• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

Global Warming


  • Please log in to reply
452 replies to this topic

#1 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 02 January 2003 - 05:48 AM


I am starting this subject again because despite many claims to the contrary more and more evidence is gathered everyday that suports the thesis that Global Warming is definitely occurring.

I would love to add the discusion area of not only what we can do about this but where global warming is leading. Some theories talk of famine, translocation and dislocation of large populations, plague, and catstophic weather patterns for just a few.

More then a few serious students of this issue also quietly try and assess the possibility that Global Warming will eventually lead to another Ice Age. Counter intuitive some of you may ask? Good ask and lets discuss it.

#2 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 02 January 2003 - 05:53 AM

Studies: Global Warming Has Wide Impact (AP)

(Jan. 1) - Rising global temperatures that have lured plants into early bloom and birds to nest earlier in the spring are altering the ranges and behavior of hundreds of plant and animal species worldwide, two studies conclude.

From North America's marmots to Britain's birds, the findings could spell bad news for species already stressed by habitat loss if predictions of global warming over the next century pan out, the authors said in the studies, which appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

Other scientists said the studies, which are based largely on research done previously in Europe and North America, could foretell the extinction of many species in the coming decades as rising temperatures force them to retreat from their historic ranges or face new competitors.

Alastair H. Fitter, a professor of biology at the University of York who has documented the trend toward earlier-blooming flowers in Britain, said the studies' conclusions that the ranges of hundreds of species are shifting northward in response to warming temperatures are disconcerting.

He said the two papers show that plants and animals are already being affected by global warming, although Earth's average temperature climbed only about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century.

''These papers are the conclusive evidence that the natural world is already responding in a big way to climate change, even though that change has only just got going and there is a lot more to come,'' Fitter said.

A United Nations panel has predicted that average global temperatures could rise as much as 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century as heat-trapping gases from human industry accumulate in the atmosphere.

Fitter said if that occurs it may drive some plant and animals species to extinction as their ranges shrink or they are forced to compete with other species moving into their territory.

Working independently, two research teams reviewed hundreds of published papers that tracked changes in the range and behavior of plant and animal species believed caused by human-driven global warming.

Both teams concluded that they had found the ''fingerprint'' of global warming on hundreds of species, from insects to birds and mammals, even after taking into account other possible causes such as habitat loss.

Other scientists said the two studies, in pulling together hundreds of published scientific papers for two comprehensive analyses, add another piece of evidence - along with retreating glaciers, warming oceans and shrinking snow cover - that global warming is impacting the Earth.

Mike Novacek, provost of science of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, said much of the data in the two papers was based on studies of wildlife found in North America and the United Kingdom.

New research of plants and animals representing a wider range of Earth's life would conclusively pin down the evidence, said Novacek, who was not involved in the research.

Camille Parmesan, a biologist at the University of Texas at Austin, worked with a colleague to review studies that tracked about 1,700 species, often over several decades. While about half of the species showed no changes in behavior or range shifts, the changes seen in the other half clearly pointed to global warming as the culprit, she said.

''The climate scientists have really shown that global warming is happening. What we've found is that it's not only happening but it's having a big impact,'' she said.

In an analysis of 172 species of plants, birds, butterflies and amphibians, Parmesan found that spring events such as egg-laying or flower-blooming advanced 2.3 days on average each decade.

Her analysis of studies of 99 species of birds, butterflies and alpine herbs in North America and Europe found these species' ranges have shifted northward an average of about 3.8 miles per decade.

Most striking, she said, was the case of the sooty copper, a butterfly common near Barcelona until recent decades. These days, however, residents of the Spanish city must travel about 60 miles north to find this butterfly.

Meanwhile, the sooty copper's northern range, which once ended in Austria, has shifted into Estonia during the past five years, Parmesan said. The insect had previously never been seen in that Baltic nation.

A second study by Stanford University researchers reviewed scientific studies that involved more than 1,400 plant and animal species.

Terry L. Root, a senior fellow at Stanford's Institute for International Studies, and five colleagues determined that about 80 percent of those species have undergone range or behavioral changes likely caused by global warming.

They found, for example, that the earlier arrival of spring weather had shifted events such as egg-laying, the end of hibernation and flower blooming ahead about 5 days per decade for temperate-zone species.

---

On the Net:

Nature: http://www.nature.com

University of Texas: http://www.biosci.utexas.edu/IB/

Stanford University: http://iis.stanford.edu

AP-NY-01-01-03 1429EST

#3 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 02 January 2003 - 06:04 PM

Hundreds of Species Pressured by Global Warming

STANFORD, California, January 2, 2003 (ENS) - Hundreds of plant and animal species around the world are feeling the impacts of global warming, although the most dramatic effects may not be felt for decades, according to new research from a Stanford University team. They predict that a rapid temperature rise, together with other environmental pressures, "could easily disrupt the connectedness among species" and lead to numerous extinctions.

"Birds are laying eggs earlier than usual, plants are flowering earlier and mammals are breaking hibernation sooner," said Terry Root, a senior fellow with Stanford University's Institute for International Studies (IIS) and lead author of the article published in today's issue of the journal "Nature."

Root and her colleagues analyzed 143 scientific studies involving a total of 1,473 species of animals and plants for the article, "Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants."

After analyzing all 143 studies, the Stanford team concluded that global warming is having a statistically significant impact on animal and plant populations around the world.


Dr. Terry Root is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy in Stanford University's Institute for International Studies "Clearly, if such ecological changes are now being detected when the globe has warmed by an estimated average of only one degree Fahrenheit (0.6 C) over the past 100 years, then many more far reaching effects on species and ecosystems will probably occur by 2100, when temperatures could increase as much as 11 F (6 C)," Root said.

