Now That Global Warming is Considered Real...

For the past two to three years, the scientific concensus has been that global warming is a real; and now the journalistic community is accepting it as real, and is reporting it as fact.

It is anticipated that sea levels will rise 1 to 3 feet within 50 years. How will this affect sailing on the coasts? If it rises this much where you sail, what will the affect be to you? Will it make that much difference? Will it be easy for the sailing community to adapt?

Well? Dutch people? Will the sailing community in Holland be able to adapt to living underwater, or in Germany?

I never had a doubt that global warming was real.

I'm just not convinced that we, as human beings, have anything to do with it.

I'm just glad your question wasn't...



..because that would really really suck.

I'm looking forward to storing my boat on the lanai of a second story suite in the Westin Ka'anapali Ocean Resort timeshares.

I'm looking forward to being able to launch from my driveway. Oh, and not having to wear a wetsuit or drysuit to go sailing!

Well other then that our country will be reduced to about 1/3 off it's current size.. no problemos.....

serious, the govermental body who is resposable for keeping our feet dry is studing variuos option for the future.

general ideas currently: artificial reef to block the waves [waves "sucks" the beach away] raising the dikes [again.., we just finished raising to sc "deltahight" which was determent after a flooding in 1953!!!!] and a project which involves claiming land in front of the coast to use as a sort of overflow area.

anyway serious issue here below sealevel

some sites:
http://www.deltawerken.com/Deltaworks/23.html
http://www.zeeuwsarchief.nl/strijdtegenhetwater/fotocore.htm

you see--serious bussines here

Totally serious business, and I felt guilty making a joke out of it. At least you're not as screwed as the Maldives, though, right?

I find just as troubling the theory that one of the results will be to "supersize" the weather ... bigger hurricanes, etc.

ahh, Alex, you should not feel guilty, I hope it at least warms up the water as well, no wetsuits anymore!!!!!

And then the Gulf Stream suddenly shuts down because of a lack of differential water temperature and we're quickly thrown into a mini-ice age...such as they suspect happened in the middle ages sometime around the time Europe was grappling with the Black Plague (and the sustained cold may have had a large influence on the Plague).

Right Jake, that sort of thing. No Gulf Stream means no agriculture in Northern Europe.

Personally (despite my love of sailing) I am ready for the ice age. My family is from Quebec. I'll be out there spearing seals and shuffling around on skis with a big grin on my face.

"**** and bull stories of impending doom. It proves nothing more than there is money to be made promoting fear thru outlandish theories based on questionable data. The journalistic community accepting or promoting these theories has little to do with proving them true or false.

Regards,
Bob

You just love bad jokes dontya...

I take a slightly relaxed view to this

1/3rd of the Netherlands is already living between 0 and 5 mtr under sea level. I don't think an additional 1 or 2 feet will matter much in this scheme of things. Same approach as we have been doing for centuries, just 3 feet higher then before. Besides we are a wealthy nation and we can pay the additional costs associated to this.

Wouter

For anyone interested in reading more on the subject, there's a pretty decent EPA report on Sea Level Rise here:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalw...CenterPublicationsSeaLevelRiseIndex.html

And look who's sitting out in the middle of the North Atlantic, with only the Gulf Stream to warm our toes.
We're further north than Holland - their canals freeze in winter. The Gulf Stream is the only reason we have our (almost) mild winters and don't freeze.
Please don't take it away from us - All you gas guzzling.........

Canada thinks its a great idea! 9,976,140 SQ KM of land available to settle.

Jake mentioned the Gulf Stream shutdown theory, but another Really Bad Thing that could happen with a 3 ft ocean rise is the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Estimates of the seven million cubic miles of ice floating off into the ocean are for a 16 to 50 ft rise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet


Or make this your home page so you can keep a close eye on it.
http://igloo.gsfc.nasa.gov/wais/index.html

That's what really bothers me about the cavalier attitude that some people have about what, if any, effect we might or might not be having on global warming. It's not necessarily a linear relationship between global temperature rise and global sea levels. It can reach a point where there is a step function, a tipping point or a complete change of state of the system.

Fortunately, the deck off my bedroom is 26 ft above sea level, so mooring the boat won't be a problem. Trailer parking will be a few miles away, however.

Funnily enough, my parents actually own mountainous waterfront property in northern Quebec! Now if you'll excuse me - my Hummer is low on gas.

Time magazine had a pretty good series of articles on global warming a few issues ago. One point they brought up is we may have reached a tipping point where glacier melting, among other things, is increasing due to more ground being exposed. It sounds pretty logical.

On NOVA lastnight they were discussing how air-borne pollution in the atmosphere is dimming the sunlight and having a measurable affect on the amount of heat reaching us from the sun. Some were of the opinion this was good because is counters global warming...but one leading researcher has a theory that it has made us underestimate how sensitive the planet is to CO2 & other greenhouse gases. We have been measuring the net rate of global temp changes, not the amount from greenhouse gases by themselves. As CO2 levels continue to rise as sunlight blocking pollutants level off, there could then be a sudden increase in global temps, resulting in not 1-3 ft ocean level increases, but more like 10-25 meter rises in the next 50 years. At a certain global average temp, the polar permafrost will thaw and decay, releasing extremely large quantities of CO2. As ocean temps rise, there will be a point where vast amounts of methane will be relesed from the sea floor...methane is much more potent at trapping infrared.

