PS:
I'm not sure I like the idea of salt water clouds though because I wouldn't want salted precipitation over land. It seems to me that this idea can be somehow adapted to my idea to cause fresh water clouds by enhancing evaporation of sea water.

Salt vapor clouds are easier to create with this elevated salt water spray technique though, and it is being advocated because salt vapor clouds are more white and would be more efficient to reflect sunlight;
but it may IMO result in cooling the Earth while causing massive salt contamination.

TR

"3) fertilize the oceans with iron particles to induce huge fields of plankton growth that feed on CO2 and provide food for marine life"

Uhm.. call me retarded, but how does that help???

www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=plankton&x=16&y=11

Any form of plant life absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere to survive. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is of concern to global warming/the sky is falling/Kyoto panic experts.

TR

I think is like there is now so much people, like perhaps than yesterday, and well, I know that a lot of people, like they do it, that I know because is like me I'm some freinds, kind of like get it on, you know like the thing, with your partner, when you put out the lights, and well you know, it get's all funky.

Well I think that is causing global warming, because now there are so many, and well before there were like much less, so it did not matter, but now like it totally does.

So the more that we all do the nice dirty thing, well you know the more that the earth will be hotter, like me.

This is a transcript of miss Hilton talking over the issue of global warming

lol Gueritol .. like, that was a like funny post, like .. you know .. how like, when a man and a woman like, you know .. like eachother, and like.. do that special hug .. *blushes*

*giggles*

You spoke about Rudey Doodeys!
You should let these intelligents people speak their intellecshul stuffs.. *goes back to playing his banjo*

In all seriousness here, this thread makes me feel stupid

Maybe Gueritol is right But Paris Hilton does that thing so often that she has a great part in Global warming then

www.weather.com/maps/geography/usnationalcurrent/uscurrenttemperatures_large.html?par=msnbc&site=msnbc.com&promo=0&cm_ven=msnbc&cm_cat=www.msnbc.com&cm_pla=citywx&cm_ite=mapthumb


www.weather.com/newscenter/tropical/?from=tabset


If you follow the weather at all I think you would agree that these are not extremely high temperatures at all for mid-July and there are even cool temperatures already starting to move down from Canada. This is partly due to the cooling effect that hurricane Dennis provided to the south and south-east also.

As I mentioned before there has been storm activity generated from South America tending to cool the Caribbean down somewhat and giving a steering effect to the tropical depressions coming across the Atlantic from Africa.
This latest hurricane Emily is expected to completely miss Florida.
Mexico is expected to take the brunt of it but on the east coast we are familiar with the side effects of hurricanes and it is that they tend to cool things off. It seems that no sooner the first one passes out in the Atlantic, the next thing we know is that fall is upon us.

PS:
You will have to click the projected path to see for yourself where Emily is headed and this is almost a category 5 hurricane.
It is quite hot in the Death Valley desert area but the east coast is definitely cool for this time of year.

TR

Last Edited : Saturday, 16 July 2005 - 22:54

Wow
Take a look at those temperatures now in the previous post.
Temperatures in California have dropped 40 degrees in some places from a few hours ago and about 15 degrees over the Rockies. Temperatures from the midwest to the east coast are a few degrees cooler too.

*(edit)* to correct spelling of California
I thought that looked odd

TR

Last Edited : Sunday, 17 July 2005 - 05:17

Although the title of this thread is Global Warming, Climate change might be a better term, since different things go wrong in different places.

France is having its worst drought in 50 years while the oceans off California aren't getting the right upwelling of cold water from the depths to bring up food for surface water animals, which is killing off a lot of birds due to starvation.

It's a really complicated system and once it is all out of balance, it may be impossible to correct it. We've killed off about 50% of the species on earth in the last 100 years, faster species loss than ever before in history. It all adds up.

Yes and locusts too.
It sounds almost Biblical.

TR

Moggy,
Is there a list anywhere that tells us what those 50% of the species that have been killed off since 1905 are? I would be interested to see that. Especially since we have been going to such extraordinary lengths to preserve species over the last 40 years or so. Or is this claim along the same lines of the 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths and the 1.5 million killed by the US in Iraq since 9/11?
Yours skeptically,
H.
PS. The Ivory-Billed Woodpecker is probably on the list. Don't forget to add them back to the list of the living as they have recently been "rediscovered" in the southern US. That might tip the balance to 49%:51%.

Last Edited : Sunday, 17 July 2005 - 10:28

www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3375447.stm

50% was something I remembered hearing. Check out these links, especially the top one for more information.

I'm not just making stuff up! This is a huge problem. Nearly every large animal except ones we raise faces extinction. Fish are vanishing. It's nearly all our fault. Perhaps facing real problems instead of made up ones would be prudent?

From your lead article, we get the big text:

"Human beings are currently causing the greatest
mass extinction of species since the extinction of
the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If present trends
continue one half of all species of life on earth will
be extinct in 100 years."

Combined with the loss of 50% in the last 100 years, that means everything (or 75% depending on when they started counting species for this panic attack) should be dead.

Some of the headlines they link to:

12,000 Threatened Species: "Only Scratching the Surface"-- 2003 Red List Released (U.K. Guardian)

15,589 Threatened Species: "Greatly Underestimates True Number"-- 2004 Red List Released (MSNBC)

GLOBAL WARMING THREATENS EXTINCTION OF ONE MILLION SPECIES (Nature-- 2004)

By 2050 Global Warming Will Doom A Million Species (National Geographic-- 2004)

I would certainly agree that 12,000 or even 15,589 drastically underestimate ONE MILLION. No doubt there. But, how do they explain this rather large discrepancy? It seems that it doesn't really matter as long as fund raising increases.