As temperatures have increased, some species began breeding and migrating earlier. Other studies confirmed that species, from butterflies and marine invertebrates, have shifted their ranges northward as temperatures rose, occupying areas previously too cold for survival.

"Our study shows that recent temperature change has apparently already had a marked influence on many species," the Stanford team wrote.

In their analysis, Root and her co-workers showed that nearly 1,200 species, some 81 percent of the total number analyzed, have undergone biological changes that were "consistent with our understanding of how temperature change influences various traits of a variety of species and populations from around the globe."

North American tree swallows in a tree by the Anacostia River The North American tree swallow is among the bird species beginning springtime activities earlier than historically recorded. Field biologists, who kept track of some 21,000 tree swallow nests in the United States and Canada over the last 40 years, concluded that the average egg laying date for female swallows has advanced by nine days - a phenomenon that mirrors other North American studies confirming higher temperatures and the earlier arrival of spring.

Long term observations of flowering plants in Wisconsin show that wild geraniums, columbine and other species are blooming earlier than before. Studies in Colorado found that marmots are ending their hibernations about three weeks sooner than they were in the late 1970s. Measurements taken in Alaska revealed that growth in white spruce trees has been stunted in recent years - another expected consequence of a rapidly warming climate, Root said.

"Climate change models predict that the poles will warm more quickly than the equator, so it's not surprising that we're getting the strongest signals of biological change from Alaska and other northern regions," Root said.

A primary concern for wild species and their ecosystems is the rapid rate of change predicted during the next century.


Spruce budworm caterpillar "The problem will be the differential response of species," Root explained. "I call it the tearing apart of communities. For example, four types of warblers feed on spruce budworm caterpillars. But the birds are shifting north. What happens when the birds no longer are present in the southern portion of their ranges, and the caterpillar population is no longer kept in check?"

She predicted that rapid climate change, coupled with the loss of habitat and other ecological stressors, could lead to the disappearance of species - a consequence that might be avoided by taking proactive instead of reactive conservation measures.

"For example, there's a very high probability that global warming could contribute to a 50 percent decline in breeding waterfowl populations," Root predicted.

"One thing we might do now is to consider adjusting the bag limits for hunters so we don't add insult to injury in the coming years," Root suggests. "Because anticipation of changes improves our capacity to manage, it behooves us to increase our understanding about the responses of plants and animals to a changing climate."

Co-authors of the study are Jeff Price of the American Bird Conservancy in Colorado, Kimberly Hall of Michigan State University, Stanford biology professor Stephen Schneider, Cynthia Rosenzweig of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Alan Pounds of the Golden Toad Laboratory for Conservation in Coast Rica.

The study was financially supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Winslow Foundation and the University of Michigan.

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2002. All Rights Reserved.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,417 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 23 January 2003 - 02:53 AM

I have a lot to say about this topic. I will add more later.

I am just going to start out with this perspective. If a drought similar to the dust bowl years (1930's) would strike the U.S again -

OH MY GOD!

I am quite sure the strident environmentalists would have a collective fit of enormous proportions. There would be much screeching with no historical analysis. The point is...for every natural disaster that occurs in the present day there are stories in the mass media blaming it on humans. It is as if there were never hurricanes, droughts, floods ever in the past (until the industrial revolution that is). There are serious meteorologists and climatologists studying climate change and extreme weather, putting it into perspective, and offering their best advice. Unfortunately no one hears this thoughtful analysis above the wail of the media mongering environmentalists.

#5 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 23 January 2003 - 02:21 PM

I have been hoping that you would weigh in on this Mind as you are a climatologist by profession correct?

I do observe us as having an impact on naturally occuring cycles but I agree that we have been subjected to hysterical explanations as well.

But it would be wise to remember that in the example of the "Dust Bowl Event" that you provide humans did have a lot to do with creating the calamity.

No, we didn't cause the draught, but our agricultural practices of the time did exacerbate the top soil loss and destruction that ensued. We learned a lot about our mistakes from that event. We learned it the hard way.

We learned that it was critical to monitor the weather, generate an understanding of long term climactic cycles, and develop land use plans that anticipate and take advantage of, or shield us from climate. In fact, we made it a government priority that still exists and is that job of that branch we both know and "love" doncha :) NOAA. (but that is separate thread [ph34r] )

#6 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,417 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 01 February 2003 - 11:47 PM

One thing I have noticed in Wisconsin is that not all Robins move south for the winter. It used to be a sign of spring when the first robin returnd to the central part of the state. I recieve a lot of calls all winter long (mostly from older folks) claiming to have seen the first spring robin. The calls come in November, December, January, and February. Obviously the birds are not leavning. The winters are usually not long enough nor is there enough snow to force them to leave. Of course a lot of people feed birds during the winter. I am sure this is part of the reason also.

One thing I am currently studying is why the climate models continue to predict faster warming at the poles than the equator. The only way this could happen is with a major change in ocean currents or a loss of snowcover in the polar regions. One thing that is receding is sea ice. The reason why the loss of ice would result in warmer pole regions is a change in reflectivity. With less ice, more of the sun's energy would be absorbed and the northern regions would warm up.

Without a difference in warming between the polar regions and the equator there is little reason to expect a change in precipitation patterns across the globe. This is because mid-latitude weather systems get their energy from the temperature differential (or contrast). If the entire globe warmed evenly by 5 degrees, the contrast would not change, and weather systems would continue as in the past. The only difference would be less snow in southern regions. and less snow on southern mountain ranges.