The real question is: are we approaching, at or past the tipping point...?

I've heard this before and I've seen it from some pretty reliable sources...but looking at a globe I find it difficult to fathom how the relative size of polar caps can raise the entire ocean level of the globe 25 meters (wikipedia says if it were all to melt, it would be 60 meters). How is this possible? The artic ice cap has already shrunk by over 20% since the 70's. Is everyone counting the ice below the surface too?

The earth naturally has an ebb and flow. I live in the middle of South Carolina, about 2 hours from the shore and yet where I live was once beechfront property. Fossils of shells and sand are common here.
I think it would be ignorant to believe that sea levels won't change again. I do believe that in the grand scheme of things, humans are not mighty enough to destroy the earth. She is much older and more resiliant than we are. The earth will heal herself of what we do. If (when) there is another ice age, our population will decrease but survive and then we will have another go at it. Hopefully next time we will take better care.

Bike to the beach, hop on your sail boat, bike to the mountains and run a river in a kayak (yes, you can tow one behind a bike). Both you and the earth will be in better shape!

You have to include both polar ice caps and the various glaciers.

Since I'm at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (one of the leaders in climate science), and one of the scientists in the aforementioned NOVA episode has his office about 100 meters from mine, I feel compelled to chime in (briefly) on this one.

It has certainly been more than two or three years since a scientific consensus about the reality of global warming was reached. Research into climate change (natural and anthropogenic) was prevelent by the early 1980's. Even before 1960, people like Dr. Charles Keeling (formerly of SIO) were monitoring the climate. His 'Keeling Curve', showing CO_2 levels atop Mauna Loa, Hawaii, is very well known and shows the increasing CO_2 levels in the past several decades. Of course, our knowledge of the Earth's climate increases all the time.

While there is scientific consensus about the reality of global warming, it is important to realize that climate scientists do not know everything, and there are points on which scientists disagree. Models are only as good as the theory behind them and the observations driving them, and two models can give very different results. (We can't even get the weather for next week right...think about how hard it is to figure out the global climate in 50-100 years.) Disagreement at this level is how science works. Various hypotheses are formed, tested, and upheld or rejected. With time, some hypotheses become so strongly supported by observation, theory and experiment that they rise to the level of scientific theories, which are, for all intents and purposes, facts.

It is a pity that larger acceptance of climate change as reality has taken so long. There is a problem, particularly in the US, of the general population refusing to accept what is considered to be scientific truth. The source of this problem, I believe, lies both with the public _and_ the scientists. As scientists, we certainly have a long way to go in communicating our findings beyond our small community. With that in mind, interested parties might wish to take a look at http://www.realclimate.org. I'm not affiliated with it, but it has proven to be a good source of scientifically accurate information and discussion. (Please note that controversial subjects are brought up, sometimes dealing with politics and science, so beware.) Also, a recent issue (perhaps the most recent issue) of Vanity Fair had a fun article showing the effects of sea level rise on areas like Martha's Vineyard (a classic sailing place, and hangout of Kennedy's et al.) and the Hamptons.

If the Kennedy's get flooded out will the wind powered generators be built?

Not just the Antarctic ice sheet (although that's a horror-movie scenario) - glaciers are falling off Greenland like never before, too.

Despite the damage or acceleration for which our society may be responsible, I'm inclined to share Sunny's perspective - in the course of ten thousand or ten million years, we can't be very important.

However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be more sensitive and responsible now.

Humans and Lemmings, all the same.
We cannot hurt the earth in any major way. No matter what we do the earth will just take it in it's stride and cycle along through it and out the other side. Whether we, as the human race, or for that matter, all other forms of life are still here when it heals the scars that we give it doesn't really matter at all in the "scheme" of the "life" of the earth.
“Once the dinosaurs ruled” (for a long, long time), we have only been here for a few seconds of time by comparison. Don’t think for one minute that our time as a species isn’t under constant threat of annihilation at any moment, why do you think it is that we seem to want to speed up that process so much instead of legitimately finding an alternative?
If only a minute fraction of the resources that is spent annually on producing the means of killing our fellow humans was diverted into “productive” activities, our potential could be almost unlimited.
Lemmings, humans, is there really much difference?

Well darryl, you're certainly a cheery fellow from Down Under!

Hmmm... significant ocean rise... well, that would take care of the affordable real estate problem in S. Florida... bummer for the Scripps folks who are moving to their new site here, lol.

Everything south of Lake Okeechobee, the Keys, and even The Bahamas would be reefs. North of the Big O would be a chain of islands stretching up to Atlanta that might be fun to sail to.

Note: The Arctic icecap is not a problem, since it is floating, right? i.e. Archimedes' Principle, if an ice cube melts in a glass of water, the water level does not change, because the cube was made up of EXACTLY the amount of water it was displacing, Q.E.D. The ANTarctic cap, OTOH, is largely on land, so could be interesting. If penguins wash up in Miami, I am SO OUT OF HERE!

Hopefully this will reduce your anxieties by half, and allow you to return to worrying about a killer tsunami from Cumbre Viejo collapsing, or an asteroid collision.


