No sceptics allowed (climate change)

[markalot]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

[miami2112]

Did you mean to search for: skeptics

[gwar469]

nothing encourages healthy scientific debate like being threatened to lose your license if you disagree. :rolleyes:

[drougan]

nothing encourages healthy scientific debate like being threatened to lose your license if you disagree. :rolleyes:


Ya, totally.

[Homsar]

I think the issue is the word "catastrophic." Change is happening, but I don't think it will be that bad.

Maybe for conservatives.

[Duemellon]

This makes sense if you believe the connection has been irrefutably proven.

If we had scientists still investigating if the Earth was spherical & they received govnt funding as well as airtime to try to convince others it's round, their credentials should be questioned.

If a scientific body was using faulty half-logic to convince some people the Sun orbitted the Earth & not the other way around, those people would be doing a diservice.

If you believe research proves Global Warming is being greatly affected by human interaction (ie: Earth is spherical) but someone is still trying to say it's not (ie: Earth is a dime).

[markalot]

Did you mean to search for: skeptics

It's prussian

[kitsune]

This makes sense if you believe the connection has been irrefutably proven.

If we had scientists still investigating if the Earth was spherical & they received govnt funding as well as airtime to try to convince others it's round, their credentials should be questioned.

If a scientific body was using faulty half-logic to convince some people the Sun orbitted the Earth & not the other way around, those people would be doing a diservice.

If you believe research proves Global Warming is being greatly affected by human interaction (ie: Earth is spherical) but someone is still trying to say it's not (ie: Earth is a dime).
But it hasn't been irrefutably proven. That's the problem. Right now we just don't honestly know yet, there are lots of questions still left unanswered. However I don't think that's an excuse not to try to cut back on our emissions either.

[Duemellon]

But it hasn't been irrefutably proven. That's the problem. Right now we just don't honestly know yet, there are lots of questions still left unanswered. However I don't think that's an excuse not to try to cut back on our emissions either.Well, at some point the sceptisc have to give up their cases otherwise they'll just confuse the issue. Much like those who are still trying to argue that cigarettes don't lead to a dramatic increase of cancer.

Sure, they can produce anamolies or hypothesises, but the overwhelming information is really overwhelming.. u'kno?

I'm just saying, at a certain point the holdouts have to be categorized as "fringe" & ignored.

sceptisc = Archiac Prussian from 4AD

[gwar469]

Well, at some point the sceptisc have to give up their cases otherwise they'll just confuse the issue. Much like those who are still trying to argue that cigarettes don't lead to a dramatic increase of cancer.

Sure, they can produce anamolies or hypothesises, but the overwhelming information is really overwhelming.. u'kno?

I'm just saying, at a certain point the holdouts have to be categorized as "fringe" & ignored.

sceptisc = Archiac Prussian from 4AD

that point isn't yet tho. we still don't have all the facts, much less all the questions that need to be asked on global warming. it's still a relatively fresh topic.

however, that's not to say we shouldn't reduce emissions. everyone should be able to agree to reduce carbon emissions, no matter what side of the coin you fall on.

[DaHood]

I'm still waiting for Detroit to become the new Miami.

[the happy prole]

Why the crap is that coming out of EPW? Weird. I know some of those guys, too.

umm... anyway, let's get the fact straight.

1) None of these people are scientists. The AMS Seal is given to "broadcast meteorologists" aka weathermen. No degree is required, you just have to pass a test. So the blonde chick with the big knockers who does the weather on your local news will still be able to do her job. She just may no longer have the AMS Seal of approval, which she probably didn't have in the first place, and which you probably don't even know or care that she has.

2) The AMS as a society has taken a public position that manmade global warming has occurred. That doesn't mean everyone agrees. It just means that when media call the AMS and ask about global warming, that is what they will say. Remember, that Seal doesn't make you a scientist, it just makes you essentially a certified PR guy for the AMS. If I'm a PR guy and I issue a press release that directly contradict my firm's stance, I'd get fired. Thus, if you broadcast stuff on the news against their public statement, shouldn't you expect to lose your Seal?

3) Within the community of REAL meteorologists, there is disagreement about global warming and those who think it's not due to man-made factors are free to pursue their profession and publish articles even within AMS Journals subject to peer review just like they always have been.

[lutz]

I think.. the only way anyone could possibly deny that it's happening is for their own financial benefit, and even then I don't see how they could truly believe it.

I mean, it's so obvious. Everyone's seen it for themselves - how freakishly mild has it been this winter? And the ice caps are melting now, it's happening right in front of our eyes. What will it take for some drastic action? Coasts being flooded by the sea and skin cancer increasing fifty-fold?

