Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pentagon: 2010 global warming apocalypse??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pentagon: 2010 global warming apocalypse??

    http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?sect...ue&newsid=4967

    An article describing the possible effects of global warming which can be in 2010 by Pentagon?

    Spend your money as fast as you can...
    a brain cell

  • #2
    Blame Canada.
    "I'm all ears." - Dolph Lundgren

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Andrew Tuline
      Blame Canada.
      And France...
      a brain cell

      Comment


      • #4
        If you listen to this guy, global warming is the least of our problems. And you've got until 2005....

        Earth Changes

        If you live on the west coast, you may want to think about leaving now....

        Comment


        • #5
          Always remember that the average temperature of the planet has only one real determinant: Its distance from the sun. It is that variation on different parts of the planet that drives the seasons. The content of the atmosphere is more driven by planetary foliation then it is by anything else and the effect of all the combustion and industrial pollution on that was the only original source of concern for global warming. Changes in planetary foliation are the most likely source of climactic change where it exists rather then combustion and industrial pollution.
          Get the US out of NATO, now!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Black Moria
            If you listen to this guy, global warming is the least of our problems. And you've got until 2005....

            Earth Changes

            If you live on the west coast, you may want to think about leaving now....
            Well if you want to trust your future to "visions" go right ahead.

            However when the Gulf Stream switches off it is the east coast which is going to ice up, solid. Trust in the mathematical weather modelling.

            Comment


            • #7
              Well, fortunately I life in a place where I am acustomed to a little cold weather, and that is high enough that I mustn´t think about the rising sea level...

              In the end if something happens in 2010 (reminds me of a Bad Religion song, well) most of us will experience it so better not yet push through your "basd future" visions *g*
              "A platoon of Chinese tanks viciously attacked a Soviet harvester,
              which was peacefully working a field near the Soviet-Chinese border.
              The harvester returned fire and upon destroying the enemy
              returned to its home base."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SparceMatrix
                Changes in planetary foliation are the most likely source of climactic change where it exists rather then combustion and industrial pollution.
                Sorry, but that is not entirely true. If we just concentrate on the greenhouse effect for now: the molecule responsible for this is CO2, CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by vegetation (photosynthesis), but with the death of a plant lots of CO2 stored inside is released again. Now mankind has significantly reduced the vegitation of our planet (rain forest) and on the other hand the industry is pumping vast amounts of additional CO2 into the atmosphere, and over time (decades) the CO2 level increases permanently, worsening the greenhouse effect.

                So the greenhouse effect is indeed the fault of mankind (or do you have any other explenation for the steadily rising CO2 level??) and the only chance we have to avoid a catasthroph (a rise of just 5° average will already have catastrophic effects!) is to reduce the CO2 level again.

                **insert various USA-hasn't-signed-Kyoto-bashing here**
                "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                Henry Alfred Kissinger

                Comment


                • #9
                  Don't forget that this planet has gone through many CO2 cycles and warming/cooling cycles ie ice ages. There are a lot of panic mongers making a big deal about something which is a normal (but perhaps accelerated) cycle, just like the flipping of the magnetic poles. So I wouldn't be investing in inland property on the basis of an impending sea level rise, because as soon as the temperature rise reaches it's peak (and it's near it's cyclical maximum now) the next ice age will kick in and ocean levels will drop as water is locked up as glacial ice.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Sorry, but that is not entirely true. If we just concentrate on the greenhouse effect for now: the molecule responsible for this is CO2, CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by vegetation (photosynthesis), but with the death of a plant lots of CO2 stored inside is released again. Now mankind has significantly reduced the vegitation of our planet (rain forest) and on the other hand the industry is pumping vast amounts of additional CO2 into the atmosphere, and over time (decades) the CO2 level increases permanently, worsening the greenhouse effect.

                    So the greenhouse effect is indeed the fault of mankind (or do you have any other explenation for the steadily rising CO2 level??) and the only chance we have to avoid a catasthroph (a rise of just 5° average will already have catastrophic effects!) is to reduce the CO2 level again.
                    You are misposing my post. First, planetary defoliation and desertification is most certainly the fault of human beings. My point is that the greenhouse effect as it was originally posed was based on a fixed plant biomass which has been dramatically reduced and so the original concern is largely displaced. Also, you erroneously cite dead plants as being a significant source of CO2. Plants take up CO2 metabolically and when you kill them, there is CO2 that can no longer be taken up. That is why defoliation is associated with increases in CO2 in the atmosphere.

                    The whole global warming debate is a straw dog. It poses automobiles as being the most important threat to the global atmosphere when really it is wood based construction and human overpopulation. And it is not just the overall global temperature that is the most important thing to worry about. It is dramatic changes in local weather. Which is not to say there is not evidence of serious problems in global temperatures, the behavior of arctic ice has been pretty strange for a while.
                    Get the US out of NATO, now!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SparceMatrix
                      You are misposing my post. First, planetary defoliation and desertification is most certainly the fault of human beings. My point is that the greenhouse effect as it was originally posed was based on a fixed plant biomass which has been dramatically reduced and so the original concern is largely displaced. Also, you erroneously cite dead plants as being a significant source of CO2. Plants take up CO2 metabolically and when you kill them, there is CO2 that can no longer be taken up. That is why defoliation is associated with increases in CO2 in the atmosphere.

                      The whole global warming debate is a straw dog. It poses automobiles as being the most important threat to the global atmosphere when really it is wood based construction and human overpopulation. And it is not just the overall global temperature that is the most important thing to worry about. It is dramatic changes in local weather. Which is not to say there is not evidence of serious problems in global temperatures, the behavior of arctic ice has been pretty strange for a while.
                      Yes.
                      10.000 years ago, I'd have 2 km of ice above me. Relax.

                      All the Indians and Chinese driving Soviet vehicles won't induce that again, or put me at 100 m sea bottom. A 1000 years ago, Viking age, grapes and garlic etc were being grown here. It' s all natural variations, and if it's not, then we're truly powerful, and needn't worry, as we could always populate some other place. (Lebensraum).
                      "You can't change the rules in the middle of the game."
                      "Hey, you just made that rule up."


                      Heil Dicke Bertha!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        All the Indians and Chinese driving Soviet vehicles won't induce that again, or put me at 100 m sea bottom. A 1000 years ago, Viking age, grapes and garlic etc were being grown here. It' s all natural variations, and if it's not, then we're truly powerful, and needn't worry, as we could always populate some other place.
                        Are you saying 1000 years ago it wasn't typically cold in Scandinavian countries? Screwing things up so bad that it changes global weather is not a sign of power, it is a sign of either malice or incompetence and maybe both at the same time. And there is not the slightest shred of hope anywhere that we are ready to populate anything but this particular planet.
                        Get the US out of NATO, now!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Global warming is irrelevant. The real problem is upsetting nature's balance (through over population), and pumping a closed system full of toxins.

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X