Page 5 of 47 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 695

Thread: Climate Change

  1. #61
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Well, I guess that is why they have to work to get these things implemented, not decree them with a short timetable.

    Do not allow these power companies to "buy back" environmental restrictions (I heard they can do that in some areas) to lessen their overall costs.

    Too much pressure stifles change, but a little incentive promotes more efficient modes of achieving the needs of the company.

  2. #62

    Default

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...es/images.php3

    Continued Sea Ice Decline in 2005



    Since 1978, satellites have made continuous observations of Arctic sea ice. In that time, sensors have found an overall decline in its extent. Beginning in 2002, this decline steepened, with early onset of springtime melt north of Siberia and Alaska. Beyond summertime melt, Arctic sea ice further surprised researchers in the winter of 2004-2005. “Even if sea ice retreated a lot one summer, it would make a comeback the following winter, when temperatures fall well below freezing,” explains Florence Fetterer of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). “But in the winter of 2004-2005, sea ice didn't approach the previous wintertime level.” With the exception of May 2005, every month between December 2004 and September 2005 saw the lowest monthly average since the satellite record began.

    This graph shows the five-day mean sea ice extent for July through September for the years 2002 through 2005. All four years were below the average sea ice extent for 1979-2000 (gray line). In fact, recent sea ice extent falls below the 1979-2000 average by an area twice the size of Texas. On September 19, 2005 (the latest date shown on this graph), Arctic sea ice extent fell to 5.35 million square kilometers (2.06 million square miles). It continued to decline until September 21, 2005, when it dropped to 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles). This new low was 670,000 square kilometers (approximately 258,000 square miles) below the previous record low in 2002.

    From 1979 through 2001, the rate of September Arctic sea ice decline was just over 6.5 percent per decade. The September 2002 minimum increased this rate to 7.3 percent. Incorporating the sea ice extent projection for 2005 increased the rate to approximately 8 percent per decade.

    Patterns of natural variability play a part in Arctic sea ice decline. The Arctic Oscillation is a major atmospheric circulation pattern that can take a positive or negative mode. In its positive mode, it sets up winds that tend to break up sea ice and flush it out of the Arctic, and the thin ice left behind is more likely to melt. In its strongly positive phase in the early to mid-1990s, the oscillation may have made sea ice more vulnerable to summertime melt. Since the late 1990s, however, the Arctic Oscillation has exhibited a more neutral mode, while sea ice has continued to decline. Sea ice decline has persisted through different patterns of precipitation, wind, and local temperature variation. Researchers have found marked declines in sea ice difficult to explain without considering overall Arctic warming.

    Sea ice decline is likely to affect future temperatures in the region. Because it is white or light in color, sea ice reflects much of the Sun’s radiation back into space, whereas dark ocean water absorbs more of the Sun’s energy. As sea ice melts, more exposed ocean water changes the Earth’s albedo, or fraction of energy reflected away from the planet. The increased absorption of energy further warms the planet. “Feedbacks in the system are starting to take hold,” says NSIDC’s lead scientist Ted Scambos. “There doesn't appear to be a way to turn this around, or even slow it down,” in a warming climate. Claire Parkinson, senior scientist of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center points out a potential mitigating factor, noting that “the reduced sea ice coverage will lead to more wintertime heat loss from the ocean to the atmosphere, and perhaps, therefore, to colder water temperatures and further ice growth.”

    Still, recent trends caused concern. Walt Meier of NSIDC remarks, “Having four years in a row with such low ice extents has never been seen before in the satellite record. It clearly indicates a downward trend, not just a short-term anomaly.”


    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...3?img_id=16978



    June marks the beginning of the melt season for Arctic sea ice, which reaches its minimum extent at the end of the season in September. In the past few Septembers, Arctic sea ice concentration (the amount of ice in a given area) has been markedly reduced. September 2002 set a new record low at 15 percent below average. It was followed closely by September 2003 and September 2004. So far, 2005 is shaping up to be another record-low sea ice year in the Arctic.