[wileE]

I think.. the only way anyone could possibly deny that it's happening is for their own financial benefit, and even then I don't see how they could truly believe it.

I mean, it's so obvious. Everyone's seen it for themselves - how freakishly mild has it been this winter? And the ice caps are melting now, it's happening right in front of our eyes. What will it take for some drastic action? Coasts being flooded by the sea and skin cancer increasing fifty-fold?
I don't think anyone, at this point, will deny that it is happening. The bone of contention is why is it happening. Natural cycle? Man-made? It has happened before. Is mankind causing it? accelerating it? did we start the whole thing?

[lutz]

I don't think anyone, at this point, will deny that it is happening. The bone of contention is why is it happening. Natural cycle? Man-made? It has happened before. Is mankind causing it? accelerating it? did we start the whole thing?When it happened before, wasn't it because something catastrophic had caused it, like a supervolcano erupting? If there's no naturally-occurring disasters doing it this time then it must be us. The effect we have, with pollution and what-not, must be as damaging as a supervolcano, although slower.

Whatever happens, one day the climate change may well be so extreme that we all die out. In which case, if it's our fault then that's karma for you; if it's not our fault then tough shite.

Think I might start stocking up on factor 50 now...

[gwar469]

Why the crap is that coming out of EPW? Weird. I know some of those guys, too.

umm... anyway, let's get the fact straight.

1) None of these people are scientists. The AMS Seal is given to "broadcast meteorologists" aka weathermen. No degree is required, you just have to pass a test. So the blonde chick with the big knockers who does the weather on your local news will still be able to do her job. She just may no longer have the AMS Seal of approval, which she probably didn't have in the first place, and which you probably don't even know or care that she has.

2) The AMS as a society has taken a public position that manmade global warming has occurred. That doesn't mean everyone agrees. It just means that when media call the AMS and ask about global warming, that is what they will say. Remember, that Seal doesn't make you a scientist, it just makes you essentially a certified PR guy for the AMS. If I'm a PR guy and I issue a press release that directly contradict my firm's stance, I'd get fired. Thus, if you broadcast stuff on the news against their public statement, shouldn't you expect to lose your Seal?

3) Within the community of REAL meteorologists, there is disagreement about global warming and those who think it's not due to man-made factors are free to pursue their profession and publish articles even within AMS Journals subject to peer review just like they always have been.

thanks for this clarification, thp. this makes more sense than having a group of scientists say "you disagree with us, you can't be a scientist anymore!"

and next time you mention "the blonde chick with big knockers", i would like for you to provide a visual aid.

[gwar469]

When it happened before, wasn't it because something catastrophic had caused it, like a supervolcano erupting? If there's no naturally-occurring disasters doing it this time then it must be us. The effect we have, with pollution and what-not, must be as damaging as a supervolcano, although slower.

Whatever happens, one day the climate change may well be so extreme that we all die out. In which case, if it's our fault then that's karma for you; if it's not our fault then tough shite.

Think I might start stocking up on factor 50 now...

that's the thing. nobody knows for sure why it's happened in the past. there's no definitive evidence that says it's naturally cyclical, caused by a natural disaster, or caused by something else. humans may be partly responsible this time, but to lay all the blame on that one source is a little excessive.

[markalot]

An increase in the use of sceptic tanks .... Oh now Firefox tells me it's misspelled. Damn you teknology!

[DaHood]

An increase in the use of sceptic tanks .... Oh now Firefox tells me it's misspelled. Damn you teknology!
I always knew you were full of shit.

[drougan]

When it happened before, wasn't it because something catastrophic had caused it, like a supervolcano erupting?

First of all, Supervolcanos cause a form of nuclear winter, making it colder than a bitch. You may be thinking of the thawing out period after the Ice ages, which some say were as a result of a big ass comet/asteroid/volcanic eruption. But even here there have been several ebbs and flows of ice ages, with mini thaws inbetween.

Second, an elevated CO2 level in the atmosphere and/or marginally higher atmospheric temps aren't going to elevate your risk of skin cancer directly (though if you spend more time outdoors half naked in the sun it can indirectly) however you run the risk of skin cancer any time you're in the sun, including the winter.

Third, the winter ain't been mild everywhere. East coast USA? mild as anything, sure. But I don't think anyone in the pacific NW is saying their winter has been mild. (maybe they are, but it seems like they've been getting snow heaped on them quite regularly.)

I'm not trying to disagree with you, just informing you that your discussion points contain some inaccuracies.

