[mos6507]

Give me a break.

Eight square miles is gigantic?

Where are you going to draw the line on your denial, when you are raising your home on stilts?

[Ludi]

I don't think there's been any curbing of oil usage, I think usage is up worldwide. CO2 emissions continue to rise. And even if they stopped today, climate is a large, relatively slow-moving system. Any changes we make now won't be reflected in the climate for decades. We could possibly benefit our grandchildren by stopping excess CO2 emissions now, but we won't benefit ourselves.

[mos6507]

You are a Japaniese soldier stranded on a remote island of the Pacific still fighting WWII. Get a life.

Zing +1

http://video.aol.com/video/tv-gilligans ... ow/1722201

[coyote]

I thought he was talking about peak oil curbing oil usage. That's what's been on my mind. Will the dropoff in emissions from oil be enough?

[Madpaddy]

mos6507 wrote,

Where are you going to draw the line on your denial, when you are raising your home on stilts?

Another quote of the month contender. I believe most people will still be in denial as the tide comes up their driveway.

[Ludi]

I thought he was talking about peak oil curbing oil usage. That's what's been on my mind. Will the dropoff in emissions from oil be enough?

Be enough for what? Probably little effect in our lifetimes, from what I understand. Not an expert on this subject, though! Ask Shannymara.

[coyote]

Well, roughly enough to keep us from going past the 450 ppm mark in atmospheric CO2. From what I've read, that's the threshold to keep the temperature increase less than 2ºC and avoid the worst of the effects of global warming. That benchmark is a couple of decades out, so I could possibly see it, and if I have any kids they certainly could. I'm definitely not an expert either, but that's what I've read.

Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible?

[Ludi]

As we're currently experiencing climate change effects from CO2 put in the atmosphere decades ago, even if we stop now, we ourselves may still experience quite bad effects, though not "the worst" which is, I understand, loss of a breathable atmosphere.

I see Peak Oil very much as a potential salvation for a planet humans can live on. But only if it also stops use of coal, cutting down forests, etc etc.

[ProudFossil]

Give me a break.

Eight square miles is gigantic?

Where are you going to draw the line on your denial, when you are raising your home on stilts?

I don't need stilts. I live at 7,000 feet in the mountains. I worry more about snow pack and all the excessive ShitO2 (not CO2) from false prophets who just want to capitalize on doom and gloom.

And I suppose you call the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, a bunch of idiots for saying that Antarctica has 21% more ice are stupid. Or comparing 1980 to 2008 and saying there is no change in the total ice covering the Arctic.

Oh but I forget, you are the world's expert on climatic occurances and their effect on global, planetary movements especially in relation to the downfall of Atlantis and the rise of the Mayan Doomsday clock of 2012. Forgive my ignorance.

And it is Bangladesh. Sorry for the fast typing, you dumb MFR dohboi.

The one thing I have learned from watching the bunch of self serving dingalings on this forum is you are useless to me and the world.

[ProudFossil]

See, to the Gorebots, it doesn’t matter.

Summer too hot? Man-made climate change.
Summer too cold? Man-made climate change.
Summer too wet? Man-made climate change.
Summer too dry? Man-made climate change.
Summer perfect? Momentary respite from man-made climate change.

“Climate change” is the perfect liberal cause. YOU CAN’T PROVE IT. Any deviation from the norm, they can just write off as “climate change” and the sheep will buy into it!

[coyote]

I see Peak Oil very much as a potential salvation for a planet humans can live on. But only if it also stops use of coal, cutting down forests, etc etc.

I agree. Pstarr and Heineken have given me a bit of hope on the forests aspect recently - apparently lumber is quite an energy-intensive activity, and is not doing well as an industry in the face of high gas prices. That's something I hadn't considered before, and it raised my spirits a bit. Here's hoping the ROI on lumber plummets!

[dinopello]

I'll have to keep a look-out to see if the Whole Foods is selling the Imported Estonian Firewoodthis winter.

[coyote]

Damn it, dino - just when I was getting to my happy place!

[Serial_Worrier]

Lots of deniers in here.

[jbrovont]

This has nothing to do with conservation of mass or energy. One more time, floating ice breaking off an ice shelf doesn't change sea level. The mass of ice below water must exactly equal the mass of ice being supported. Since water expands when it freezes the exact same amout as it contracts when it melts, the mass of water displaced equals the mass of ice of the entire piece. When the piece melts, it exactly fills the "hole" the ice was displacing in the water.