More to come

#7 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,417 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 10 February 2003 - 12:44 AM

I write this as temperatures are 20 degrees below normal. Most nights over the last week have been below zero. It was -17 below zero 2 nights ago. One cold snap does not make "global cooling". It is a sign however that historical climate mechanisms are still in play. In amongst the last 2 decades of warmer than normal winters across North America have been 2 of the coldest on record at many locations across Canada and the U.S. The Mount Pinatubo blast helped one of those winter's along. The other was just plain one for the record books on its own. The coldest day ever recorded in Wausau WI, occurred on Feb. 2nd 1996 (might have been the 3rd...I do not have my papers handy). The low temperature was -33. The high temperature was -20. The coldest temperature ever recorded in the WI (-55 new record...the old record was -54 set in 1922) occurred that year. The coldest temperature ever recorded in Minnesota (-60) was also recorded that year. The coldest temperature ever recorded in Illinois occurred in 1999 (-39). The winter of 1995-96 was also the snowiest on record for Wausau WI.

The point is that it still gets cold, very cold...just not as often. The mechanisms that create cold and snow are still operating and I do not see them stopping suddenly. A gradual change toward no snow and no cold is still possible, but I forsee many years before such drastic changes would take shape.

Edited by Mind, 10 February 2003 - 01:06 AM.


#8 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,417 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 10 February 2003 - 01:05 AM

Lazarus mentioned a possible "flip" in the climate toward the next ice age. This seems quite plausible given the historical record. Geologists and climatologist I have read claim we are due for another ice age soon.

Here are a couple of scenarios.

1. Melting sea ice caps raise ocean levels. This results in more water surface area for evaporation and a warmer climate. Warmer air holds more moisture. More moisture could lead to heavier snowstorms in the pole regions (currently the poles are basically deserts). What if...what if one year the snow from a large spring storm does not melt during the summer (across the northern tundra of Canada). This snow would solidify and be even more difficult to melt the next year. A growing snowfield would reflect more sunlight leading to cooler temps. And thus the positive feedback into the next ice age begins.

2. The ocean circulation changes. A description of this ice age mechanism can be found here. Nature. It has to do with the different densities of salt and fresh water. Too much fresh water could disrupt the Gulf Stream for example...and Europe could be plunged into a "little ice age" like that of 1400-1800 AD. Notice that they mention carbon dioxide levels could quadruple by the year 2100 if nothing changes. Of course, most members here do not plan to be driving cars in the year 2100. I would venture to guess some of us do not even plan to be carbon based lifeforms by then.

Edited by Mind, 10 February 2003 - 01:07 AM.


#9 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11

Posted 22 February 2003 - 08:04 AM

What if...what if one year the snow from a large spring storm does not melt during the summer (across the northern tundra of Canada). This snow would solidify and be even more difficult to melt the next year. A growing snowfield would reflect more sunlight leading to cooler temps. And thus the positive feedback into the next ice age begins.


I have heard this postulation before. I find it worth debate. I have two questions as an informed lay person.

1) Is there any scientific evidence to suggest that such a phenomenon has occured in the past? AKA, Is this how ice ages start?

2) Climate and temperature tend not to be uniformed over a given geographic area. Wouldn't this preclude this kind of phenomenon?

#10 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 22 February 2003 - 07:55 PM

1) Is there any scientific evidence to suggest that such a phenomenon has occured in the past? AKA, Is this how ice ages start?

2) Climate and temperature tend not to be uniformed over a given geographic area. Wouldn't this preclude this kind of phenomenon?  


These are good questions Kissinger.

Paleoclimatology says yes to the first one, up to a point. It is a phenomenon associated with the formation of Ice Ages, it is not necessarilly "causal". In recent times (the last couple of millennia), we can see ice core samples that suggest this is occuring coincident with the Mini Ice Ages that occured.

The second question is a derivative of a common misconception about climate, that it is not uniform overlarge regions. In fact for a number of factors, climate is VERY uniform over large areas. That is why we have deserts, Polar caps etc.

Lattitude is a very critical aspect as well as the effects of large land masses and bdies of water. Yes there does exist true GLOBAL Climactic Forces that drive the local manifestations of weather we are accustomed to For example seasonal trends combined with Sahara Desert sands contribute to the Cape Verde phenomenon that cause the Summer Hurricane Cycle we see to a greater or lesser degree EVERY SUMMER.

As these sands are mixed into Atlantic tropical Waves off the Cape Verde Islands of Africa they become a Climactic Engine that triggers the storms and sends them out on conveyor belts of Steering winds detrmined by seasonal aspects of Coriolis forces and Lattitudinal Convection patterns.

I suspect there is more involced in triggering Ice Ages rather than JUST an INCREASE in Polar Albedo. I think there is also a Renken Cycle at work that combines the effects of Greenhouse with a Storm Pattern that gets locked in over the Poles and lasts contiuously regardless of what season the hemisphere is in until a critical level of atmospheric moisture is passed below. This drives glaciation and also increases albedo.

We will talk of this more in the weeks to come.

Mind, is what I am saying outlandish to a Climatologist?

#11 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 22 February 2003 - 08:44 PM

Lazarus mentioned a possible "flip" in the climate toward the next ice age.


Mind,

If we are to have a concern, how about the possibilty of "nuclear winter"?

http://images.google...ar%20Winter.jpg

bob

#12 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11

Posted 22 February 2003 - 11:24 PM

Bob, it would seem to me that this would be all the more reason to have an effective deterence. [huh]

Edited by Kissinger, 22 February 2003 - 11:24 PM.


#13 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 23 February 2003 - 01:11 AM

Bob, it would seem to me that this would be all the more reason to have an effective deterence.  


Kissinger,

I believe in deterence.

What I don't believe in is the making an issue about global warming unless there is sufficient evidence for it.

bob

#14 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 23 February 2003 - 01:15 AM

This topic is about so-called global warming, but some 20+ years ago there was a concern about global cooling.

I have yet to see convincing evidence regarding global cooling, but I do believe that nuclear winter could be a reality.

bob


http://www.globalcli...rg/Newsweek.htm


Newsweek

April 28, 1975

The Cooling World


There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.


Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000

Edited by bobdrake12, 23 February 2003 - 01:22 AM.


#15 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 23 February 2003 - 01:58 AM

Bob, it would seem to me that this would be all the more reason to have an effective deterence.  


Kissinger any use is not deterrence it is encouragement.

The problem you aren't facing is that you don't recognize the fragility of the vessel that holds your life in its hands.

We are like madmen with high powered arms on an Airliner at high altitude. I can imagine a number of scenarios that the experts don't talk about where a few smaller weapons in the right place to do the wrong thing can have overwhelmingly devastating effect.

I understand that HMP's are not that type of weapon in prniciple or application (normally) but they begin an escalation of those types of weapons. Which in turn increases the risk factors for use by a quantum level. Especially with regard to Environmental Warfare that is an additional tactical aspect of the coming strategies.

When one analysizes the climate one has to look at the balance not the extremes. We are not yet OUT of the LAST Glacial Epoch.

We are inbetween glaciers or still in the terminal phase of the last cycle but we don't have a definitive answer for where this will go at all. BUT ONE ASPECT OF THE PALEOCLIMATOLOGICAL RECORD IS DEFINITIVELY CLEAR, THE EARTH IS NORMALLY MUCH WARMER.

So we have evolved during the climactic aberration, not during the normal climate for Earth. So the issue is clouded as to weather (pun) we will get warmer, or colder, but eventually one way or another we WILL get warmer if we:

A: Live so long to see it
and
B: If we don't come to the tech level of global climate control.

And even if we can control global climate, it may still not be possible to completely stop the cycle from going through to its NATURAL conclusion but it may be possible to sort of smooth out the extremes.

The point is that some factors are reaching what serious students of this arcane study acknowledge to be close to critical limits and even a tactical nuclear war, say over one of the Poles, would trigger a disruption of climactic stability that could be both unstoppable and unpredictable in its scope.

The level of dislocation for populations alone would include all of the Continents, in other words North America and second this doesn't even mean that Nuclear winter is a necessary phase.

Nuclear Winter is another phase and would probably trigger at least a short term ice age even if we aren't in the normal terminal phase of glaciation. The amount of Climactic impact required to do this is far less then most people appreciate, IMHO.

#16 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 23 February 2003 - 02:02 AM

The article shown below relates to combating so-called global warming.

What we have here is the following:

Problem > Reaction > Solution

A solution is being offered as if the so-called problem of global warming is a fact.

But what is the evidence that this planet is facing a long-term global warming problem?

bob

http://gtalumni.org/...l91/carter.html

Carter Urges Cooperation To Combat Global Warming (excerpts)

By Jackie Nemeth


http://images.google...ages/carter.jpg

Former President Jimmy Carter observing that there is an "international need for cooperation" challenged Japan and the United States to work together for the good of the global environment.

Carter spoke to approximately 300 Japanese and American government representatives, industrialists, environmentalists and educators during a U.S.-Japan conference on global warming. The conference was sponsored by Georgia Tech's Center for International Strategy, Technology and Policy; the Japanese Export Trade Organization; Resources for the Future; and the Japanese Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute.

We have changed the face of the globe; extinguished whole species; wasted fossil fuel; and defiled the air, land, seas and atmosphere at an almost inexpressible rate of speed." Carter said. "Our basic approach is: I'll take care of myself and people like me and ignore the plight of the world's poor, disadvantaged, inarticulate and non-influential people," the 39th president said.

There is no way to separate the interrelationship among population growth, deforestation, land erosion. decertification starvation and the movement of people to urban areas away from their farms, Carter said.

"It doesn't affect us personally, and we really have to stretch our own imagination and our own breadth of heart and soul to encompass those people," he said. The collective responsibility for what happens in the future rests with people like us who are really the least concerned," Carter added. "Although some people and organizations cross the chasm between the richest and the poorest, those people are very rare."

Carter expressed disappointment and frustration over what he views as lack of progress on energy initiates started during his presidency.

In 1980, oil imports made up 30 percent of the U.S. energy supply, imported oil now accounts for 40 percent of our energy, he observed.

"I hate to say that number is going to he 50 percent by 1995, and some people say that by the end of the century, we will be importing 75 percent of the oil we consume in the U.S.." he added. "We can afford it, we can pay for it. But what I would like to point out is the impact on people who cannot afford it or whose lives are already destitute. whose needs are usually unaddressed.

"New words are now in our vocabulary that we never talked about in Tokyo when the l U.S. and Japanese governments met in 1979 to plan our energy and enviromnental agencies--global warming, ozone depletion. acid precipitation. A few scientists knew about these things then, but now everyone does, Carter said. We had never heard of things like Chernobyl, Bhopal or the Exxon Valdez."

To keep the public aware of environmental concerns Carter suggested the initiation of professional education programs to communicate directly with the public, and he called for establishment of a permanent, well-financed task force that would determine how t o accomplish well-founded enviromnental objectives.


Jackie Nemeth is managing editor The Whistle, the Institute newspaper.

Edited by bobdrake12, 23 February 2003 - 02:10 AM.


#17 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 23 February 2003 - 02:15 AM

We are inbetween glaciers or still in the terminal phase of the last cycle but we don't have a definitive answer for where this will go at all. BUT ONE ASPECT OF THE PALEOCLIMATOLOGICAL RECORD IS DEFINITIVELY CLEAR, THE EARTH IN NORMALLY MUCH WARMER.


Lazarus Long,

Can you provide the data?

Also how come some 20+ years ago, the data at that time indicated global cooling?

Nuclear winter on the other hand is definitely of concern.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 23 February 2003 - 02:16 AM.


#18 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 23 February 2003 - 02:23 AM

The issue about global warming leading to global cooling is another one which is of concern to me as well as the potential of a nuclear winter.