Has anyone conclusively linked a measured increase in atmospheric CO2 to the mystical magical "Global temperature anomaly" hockey stick thingy? I know we're emitting tons and tons of the shit annually, but is it actually making a difference in atmospheric content?

The real fuckstick of the debate is that we're talking about fractions of a degree average temperature increase in the macroscopic scale. An easily overlooked or overemphasized relationship, depending on how you draw the graph or what the weather looks like outside.

[frizgolf]

When it happened before, wasn't it because something catastrophic had caused it, like a supervolcano erupting? If there's no naturally-occurring disasters doing it this time then it must be us. The effect we have, with pollution and what-not, must be as damaging as a supervolcano, although slower.

Whatever happens, one day the climate change may well be so extreme that we all die out. In which case, if it's our fault then that's karma for you; if it's not our fault then tough shite.

Think I might start stocking up on factor 50 now...
We are a naturally-occurring disaster.

[DaHood]

First of all, Supervolcanos cause a form of nuclear winter, making it colder than a bitch.
you’ve got nuclear war
atomic rain
and nuclear winter
gonna freeze your brain
HUH!

[Homsar]

I mean, it's so obvious. Everyone's seen it for themselves - how freakishly mild has it been this winter?
One mild winter does not catastrophic global warming make.
Even though we are in warming trend that has been seen before. Gradually get colder and colder then BAM! (geologic-scale time speaking) we warm up. Don't worry, the dinosaurs lived through the higher temps. Surely we can too.

[markalot]

I think.. the only way anyone could possibly deny that it's happening is for their own financial benefit, and even then I don't see how they could truly believe it.

I mean, it's so obvious. Everyone's seen it for themselves - how freakishly mild has it been this winter? And the ice caps are melting now, it's happening right in front of our eyes. What will it take for some drastic action? Coasts being flooded by the sea and skin cancer increasing fifty-fold?

This is exactly what fuels doubt about global warming. One year does not mean anything. 20 years doesn't mean anything. 100 years?

Here's a good report from the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society in San Antonio, Texas.

http://www.weatherunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=612&tstamp=200701

[mikeatthemadfro]

the ice is melting...whether anyone cares at what rate the atmosphere or ground temperatures...the oceans stand to gain a LOT of fresh water...and that needs to be slowed down...

how to do that...that's the debate...no one wants to have to actually pay to improve the ice caps...it's awefully far away from many people... if you take a field trip to venice italy...it becomes obvious what havoc can be wrought on society in the shorter term...

[markalot]

the ice is melting...whether anyone cares at what rate the atmosphere or ground temperatures...the oceans stand to gain a LOT of fresh water...and that needs to be slowed down...

Why? Why is it important to slow or stop warming? Maybe this will finally convince people not to build too close to the ocean.

[dannyboy]

Why? Why is it important to slow or stop warming? Maybe this will finally convince people not to build too close to the ocean.
I agree. And just suppose that it is shown that humans are NOT the cause of global warming and it's just a natural cycle; are we to intervene and keep the global warming from happening? Wouldn't that violate Starfleet's prime directive?[sarc]

[the happy prole]

Why? Why is it important to slow or stop warming? Maybe this will finally convince people not to build too close to the ocean.

Losing a bit of coastline would be the least of our worries.

[markalot]

The worst would be ... no skiing?

Good old Dr. Dewpoint formally from Intallicast.com shows up in this article. I've quoted his theories in the past.

Global warming dissenters few at U.S. weather meeting

By Ed Stoddard Thu Jan 18, 2:30 PM ET

Joe D'Aleo was a rare voice of dissent this week at the American Meteorological Society's annual meeting in San Antonio.

D'Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, a group of scientists, doesn't think greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of global warming and climate change.

Researchers who hold such contrary views do not appreciate being lumped together with flat-Earthers. They are legitimate scientists who question the mainstream, but they are a distinct minority.

"Greenhouse warming is real, but I think it is a relatively minor player," D'Aleo said.

He claims other factors like solar activity and other natural causes are probably playing a greater role in rising temperatures -- a position that gets a mostly chilly reception from this crowd.

Several scientists and writers interviewed at the society's conference, which ends on Thursday, stressed that most researchers believe there is little scientific debate about the causes of global warming.

That does not mean there is a consensus.

"There's not a consensus on anything. There are people who say the Earth is not round, there are people who say that the Earth is 6,000 years old," said Richard Anthes of the Colorado- based University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

"The vast majority of credible scientists from thousands of peer-reviewed papers agree that the strong balance of evidence is that the Earth is warming and the major cause of that is anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions."

