Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Inconvenient Truth
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 91 of 119 (344053)
08-27-2006 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
08-27-2006 7:30 PM


Re: Ocean front property in Arizona
so you mean that colorado's gonna be moist?
damn, I just left Virginia, why do I wanna go back to 90% humidity?

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2006 7:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2006 9:07 PM kuresu has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 92 of 119 (344065)
08-27-2006 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by kuresu
08-27-2006 8:13 PM


Re: Ocean front property in Arizona
we don't know, but if the arctic ice melts and allows surface currents the weather at the top of the world will change.
If substantial parts of the mississippi vally flood with shallow seas the gulf coast type weather will move north.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 8:13 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by anglagard, posted 08-27-2006 9:15 PM RAZD has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 93 of 119 (344067)
08-27-2006 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
08-27-2006 9:07 PM


Re: Ocean front property in Arizona
So I guess on average it's look South and see your climatic future.
Therefore its not that Colorado becomes Virginia but rather becomes New Mexico just like Louisiana becomes the Gulf of Mexico.
Edited by anglagard, : geography

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2006 9:07 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2006 9:36 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 95 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 9:37 PM anglagard has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 94 of 119 (344071)
08-27-2006 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by anglagard
08-27-2006 9:15 PM


Re: Ocean front property in Arizona
Not exactly, but probably generally valid. What will change that are things that change where and when rain will fall -- some places that get rain now could be bypassed in an altered system.
The one thing that global warming does is add energy to the weather\ocean systems.
This either ends up as heat or as movement.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by anglagard, posted 08-27-2006 9:15 PM anglagard has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 95 of 119 (344072)
08-27-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by anglagard
08-27-2006 9:15 PM


Re: Ocean front property in Arizona
interesting. then we're still dry. But New Orleans is shit out of luck.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by anglagard, posted 08-27-2006 9:15 PM anglagard has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 96 of 119 (344106)
08-27-2006 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
08-20-2006 12:00 AM


Re: Global Warming
When Mount Pinataubo (sp?) erupted it put out 10,000 times the amount of fossil fuel emission gases that mankind has ever produced. Where was the calamity? Where was the failure of the Ozone layer? Greenhouse gases are heavier than air and cant damage the ozone. If any warming is occuring it is natural and probably beneficial since we will have more subtropical land. And saying 'the evidence is unimpeachable' is just blind faith in your point of view meaning your mind is made up and you dont want to be confused with facts.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2006 12:00 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2006 11:56 PM ReformedRob has not replied
 Message 98 by Silent H, posted 08-28-2006 5:57 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 97 of 119 (344113)
08-27-2006 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ReformedRob
08-27-2006 11:31 PM


Re: Global Warming
When Mount Pinataubo (sp?) erupted it put out 10,000 times the amount of fossil fuel emission gases that mankind has ever produced.
2 minutes on Google:
Mt Pinatubo output: 42 million metric tons CO2 (estimated).
Human emission from 2004 to 2005: 650 million metric tons CO2.
Could you show your math? Here's mine: 650 million > 42 million. Remember that there was only one Pinatubo eruption, but the figure for human output is for one year.
Greenhouse gases are heavier than air and cant damage the ozone.
Ozone? Huh? Greenhouse gases aren't related to the ozone layer. They're related to global warming.
If any warming is occuring it is natural and probably beneficial since we will have more subtropical land.
Huh? Rising ocean levels mean less land, not more.
And saying 'the evidence is unimpeachable' is just blind faith in your point of view meaning your mind is made up and you dont want to be confused with facts.
Facts, huh? Maybe you could show me some? I noticed that you didn't even try.
AbE: Somebody's going to get the wrong idea - not "there was only one Pinatubo eruption ever", but "he was only talking about one eruption in his post."
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ReformedRob, posted 08-27-2006 11:31 PM ReformedRob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 08-28-2006 6:11 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 98 of 119 (344213)
08-28-2006 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by ReformedRob
08-27-2006 11:31 PM


Re: Global Warming
When Mount Pinataubo (sp?) erupted... Where was the calamity?
I'm not sure what your point is here, even disgregarding the factual claim which I don't think is true. The idea has never been that a single event causes some direct effect. Neither is it claimed that it does effect the ozone.
The idea is that consistent buildup over time will effect changes in the environment we wouldn't like to see.
If any warming is occuring it is natural and probably beneficial
I think it's pretty clear in the evidence that whether nature is responsible for warming our climate or not, we are certainly effecting that trend in an upward direction. But let's say it is wholly natural, the idea that that would mean it is beneficial is a fallacy.
Neither side of this argument can justifiably assert that scientific data supports claims of benefit or deficit for humans. What it does support is a giant question mark, based on the fact that all it can say is that changes will likely occur. There is a change to the system.
You certainly can't reliably bank on any of the possibilities that change might produce.
And saying 'the evidence is unimpeachable' is just blind faith in your point of view meaning your mind is made up and you dont want to be confused with facts.
Can I point out that the way you presented your position, you made the same claim about evidence, you just didn't use those words?
Edited by holmes, : better statement

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ReformedRob, posted 08-27-2006 11:31 PM ReformedRob has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 99 of 119 (344216)
08-28-2006 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by crashfrog
08-27-2006 11:56 PM