What is the evidence that this planet is facing a long-term global warming problem?


bob


http://www.dinosauri...ews/freeze.html

Global warming can cause global cooling

Jeff Poling


Scientists announced in the July 21, 1999, edition of the journal Nature findings that suggest that global warming can sometimes lead to cold weather or even a worldwide freeze.

Scientists have long known that a severe cold spell occurred after the end of the Pleistocene glaciation, approximately 8,200 years ago. The cause, however, has been a mystery. The authors of the Nature article write that the centuries long cold spell might have been caused by meltwater from the disappearing glaciers, cooling the North Atlantic.

The Laurentide Ice Sheet covered parts of North America with ice up to two miles thick for more than a million years. When the Earth began to warm 10,000 years ago, it retreated back toward the poles. The ice sheet left in its wake at least two lakes containing more water than the Great Lakes combined.

In the Hudson Bay, ice held the water in place like a plug in a bathtub. When the plug finally melted, trillions of gallons gushed into the Labrador Sea, flowing out at 100 times the rate water leaves the Mississippi.

The conclusions of the authors are the result of a study by University of Colorado and Canadian researchers who examined evidence of this huge flood in the Hudson Bay region of Quebec and Ontario.

Independent research showed that global temperatures dropped significantly within several hundred years of the flood. Until this study, nobody could pinpoint if these two events were connected, said the study's lead author, University of Colorado geologist Don Barber. The scientists used radiocarbon dating of clams in the flood sediment, and other evidence, to correlate the two events.

The Atlantic Gulf Stream normally acts like a conveyor belt to deliver warm tropical water to temperate regions. By adding so much cold fresh water in such a short time, the flood shut down the Gulf Stream, said Richard Alley, a climate expert at Penn State University.

Temperatures in Greenland and Europe dropped by 6 to 15 degrees for at least 200 years, according to ice core data.

The authors conclusions demonstrate how global warming can, paradoxically, provoke a global freeze. If a modern glacier such as the Greenland Ice Sheet melts as a result of rising temperatures in the next century, it could trigger a similar flood and climate fluctuation, the researchers said.

Copyright © 1999 by Jeff Poling. Quotes are from media sources.

#19 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 23 February 2003 - 02:36 AM

The problem you aren't facing is that you don't recognize the fragility of the vessel that holds your life in its hands.


Lazarus Long,

Those of us who have kept up-to-date with the Mars findings do agree on the fragility of this planet.

Nuclear proliferation continuing on this planet as well as potential "first-strike" wars between given nations (such as possibly between Pakistan and India) is my greatest concern rather than the politcally correct concept of global warming.

If a series of these potential "first strike wars" between given nations became a reality, my concern is that nuclear winter could also become a reality.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 23 February 2003 - 02:52 AM.


#20 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 23 February 2003 - 03:13 AM

The problem you aren't facing is that you don't recognize the fragility of the vessel that holds your life in its hands.


Lazarus Long,

Not only is this planet fragile, but it appears that its orbit might also be fragile.

What might happen if a series of "first strike" nuclear attacks occured between nations?

In addition to nuclear winter could a change in the earth's orbit also occur?

I have included an artricle that displays the possibility that a rare orbit anomaly (for some unknown reason) may have caused sudden global cooling in this planet's past.

bob

http://www.spacedail...nhouse-01q.html

Posted Image

Rare Orbital Anomaly May Have Caused Global Cooling 23 Million Years Ago (excerpts)

Edinburgh - June 27, 2001


Posted Image

A rare coincidence of orbital cycles may have caused sudden global cooling 23 million years (Ma) ago, according to scientists, who used high resolution records and new techniques that allow astronomical calibration to be extended much further back in time.

Astronomical calculations suggest that over this 0.4 million-year period there were four consecutive cycles involving low amplitude variance in orbital obliquity (the inclination of the Earth's orbit to the plane of the ecliptic) during a period of low orbital eccentricity (relatively less elliptical orbits). The net result of this was a 200,000-year period of unusually low seasonality. This, the researchers believe, could have been responsible for the step-like growth of the Antarctic ice-sheet at the time, and the prolonged period of cooling.

Lead Author James Zachos (University of California, Santa Cruz) said "This unique isotope record provides a rare window into how the climate system responded to orbital forcing during the Earth's more distant past."

Edited by bobdrake12, 23 February 2003 - 03:25 AM.


#21 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 23 February 2003 - 03:35 AM

Kissinger any use is not deterrence it is encouragement.

The problem you aren't facing is that you don't recognize the fragility of the vessel that holds your life in its hands.

We are like madmen with high powered arms on an Airliner at high altitude. I can imagine a number of scenarios that the experts don't talk about where a few smaller weapons in the right place to do the wrong thing can have overwhelmingly devastating effect.

I understand that HMP's are not that type of weapon in prniciple or application (normally) but they begin an escalation of those types of weapons. Which in turn increases the risk factors for use by a quantum level. Especially with regard to Environmental Warfare that is an additional tactical aspect of the coming strategies.

When one analysizes the climate one has to look at the balance not the extremes. We are not yet OUT of the LAST Glacial Epoch.


Lazarus Long,

The scenario you paint regarding madmen on an airline with high powered weapons is a good one.

The point is that those with the weapons probably don't understand that their first strike could lead to a domino impact of other first strikes possibly resulting in significant casualties beyond those originally anticipated.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 23 February 2003 - 03:37 AM.


#22 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 23 February 2003 - 04:34 AM

I am not discounting the Nuclear Winter theory at all. I am saying this is not an either/or scenario. It is that both issues are a serious threat.

In fact the article you posted above goes back to a proposal I made in the old forum about what happened about 14K to 16K years ago when the mid ocean basins were flooded suddenly in what has come to be known as the biblical flood scenario and the Antediluvian flood.