Amazingly, the new survey finds that 7 of 10 scientists think we face this mass extinction...and that matches exactly with what they said in one of the linked articles from Apr 20 1998...no change since then? I'm sure they view this as good news, right? Or, is it really bad that they have made 0% progress in convincing the other 30% of scientists? Or, did they also pull this number from thin air? Anybody actually have a link to the survey and the questions they asked? That would be useful.

Another passage:
"The poll's release yesterday comes on the heels of a groundbreaking study of plant diversity that concluded than at least one in eight known plant species is threatened with extinction. Although scientists are divided over the specific numbers, many believe that the rate of loss is greater now than at any time in history."

I find this one very intellectually challenging. By saying, "at least", they imply that this is the LOWEST number possible from all reviewed studies. Other scientists think it is higher, but it is at least one in eight plants are going extinct. Why do they go onto the qualifying sentence that follows? Isn't concensus on "one in eight" good (or bad) enough? Or are they misleading us as to what the scientists actually believe perhaps? Is there a time in history when it was greater than one in eight? Odd.

Here is the key:
"Many of the estimates of species loss are extrapolations based on the global destruction of rain forests and other rich habitats."

Seems just like the Global Warming debate.

In my garden, the number of species has dropped by over 90% since I applied bug killer to the tomatos and cucumbers last month. If I extrapolate that result worldwide...we are in big trouble.

Sorry, this scare also fails to pass the common sense test. Just send them money...they will be happy.

Just another example of unbelievable panic mongering that has been underway for YEARS. "DON'T PANIC" as the "Hitchhiker's Guide" says. Always good advice.
H.

You are good at finding fault, but didn't any of that information have any effect on your thinking?

Instead of poo-pooing everything I say, why not just admit you didn't even realize that this problem existed until I mentioned it?

How about a little "Wow! That is pretty damn bad! We need to do something about that!" ?

Or, "Gee whiz, what a lot of reputable organizations find this to be a major problem, perhaps I should too?"

One's world-view must be kinda fragile if one feels threatened by people showing that the current world order won't continue as it is forever. Maybe one has a really comfy lfestyle and doesn't want to see it go away? Let others in the world suffer, one can watch from one's gated community?

PS Garden organically, please. It is better in every way.

Mog,
I like to explore issues from various perspectives and use common sense to see the underlying reality. This is not finding fault for the sake of finding fault. I am examining what they say and seeing if they are telling the TRUTH. If they are obviously lying...have an agenda...want our money...and back their story with POLLS instead of RESEARCH...I tend to discount what they say.

If have in fact heard this stuff many times before...as have you. Anyone who reads has seen this in the papers...you can't really miss it. They have been pumping out the exact same "sky is falling" story since at least April 20, 1998 and, with minimal effort, I can probably find more from before that. The fact that the same people put out the same fundraising letter and the media prints it year after year and now have 100,000 web hits doesn't make their theory any more true.

Did you read the story on the rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker a couple weeks back? Did that make you go "Wow! That is pretty damn neat! We need to do find out how wildlife researchers miss something like that for years!" ?

Or, "Gee whiz, it's amazing that species are actually recovering in the wild, perhaps the world is getting better?"

Did you see the story last year about the only place left in California with one variety of sea turtles...on a military bombing range. The turtles thrive there because the military keeps everyone else off the land...so, now the state wants to take the range away from the military. Gee, the state killed them off completely along the ENTIRE coast and the military preserved them in the wild...solution: take the last refuge away from the military! How dumb!!! Perhaps somebody who cares, and can think about issues clearly could stop this. No! The military is evil and the turtles must die to save them from the military thanks to the really caring environmentalists.

One's world-view must be kinda fragile if one feels threatened by the temperature and animal extinction because of stories planted by fundraising groups based on polls, and thinks man can destroy the entire world within the century. This will always go on. Just look for the facts instead of the emotional appeal.

I fertilize my lawn, keep bugs off my vegetables, and BBQ using propane! Some may not approve, but it is the life I choose nonetheless.

As long as we have cows...there will be steak!
H.

Mog
we all love cute, cuddly lion and tiger cubs
but the truth of the matter is that many American species are no longer endangered like for example the American grizzly, one of which recently mauled to death a couple while they were sleeping in a tent.
These large predator species have been hunted to near extiction partly because they are a problem to the native populations. I have read that elephants have been a major problem in the past in some areas to crops for example.

Disease in Africa is also taking its toll of animal life and it's no secret that over fishing has taken its toll of tuna and swordfish. I think the Japanese have recently developed a taste for whale meat also.
We can't go into backward countries and explain to them that if a man eating lion makes off with one of their children, it's because they turned his hunting grounds into farmland.

PS:
Yes let's keep our cows healthy at all costs.
Thank God for pizza.

TR

The USA entered an agreement with China, India, Australia and another country on pollution control I think.

TR

Screw it, letsg t it going. The world will survive without us just fine. Greenhouse? I say great, kill our asses off and start over.

This is the third time this has happened so I'm going to say something about it.
Huge sandstorms are being generated over the Sahara desert and apparently having a cooling effect by blocking the sun, so that there hasn't been so many tropical depressions coming across the Atlantic from Africa;

www.weather.com/newscenter/tropical/?from=tabset

but this is the third tropical storm that has been generated on our side of the Atlantic with the projected path of the storm toward Europe.
This is definitely an unusual weather pattern and yes the days have been hot but every morning I have to turn off the air-conditioner so the evenings haven't been so terrible.

Anyway I hope this weather pattern continues because it's great to see hurricanes going in the opposite direction for a change.
Really you guys in Europe need the rain I've been reading, and hurricanes usually bring plenty;
and we aren't sending monsters like that get hatched off of Africa.
Just small ones.

TR

There is no such thing as global warming.
Iraq has weapons of mass distruction.
Poor people are poor because they are lazy.
The earth is flat.