MINORITY VIEWS

Mainstream scientific opinion holds that emissions from fossil fuels are trapping heat in the atmosphere -- the so-called "greenhouse effect." Such emissions come from cars, factories and power plants.

U.S. President George W. Bush's annual State of the Union speech to Congress next week is likely to tweak climate change policy, but stop short of the mandatory emissions caps that many greens would like to see, sources have said.

"I think there is largely agreement on the fact that over the last 30 years, that much of that warming has been attributed to human activities, in other words, greenhouse gas emissions," said Tony Socci, a American Meteorological Society senior science fellow.

He said those who denied the connection were either "badly informed as to the scientific center or consensus, or in some cases perhaps (they are) just not wanting to be informed."

Greenhouse gas skeptics would retort that the meteorological mainstream has not gotten a handle on the science behind solar activity and other natural cyclical causes and fed it into the models.

D'Aleo said there was an element of peer pressure to toe the party line.

"A lot of them are not willing to speak up because it might endanger grants and jobs," he said.

For others, the evidence is overwhelming.

Temperatures rose by about 1.1 Fahrenheit (0.6 Celsius) during the 20th century and may rise another 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius from 1990 to 2100, a rate unprecedented in at least 10,000 years, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"I think there's virtually no doubt that humans are a major player in warming the globe," said Robert Henson, author of the recently published "The Rough Guide to Climate Change."

"There are still people out there who will contradict that, but they are not part of the scientific mainstream," he said.

The dissenters would say that is the point: portraying them as the wild-eyed fringe or lackeys of oil companies makes even legitimate questioning seem less credible.

[the happy prole]

The worst would be ... no skiing?

Yeah, that's it. Everyone's worried that the oceans rising will destroy a few hundred feet of coastline and wreck their weekends at Aspen. I can tell you read up on this shit. :rolleyes:

[Homsar]

Temperatures rose by about 1.1 Fahrenheit (0.6 Celsius) during the 20th century and may rise another 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius from 1990 to 2100, a rate unprecedented in at least 10,000 years.
The last 10,000 years are only important cause we make them important. Gaia would be like "10,000 years? Shit, that's like a blink of my eye. Calm down, I'm just having a hot flash."

[markalot]

Yeah, that's it. Everyone's worried that the oceans rising will destroy a few hundred feet of coastline and wreck their weekends at Aspen. I can tell you read up on this shit. :rolleyes:

Dir Sir.

You said losing a bit of coastline would be the least of our worries. Well, flooding NYC is going to cost just a bit of money, don't ya think? If that's the least of our worries then what's the worst?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3381425.stm

I'm going with flooding being #1

Again, I think you would rather believe I was an idiot than actually think.

[the happy prole]

Why? Why is it important to slow or stop warming?

Well, flooding NYC is going to cost just a bit of money, don't ya think?

Answered your own question, didn't you?

1) Losing NYC is quite a bit worse than just losing a few feet of coastline. It's a pretty good reason to stop global warming.

2) The damage to losing NYC wouldn't just stop at NYC. It would have a huge economic impact because of the banks and Wall Street.

3) Even losing NYC due to flooding? Still not the worst thing.

[markalot]

1) Losing NYC is quite a bit worse than just losing a few feet of coastline. It's a pretty good reason to stop global warming.

Sorry, but in my mind we are talking about the same thing. Losing coastline, coastal flooding, losing new york (because of coastal flooding). I though you were going to say drought or famine or something else is more important.

[the happy prole]

They are more important to me. If the oceans rise a few feet and we lose Bangladesh, Indonesia, and parts of China due to flooding, that's bad. Even NYC. But we could conceivably take our remaining 60% of humans, crawl back from the coasts and live it out in the remaining land.

The ocean's pH, density, temperature, and salinity will change. Don't you think that's going to impact the ecosystem in the ocean, as well as coastal wetlands? It would also have meteorological impacts in terms of storms, tidal waves, and hurricanes. Plus the coastlines would be pretty damn polluted, and we'd probably lose a lot of fresh water.

[george]

Why? Why is it important to slow or stop warming?

Global Warming is like Pascal's Wager. In a state of incomplete information, it is better to believe (and act on those beliefs) in the detrimental effects of climate change than it is to not believe it. Why? Because the potential pay-off to curbing carbon emissions is far greater than the pay-off to not believing and not acting.

[markalot]

Global Warming is like Pascal's Wager. In a state of incomplete information, it is better to believe (and act on those beliefs) in the detrimental effects of climate change than it is to not believe it. Why? Because the potential pay-off to curbing carbon emissions is far greater than the pay-off to not believing and not acting.

