes have been dramatic. If we don't address our own pollution, we won't have to wait very long. ANd maybe that's a good thing... I like George Calin's joke about global warming and saving the planet... something like... the planet will be just fine, but the people won't be around... pack your bags folks.... Don't bother...you can't take it with you... |
So much for global warming . . .
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message . com... KLC Lewis wrote: Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see just how much "concern" remains. At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should be studied. Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread? If you take the money away, the problem will go away, right? Well it seems that Free Enterprise is recognizing the economic impact of GW. Insurance companies are feeling its sting. See below article. I think this argues for (proves?) an economic link. And since insurance agencies are essentially in the business of predicting the future (actuarial tables) then I would think they would represent the free markets best predictions. AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change May 17, 2006 American International Group has joined the ranks of major insurers committed to doing something about the increased risks the industry faces due to climate change. Advertisement In a newly issued statement, the company said it "is actively seeking to incorporate environmental and climate change considerations across its businesses, focusing on the development of products and services to help AIG and its clients respond to the worldwide drive to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions." Companies such as Munich Re and Swiss Re have long endorsed programs and research aimed at finding solutions to what increasingly appears to be a major threat facing the worldwide insurance community. AIG would appear to be the first major U.S.-based insurer to do so. "Climate change is increasingly recognized as an ongoing, significant global environmental problem with potential risks to the global economy and ecology, and to human health and wellbeing," the statement continued. "AIG recognizes the scientific consensus that climate change is a reality and is likely in large part the result of human activities that have led to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. At the same time, market-based environmental policies and potential new investments provide business opportunities for AIG to address the problem. We will pursue these new opportunities where we have the expertise and capacity to do so in ways that mutually benefit AIG, its shareholders, employees, customers, and the global community." The full text is available on AIG's Website - www.aig.corporate.com, but it's not prominently displayed. Locate "Corporate Responsibility, " under that "environmental initiatives," go to the bottom to "Environment and Climate Change." |
So much for global warming . . .
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:52:42 -0500, hpeer said: AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g I was leaning toward that response myself. lol |
So much for global warming . . .
wrote in message ... On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:11:49 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:52:42 -0500, hpeer said: AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g I was leaning toward that response myself. lol You are leaning because you are not well supported. Yes, AIG is the very model of fiscal responsibility. Uh huh. |
So much for global warming . . .
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said: A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think tree huggers are providing the capital for these? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer money subsidizing these installations? So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste in the environment as they feel like. ?????? Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them? Do you think we don't subsidize other industries? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:52:42 -0500, hpeer said: AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g So because they made bad decisions in one segment of their business, that's supposed to mean that they're incompetent in others? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think tree huggers are providing the capital for these? - yep cause there are more of us than of you and we pay taxes just like you do. we also volinteer to clean up trash, mitigate dump sites, replant trees, make parks, keep trials clear, fight wild fire, tend forests, clean up creeks and rivers, teach kids how to do for themselves, and several hundred other things. while you conservitives dump **** in all the lands and waters and build **** hole houses and in general pursue your god the doller. |
So much for global warming . . .
On 9 Jan 2009 09:29:02 -0600, Dave wrote:
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them? They seem to cost about 2cents/kwhr more than conventional coal plants. In Iowa they provide 5% of the juice . It cost about a buck a watt to install it, two mill per tower. If the wind blew all the time a typical windmill would produce energy at the same rate as a 30 bbl/day oil well. You would need more than twice that much crude to generate that much juice, of course. Another freeby is the methane from a landfill. Des Moines gets 6.4 megawatt from eight Caterpillar engines. That' 1070 hp electrical each.. The shaft work from the engines would be greater. Casady |
So much for global warming . . .