Sunny: Bike to the beach, hop on your sail boat, bike to the mountains and run a river in a kayak (yes, you can tow one behind a bike). Both you and the earth will be in better shape!

That's just CRAZY talk! 'mer'cans have a God-given right to drive 8,000 lb. SUVs, gorge on fried foods, and celebrate their "prosperity" by developing cardiovascular disease! (At 5'11", 168#, I do NOT subscribe to this theory, lol.)

As a systems engineer I believe humans are powerful enough these days to "trip the system", however I also believe that humans are too dumb or stupid to do anything about it.

Wouter

Fear and greed may be powerful enough motivation! When gas took it's first big jump, the sale of SUVs dropped 25%.

The mere threat of disrupted oil suplies sent the price per barrel over $70! The result is that last night I paid $2.97 at the pump.

Pete, that is still under half what I pay and have paid for the last 6 months at the pump. Yesterdays price was US$7.62 for a gallon here in the oil nation Norway..
(assuming one gallon equals 3.71 liters and with exchange rates from yahoo. When _will_ you stop using those imperial units btw.)

In the UK at present the average per gallon is $6.35 US.

Mind you, over 70% of that is tax for the Exchequer!

I agree with the latter half of what Sunny said and the first half of what Wouter said. The rest I take issue with.

There are many areas that we have already dramatically changed. Off the top of my head: the Colorado River no longer flows into the Gulf of California, changing the salinity of the upper gulf, 20% of the Amazon rainforest is gone, resulting in a massize release of carbon and a change in solar albedo and local weather patterns and simulations of proposed tidal power generating plants using portions of the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia have shown tidal increases of 20% in Maine and changes in tides as far away as Boston. We can make significant local changes that we can see, measure and remedy if we chose.

Globally, our effects are not as easy to see, measure or remedy, but that does not mean that it can't be done. Saying that we are too stupid to fix it is as dangerous and fatalistic as anthropomorphizing or deifying a rock that happens to be our home, claiming immaterially that she can heal herself. We have taken global action on the ozone depletion problem and while it will take decades for the CFCs to work through the system, we can expect to see improvements within our childrens' lifetimes. Global remedies for global problems that we caused can happen. Why can't we do the same for greenhouse gases? Is it because the likelihood of skin cancer is more frightening than a few inches of sea level rise and some nebulous, unknown tipping point?

No, we can't hurt the Earth as a planet, but we can hurt the Earth as a home and that is what we need to change.

Bingo!

Very well said Steve.

Global Warming is a fact. However I don't believe it has anything to do with Greenhouse Gases. I've looked at numerous charts on sun spot activity and they all line up perfectly with global warming and cooling. Imagine that the sun causing global warming?

I can't believe all the junk science thrown around on TV. I guess it's good for ratings. If you are really interested I've included some links below to look at.





http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1186/

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html

Mike Hill
www.stlouiscats.com

I'm of the Kyoto generation. There is always some powerful nitwit who thinks his short term gains are more important then long term global benefits. And presto Kyoto was dead as a treaty. Currently the same things is being done with the non-proliferation treaty for exactly the same reasons, because some powerful nitwit feels he can score some short term personal gains.

That is why humanity as a whole will always dependent on the harbour wall to turn the ship around. And that is stupid in my book. Or at least that is how I see it.

Wouter

Interesting graph. Especially interesting is how the land temperature plot appears to preceed that of the solar activity plot over a good portion of those 300 years. Generally, a system with any sort of inertia will have the cause preceeding the effect. I also have a problem understanding how a plot of cycle length versus time means anything. The solar cycle length in 1800 was 26 years, yet about 10 years later the cycle length is 25 years? This makes sense? Statistical windowing can be useful for finding patterns in noisy data, but windowing time over time doesn't make sense.

I wondered what the authors were thinking, so I Googled Baliunas and Soon and found that the report was done for the George C. Marshall Institute. I found several (many) papers addressing this topic, but nothing with this plot and an explanation.

However, it's always fun to impugn "unbiased" "research" "institutes," so....

Their mission statement follows, emphasis mine.



Now, one would think that a purely unbiased, scientific institute would likely publish papers that would fall somewhere in the middle of the laissez-faire industry line and the hard-core environmentalist line. However, looking at their list of publications on the environment, we see that most of the shots are taken at the environmetal groups and conservationist theories.

Additionally, they support a position that they call "civic environmentalism" whereby government regulation merely points to problems and the free-market would provide for "the actual work of environmental protection up to collaborative efforts between industry and local governments." Personally, I trust the free market to make me money, not look after my or anyone else's well being. I also don't trust disparate local governments to stand up to the unified front of national industry groups.

I'm not saying that solar maximums don't contribute to global warming, but it is interesting to see a scientist (Richard Willson in the article in the Space.com link) that accepts a solar cycle contribution but cautions against discounting industrial pollution as a significant factor.

I am most concerned with the environment my sons will live in. I am frustrated that the human race has technology to correct their transgressions on the earth but simply don't act.
I have heard that evil prevails when good men do nothing. That is how I feel. I do try to do my ‘little part’. (Being raised by some good old fashioned dope smoking hippies helps keep that in the front of my mind.) But I still have to use the technology that is available to me. If I could afford energy choices that were ecological I would use them.
The problem is huge but I feel like the little things I do are worth while.

