Re: AMD's well may be running dry

On Mar 16, 3:52 pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dr. Dweeb wrote:
What is needed is real science instead of "climatologists" postulating
cause-effect and then trying to prove it, and having failed, using the
political process to sell the idea anyway.

Are you able to disprove the fact that when water goes from -0 to +0, it melts ?

Are you able to diprove the number on the amount of ice on land in both the
arctic/greenland as well as antarctica ?

Are you able to disprove the fact that more and more of the arctic ocean becomes
open water in the summer and that the summer (in terms of navication) is longer
now than it was before ? Are you able to disprove that this ice is currently
melting and are you able to provide that satellite imaging showing ice covered
surfaces schrinking ?

Are you able to disprove the fact that darker substances aborb more heat than
white snow ? (aka: open ocean water versus ice/snow covered ocean) ?

Are you aware of El Ninio and the destructuve nature of the weather that
accompanies it ? It is caused by minute temperature changes in ocean water.
Imagine how much a more significant change in ocean temperature and water levels
would do.

How much in terms of assets and infrastructure in the USA are near sea level ?
How much or that would be destroyed by rising sea levels which would bring more
destruction/flooding/erosion during storms ?

Can you really afford to ignore the scientific facts ?

Again, forget the USA's weather. You need to consider the border zones where the
average temperature is near the freezing point. Raise the average temperature by
a couple of degrees and all of a sudden, you have a lot of ice melting into the
ocean.

Your reaction is akin to homeonewrs near a river being warned of possible
flooding in the spring and refuse to sand bag their property because they see no
scientific evidence that this will happen since those are just predictions.

You are correct. This isn't hard evidence like the knowkedge that mixing
glycerine with nitro something creates a mighty explosive.

But the humanity has moved beyond just empirical evidence a LONG LONG time ago.
We have the power of reason and deduction. And we can predict certain things.
Eisntein was pretty good and coming up with theories that have been accepted.

Based on what we are seeing happen today (weather data, and those are factual),
we can reson/deduct that we are headed towards something really really bad if
nothing is done with it.

We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (as well as others). Humans have that
uncanny hability to test CO2 in a lab and find that it lets light though, but
reflects infrared, AND they are able to deduct what happens on a planerary scale.

We also know that humans have recently begun to introduce large quantities of
CO2 in the atmosphere (previously sequestered for millions of years
underground), and that the weather DATA starts to match CO2 emissions starting
at a certain point. (aka: when CO2 production exceeded plant consumption of CO2.

Consider also that airlines dump CO2 in upper atmoshere where plants can't get
to it. The minute it goes out the jet engines, it is contributing to rising
temperatures. At least the gas that comes out of the SUV/Hummers people drive
takes a number of years before it reaches the upper atmosphere, and at least
while still near the ground, those gases have a chance to be captured by plants.

Sorry, but people who refuse to accept the fact that CO2 is harming the planet
are like ultra religious people who refused to accept the fact that the earth is
not the centre of the universe.





When you drill for oil, you sell the oil with a fossil fuel tax on it.
The refiner buys oil to be refined and buys oil to fuel the refining
process. The refined product is sold with a tax that combines both.

The steel maker buys refined oil and pays that fossil fuel tax. When
it sells the steel to the car manufacturer, it includes that fossil fuel
tax.
The car manufacturer then also buys oil to fuel its car assembly
plants and the fossil fuel taxes from all the products that go into the
car are combined.

When the car is sold, the owner ends up paying for the total carbon
footprint that was used to manufacture the car. The beauty of this is that
if
that car is exported to another country, it is the person in the
other country that inherits the responsability for the car's carbon
footprint and it affects that country's per capita carbon footprint.
(just discussing manufacture it, not
use).
Similarly, when someone buys fuel at a petrol station to power
his/her car, they pay the end carbon tax on the refined fuel (just
like the steel maker did). But being the end user, they can't deduct
it and it goes against that country's per capita CO2 consumption.

Lets assume for a minute that the USA had a positive trade balance,
and generated 25% of the world's pollution. Americans citizens should
not be penalised for the carbon emissions generated when producing widgets
that are exported to canada, mexico or anywhere else. It is the
importers that should be penalised.

But a company that is highly inefficient and which consumes a lot of
oil to produce a widget will not be as competitive as one which is far
more
efficient since the more efficient one will have a smaller carbon tax
attached to the product.
There would have to be some exceptions such as companies that
sequester oil products (plastics, vaseline, lubricants etc). Those do
not get burned so they should get a refund on the carbon tax for the
amount of fuel they sequester (but still pay the carbon tax generated
when the raw oil was refined before being delivered to them).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article23627...

Ocean heat blamed for the mysterious disappearance of glaciers
By Steve Connor
Published: 16 March 2007
A mysterious phenomenon is causing four major glaciers in the
Antarctic to shrink in unison, causing a significant increase in sea
levels, scientists have found.


The rise in atmospheric temperatures caused by global warming cannot
account for the relatively rapid movement of the glaciers into the
sea, but scientists suspect that warmer oceans may be playing a role.


"There is a possibility that heat from the ocean is somehow flowing
in
underneath these glaciers, but it is not related to global warming,"
said glaciologist Duncan Wingham of University College London.
"Something has changed that is causing these glaciers to shrink.


"At this rate the glaciers will all be afloat in 150 years or so."


Satellite measurements have shown that the Antarctic glaciers are
retreating in a uniform manner, suggesting a common cause. Air
temperatures over Antarctica are much too cold for any significant
surface melting, which suggests that the flow of the glaciers into
the
sea is being aided by melting at their base, lubricating their
movement into the ocean.


In a study in the journal Science, Dr Wingham and colleague Andrew
Shepherd of Edinburgh University found that the Greenland and
Antarctic ice sheets have together contributed a sea level rise of
0.35mm a year over the past decade - about 12 per cent of the current
global trend.


While the retreat of the Greenland ice *** can be linked to melting
of the glaciers' surface, the same it not true of the four major
glaciers in the Antarctic identified by Wingham and Shepherd.


"These glaciers are vulnerable to small changes in ocean
temperature,"
he said. "A rise of less than 0.5C could have triggered the present
imbalance."


However, it would take about 200 years for extra heat from the ocean
to reach the underside of the glaciers, which makes it difficult to
believe that the present shrinkage is due to global warming, Dr
Wingham said.


.............................................................................­......................


and make sure you read this last paragraph real carefully ...
this is from a specialist in glaciers ... from London ... not
an american scientist for you conspiracy theorists ...


but don't believe the Bible who tells you what is going to happen
or all the scentists who are experts and actually
are studying this and disproving it, believe Al Gore and go buy
one of his carbon gadjets so he can get rich ...



.