Re: Global Warming
Huh? Rising ocean levels mean less land, not more.
This has already been explained to you. While rising ocean levels would reduce some land area:
1) Rising temperatures and deglaciation POTENTIALLY (and I want to make that clear it is potential) means that there would be more land that can be farmed or lived on comfortably. That's certainly what the retreat of glaciers and warming climate gave us after the last ice age.
2) Rising ocean levels are unlikely to wipe out farm land as much farmland is not in coastal areas.
Facts, huh? Maybe you could show me some? I noticed that you didn't even try.
I notice a lot of that going on. Maybe you can set an example by posting evidence for your claims, particularly regarding "unimpeachability" as the poster seems to have an issue with that.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 08-27-2006 11:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2006 5:08 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 100 of 119 (344218)
08-28-2006 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
08-27-2006 7:30 PM


Re: Ocean front property in Arizona
Of course a 20 foot rise in sea level will make rebuilding New Orleans moot -- unless they go with the venice model ... turn the roads into canals and dam off the lower floors (or fill them) and build up as the base continues to sink into the muck.
Oh my god, look what climate changed did to the Netherlands!
Oh wait, they have engineering...
I don't see why New Orleans couldn't use the Netherlands model. And I should note that both suffer issues of being deltas. This was made worse for Lousiana (and if I remember right that included NO) because of what the army corps of engineers did to the Mississippi river. Subsidence (which I believe you were discussing at the end there) is a major issue and only one that is going to increase with time. Thus Louisiana and NO are fated for the sea regardless of sea level change, without human intervention.
I might add that estimates I have seen show only a 1m (~3 ft) rise in sea level in the next 100 years, with a potential max of 4m (~13 ft) over a larger time than that.
I like the discussion pointing towards solutions to CO2 emission/accumulation, rather than stretching the boundaries of what we can claim its effects could be.
Can I ask if this is the kind of material found in Gore's movie?
Edited by holmes, : replacing images that were too huge, with links to their pages.
Edited by AdminNWR, : fixed broken link (removed quotes for dbcode url)

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2006 7:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2006 5:11 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2006 7:56 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 104 by kuresu, posted 08-28-2006 9:59 PM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 101 of 119 (344369)
08-28-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Silent H
08-28-2006 6:11 AM


Re: Global Warming
Rising temperatures and deglaciation POTENTIALLY (and I want to make that clear it is potential) means that there would be more land that can be farmed or lived on comfortably.
Which land? I mean, just based on spherical geometry, if the farmable climate zone moves farther north and south, that's less farmable land area total. (It's a pretty simple mathematical formula.)
That's certainly what the retreat of glaciers and warming climate gave us after the last ice age.
Sure, when the glaciers retreated from the plains into the mountains. But when the glaciers retreat from the mountains, how much of that is farmable? There's just as much argument to be made that lessland will be arable as more. I don't see what happened when the glaciers retreated last time as indicative for the future in this case, because you seem to ignore the fact that the glaciers will be retreating from a different place this time.
Honestly that you even bring it up is evidence that you're not taking this at all seriously, and that you're relying only on the grossest levels of surface similarity to guide your predictions, all the while ignoring fundamental differences of detail.
Rising ocean levels are unlikely to wipe out farm land as much farmland is not in coastal areas.
Those displaced people have to live somewhere.
Maybe you can set an example by posting evidence for your claims, particularly regarding "unimpeachability" as the poster seems to have an issue with that.
Not even you disagreed with my data, simply my conclusions from it. And as hard as it may be for you to believe, it's entirely possible for two reasonable people to have different interpretations of the data.
Also - still working on those two other posts. Had an unexpected workload this weekend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 08-28-2006 6:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Silent H, posted 08-29-2006 4:31 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 102 of 119 (344370)
08-28-2006 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Silent H
08-28-2006 6:45 AM


Re: Ocean front property in Arizona
Can I ask if this is the kind of material found in Gore's movie?
How about you go see it? Jesus get a copy off the internet or something. They don't have Bittorrent in the Netherlands?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 08-28-2006 6:45 AM Silent H has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 103 of 119 (344438)
08-28-2006 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Silent H
08-28-2006 6:45 AM


Re: Ocean front property in Arizona
I don't see why New Orleans couldn't use the Netherlands model.
New Orleans is on a delta extending out into the gulf, and would need dikes on all four sides, what with Lake Pontrechaine to the north ... it could be done but ...
Personally I think Venice would be a much more practical model, especially as NOLA is a MAJOR port for the whole USof(N)A and this would make it even more useful in that regard.
Can I ask if this is the kind of material found in Gore's movie?
It's in the trailer -- with a qualification.
But really, don't you think that any thorough plan for NOLA would have to consider:
(1) the delta will continue to subside for the foreseable future, and
(2) the possibility is high that ocean levels will continue to rise for the forseable future
And that a prudent model would consider "worst case scenarios" of subsidence and rise?
Thanks.
BTW -- saw a blurb on a paper that said Schwubbia was a "victim" of Katrina ...

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 08-28-2006 6:45 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Silent H, posted 08-29-2006 4:39 AM RAZD has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 104 of 119 (344486)
08-28-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Silent H
08-28-2006 6:45 AM


Re: Ocean front property in Arizona
your first link is broken, at least for me.
the second one works just fine, bringing up a picture.
can you fix them, or tell me where to search for them?
Thanks.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 08-28-2006 6:45 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by AdminNWR, posted 08-28-2006 11:54 PM kuresu has replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 119 (344545)
08-28-2006 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by kuresu
08-28-2006 9:59 PM


Re: Ocean front property in Arizona
I fixed the link. You could have worked out what it should be by using "peek".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by kuresu, posted 08-28-2006 9:59 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by kuresu, posted 08-29-2006 12:19 AM AdminNWR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024