How do you eat an elephant? …one bite at a time.

Regular on Maui is $3.39 this week. Even with the state regulating the price we expect to see the price jump $.14 next week.

Solar cycle predictions are a very interesting and as of yet not completely understood science. Various methods through the years have been tried to predict the length and severity of the cycles, only to be undone by what actually happens on the next cycle. A fellow that works for my company is deeply involved in this, and one of things noted was that there is some sort of predictor in Earth phenomena that can indicate the severity of the next cycle. Very weird, because it might imply that the Earth is affecting the Sun's cycles. A recent study that was in the news seemed to be able to explain that link a little better, in a way that ties it back to previously unaccounted for activity on the Sun. It's a very interesting topic to my industry, because it affects how we fly spacecraft.

As for CO2 - sat in on a presentation where the analyst (from a project that measured such things) presented measurement observations correlating the increase of CO2 to the number of barrels of oil sold. There were also interesting graphs showing the levels fluctuate in the hemispheres on a seasonal basis - when it's winter in the northern hemisphere there is less vegetation to soak up the CO2, so levels rise, opposite happens in the summer.

For me, on the logic side is this - the oil buried in the Earth contains carbon, the burning of this produces carbon dioxide. We dig up and burn a huge amount of this every day, and demandis only going up. Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas. The tonnage of it our activities are pumping into the atmosphere has to have an affect. To me it's logical and inescapable.

Man's affect on the weather part II - cities and developed areas have been shown to affect local weather patterns. The pavement and buildings and all collect heat from the Sun. This heat warms the air around the city which then rises, causing air to flow inward from outer regions. Local winds and storms are all affected by this.

Well, following that logic, if we have to get rid of all our gas burning cars because of global warming, we'd better figure out how to put a big ole plug in all those active volcanos that dump massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere all the time.

Yes, the cars goes over to fuel cells running on ethanol real soon now I hope. You can even drink the fuel from those in a pinch Maugh, should suit you well. Imagine growing and destilling your own 'fuel', legally.

Volcanos are just another excuse to not take responsibility for what is happening tough.

Actually, what you say does not follow from that logic. The point was whether we're adding to it or not. To me it's inescapable that we are. But that's the irony, isn't it? We could cut our emissions to zero and be done in by a bunch of volcanos. Or they could go dormant on their own and we could continue the way we are and do it to ourselves without help. We could say that we'll get hit with a meteor anyway at some point so why treat the place nice? Because maybe you won't get hit. Welcome to the uncertainties of life on Earth. Natural processes have been going on, heating and cooling have gone on, tremendous calamities have happened. What hasn't been going on is mankind's contribution on top of it. If there's a fire already burning - do you throw wood on it if you're already uncomfortable from the heat?

It is all about power ... and fear.

Currently the dumb people control the (state) power in some very important places. The good ones are too scared to stick their heads out because we are all to individualistic to stand up for each other and because we are too afraid to be called socialist, anti-semitic, anti-American, bleeding heart liberal or simply naive. This means that power can "neutralize" each one of us; ... one by one. And they do.


That and the uncureable (self defeating) knee-jerk reaction of ordinary people.



Wouter

we all know how well Dutch Cartoons reflect the will of the people around the world :P

That cartoon doesn't look very Dutch ... for one thing, it's in English. Looks American to me. From what little I remember of my last trip to Amsterdam, the Dutch are pretty assimilated to global English-speaking culture, but they still write cartoons in their native language, like the Danish. Now the Swedes are another story - I don't think Swedish is spoken at all anymore, except maybe in court or on farms or something - so maybe it's a Swedish cartoon. But I doubt it.

Steve, thanks again for your thoughtful posts.

www.slowpokecomics.com A very American institution

Since the solar cycle has come up, I'll add a few things about it. Yes, the energy output of the sun varies on several time scales. Since the sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth, those changes can and do have an effect on the planet. The assertion, however, that changes in the solar cycle eliminate greenhouse gases as a cause of 'global warming' (more on the quotes later) is not justified.

On first glance at the plots above, I immediately took issue with the lag in time of the solar signal compared to the temperature signal. A cause must precede an effect. Moreover it is clear in the plots that the averaging in time of the temperature data is not the same as the averaging of the solar cycle data. This makes conclusions drawn from the graphs without further explanation very suspect.

The report cited about solar cycles brings up another point which has already be touched upon. The source of any report must be considered when judging the report. I know nothing of the Marshall Institute beyond what was stated above, but there is a strong likely hood that research published by this institute has not undergone the rigorous peer review process that characterizes scientific publications. While the peer review process is not perfect (eg. S.Korean cloning paper in Nature, or maybe it was Science), it is quite good. My caution to everyone is to make sure that you get your information from an appropriate source and consider any bias of that source.

Why did I put 'global warming' in quotes? The term is an unfortunate misnomer. 'Climate change' is much better. While the mean temperature of the Earth may increase (what kind of average are we referring to anyway? Annual, spatial?) Some regions will be colder (eg. Western Europe), some wetter, some dryer, some warmer.