The only ice that can raise sea level when it melts is ice that is on land when it melts.

However, since we're talking about conservation of mass, let's look at the article:

Maminul Haque Sarker, head of the department at the government-owned centre that looks at boundary changes, told AFP sediment which travelled down the big Himalayan rivers -- the Ganges and the Brahmaputra -- had caused the landmass to increase.

The rivers, which meet in the centre of Bangladesh, carry more than a billion tonnes of sediment every year and most of it comes to rest on the southern coastline of the country in the Bay of Bengal where new territory is forming, he said in an interview on Tuesday.

Breaking this down, it means that land mass is being transported from higher areas of Bangladesh being eroded by water (increasing percipitation maybe? ) and traveling downstream to the delta where it forms "new land."

No mystery or contradiction of climate change here. Just physics and geology.

Is this a result of the physical property that energy (in the form of mass) can never be lost? This also is against the mantra of algore that the oceans will rise 20 feet. Eight square miles of ice melt and yet Bangladesh is now higher out of the water? Give me a break.

[jbrovont]

This is a misleading characterization of the data you're quoting. The actual research you're referring to shows that in a small area of the central antarctic, the height of the "Antarctic Ice" is growing. Some important details are that this is in a relatively small area, it's new ice caused by increased percipitation, and the 21% figure does not represent the overall change in mass of Antarctic ice, which the University of Colorado's NSIDC clearly states is in decline.

And I suppose you call the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, a bunch of idiots for saying that Antarctica has 21% more ice are stupid.

The research you're referring to talks about overall ice cover. Ice cover may be similar, however the percentage of total multi-year ice making up total ice cover is significantly less.

Or comparing 1980 to 2008 and saying there is no change in the total ice covering the Arctic.

After some searching I was unable to find any peer reviewed publications commenting on the intelligence of dohboi. I was also unable to find any information corroborating your allegations that he has had intimate relations with anyone's mother.

Please provide references and links if possible.

And it is Bangladesh. Sorry for the fast typing, you dumb MFR dohboi.

[CarlosFerreira]

This has nothing to do with conservation of mass or energy. One more time, floating ice breaking off an ice shelf doesn't change sea level. The mass of ice below water must exactly equal the mass of ice being supported. Since water expands when it freezes the exact same amout as it contracts when it melts, the mass of water displaced equals the mass of ice of the entire piece. When the piece melts, it exactly fills the "hole" the ice was displacing in the water.

The only ice that can raise sea level when it melts is ice that is on land when it melts.
However, since we're talking about conservation of mass, let's look at the article:

Maminul Haque Sarker, head of the department at the government-owned centre that looks at boundary changes, told AFP sediment which travelled down the big Himalayan rivers -- the Ganges and the Brahmaputra -- had caused the landmass to increase.

The rivers, which meet in the centre of Bangladesh, carry more than a billion tonnes of sediment every year and most of it comes to rest on the southern coastline of the country in the Bay of Bengal where new territory is forming, he said in an interview on Tuesday.

Breaking this down, it means that land mass is being transported from higher areas of Bangladesh being eroded by water (increasing percipitation maybe? ) and traveling downstream to the delta where it forms "new land."

No mystery or contradiction of climate change here. Just physics and geology.

Is this a result of the physical property that energy (in the form of mass) can never be lost? This also is against the mantra of algore that the oceans will rise 20 feet. Eight square miles of ice melt and yet Bangladesh is now higher out of the water? Give me a break.

That made a lot of sense, jbrovont. Thank you.

[skiwi]

Meanwhile nearby

Gloomy summer headed toward infamy

CHILLY: Anchorage could hit 65 degrees for fewest days on record.

The coldest summer ever? You might be looking at it, weather folks say.

Right now the so-called summer of '08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded
in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees...

[Lore]

Meanwhile nearby

Gloomy summer headed toward infamy

CHILLY: Anchorage could hit 65 degrees for fewest days on record.

The coldest summer ever? You might be looking at it, weather folks say.

Right now the so-called summer of '08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded
in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees...

Thanks for the local weather report!

[skiwi]

Thanks for the local weather report!

Better than ours

Tornadoes hit N. Buller

Front page of local wednesday paper, small pdf file.

Tornadoes and gale force wind gusts caused thou-
sands of dollars worth of damage in Northern Buller
today...