Right, but in my mind an even greater reason to curb emissions is that we are going to run out of these 'things' we use that create all this bad air and it ain't going to matter what the temperature is outside when that happens.

So the sinic in me says people have latched on to a bogus global warming argument to fix the real problem, our dependence on fossil fuels.

[lutz]

Losing a bit of coastline would be the least of our worries.I may be naive, but at least I'm not as fucking short-sighted as that. Just because you live on a giant continent doesn't mean everyone else does (http://www.itv.com/news/bigmelt_fc0b3f21ca3b6c876737eb91dd9a3588.html) .

More from the same news site: clickie (http://www.itv.com/news/bigmelt.html)

[markalot]

I may be naive, but at least I'm not as fucking short-sighted as that. Just because you live on a giant continent doesn't mean everyone else does (http://www.itv.com/news/bigmelt_fc0b3f21ca3b6c876737eb91dd9a3588.html) .

More from the same news site: clickie (http://www.itv.com/news/bigmelt.html)

Message boards certainly aren't the most accurate form of communication.

Over

[Buzzstein]

Gobal warming is happening. And it is bad for us.

What hasn't been determined 100% is if it's we humans who are causing it or if it's natural. I think it may be some combination of both, but that we are a major factor. But either way I think we should try to do something to slow it down or prevent it. It's stupid not to imo.

I think we all agree that we need to conserve our resources and find alternative sources of energy. It's good for a number of reasons.

[Angel30]

It is only smart to try to find other resources to use instead of fossil fuels. For one, being able to breathe cleaner air would be nice. Human beings are the biggest plague on this earth and it is time for us to start being responsible for all the damage and destruction we do on a daily basis. How can a race be so smart yet so fucking stupid at the same time? We know what we are doing to ourselves and the planet yet we don't care enough to do what we know will be better for everyone and everything. Okay, so maybe some people do care but it seems like it is us, the people who aren't in power, who don't have the resources to make that change. I think the business that pisses me off as much as oil is development companies. How many more strip malls and new half-million/million dollar homes do we need? Are there really that many people in America making that kinda cash? No, but there are plenty of them up to their eyeballs in debt so who cares? Let's plow under another farmstead/tear down another forest. Ugh. I hate capitalism sometimes. Gonna end my rant now and go watch a comedy or something. This is depressing.

[markalot]

It is only smart to try to find other resources to use instead of fossil fuels. For one, being able to breathe cleaner air would be nice. Human beings are the biggest plague on this earth and it is time for us to start being responsible for all the damage and destruction we do on a daily basis. How can a race be so smart yet so fucking stupid at the same time? We know what we are doing to ourselves and the planet yet we don't care enough to do what we know will be better for everyone and everything. Okay, so maybe some people do care but it seems like it is us, the people who aren't in power, who don't have the resources to make that change. I think the business that pisses me off as much as oil is development companies. How many more strip malls and new half-million/million dollar homes do we need? Are there really that many people in America making that kinda cash? No, but there are plenty of them up to their eyeballs in debt so who cares? Let's plow under another farmstead/tear down another forest. Ugh. I hate capitalism sometimes. Gonna end my rant now and go watch a comedy or something. This is depressing.

You act as if the masses think as one.

The strip mall developer only thinks of his mall. The shop owner his shop, the community their tax base. The oil company sees more demand so they refine more oil. If the big evil conglomerate didn't do it someone else would. The individual wants a nice safe car, the parent wants their kids to be safe, the couple wants to enjoy Starbucks.

Socialist countries are cleaner? Go Hugo!

You know if you decided to start a company that made some cool gadget that could reduce pollution then you'd be the one looking for land, a place to manufacture, a place to sell, a marketing plan.

I don't see it as capitalism being bad. The same system that can destroy us can also save us.

[dannyboy]

How far do we go to thwart calamity? Do we implement mass plans to divert large cosmic bodies that may potentially impact the Earth? Do we figure out how to keep the Sun from going red giant? Do we pack up and move to another planet? I really think it's silly how caught up we are collectively with our own existence. The universe was here long before we were and will be here long after we're gone.