One other thing...some one pointed out that the melting of the Arctic ice sheet wouldn't have an effect on sea level. That is reasonably accurate. However, the change in salinity in the North Atlantic resulting from that melting has the potential to disrupt deep water formation. The result changes in the deep thermohaline (density-driven) circulation of the world ocean could be quite dramatic. Notably, this oceanic 'conveyor belt' is largely responsible for sequestering atmospheric CO_2 (from volcanoes, SUV's and humans who keep on exhaling) in the deep ocean, slowing the rise in levels of greenhouse gases. The entire system is a delicate balance, and the system is nonlinear, meaning it has multiple equilibrium states and the potential to rapidly shift between them. The evidence is certainly mounting that we humans have the power to disrupt that balance.

For those who trust the Earth to fix itself, you're in luck. A number models I've seen suggest that if we really screw things up, the Earth can return to an equilibrium state (not necessarily the one we enjoy now) in something on the order of a few hundred to thousand years. So for those planning to be around in the year 3000, I'd love to know how things turn out. Humans are kind of wimpy when it comes to dealing with nature at its worst, so maybe the **** would be a better source to rely on for that info. Personally, I'll keep hoping that we come to our collective senses and lessen our impact on the planet.

Let's discuss Wouter's attitude, but not in a Maugan Kneejerkin' way.

Which post does not fit with the others?

1.


2.


3.


4.


If Wouter's posts in this thread were includes on a standardized aptitude test, then I would say that post #1 is the post that does not fit. It expresses a confident optimism and strength of a group of people holding back the North Sea for centuries. No small feat. In fact, judging by documentaries that I've seen, I would be inclined to call their dike system an engineering Wonder of the World.

The latter three posts express a fatalistic submission to powerful, short-sighted, self-interested idiots. I recognize the implied shot in #4, but doesn't the Dutch population include their share of dumb, powerful nitwits looking out for self-gain, or does living behind a wall like they do purge that attitude of self-interest over society's gain? Can't it be argued that the rise of Reason and Self-governance is an expression of an unwillingness to submit to powerful, short-sighted, self-interested (let's add inbred and disingenuous, too) idiots? Why be pessimistic and give up now only a thousand years into the process? Personally, I would love to see Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged come to pass. Let the rich, self-interested "leaders" shrug, take their toys and go home. John Galt has inflicted enough laissez-faire misery and there will always be someone to fill his shoes. Perhaps someone that has observed his mistakes.

Sorry, I'm getting loopy.

Sorry Maugan, this summary suggest man emits 150x the amount of CO2 than the average amount from Volcanoes. SO2 is also more than 50% from man.

Man vs Volcanoes

Earth is blue. The sea is blue. My eyes are blue. Mars is red.

Four statements, one does not fit, but no conflicts there.

A generalisation ("humans aren't taking care of our home planet") may be different from a more specific situation ("the dutch may cope with higher see levels") without conflict: they may be able to handle higher sea levels but unable to cope with the environment problem as human beings.

With time we will all change our behaviours and ourselves to face this challenge. The big question in my opinion is how long it will take. If the planet changes faster, we might be unable to change soon enough.

One of the most disturbing things I have read about is the politicization of science. It seems as though dissenting views sometimes get supressed and the scientists ostracized. GOvernment grants and postion in a university can often create a conforming behavior. Unfortunately the scientists offering a dissenting opinion to the 'accepted' theory of 'global warming' are now the ones being put on the sidelines. Without unbiased science, we are in for some potentially bad choices in politics based on technology.

Certainly the climate is changing; its been changing forever. Right now its warming, but its still cooler than it has been in recent past (50-60 years). Its also warmer than it has been in the past 250 years (mini ice age). Is human activity involved? Certainly. HOw much and how much we can effect the climate is certainly open for debate. Us shutting off our carbon emissions may be like pour a cup of water on a bonfire; not nearly enough. The point is we just don't know.

That lack of knowledge is not reason to just take no action--we should do what we can to control our emissions, but it is also not reason to dramatically harm our economy by adopting certain measures as outlined in the Kyoto treaty. That treaty was ignored by the CLinton administration and the BUsh administration. Its standards have also not been met by all the European countries that signed it.

In the end, humans, although dumb as Wouter thinks they are, will adjust, both to the climate change and to the need to change their habits as we go along and we will adapt to what we can't control and will perservere. Its what we humans do.

David
H20 781

Rolf:

What Imperial unit, I ain't in Canada!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Imperial_and_US_customary_systems#Volume

Besides, without the "English" system, there would be no hogshead of beer, hence no "Hog'shead Saloon" and no "Hog'shead/Keys 100"! I mean, really, where would you go to have a few cold ones? The "Metric Unit Drinking Facility"!? You can't drink in a place like that!

Seriously, I'm worried more about "Avian Flu" than global warming. Both are serious concerns, but the "flu" is more imminent.

Shortly, I will be installing a passive hot water system and buying a large solar panel.

Also, this may be of interest to some of you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_%28science%29

We could DO something, instead of just talking. Talking being an important first step.

Found this in a quick search this morning:

http://www.homepower.com/files/beginner/SolarHotWaterBasics.pdf

This shows my cases exactly. The cartoons weren't Dutch and the protests were smallest in Holland as a result of these DANISH cartoons as well.