    This image shows places where Arctic sea ice was above (blue) or below (red) average in June 2005, the end of the first month of the melt season. The images are made from data from the satellite-based, Scanning Multi-channel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) and Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I). Ice-free areas appear in light gray, and landmasses appear in dark gray. The black line shows the median ice edge for 1979 through 2000. Except for a small area in the East Greenland Sea, Arctic sea ice has retreated almost everywhere in June 2005. The month set a new record low: 6 percent below the long-term mean for June sea ice extent. During the melt season in any year, some areas may experience positive anomalies—higher than average sea ice concentration—or negative anomalies—lower than average ice concentrations. Most anomalies occur along the margins of the ice cap, but they can also occur near the pole at the end of the melt season. Few if any anomalies occur near the pole in June.

    Different explanations have been proposed for Arctic sea ice decline, including the strong positive mode of the Arctic Oscillation (AO). This oscillation is an alternating pattern of atmospheric pressure at polar latitudes and mid-latitudes. In the early 1990s, the AO was in positive mode. In that mode, the AO produces a strong polar vortex, and resulting winds tended to flush older, thicker ice out of the Arctic. Since the late 1990s, however, the AO has been much more neutral, yet Arctic sea ice decline continues. Another explanation for declining sea ice is climate change. Global temperatures have risen, and climate models generally agree that one of the strongest signals of greenhouse warming is a loss of Arctic sea ice. Changes in surface albedo provide another, related explanation. Just as light clothes reflect the Sun’s heat on a hot day, bright sea ice reflects much of the Sun’s energy back into space. As sea ice melts, less energy is reflected back into space, and more energy is absorbed by the darker ocean waters. This creates a “feedback loop” in which sea ice decline fosters further decline.

    Even after warm summers, Arctic sea ice has typically recovered in wintertime, but this has changed in recent years. Besides showing dramatic retreat in the summer, Arctic sea ice has begun to decline in the wintertime as well. Some scientists have begun to wonder whether Arctic sea ice has crossed a critical threshold from which it can’t recover.

    Image courtesy of Ken Knowles and Terry Haran, National Snow and Ice Data Center. Information provided by Julienne Stroeve, Walt Meier, Florence Fetterer, Ken Knowles, and Mark Serreze, NSIDC.


    Funny stuff on page 1 of this thread. Worth a look.

  3. #63
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    Is this the result of evolution or intelligent design?

  4. #64
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,278

    Default



    Perhaps we should pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for ice.

  5. #65
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Tonight (9.29.05) on CNN Lou Dobbs had a guest named Scott Stevens, a former weather forecaster who now has a website called www.weatherwars.info and he is of the belief (seemingly well thought through and documented) that various governments are playing with the weather as a weapon.

    It could be that this guy has too much free time on his hands, or he could be on to something. If nothing else the website has some very cool video.

    The transcript from that show explains the premise http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...29/ldt.01.html (scroll down -- it's the last segment of the show).

    Here's what was said on the show:

    LOU DOBBS / CNN 09.29.2005

    DOBBS: My next guest tonight is make some remarkable assertions about the causes of our recent violent weather. He says we face the manmade threat of terrorist hurricanes. He says Katrina, for example, was created by the Japanese mafia using Russian-made technology. I'm joined now by former TV weatherman and operators of Weatherwars.info. Scott Stevens.

    Scott, by any standard, this is about as outlandish an assertion as I've heard made recently. What has been the reaction?

    SCOTT STEVENS, WEATHERWARS.INFO: Reaction has certainly been mixed. Some people have been familiar with the man's work that I referenced, which is Lieutenant Colonel Tom Bearden's (ph) material who was in the know through the 70s, and 80s, and 90s when this technology was first made aware to those in power. But the problem with this technology -- Scalar waves, is we don't really know who is doing it. One thing we do know is that it is being done.

    DOBBS: Well, you say we do know that. What evidence do we have of any part of these assertions you're making?

    STEVENS: OK. What we're looking at is a quote by Defense Secretary Cohen back in 1997 where he specifically stated that others, terrorists, were engaging in a type of ecoterrorism where they could alter the climate, set off earthquakes and volcanoes. So, that technology has been developed. The question we've all wondered was it deployed. And the Russians boasted they had in the past.

    And what got my attention was viewing satellite imagery where the clouds and storm behavior was simply not natural.

    DOBBS: In putting forward your theories, which are remarkable, what -- is there anything about Katrina, for example, any part of that storm that is a clue to what you're saying?