As for the cooling versus warming issue what I am saying is that the Paleoclimatological data suggests that Ice Ages are not the norm and we are still in what is ostensibly the end of the most recent Ice Age. But are we in the final stage or a warm period before another period of glaciation?

What is interesting is that it was glaciation which promoted human evolution through survival struggle and made the dissemination of the human genome around the globe possible due to the ability to walk the continuous coastline that existed for much of the last 3 million years.

I will try and get you some data over the next few days but basically when we take sea and polar ice core samples we can measure the temperature as well as atmospheric content from some specific characteristics of certain diatoms and their growth patterns as well as numerous other factors such as dissolved compounds and gasses.

Also, as to the data 20 years ago, even then the arguments raged in both directions and was all too swayed by the interests that payed for the research. But one thing is clear that the models back then were less than primitive by todays standards they were virtually nonexistent, and the data was just starting to get collected seriously.

Today we have almost 40 years of data (since the famed Geophysical Year) collection to work with and vastly improved techniques for monitoring and measuring trends. We have constant satellite telemetry that feed the computer models as well as local data collection and sharing, on a vast global scale.

The problem for most people is that they experience weather as a local phenomenon and don't understand its inherently global character. What I am saying is that there is good reason to fear a sudden global cooling even if we warm up for most of this century.

Another serious problem for most people is the time scale of concern. I have repeatedly tried to get people to think outside the perspective a " normal human lifespan' but most are simply unwilling. I do however expect more from those that aspire to immoratality.

Our clock must be qualitatively different than their accustomed career related measure. Climates smallest measure is not really a day it is as season. And the average meaure for the standard human level of appreciation might be a decade, but trends really must be mesauerd in centuries and millenia, and things like Ice Ages over epochs. Most people have a difficult ime with the sports schedule a month in advance and television is their calender and clock.

#23 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 23 February 2003 - 06:15 AM

By the way, Carter is one of my examples of a President who did many of the wrong things for all the right reasons.

Now Bush appears to be the pendulum swing to opposite side and is also risking the same things to do all the wrong things for what many feel are the right reasons.

Ironically this time many do argue that the reasoning is seriously flawed and that even the stated reasons themselves are flawed and perhaps not even the true reasons " why", just what is popular and presented.

#24 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 23 February 2003 - 01:28 PM

Also, as to the data 20 years ago, even then the arguments raged in both directions and was all too swayed by the interests that payed for the research.


Lazarus Long,

Yes, it is a fact that it is very worthwhile to check out who pays for the research. While at it you might want to check out the pharmaceutical-fossil fuel connection.

bob

#25 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 23 February 2003 - 01:34 PM

I am not discounting the Nuclear Winter theory at all. I am saying this is not an either/or scenario. It is that both issues are a serious threat.


Lazarus Long,

Let's add another variable by reviewing the NASA fact sheet below.

bob


http://pao.gsfc.nasa...sci/volcano.htm

Posted Image

Volcanoes and Global Cooling

Volcanic eruptions are thought to be responsible for the global cooling that has been observed for a few years after a major eruption. The amount and global extent of the cooling depend on the force of the eruption and, possibly, its latitude. When large masses of gases from the eruption reach the stratosphere, they can produce a large, widespread cooling effect. As a prime example, the effects of Mount Pinatubo, which erupted in June 1991, may have lasted a few years, serving to offset temporarily the predicted greenhouse effect.

As volcanoes erupt, they blast huge clouds into the atmosphere. These clouds are made up of particles and gases, including sulfur dioxide. Millions of tons of sulfur dioxide gas can reach the stratosphere from a major volcano. There, the sulfur dioxide converts to tiny persistent sulfuric acid (sulfate) particles, referred to as aerosols. These sulfate particles reflect energy coming from the sun, thereby preventing the sun's rays from heating the Earth.

Global cooling often has been linked with major volcanic eruptions. The year 1816 often has been referred to as "the year without a summer." It was a time of significant weather-related disruptions in New England and in Western Europe with killing summer frosts in the United States and Canada. These strange phenomena were attributed to a major eruption of the Tambora volcano in 1815 in Indonesia. The volcano threw sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, and the aerosol layer that formed led to brilliant sunsets seen around the world for several years.

However, there is some confusion about the historical evidence that global cooling may be caused by volcanic emissions. Two recent volcanic eruptions have provided contradictory evidence on this point. Mount Agung in 1963 apparently caused a considerable decrease in temperatures around much of the world, whereas El Chichn in 1982 seemed to have little effect, perhaps because of its different location or because of the El Nino that occurred the same year. El Nino is a Pacific Ocean phenomenon, but it causes worldwide weather variations that may have acted to cancel out the effect of the El Chichn eruption.


Volcanoes and Ozone Depletion

Another possible effect of a volcanic eruption is the destruction of stratospheric ozone. Researchers now are suggesting that ice particles containing sulfuric acid from volcanic emissions may contribute to ozone loss. When chlorine compounds resulting from the breakup of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the stratosphere are present, the sulfate particles may serve to convert them into more active forms that may cause more rapid ozone depletion (see NASA Facts--Ozone).


Monitoring the Effects of Volcanoes

Even if one can get to a volcano, it's practically impossible to measure its gas output because one can't synoptically see the whole cloud. Even aircraft can't do it because they're too low and it's too dangerous. Space observations from NASA's Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) instrument have contributed significantly to our knowledge of the total amount of sulfur dioxide emitted into the atmosphere in the course of major volcanic eruptions.Following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, TOMS images show Sulfer-dioxide spreading across the Pacific. Several weeks later the sulfur dioxide had spread around the world as observed by the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) instrument on NASA's Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS).