Like I said earlier one can always dependent on dumb knee-jerk reactions of the masses. Maybe I should add this time ""uninformed as well.

Wouter

exactly spot on Luiz !

I feel the Dutch can handle the rising water level pretty effectively, don't know about other peoples. However human impact on Earth goes further then just rising sea water levels. Whole food chains or economic chains may be distrubted by global warming that ALSO causes water surface rise. I'm not too sure about handling the other effect.

Wouter

And this adjust is called WAR !

Wouter

Ahhh, a breath of fresh air !

Great to see a well written short explanation, scientifically sound, of the situation at hand.

It is very rare to encounter that these days and I work on a university !

Wouter

Not to be too blunt about it, but this can seriously reduce the human output of C02 by "cutting" the world population dramatically. Pete is right, it's iminent and there's not alot anyone can do about it.

Junk Science = a term of derision applied to theories not understood or in opposition to ones own interest. Frequently used by some of the great scientific minds of our time like John Stossell or Rush Limbug.

I agree that lack of knowledge is not a reason for inaction. However, the notion that reducing emissions can't be done without harming the economy is a fallacy. There is no requirement that emissions be reduced in stupid cost-ineffective ways. It has been shown time and again that simple energy saving measures can save individuals and businesses money. Building and operating alternative energy systems creates jobs at home. Reducing demand for imported oil by improving automobile gas mileage and replacing some gasoline with ethanol improves our balance of trade. The only economy to be harmed is that of Exxon and similar companies that refuse to change. On the whole, building a clean sustainable energy infrastructure will be very good for the economy.

Excuse me. I err'd obviously. I guess you'll just have to chalk this one up to dumbass-american-itis. We're all like this you know?

Edit:

Also, My love of my personal vehicle far outweights the care I have that our atmosphere is getting warmer. Thus I feel absolutely no guilt in gassing up my totally impractical 12mpg two door SUV every week at a cost of $60+USD. My budget can afford my driving habits until gas hits $7.50 a gallon. GULP GULP GULP baby!

Other things I enjoy and I'm not ashamed to admit:
1) Eating huge amounts of food knowing full well that people around the globe are starving.
2) Enjoying all the benefits of a private medical insurance plan. I was once not covered by insurance and had to front the costs of all my diabetic supplies. It wasn't bad at all, but having insurance sure is NICE!
3) Shooting game animals for sport.
4) Telling off someone who preaches to me about how I need to change in order to save the world.
5) Donuts. I love donuts. As a diabetic, you can see that I am self destructive.

One way we adjust is through war, but not the only one. Death of the less adapted for natural causes (temperature changes, floods, etc.) is another one, while the adoption of more adequate rules for living (surviving) in the new conditions is probably the best one. It is very unlikely that all people will adopt new rules, so Darwinian selection will probably settle part of the issue - and wars are to be expected in this case.

Since we are not sure of the depth and speed of change, I think the first step is to be ready to accept changes. With luck (time), nature will show us the types of change required.

Also, the whole we "don't want to hurt the economy" thing is kind of funny - if you agree that warming is taking place, and you understand that there are undesirable consequences as a result, the future impact to the economy will probably be worse then than it would be now to start addressing things, even if the supposed uncertainties are taken into account. Worrying about the $10 you might need to spend now to avoid spending $100 in the future is pretty silly.

[/quote] I agree that lack of knowledge is not a reason for inaction. However, the notion that reducing emissions can't be done without harming the economy is a fallacy. . . .On the whole, building a clean sustainable energy infrastructure will be very good for the economy. [/quote]

We all spend lots of time in our cars as a daily commute to work. Most of us are 9-5, 5 days a week.

Fortunately, I'm able to work 12 hour shifts, (by choice)3 days per week, saving 40% of commuting time when compared to a 5 day worker.

If we made this option available to more, or even all workers, the savings in fuel, pollution, road and vehicle maintenance would be enormous. Plus, I consider the 36 hour week an enormous improvement in my quality of life.

What is needed is leadership, at all levels.

Guys:

A foot rise we could handle. Three foot would mean an end to one of the best sailing spots in the US. The Texas City Dike. See www.tcdyc.com for info.

Doug Snell
Hobie 17
Sunfish
Soon to be Mystere 4.3
www.tcdyc.com

I think that's fine. However, if you support Federal rules to improve fuel economy, you will be able to drive longer without breaking your budget.

I don't like big cars, never have. That should be good news to you, because the less fuel I burn the more for you!

So, unless you want to be forced out of your gas guzzler by your self imposed budgetary restraint, support better fuel economy!

Hey, if it comes down to a "waterworld" scenario, at least we can all zoom around like Kevin Costner on our own ORMA's right?
(and drink our own urine too)

The big questions today are silly: who will spend the $10, how and where, followed by who and where will the $100 savings be enjoyed.

This attempts to put one part of the world or one group of people in advantage are silly. Nature doesn't care much about it. The real way to obtain an advantage is to adapt in time for the changing environment.

It is like hurricane preparation: politicians discuss endlessly where to assign resources until homes are destroyed and they are forced into action. The difference is that climate changes may not give a second chance to a significant part of humanity.

You're being silly (or is it dumb?) again. NOT ALWAYS!