[ahart2001]

Just a note referring to an earlier comment that all the big climate changes in the past were caused by natural disasters or the like . . . whether that is true or not is debatable. However, here is a little something for your perusal:


http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env275.htm

Devastating Earthquake and Earth's Rotation

12/27/2004

name Luanne
status other
grade other
location CA

Question - Hello - We are watching the News regarding the
devastating earthquake in Indonesia. I just read that it may have
disturbed the earth's rotation.
"All the planet is vibrating" from the quake, said Enzo Boschi, the head
of Italy's National Geophysics Institute. Speaking on SKY TG24 TV, Boschi
said the quake even disturbed the Earth's rotation.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2004/usslav/
What does that mean and what can that do?
----------------------------------------------------------
Web sites that relate to this topic:

United States Geological Survey:
http://www.usgs.gov/

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2004/usslav/


http://www.geophys.washington.edu/tsunami/intro.html

NEWTON BBS System Operators
================================================== ===
The earth, although hard, is elastic. When some sort of high energy event
occurs (earthquake, volcano, explosion of a nuclear device) the earth can
"ring" -- a geological bell of sorts. Sensitive seismometers at numerous
locations around the world can detect these earth-vibrations. In fact, the
echoes of the vibrations can also be detected. There is no global danger
from such events (except maybe the atmospheric dust from a volcano), but
obviously from the news disaster can occur at a local level and even
hundreds of miles away.

Vince Calder
================================================== ==

NOTE: this posting is from an outside source from NEWTON BBS.

Quake rattled Earth orbit, changed map of Asia: US geophysicist

An earthquake that unleashed deadly tidal waves on Asia was so powerful it
made the Earth wobble on its axis and permanently altered the regional
map, US geophysicists said.
The 9.0-magnitude temblor that struck 250 kilometers (155 miles) southeast
of Sumatra island Sunday may have moved small islands as much as 20 meters
(66 feet), according to one expert.
"That earthquake has changed the map," US Geological Survey expert Ken
Hudnut told AFP.
"Based on seismic modeling, some of the smaller islands off the southwest
coast of Sumatra may have moved to the southwest by about 20 meters. That
is a lot of slip."
The northwestern tip of the Indonesian territory of Sumatra may also have
shifted to the southwest by around 36 meters (120 feet), Hudnut said.
In addition, the energy released as the two sides of the undersea fault
slipped against each other made the Earth wobble on its axis, Hudnut said.
"We can detect very slight motions of the Earth and I would expect that
the Earth wobbled in its orbit when the earthquake occurred due the
massive amount of energy exerted and the sudden shift in mass," Hudnut said.
Another USGS research geophysicist agreed that the Earth would have got a
"little jog," and that the islands off Sumatra would have been moved by
the quake.
However, Stuart Sipkin, of the USGS National Earthquake Information Center
in Golden Colorado, said it was more likely that the islands off Sumatra
had risen higher out of the sea than they had moved laterally.
"In in this case, the Indian plate dived below the Burma plate, causing
uplift, so most of the motion to the islands would have been vertical, not
horizontal."
The tsunamis unleashed by the fourth-biggest earthquake in a century have
left at least 23,675 people dead in eight countries across Asia and as far
as Somalia in East Africa.
The tsunamis wiped out entire coastal villages and pulled beach-goers out
to sea.
The International Red Cross estimated that up to one million people have
been displaced by the natural calamity.

Steve Miller
================================================== ==
The Sumatran earthquake will not alter the Earth's tilt (23½°), but
will probably alter the Earth's wobble on that axis. The Earth's north
pole gradually spirals around, anti-clockwise, on the Earth's surface
(in a diameter of about 2-12 metres); generally the tighter, the
faster the rotation.

However, if a tsunami (caused by an earthquake) starts in the middle
of an ocean, then the rotational effects of the westward tsunami would
likely to be cancelled out by the effects of the eastward tsunami. BUT
as the Sumatran earthquake was considerably nearer one shore than the
other, the rotational effects will be lop-sided. Even though each
tsunami had a horrific force, and did not actually form near the
epicentre, it is hard to say by how much. [Tsunamis only come into
being, or grow considerably bigger, when the sea gets shallow.]

Although the tsunamis had a force of hundreds of megatons of TNT, this
is somewhat small when it is up against the momentum of the Earth's
rotation, the Earth will not come to a screeching halt, but a leap second
in atomic time (UTC) might be necessary sooner than expected.

It will be interesting to see what the results from the International
Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service
(IERS)(http://www.iers.org) published each Thursday.

Howard Barnes
================================================== ==
Thank you for your question, Luanne… This event is simply tragic,
and the loss of life unimaginable. In this age of preoccupation with
the threats of war and terrorism, it is easy (sadly) to forget that
nature can wield such destructive power, and wield it so
indifferently. I am not so sure that any line of reasoning could
ever produce substantial justification for the death of 40,000+
people, but perhaps some solace will be found in whatever progress
might be made, as a consequence of this disaster, in safeguarding
lives from future earthquakes.