    STEVENS: Well, getting a category 5 in any location is an incredible achievement. And then to have back-to-back inside of a month is just astounding. But there was geometry, and once you learn that this technology is at work and study the signatures that result in the cloud cover, these hurricanes are replete with these odd signatures, these geometries. And they become more pronounced as they approached category 4 and 5 status.

    DOBBS: Let me ask you, we talked with NOAA, we've talked with Goddard Space Center and weather people, none of whom would talk to us on the record about you. Has any professional meteorologist, any group, assessed what you've done and said this makes sense or you're just as crazy as you can be?

    STEVENS: No. I get encouragement. Actually there's both. There's those that assume straight up that it can't happen, and in scientific method you can't go into any discussion assuming that it's an impossibility. The only thing keeping us from doing it is our intention to do it.

    DOBBS: Scott Stevens, weatherwars.info, we thank you for being here. Intriguing assertion. Thank you, Scott.

  6. #66
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    What a whacko.

    Science can't say it is impossible, but it is awfully difficult to be able to say that a thing like this could happen by shooting ray-guns at it.

    UNLIKE an earthquake or Volcano, a hurricane does NOT have the energy already stored up. You have to GET THAT ENERGY into the storm somehow. The main way is through thunderstorm formation and evaporation of warm waters (etc), to say that you could shoot a beam at it......

    Scalar waves, phegh.



    And as for Earthquakes and volcanoes, I love how pseudo-science gets everyones attension in things like this. Puh-lease. You can say that something is used, such as possibly an explosion, to weaken the holding sones that keep plates from slipping and whatnot, but trying to do something that would be a low-energy method (like harmonic resonance) would not be wide-scale applicable and it would be VERY difficult to use properly to achieve the desired result.

    I really hate death-ray scientists.

  7. #67
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Tesla's Death Ray

    http://www.parascope.com/en/0996/tesla4.htm

    Nikola Tesla's historic laboratory and wireless communications facility known as Wardenclyffe, located about 65 miles east of New York City on the North Shore of Long Island.

    The distinctive 187 foot tall tower was demolished in 1917, but the sturdy 94 foot square building still remains standing in silent testimony to Tesla's unfulfilled dream.





    Tesla's Wardenclyffe laboratory,
    where he tested his death ray.
    Last edited by lofter1; September 30th, 2005 at 09:31 AM.

  8. #68
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
    What a whacko...And as for Earthquakes and volcanoes, I love how pseudo-science gets everyones attension in things like this. Puh-lease. You can say that something is used, such as possibly an explosion, to weaken the holding sones that keep plates from slipping and whatnot, but trying to do something that would be a low-energy method (like harmonic resonance) would not be wide-scale applicable and it would be VERY difficult to use properly to achieve the desired result.

    I really hate death-ray scientists.
    The knee jerk reaction is amusing. It seems people give zero credence to anything that is outside their own range of knowledge or believe. The guy is a scientist and his explanations and photographic back up is impressuve.

    I find the reaction very limited view and just surprising. No curiosity. No consideration that everyone and thing in the world is not necessarily benevolent. We know governments can play with weather (cloud seeeding for one) why not develop a weapon that has built in plausible denial.

    With regard to earthquakes, you don't find it at all suspect that a major earthquake (9.0?) off the Indonesian Banda Aceh coast in December 2004 sets off a monstrous tsunami, yet, an earthquake of the same magnitude in March, the same place, doesn't cause a ripple? There are arguments out there that the tsunami was, in fact, caused by joint nuclear testing by Israel and India in that volatile part of the Indian Ocean. Seems plausible to me. It was convenient enough to scrub Banda Aceh clean of rebels and armed militants - it was like pinpoint accuracy the way ir cleansed the island in the exacrt location of Exxon's gas reserves.

  9. #69

    Default

    There is so much non-science, or maybe science laziness, evident in some of these theories, which tend to involve malevolence by one or more governments.

    The obvious question is how much energy is released by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, and how does that compare to a nuclear detonation? This same question came up in the Tsunami thread, and I searched and found many sources of data and posted:

    The largest nuclear explosion was the 1954 test Castle Bravo, 20 megatons. 20 megatons is 1300 Hiroshima bombs. A 9.0 earthquake releases the energy of 25-30 Castle Bravos, or 32,500 - 39,000 Hiroshimas
    As to why an earthquake will produce a tsunami and another of equal magnitude in the same place will not, the answer is simple and readily available online.