Since you have switched from climate to war and seem to be of the "war is never the answer" crowd, let me point out a few examples of when we (the US) and the rest of the world didn't go to war, but followed the hallowed UN in their leadership to stem injustices and atrocities.

Darfur; the killing is winding down as there are few left to kill. 500,000 civilians killed, 2.5 million terrorized, raped or displaced.

Cambodia; 1.7 million lives lost

Iraq; 300,000 murdered by Saddam

Rwanda; 800,000 murdered

the Balkans; 10,00 died (a trifling by comparison).

All lives lost while the UN led the way with missions, studies, reports, resolutions and diplomatic efforts. What a wonderful record--we didn't go to war.

David
H20781

[
Since you have switched from climate to war and seem to be of the "war is never the answer" crowd, let me point out a few examples of when we (the US) and the rest of the world didn't go to war, but followed the hallowed UN in their leadership to stem injustices and atrocities.

Darfur; the killing is winding down as there are few left to kill. 500,000 civilians killed, 2.5 million terrorized, raped or displaced.

Cambodia; 1.7 million lives lost

Iraq; 300,000 murdered by Saddam

Rwanda; 800,000 murdered

the Balkans; 10,00 died (a trifling by comparison).

All lives lost while the UN led the way with missions, studies, reports, resolutions and diplomatic efforts. What a wonderful record--we didn't go to war.

David
H20781 [/quote]

Murder is the wrong term. These are crimes against humanity of the worst magnitude.

I seem to recall some societal anthropologist or historian saying that the true sign of a civilization in decline is the culture of "mindless self-indulgence".

Not being an anarchist (except sailing!) or one of those guys with a "End of the World" sign, it would seem that most "First" world countries are very close to this culture.

In the US, for example, the top selling items are IPOD, GAMEBOY and X-Box. Microsoft has switched from industry leader in business software to gaming.

Our biggest health threat is obesity. The economics of recreational drugs now approach that of legitimate industry.

We've switched from the "industrial economy" to the "information economy" to the "entertainment economy".

There are more US citizens graduating with sports & fitness related degrees than engineering degrees. So, this is the place to get injured playing golf!

Kind of makes you wonder....

Don't mind relative numbers. Is the absolute number of engineers declining? If it is rising, maybe the country can afford to have more people dedicated to sports.

Would you move away from the first world? It may be the type of change required to survive.

Luiz,
The most difficult thing for me about living in a self indulgent culture is trying to teach my sons to be different than the environment they go to school in every day. They need to understand the difference between a 'need' and a 'want'.
I teach them that success is getting what you want but happiness is wanting what you have. My goal is to teach them how to be happy. I hope I am successful.

I am a nurse and spent some time in New Orleans a couple of weeks after Katrina flooded it. I was in the airport turned field hospital but it felt very third world. In such a place it is much easier to appreciate what you do have. I was never so happy to have bottled water or a clean dressing in my life.

I appreciate my country but I could move out of the US without hesitation. My sons however...their father would not let them move away so easily. I will be here for a while. My youngest son will be off to college when I am just 44. Then maybe Doctors without Borders will have a place for me. Who knows?

I'm considering Nicaragua. Supposedly, all the bad stuff is over and it's a nice place with a welcoming populace and tax incentives.

Will the last American who leaves turn off the lights and bring the Flag!?

Lighten up Maugan. Don't you appreciate your own kind of humour ?


Wouter

Wouter

ACTUALLY
YOU NEED TO LIGHTEN UP SON
DON'T MAKE ME COME OVER THERE AND BREAK YOU LIKE A TWIG OK!?!?!?


STEP


OFF

GOTIT?

(and for anyone that thinks that I write in anything other than a sarcastic tone when dealing with anything other than sailing (and sometimes even when talking about sailing, especially if vvouter is involved) should know that I'm hardly ever serious about these kinds of things. I thought the donut line would have given you a clue, I guess not.)

(but I do love my little SUV)

Pete:

Costa Rica is real nice too. And great surf!!

Doug

My friends that have visited Costa Rica have also said it was very nice. My only concern would be to make sure you could pack enough ammo.

LOL, and post a sign on your back reading 'no body cares about me and a ransom will not be paid'

Maugan,
I was hoping you were joking about the donut. The nurse in me was going to have to come snatch it from you.

Better a little high than too low during the tybee

Just kidding. BTW, Thank you for your service in New Orleans. My Neighbor, also RN, was there with a NW Medical Team, only to arrive and be in the second hurricane. A month later she was off to India on a scheduled trip with the team. This week she just got back from a month in Uganda. People like she, and you make this a better world, and give us all hope.

Caleb

Ha, ha, ha you're the man Maugan !

You are soooooooo funny !

I can help myself, I never knew real humour before you came along. Great man ! love it !

Come give us some more gems, PLEAAAAAASE !



Thought that one up all by yourself ? Two V's instead of one W, that just masterly. I really mean that. Subtle but yet extremely funny. I bet you make your family wet themselfs all the time. You should give courses man.





Wonk wonk ! Got it, got it ?

LITTLE SUV ?

You are a bloody genius Maugan.





Suuuure !!!! Wink wink, heh heh !