Because earthquakes involve movements of tectonic plates (and large
quantities of water, in the case of submarine earthquakes), they
necessarily involve relatively rapid movements of large amounts of
mass. When this mass moves, the distribution of Earth’s mass
changes and results in slight deviations in the rotational motion
(e.g., angular velocity and axial tilt) of the planet. To illustrate:
a figure skater pirouetting with his or her arms extended has a
specific way in which their body mass is distributed with respect to
their rotational axis (the rotational axis, incidentally, is an
imaginary line that extends through the middle of the rotating object
in a direction that is perpendicular to the direction of rotation…
think of a line connecting the North and South poles, for example).
If the figure skater then pulls one of their arms slightly closer to
their body, the way in which their body mass is distributed is
altered, thus causing their rotation to change. The intensity of that
change is proportional to the degree to which the distribution of
their body mass is altered. A spinning skater who bends but a single
finger toward their body may not feel a significant change in their
rotation; a spinning skater who pulls an arm in completely flush with
their body may produce so great a change in their rotation as to fall
down.

In the case of earthquakes, the amount of redistributed mass is
comparably small to the mass of the entire planet. Likewise, the
distance over which that mass is moved is comparably small to the
size, or radius, of the planet. Thus, the mass redistribution is
effectively small, in the grand scheme of things. But, earthquakes
still do cause some minor change to Earth’s rotation; it is purely
an inescapable consequence of physics. If a large (read: unfathomably
big) enough earthquake (or any seismic event, for that matter)
occurred, such that very extensive portions of Earth’s crust moved,
causing the planet’s rotation to become significantly altered, the
global climate could potentially be affected. In the case of this
most recent seismic activity in Indonesia, however, Earth’s rotation
will not likely be altered to such a degree that it will have
significant, climatic consequences.
I hope this explanation helps.


Notice the end that said "Earth's rotation will not likely be altered to such a degree that it will have significant, climatic consequences." It is not likely, but it could still have happened. Maybe this has something to do with the climate change. The earthquake/tsunami hit Indonesia, then hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, then a mess of other disasters, and now look at changed weather patterns. I mean hell, the earthquake shifted some islands 120 feet. Just a tidbit to take into consideration. Do we really understand weather enough to accurately calculate how much effect something like this wold have? I mean hell, we can't even predict earthquakes and volcanoes and tornadoes to a great percentage.

[lutz]

How far do we go to thwart calamity? Do we implement mass plans to divert large cosmic bodies that may potentially impact the Earth? Do we figure out how to keep the Sun from going red giant? Do we pack up and move to another planet? I really think it's silly how caught up we are collectively with our own existence. The universe was here long before we were and will be here long after we're gone.This is true, but that doesn't give us the excuse to lay waste to the entire planet. Nor to drive other species into extinction. If we're not going to be around indefinitely we ought to make the most of it: i.e. live cleaner, better lives.

[lutz]

I was just having a (somewhat drunken) debate about climate change, and since doing an atmospheric chemistry module this term (unwillingly - I didn't realise it would be in the further physical chemistry - but turned out to be very interesting), and came to the conclusion (my opinion) that climate change is very much happening, but is very much not the fault of humans. I agree that we're probably fucking up everything (biodiversity, for example), but I don't think we can be so arrogant as to claim the responsibility for changing the entire climate of the Earth. For one thing, most of the crap is destroyed in the troposphere anyway, and never reaches the ozone layer. For another, the amount of long-life stuff (such as CFCs) that actually reaches the stratosphere is of pretty minuscule proportions compared to the amount of ozone, so that while we are probably having some effect, I highly doubt it's one of the magnitude that government bought scientists would have us believe.
Also, people go on about 'The Greenhouse Effect' and how awful it is, apparently without realising that without it the average temperature of Earth would be below zero degrees celsius, and therefore non-conducive to liquid water or life. i.e. if it weren't for the Greenhouse Effect we wouldn't exist.

Nature is cyclical. And mostly, in our eyes, a bitch. Deal with it.

This announcement brought to you by I Have A Little Knowledge On A Subject Now And Feel Confident About Posting Without Being Smacked Down By Duemellon/Shlep. And vodka : )

[markalot]

Hmmm.

Well since you bumped this...



2 greenhouse gases on the rise worry scientists
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081025/ap_on_sc/sci_greenhouse_gases_4

WASHINGTON – Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas that worries climate scientists. Airborne levels of two other potent gases — one from ancient plants, the other from flat-panel screen technology — are on the rise, too. And that's got scientists concerned about accelerated global warming.