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:17:30 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: ?????? Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them? Do you think we don't subsidize other industries? Ah, the old game of justifying bad behavior by pointing at other bad behavior. So, we do then subsidize other industries, which isn't in keeping with "free market" ideology. Which ones should we stop subsidizing? How about the US arms industry? How about agribusiness? The former kills 1000s every year, while subsidizing wind farms would promote energy production which isn't soley dependent upon foreign oil. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:18:51 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g So because they made bad decisions in one segment of their business, that's supposed to mean that they're incompetent in others? It certainly doesn't support the opposite conclusion. You made the claim that AIG shouldn't be trusted with their actuarial decisions because they embraced credit default swaps? That's just dumb. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:56:02 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: Ah, the old game of justifying bad behavior by pointing at other bad behavior. So, we do then subsidize other industries, which isn't in keeping with "free market" ideology. Which ones should we stop subsidizing? How about the US arms industry? How about agribusiness? The former kills 1000s every year, while subsidizing wind farms would promote energy production which isn't soley dependent upon foreign oil. And you simply continue to repeat the same fallacious line of argument. However, I'm still interested in whether Marty thinks wind farms would be profitable absent subsidies. Which fallacious line is that? That we don't subsidize other, much larger industries that do a lot more human and economic damage? Sorry if the facts get in the way of your ideology. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
"Dave" wrote in message
... On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:59:13 -0800, "Capt. JG" said: You made the claim that AIG shouldn't be trusted with their actuarial decisions because they embraced credit default swaps? That's just dumb. Better go back and read the original post again, Jon. It isn't talking about actuarial decisions. How many of the actuarial exams have you passed? It's talking about all of AIGs supposed "bad decisions." You're basing your condemnation of AIG on false data and supposition. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
So much for global warming . . .
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:12:30 -0500, said: There are billions of people in the world, and yet, none of them have grub staked YOU with billions to work with. Why is that, Dave? Dunno. Maybe you could tell us how you managed to get grub staked with billions. There is only one billionaire that posts to this group and its neither of you. |
So much for global warming . . .
wrote in message ... On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:18:51 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:52:42 -0500, hpeer said: AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g So because they made bad decisions in one segment of their business, that's supposed to mean that they're incompetent in others? Pop quiz: In the past 20 years, who made more money, AIG or Dave and Karen? If AIG had actually made money, it wouldn't have needed bailing out by the Federal Gummit. Here's someone else who actually did make a bundle: Bernie Madoff. Yup, he made so much more money than me that we're not even in the same financial galaxy. On the other hand, I can look at myself in the mirror, even if I end up asking people if they want to supersize their order. |
So much for global warming . . .
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:14:34 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:18:51 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:52:42 -0500, hpeer said: AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g So because they made bad decisions in one segment of their business, that's supposed to mean that they're incompetent in others? Pop quiz: In the past 20 years, who made more money, AIG or Dave and Karen? If AIG had actually made money, it wouldn't have needed bailing out by the Federal Gummit. Here's someone else who actually did make a bundle: Bernie Madoff. Yup, he made so much more money than me that we're not even in the same financial galaxy. On the other hand, I can look at myself in the mirror, even if I end up asking people if they want to supersize their order. Getting a bailout is just their latest way of making money, sweetheart. No thanks on the supersize. I don't eat that crap. |
So much for global warming . . .
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... wrote in message ... On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:18:51 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:52:42 -0500, hpeer said: AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g So because they made bad decisions in one segment of their business, that's supposed to mean that they're incompetent in others? Pop quiz: In the past 20 years, who made more money, AIG or Dave and Karen? If AIG had actually made money, it wouldn't have needed bailing out by the Federal Gummit. Here's someone else who actually did make a bundle: Bernie Madoff. Yup, he made so much more money than me that we're not even in the same financial galaxy. On the other hand, I can look at myself in the mirror, even if I end up asking people if they want to supersize their order. You must know Joe of "Red Cloud" infamy? He's a fry cook at Mickey D's. Had to go begging for his job back after his coffee import trip sunk after he prematurely abandoned ship. Now he has dreams of supersizing a boat to carry and sink an entire container of coffee. Too bad he doesn't work on his paucity of sailing know-how instead. Wilbur Hubbard |
So much for global warming . . .
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... "KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... wrote in message ... On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:18:51 -0800, "Capt. JG" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message m... On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:52:42 -0500, hpeer said: AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g So because they made bad decisions in one segment of their business, that's supposed to mean that they're incompetent in others? Pop quiz: In the past 20 years, who made more money, AIG or Dave and Karen? If AIG had actually made money, it wouldn't have needed bailing out by the Federal Gummit. Here's someone else who actually did make a bundle: Bernie Madoff. Yup, he made so much more money than me that we're not even in the same financial galaxy. On the other hand, I can look at myself in the mirror, even if I end up asking people if they want to supersize their order. You must know Joe of "Red Cloud" infamy? He's a fry cook at Mickey D's. Had to go begging for his job back after his coffee import trip sunk after he prematurely abandoned ship. Now he has dreams of supersizing a boat to carry and sink an entire container of coffee. Too bad he doesn't work on his paucity of sailing know-how instead. Wilbur Hubbard My first job, while in High School, was working at Burger King. I'm not back to that level yet, but the way things are going, "One never knows, do one?" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com