In addition to detecting the sulfur dioxide from Mount Pinatubo, TOMS has made similar observations of more than 100 volcanic events including a major eruption from the Cerro Hudson volcano in Chile in 1991. A TOMS instrument was launched on the Russian Meteor-3 spacecraft in 1991; it is also scheduled to fly on a special-purpose NASA satellite, an Earth Probe, in 1994, and on the Japanese Advanced Earth Observing System (ADEOS) mission in 1996. Current plans are for TOMS to monitor volcanic eruptions well into the next century.

Data from the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE II) instrument on NASA's Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) have shown that during the first five months after the Mount Pinatubo eruption, the optical depth of the stratospheric aerosol increased up to 100 times in certain locations. Optical depth is a general measure of the capacity of a region of the atmosphere to prevent the passage of visible light through it. Greater optical depth means greater blockage of the light. In this case, the increased optical depth means that considerably less of the sun's energy can get through the cloud to warm the Earth's surface.

Observations of the effects of Mt. Pinatubo aerosols on global climate have been used to validate scientist's understanding of climate change and our ability to predict future climate. Researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City have applied their general circulation model of Earth's climate to the problem. They have reported success in correctly predicting the effects of the sulfate aerosols from Mount Pinatubo's eruption on lowering global temperatures. The following related information can be found in the EOS Reference Handbook.


NASA Missions to Study Volcanoes

The first launch in the series of EOS satellites, the key element of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth is scheduled to take place in 1998.

The High Resolution Infrared Radiometer (HRIR), first flown on NASA's Nimbus-1 satellite in 1964, has been used to observe both active and dormant volcanoes. On Nimbus-2, HRIR recorded energy changes from the volcanic activity on Surstey, Iceland in 1966. The Multispectral Scanner (MSS) and Thematic Mapper ™ instruments on the Landsat satellite have provided a long series of images of volcanic activity, e.g., venting, volcanic ash falls, and lava flows.

The EOS program will incorporate a series of satellites that will carry advanced instruments to provide a highly-accurate, self-consistent, and long-term data base of many aspects of Earth's atmosphere, land, and ocean characteristics. The information gained from this major effort to study Earth phenomena will expand our knowledge of the interactions of volcanoes with Earth's climate.

Edited by bobdrake12, 23 February 2003 - 01:36 PM.


#26 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 23 February 2003 - 01:54 PM

Lazarus Long,

The article related to Volcanic eruptions possibly being responsible for the global cooling is authored by the University of Maryland College Park.

Now picture nuclear winter resulting from a series of nuclear wars (domino effect) each one between two nations rather than the world war concept. At one time these "first strike" type of wars would be highly unlikely, but this current era is an one of continuing nuclear proliferation.

bob

http://www.atmos.umd...ES/volceff.html

VOLCANOES & GLOBAL COOLING


Posted Image

Volcanic eruptions are thought to be responsible for the global cooling that has been observed for a few years after a major eruption. The amount and global extent of the cooling depend on the force of the eruption and, possibly, its latitude. When large masses of gases from the eruption reach the stratosphere, they can produce a large, widespread cooling effect. As a prime example, the effects of Mount Pinatubo, which erupted in June 1991, may have lasted a few years, serving to offset temporarily the predicted greenhouse effect.

This figure shows that as volcanoes erupt, they blast huge clouds into the atmosphere. These clouds are made up of particles and gases, including sulfur dioxide. Millions of tons of sulfur dioxide gas can reach the stratosphere from a major volcano. There, the sulfur dioxide converts to tiny persistent sulfuric acid (sulfate) particles, referred to as aerosols. These sulfate particles reflect energy coming from the sun, thereby preventing the sun's rays from heating the Earth.

Global cooling often has been linked with major volcanic eruptions. The year 1816 often has been referred to as "the year without a summer." It was a time of significant weather-related disruptions in New England and in Western Europe with killing summer frosts in the United States and Canada. These strange phenomena were attributed to a major eruption of the Tambora volcano in 1815 in Indonesia. The volcano threw sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, and the aerosol layer that formed led to brilliant sunsets seen around the world for several years.


DEPARTMENT OF METEOROLOGY
University of Maryland College Park
Copyright, 1996

Permission is granted to educators for free use of image and Postix in teaching

#27 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 23 February 2003 - 02:14 PM

What would the impact be of a nuclear winter?

Check out the findings from a study made by the World Health Organization shown below.

It appears that the imact of a nuclear winter produced by nuclear war would be every bit as leathal as the war itself.

http://images.google...phe/catas63.gif http://images.google...ar%20Winter.jpg

bob

http://www.wagingpea...clearwinter.htm

Preventing an Accidental Nuclear Winter (excerpts)

By Dean Babst


Nuclear Winter


In a study made by the World Health Organization, they found that a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could kill one billion people outright. In addition, it could produce a Nuclear Winter that would probably kill an additional one billion people. It is possible that more than two billion people, one-third of all the humans on Earth would be destroyed almost immediately in the aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. The rest of humanity would be reduced to prolonged agony and barbarism. These findings are from a study chaired by Sune K. Bergstrom (the 1982 Nobel laureate in physiology and medicine) nearly 20 years ago. (1)

Subsequent studies have had similar findings. Professor Alan Robock says, "Everything from purely mathematical models to forest fire studies shows that even a small nuclear war would devastate the earth." (2)

Rich Small's work, financed by the Defense Nuclear Agency, suggests that burning cities would produce a particularly troublesome variety of smoke. The smoke of forest fires is bad enough. But the industrial targets of cities are likely to produce a rolling, black smoke, a denser shield against incoming sunlight. (3)

Nuclear explosions can produce heat intensities of 3,000 to 4,000 degrees Centigrade at ground zero. Nuclear explosions can also lift an enormous quantity of fine soil particles into the atmosphere, creating more than l00,000 tons of fine, dense, radioactive dust for every megaton exploded on the surface. (4) The late Dr. Carl Sagan said the super heating of vast quantities of atmospheric dust and soot will cover both hemispheres. (5) For those who survive a nuclear attack, it would mean living on a cold, dark, chaotic, radioactive planet.