The gases are methane and nitrogen trifluoride. Both pale in comparison to the global warming effects of carbon dioxide, produced by the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. In the past couple of years, however, these other two gases have been on the rise, according to two new studies. The increase is not accounted for in predictions for future global warming and comes as a nasty surprise to climate watchers.

Methane is by far the bigger worry. It is considered the No. 2 greenhouse gas based on the amount of warming it causes and the amount in the atmosphere. The total effect of methane on global warming is about one-third that of man-made carbon dioxide.

Methane comes from landfills, natural gas, coal mining, animal waste, and decaying plants. But it's the decaying plants that worry scientists most. That's because thousands of years ago billions of tons of methane were created by decaying Arctic plants. It lies frozen in permafrost wetlands and trapped in the ocean floor. As the Arctic warms, the concern is this methane will be freed and worsen warming. Scientists have been trying to figure out how they would know if this process is starting.

It's still early and the data are far from conclusive, but scientists say they are concerned that what they are seeing could be the start of the release of the Arctic methane.

After almost eight years of stability, atmospheric methane levels — measured every 40 minutes by monitors near remote coastal cliffs — suddenly started rising in 2006. The amount of methane in the air has jumped by nearly 28 million tons from June 2006 to October 2007. There is now more than 5.6 billion tons of methane in the air.

"If it's sustained, it's bad news," said MIT atmospheric scientist Ron Prinn, lead author of the methane study, which will be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters Oct. 31. "This is a heads up. We're seeing smoke. It remains to be seen whether this is the fire we're really worried about.

"Whenever methane increases, you are accelerating climate change," he said.

By contrast, nitrogen trifluoride has been considered such a small problem that it's generally been ignored. The gas is used as a cleaning agent during the manufacture of liquid crystal display television and computer monitors and for thin-film solar panels.

Earlier efforts to determine how much nitrogen trifluoride is in the air dramatically underestimated the amounts, said Ray Weiss, a geochemistry professor with Scripps Institution of Oceanography and lead author on a nitrogen trifluoride paper. It is set to be published in Geophysical Letters in November.

Nitrogen trifluoride levels in the air — measured in parts per trillion — have quadrupled in the last decade and increased 30-fold since 1978, according to Weiss, who is also a co-author of the methane paper.

It contributes only 0.04 percent of the total global warming effect that man-made carbon dioxide does from the burning of fossil fuels.

But nitrogen trifluoride is one of the more potent gases, thousands of times stronger at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Methane is more than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide on a per molecule basis. Carbon dioxide remains the most important gas because of its huge levels and rapid growth.

Still, methane and the potential of future increases is a worry, Weiss and others say.

Its recent increase coincides with anecdotal evidence of more methane being released in the shallow parts of the Arctic Ocean. A scientific survey in late summer found methane levels in the east Siberian Sea up to 10,000 times higher than normal, said Orjan Gustafsson, an environmental scientist at Stockholm University who has just returned from the six-week survey.

Prinn's data are consistent with the early results of "whole fields of methane bubbles" that Gustafsson said he found last month.

The highest methane level increases were seen in monitoring stations in Alert, Canada, which with recent anecdotal evidence points to plants in permafrost thawing and decaying.

Stanford University environmental scientist Stephen Schneider cautioned that the recent increase is new and that "it is pretty hard to be very confident of any trend or big story yet on methane."

Methane levels have kept scientists guessing for the past decade. They were on the rise until about 1997, then soared in 1998 and then leveled off until jumping again in 2006.

[DaHood]

I was just having a (somewhat drunken) debate

Define "somewhat".

[the happy prole]

Environmental issues are such a tough call. Something like global warming there's so many inputs along the way. If you reduce carbon emissions along every step to heat a home then you end up with 100x the failsafe that you need. But then, not everyone goes through all the steps. So in some instances you aren't safe enough and in others you are ridiculously conservative.

And both sides are so entrenched. The reality is that the models are very complicated and rely on assumptions with some evidence between wild conjecture and 100% uncertainty.

The major problem with us right now is we suck at cost/benefit analysis. We don't want to deal with shades of gray and uncertainty. It's much easier to dig your heels in the sand and say "Yes we're fucked" or "No we're totally fine."

Global warming is a prime example of an issue that has been politically captured to the extent that real discussion is impossible. You look at how we've dammed up rivers and how urban development has messed up old run-off tables and I think there's going to be a real and severe water shortage for large parts of the US if not all of it. But we're still all "It didn't rain much this year. Global warming oh noes!" on one side and "Humans have always survived so what's the problem" (ignoring the circular logic) on the other.

[classicgrrl]

oh c'mon. everybody knows that climate change is "god giving us a big hug"

:p