You crack me up. Are you thinking about composing a little booklet with the better ones ! Would be a best seller overnight. You should, honestly, no I really mean it. I'm not being sarcastic, you are the next Pauly Shore. And you got the physique to match.

Got to sign off now, my jaws are hurting. Later !

vvouter

Thanks,
I know your neighbor must have told you how surreal it all was. I actually went alone. I hopped a flight with a pilot I was dating at the time. He was taking some business men down to survey the damage to their investments. I just sort of jumped out at the airport and said 'can you use a nurse?' (I had called the Red Cross to see if I could practice with a South Carolina license before I went.)
I was there three weeks after the hurricane and it was as if it had happened yesterday. Other than the human suffering of course, the thing that was hardest for me was the callous attitude of the men I flew with. They thought I was foolish to dirty my hands caring for 'those people' who did not leave when they should have. I was furious with them. I felt ridiculed. I would have much rather traveled with other nurses.

So much for the dating that guy.

There is no way to know if moving to the third world would actually help. The true question was about willingness to move. The (cultural) capacity to accept radical changes in one's way of life is the key point. In the past US people were very fast adapting to changes, but people change.

Some people have no clue. You stepped up and helped those that couldn't help themselves.

As for the guy you were dating, you were lucky to find out what he was really like early on.

Tad, if it makes you feel any better, I am addicted to doughnuts. Even though I do not have diabetes (yet), I restrict myself to one or two doughnut attacks a year. Every time we drive by a Dunkin' Donuts or a Krispy Kreme place, I scream, "Stop, Stop," but Rick never listens to me, thank goodness.

Soon I am going to be driving north from Florida to Ohio by myself, so I am afraid that I might succumb to buying doughnuts wherever I find them along the way. So, what do you suggest, Dunkin' Donuts or Krispy Kreme?

My God, man. There are things you can joke about and be sarcastic with. But Donuts? I'm shaking my head. Nobody, but nobody, should ever make sarcastic remarks involving donuts! I mean, is nothing sacred anymore? What kind of times do we live in when people can mock the wholesome goodness of the donut? To people on this thread who have mentioned that war is or is not the answer to anything I can only say this - war is absolutely justified if our donuts are being threatened. So back off on the donuts!

By the way, I believe I would also love your little SUV, if only it had seat covers made of baby seal skins.

In Glaze We Trust,
Keith
Minister, Our Lady of the Eternal Boston Creme

Now THAT was proper useage of pastry humor.

Mary:

Krispy Kreme all the way!!! They have stopped making thme here in the Houston area. I am so MAD !!!!

Doug

Jim Young is an Olympic-level coach, and he was guest expert at one of our race-training seminars.

On the first day of the seminar, the breakfast was laid out with eggs, sausage, potatoes and doughnuts/pastries, cereals, etc.

Everybody was going for the eggs and sausage, lots of protein. Jim told me that actually they should have eaten the doughnuts and pastries, potatoes and cereal, lots of carbs and sugar, to get them through their arduous day on the water.

I have been in love with Jim Young ever since .

(Disclaimer: That does not mean he would recommend a diet of doughnuts to Olympic-level sailors. It was just an isolated situation -- but we doughnut lovers latch onto any encouragement we can find.)

Complex carbs before, protein after.

mmmm . . . doughnuts . . .

I'm not taking any advice from a one-eyed frog. You must be some kind of health nut, which would explain your green skin color! Complex carbohydrates are fruits and vegetables.

I'm talking about simple carbohydrates and sugar, e.g., doughnuts!

There's probably a few of us that remember watching the original Saturday Night Live when it originally aired...

Remember the ad parody where John Belushi was training for the Olympics decathalon? The shots of him trying the various events were funny enough, but then he reveals his training secret - Little Chocolate Covered Doughnuts! Truly an Olympic moment...

Mary Mary Mary, why do you abuse a poor one-eyed creature? Is it because I asked how many pedestrians and bicyclists you’d snagged with your Wave hanging off the trailer?

The creature you deride as a one-eyed frog is, in fact, a long time employee of Monsters Inc. The next time you hear moaning coming from your closet or scratching noises from under the bed, you may be getting a visit from one of their dedicated staff. Of course, it could be Rick looking for his trapeze harness so he can go for a midnight sail.

As for the carbs, I do a lot of distance bicycling. Nutrition is an important part of riding as the glucose stores get used up fast. Good pre-ride, ride and post-ride carb and protein intake is important. Otherwise you’ll be hit with the dreaded bonk.

Complex carb up pre physical activity. That fuels up the tank. KKDs will work but they're empty carbs.

During the activity, take in enough carbs so the tank doesn’t run empty causing you to bonk. Electrolytes and sodium are also important. The easiest way to keep carbs, electrolytes and sodium levels up is drink a sports drink like Gatorade. I prefer Cytomax. Hydration is also important. That will be part of the sports drink. I’ve see racers pound down a can of Coke while riding. That provides carbs and caffeine to stimulate muscles.

Take in carbs and protein post activity. The protein will stave off the loss of muscle mass.

I was going to comment about Golbal Warming, but I'm resisting,


I'm responding well to treatment.......


But really, NO S--T! The earth is warming??

I guess I'll have to pay more attention.


Now where is that doc's phone number.