    The plate movement must vertically displace the water to produce the wave. A horizontal movement will not produce a tsunami (or at least not one as significant in size). However, a seismometer will not differentiate between the two events, and will record both as 9.0. If the seismometer could detect the vertical movement, there would be no need for tsunami detectors throughout the ocean.

  10. #70
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
    As to why an earthquake will produce a tsunami and another of equal magnitude in the same place will not, the answer is simple and readily available online.
    Wet blanket. The conspiracy theories are waaay more interesting.

  11. #71
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryan
    Wet blanket. The conspiracy theories are waaay more interesting.
    I at least gey to exercise my neck by constantly looking over my shoulder.

    I guess I just feel we live in a largely malevolent world, where power and greed are the driving forces - against man's better nature.

    I find it peculiar that people think that scientists are somehow more honest than anyone else. We are in the age where scientists are funded to support preordained outcomes. I think everyone is suspect. Self-preservation and a big paycheck - not a bad motivator.

  12. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryan
    Wet blanket. The conspiracy theories are waaay more interesting.
    Well...I thought about posting pornography along with the info.

  13. #73
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynRider
    The knee jerk reaction is amusing. It seems people give zero credence to anything that is outside their own range of knowledge or believe. The guy is a scientist and his explanations and photographic back up is impressuve.
    Impressuve? Don't call me a knee-jerk and mispell the criticism.

    This is not Knee-Jerk. Trust me. I LIVE science.


    Besides, what is wrong with a knee jerk if you are whacked in the knees anyway? You don't jerk, something is wrong with you!

    I find the reaction very limited view and just surprising. No curiosity. No consideration that everyone and thing in the world is not necessarily benevolent. We know governments can play with weather (cloud seeeding for one) why not develop a weapon that has built in plausible denial.
    Not the way he describes it. I do the same with movies. I can believe that people are researching for the dooms day device, but when they try to get technical about it, they seem to forget science and go strait to fiction.


    Lemme get my light saber.

    With regard to earthquakes, you don't find it at all suspect that a major earthquake (9.0?) off the Indonesian Banda Aceh coast in December 2004 sets off a monstrous tsunami, yet, an earthquake of the same magnitude in March, the same place, doesn't cause a ripple?
    Nope. I am a structural engineer. You have to know about S and P waves. All earthquakes are not the same. You have a plate drop and a hige displacement of water, you get a wave. You get a plate shift you get mostly horizontal wave action that does not generate, well, waves.

    Put a plate of water on a shake table and watch it ripple. No big waves. Now take a tank and shove a portion of the base up, you will get quite a wave.

    There are arguments out there that the tsunami was, in fact, caused by joint nuclear testing by Israel and India in that volatile part of the Indian Ocean. Seems plausible to me.
    Until you realize the ammount of energy needed, and that the wave would lose energy as a function of R squared. It would have also shown up as a blip on the radar AND seismic data would have shown an explosive event.

    It was convenient enough to scrub Banda Aceh clean of rebels and armed militants - it was like pinpoint accuracy the way ir cleansed the island in the exacrt location of Exxon's gas reserves.

    Nope nope nope.

    BR, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Just because Amonia and Bleach are both good cleaners does not mean that they would be better mixed.

    Sometimes these guys deliberately leave out all the facts that would discredit or disprove their arguements, or keep them sufficiently vague as to make them hard to absolutely refute.

    Butr trust me, they are as plausable as the Batman Microwave machine...

  14. #74
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
    ...But trust me, they are as plausable as the Batman Microwave machine...
    Are you trying to tell me the Batman Microwave is a hoax?

  15. #75
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynRider
    Are you trying to tell me the Batman Microwave is a hoax?
    Are you questioning me?

Page 5 of 47 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Times Square: A Century of Change
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 144
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2015, 09:44 PM
  2. Climate Scientists Zoom In on Changes
    By Kris in forum New York Metro
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 11th, 2004, 08:09 PM
  3. New Yorkers looking up for a change
    By dbhstockton in forum Anything Goes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 16th, 2003, 12:30 PM
  4. Making a Change in Chelsea: Rentals Go Co-op
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 12th, 2002, 12:04 PM
  5. With Change in Plans, Apartments Now Rise
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 29th, 2002, 11:42 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software