A nuclear warhead is far more destructive than is generally realized. For example, just one average size U.S. strategic 250 Kt nuclear warhead has an explosive force equal to 250,000 tons of dynamite or 50,000 World War II type bombers each carrying 5 tons of bombs. The truck bombs that terrorists exploded at the New York World Trade Center and in Oklahoma City each had an explosive force equal to about 5 tons of dynamite. (6)

Edited by bobdrake12, 23 February 2003 - 02:27 PM.


#28 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 23 February 2003 - 03:02 PM

By the way, Carter is one of my examples of a President who did many of the wrong things for all the right reasons

.

I believe the bungling of Jimmy Carter is one of the major reasons why the US is in the precarious situation it is in today relating to the Middle East.

Let's take a look at the sequence of events.

Posted Image

Jimmy Carter

o The Shah of Iran's regime was deemed by many in Iran as "anti-Islamic." A popular movement grew against the Shah until January 16, 1979, when he fled to Egypt.

o Two weeks later, thousands of Muslims cheered Khomeini's return to Iran.

o Afterwards, Carter admitted the Shah of Iran into the US.

Posted Image

o On November 4, 1979, Iranian radicals seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took 66 US diplomats as hostage. Thirteen hostages were soon released, but the remaining 53 were held and sometimes paraded around as a propaganda weapon displaying the apparent weakness of the United States. This weakness was enforced by Jimmy Carter being photograhed and televised wringing his hands while pacing in the Rose Garden rather than taking decisive military action. That sent a message to the Middle East that the US is still suffering the consequences for.

o Meanwhile, Khomeini saw a chance to consolidate his power and issued a statement in support of the action against the US "den of spies." The students vowed not to release the Americans until the U.S. returned the Shah for trial, along with billions of dollars they claimed he had stolen from the Iranian people.

o On April 24, 1980, Carter finally approved a hostage rescue mission known as operation "Eagle Claw," which failed before it got started.

Posted Image

o On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan’s inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention.


The key point here is that Jimmy Carter sent a message of weakness to the Middle East. I firmly do not believe countries are attacked for being too strong but because they are viewed as being too weak. Carter projected the image of Peace through Weakness and Capitulation which the Iranian radicals capitalized on.

In addition, I believe that Jimmy Carter made the mistake of not reaching out to those who viewed the Shah of Iran's regime as "anti-Islamic" in order to to help facilitate the smooth transition of the new government in Iran. Thus, the US was viewed as a threat, and this threat was reinforced when Carter admitted the Shah of Iran into the US.


Today, the United States as well as the free world is confronting terrorism and nuclear proliferation, which I believe are the two of the three major threats (with pollution being the third) to this civilization.

Even if the long term effects of global warming were a reality, global warming could be solved by the various nations uniting by adehering to the recommended scientific actions to correct the problem.



http://images.google....uk/ice-age.jpg

On the other hand, the potential nuclear winter as well as a return to an ice age are far more significant issues with no easy solutions in sight.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 23 February 2003 - 04:30 PM.


#29 Lazarus Long

  • Topic Starter
  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 23 February 2003 - 07:44 PM

I have been assuming that every High Yield atmospheric Nuclear Detonation is equivalent to at least a low yield volcano and depending on the level of yield can even go higher. Low level yield tactical nukes however work in a more sinister and cumulative manner as their use is likely to be over a wider areas, more often, with less intentional damage to a specific zone that instead disperses the dust and associated toxic and greenhouse gasses over vastly wider regions simultaneously. Hence while raw ergs released are less on paper the NET result is greater overall and equivalent to moderate yield volcanos.

You and I see substantially the same glass. I am saying this whole approach spells disaster.

On the issue of Carter it must be said that he had a lot of help at destroying the opportunities that ocurred during his Administration. Ironically some of the same Military Strategists that managed the fiasco in the deserts of Iran are now in charge af this show.

The RDF (Rapid Deployment Force) comes into existence BECAUSE of these events (during the Carter Administration) and Bush Sr. was the first Vice President in history with true military Command Authority to use a select elite force (a power Cheney has inherited with the office) and his first test was Grenada and second Panama. He however was better once he became President at mangeing Global Factors and balancing them with Strategic Objectives.

We will return to Carter, Iran, and Iraq soon, but before we do, perhaps lets spin back to the topic of Nature's synergistic relationship with Man Made Environmental factors. We should also acknowledge that we appear in a period of hightened volcanic activity now and actually a number of areas are getting hotter as we speak. So the relative tectonic dormancy of recent past may not be a standard we can rely upon going forward.

By the way, as you have also alluded to, we could be facing a series of simultaneous stresses, War, Tectonics, Cosmic Incidences, and Climatic trends. And these are only the ones we can clearly identify.

We ignore what we don't yet know at our greatest peril precisely because we are ignorant of it and thus powerless to establish effective counter measures.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#30 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 23 February 2003 - 10:40 PM

By the way, as you have also alluded to, we could be facing a series of simultaneous stresses, War, Tectonics, Cosmic Incidences, and Climatic trend.


Lazarus Long,

These wars will probably not just be nuclear, but the full range of NBC "first strike", unilateral wars deployed in a series of national conflcts in which we have yet to discuss the impact of biological war (the "B" in "NBC") and how biological war is not so easily contained once it is started.

We are also discussing potential threats from meteors and comets with no corrective action plan being implemented.

As this Type 0 civilization begins the perilous 40+ year jouney to become a Type 1, there are many threats along the way that could bring the entire civilization down 200 years or more.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 23 February 2003 - 10:48 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users