 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / February 2008Do you care if the ice caps melt?
Honestly, do you care? I know some people take it quite serious. The truth is that if Greenland were to melt along with the ice caps, that the oceans would rise 19 to 24 feet (depending on which Scientist you believe). All Scientist agree that the oceans would rise. With that said, I have wondered if some people look forward to anything apocalyptic. I have to question if Liberals really care about the environment or if it is just politics... Then I have to wonder if conservatives even care, or if they just look forward to anything apocalyptic... I ask this because inside of my natural self... I always look forward to the apocalytic, but the practical part of me wants to preserve what is in our control (i.e. regardless if we are inducing the current global warming trend, then we have a responsibility to stop it..) So, apocalyptic and keep pretending we are not causing any issues? Or do what we can on our part to keep pollutants out of the air? Which are you? >Honestly, do you care? > >I know some people take it quite serious. The truth is that if Greenland >were to melt along with the ice caps, that the oceans would rise 19 to 24 >feet (depending on which Scientist you believe). All Scientist agree that >the oceans would rise. Snip 3/5s of our planet is covered by water. Do you have any idea how much water it would take to raise the ocean level world-wide by 19 feet? Given the fact that almost 1/2 of the world's ice is floating and it's melting would have no effect on water level, the amount of ice melt needed to raise the ocean levels 1 foot would be tens of miles thick. You might also remember that the Norse named the island Greenland because of the lush, green forests and meadows that were growing there when they discovered it. A case could be made that it is reverting to it's historical climatic conditions. Jack >> Honestly, do you care? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > melting would have no effect on water level, the amount of ice melt > needed to raise the ocean levels 1 foot would be tens of miles thick. You might want to read the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They looked at this in depth. It's available online. I don't recall how much the sea level would rise. I think it is about 1 m, not 6 m (19 ft). > You might also remember that the Norse named the island Greenland > because of the lush, green forests and meadows that were growing there > when they discovered it. A case could be made that it is reverting to > it's historical climatic conditions. To do that, you need to remove all the CO2 man has put into the atmosphere. The increased CO2 concentration in the air do affect plant life as well as sea life when the CO2 dissolves into the ocean and lowers the pH. Jeff > Jack >>Honestly, do you care? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > much > water it would take to raise the ocean level world-wide by 19 feet? Yes, see below > Given the fact that almost 1/2 of the world's ice is floating and > it's > melting would have no effect on water level, the amount of ice melt > needed to raise the ocean levels 1 foot would be tens of miles > thick. No, a mile thick over a large enough area would do it. Again, see below. > You might also remember that the Norse named the island Greenland > because of the lush, green forests and meadows that were growing > there > when they discovered it. A case could be made that it is reverting > to > it's historical climatic conditions. I doubt if the Norse explored the frozen interior of Greenland. I do agree with your basis premise - climates change all the time without the interference of Humans. But to be honest, just because parts of Greenland were warmer in the second millennia, you can't make any claims about the globe as a whole. It may very well have been at the same time that Antarctica was cooler and stored more ice than today. We just don't have enough information to know. But for sure we know that the world was much colder in the not so distant past and that it warmed significantly without the interference of mankind. One more thing about the Norse - If you were trying to sell property to suckers back home, would you have named your newly discovered land, Coldashellland? Depending on who you believe, the Greenland ice cap can be several miles thick in places. I think it would be reasonable to assume there are at least 502,400 cubic MILES of ice sitting on Greenland. The surface area of the oceans on the earth is 140,000,000 square miles. If you spread 504,400 cubic miles of water over this area, the sea level would rise by around .004 miles which is about 19 feet. So, I'd say the claim is reasonable IF you believe global warming will melt the entire Greenland Ice Cap (very very unlikely). Of course there is much more ice stored on the continent of Antarctica. Since my farm is only about 14 feet above sea level at the highest point, I'd be in real trouble if all the ice on Greenland melted. Personally I am not concerned. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/2004-11-21-melting-polar-ice_x.htm or http://tinyurl.com/dkh9f http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/EmmanuelleStJean.shtml Ed > >>Honestly, do you care? > >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > real trouble if all the ice on Greenland melted. Personally I am not > concerned. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/2004-11-21-melting-polar-ice_x.htm > or http://tinyurl.com/dkh9f > > http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/EmmanuelleStJean.shtml > > Ed The rise in water might not be that great since in the process, low-lying land will be covered, essentially increasing the area of the oceans. But I'm sure I saw a map of what all will be covered, and the middle of the USA around the Mississippi became quite a large shallow sea - - not a pleasant prospect as it would decimate a lot of farm land. Maybe if it happens slowly enough, dikes will be built to keep the sea from covering the land. As to the question do I care - - certainly, but not for myself as I live at 235 ft altitude in the Santa Clara Valley, CA. > The rise in water might not be that great since in the process, low-lying > land will be covered, essentially increasing the area of the oceans. But [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > at > 235 ft altitude in the Santa Clara Valley, CA. What would cause the most severe trauma would be the imporant costal cities... i.e. New York, Miami, Houston, Los Angeles, Oakland/SF, etc... >>>Honestly, do you care? >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > No, a mile thick over a large enough area would do it. Again, see below. In some areas the ice caps reach 2 miles thick... plus the island is 81% covered in ice on average. >> You might also remember that the Norse named the island Greenland >> because of the lush, green forests and meadows that were growing there [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Ed >>>Honestly, do you care? >>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > >Ed I stand corrected...WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIIIEEEEE!!!!! > I stand corrected...WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIIIEEEEE!!!!! Yes, we are. Ed On Jan 25, 8:19 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> wrote: > > I stand corrected...WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIIIEEEEE!!!!! > > Yes, we are. > > Ed Some monster would come back from the dead, after being frozen for millions of years in the ice caps, would kill us. > On Jan 25, 8:19 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Some monster would come back from the dead, after being frozen for > millions of years in the ice caps, would kill us. Is that where the monster in the Cloverfield movie came from? Jeff >> On Jan 25, 8:19 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Jeff Where did the world go wrong? Cars used to come from Detroit. We got our monsters from Japan.... Ed >>> On Jan 25, 8:19 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Ed Why do you think that the world has gone wrong? What's wrong with a global economy? >>>> On Jan 25, 8:19 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Why do you think that the world has gone wrong? What's wrong with a > global economy? Nothing if you don't mind the inevitable result for many Americans - low wage tedious jobs. For the top 5% or so, it is great. I am not too worried for myself, I like getting decent quality stuff at low prices dumped in the US by the Chinese. I do worry about what my kids will do. There aren't that many jobs for CEOs. Ed >>>>> On Jan 25, 8:19 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > dumped in the US by the Chinese. I do worry about what my kids will > do. There aren't that many jobs for CEOs. There are plenty of jobs out there for people with a good educations, like doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, computer programmers, police, and people working to make our borders safe. with all the dumping, the unemployment rate is still about 5%. Jeff > Ed > There are plenty of jobs out there for people with a good educations, > like doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, computer programmers, > police, and people working to make our borders safe. with all the > dumping, the unemployment rate is still about 5%. Would this border protection job classification be with the Border Patrol division of Homeland security? Like the two guys rotting in prison right now, and the third one being charged by U.S. courts at the behest of the Mexican "government" for the death of a scumbag illegal? You know, the ones abandoned by Bush and his hand-picked U.S. attorney who so effectively allowed perjurious statements to be used to convict two border patrol agents in the death of a known repeat drug smuggler, now generating nothing but silence from this administration? Those jobs? The ones formerly held by these three guys who just tried to do their jobs? Not until we get a president who is serious about border control, and isn't a puppet of the Mexican government with their corrupt hand up his a.s. One of my sons works for the Department of Labor in a large eastern state. He tells me for every five jobs, of all types that are avaialble in that state, there are only three people willing and qualified to fill those jobs. As a result companies do not want to expand or move into the state. It is only getting worse as the boomers retire. Talk to employers today and you will discover that employers are happy to get and employee that is trainable, and who will come to work and stay the shift. In my area, were the unemployment rate is above the nation average Wal-Mart can not get enough employees to fill the $14.50 hour jobs, with benefits, that are available at one of their hugh distribution centers. >>> Why do you think that the world has gone wrong? What's wrong with a >>> global economy? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jeff >>>> On Jan 25, 8:19 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Why do you think that the world has gone wrong? What's wrong with a >global economy? Oh PLEEESSSE! All economies, like all politics, are local. The global economy is a fiction created by the "One World Government" types. You buy everything local, it may be produced in another country, state or town but it passes through many hands before it's sold at you LOCAL store. Each hand it passes through does at least a paper transaction reflecting cost and sale price. That is a LOCAL transaction. I'm sure that someone here is going to produce an example of a global transaction but for everyone of those, there are 10's of thousands that I can point to as local. But I'm not going to get into a pissing contest here, you either understand what I'm saying or you don't. Jack > Snip > > 3/5s of our planet is covered by water. Do you have any idea how much > water it would take to raise the ocean level world-wide by 19 feet? There is enough frozen water above seal level to make the oceans rise at least 19 feet. That's documented fact. > You might also remember that the Norse named the island Greenland > because of the lush, green forests and meadows that were growing there > when they discovered it. A case could be made that it is reverting to > it's historical climatic conditions. False! It was named Greenland to be more attractive to bring immigrants to the land. Greenland is about 81% ice-capped > Honestly, do you care? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Which are you? There's a middle ground section to the subject: A segment of people who get a thrill from claiming that **ALL** environmental causes are a wrong. Gradually, these people will die (hopefully sooner than later). Or, as polar bears move south to adjust to a new diet, perhaps they'll run across people who didn't care about the ice caps, and SNACK TIME! Honestly, I'm 50/50 about how much of the warming is our fault. But, I'd still like to see cleaner vehicles for selfish reasons: The stink. > Honestly, I'm 50/50 about how much of the warming is our fault. But, I'd > still like to see cleaner vehicles for selfish reasons: The stink. I am 50/50 as well... with that said, I agree... might as well take care of our part if it is our doing. >> Honestly, I'm 50/50 about how much of the warming is our fault. But, I'd >> still like to see cleaner vehicles for selfish reasons: The stink. > > I am 50/50 as well... with that said, I agree... might as well take care > of our part if it is our doing. It couldn't hurt to have cleaner air, ya know? I mean, it's not a big thing in the news, so it's not fashionable to discuss, but even so.... > Honestly, I'm 50/50 about how much of the warming is our fault. But, I'd > still like to see cleaner vehicles for selfish reasons: The stink. Finally! Something halfway intelligent from Joe. I think we need cleaner cars too, but mostly because we need cleaner cars so the air I breathe is fit for consumption. Purely a selfish need. We need cleaner cars and trucks because this helps the local environment. A bit of icing-on-the-cake is a better global environment, but clearly the benefit is primarily local. If the air is cleaner in Los Angeles, it's good for Los Angeles while New York City remains mired in smog and filth -- not to diss New York, just to illustrate the local nature of the discussion. The problem is, in order to make cleaner cars and trucks for California, the automakers have demonstrated the mentality that they need to build cars for 49 states, and a special one for Calif., this is the wrong approach. I think the Feds need to find a way to make the air clean for all American cities, and build a car that fills the bill. If the air gets clean in Calif, why not make it clean for Hoduck, Nebraska, at the same time? Not to mention cleaning the air in New York City in the process. I oppose California's effort to sue the EPA over CO2 from motor vehicles. CO2 is not a problem for California, although there is an argument that it is a problem for the global environment. California needs to worry abouit California first, and if it is concerned about global issues, then we should put our 53 Congressmen to work pressuring the EPA, and/or the remaining legislators, to change the rules so that CO2 is addressed. Having said that, CO2 comes from burning gasoline, and if the EPA has an agenda to improve fuel mileage 15% (or whatever), then CO2 will decline because burning of fuel declines. (CO2 comes from other sources too, but California is focused on CO2 from automobiles so I am addressing the issue from that perspective only.) >> Honestly, I'm 50/50 about how much of the warming is our fault. But, I'd >> still like to see cleaner vehicles for selfish reasons: The stink. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think we need cleaner cars too, but mostly because we need cleaner cars > so the air I breathe is fit for consumption. Purely a selfish need. Good. Let's begin by removing ***ALL*** Chrysler mini-vans from the road overnight, if they're more than 3 years old. Every one of them's a stinker, which should come as no surprise since the engines were built with tolerances measured in feet. > Honestly, do you care? > > I know some people take it quite serious. The truth is that if Greenland > were to melt along with the ice caps, that the oceans would rise 19 to 24 > feet (depending on which Scientist you believe). All Scientist agree that > the oceans would rise. There is an island, somewhere, that is 12 ft above sea level. The sea in encroaching on the island. The islanders are panicking. They can't grow crops. The soil has been ruined by the salt water. The Governor of the island says, "The rich nations that caused all this should set up a fund. billions of dollars to help us!" When asked how long he had, he answered, "Fifty years". Kinda sounds like extorsion to me. You gotta be kidding. Look at the Hawaiian islands. The ones to the nortwest are smaller. Because they are sinking. Islands can sink. Of course, the story about the island and the remarks of the Governor were heard on the BBC... > Islands can sink. Explain this to me please. >> Islands can sink. > > Explain this to me please. http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/hawaii_review/intro/intro.html Explanation is at the bottom. Jeff >> Islands can sink. > > Explain this to me please. its true that islands can sink, but its something global warming deniers say just because its something that can happen... the bikini islands where we tested nuclear weapons have not been sinkning but the oceans are starting to engulf them.. the ocean levels are rising...just a fact.. and to blame it on sinking islands is ridiculous... im not saying you have to buy man made global warming.. but its still a silly thing to say >> Explain this to me please. > > its true that islands can sink, but its something global warming deniers > say just because its something that can happen... I'm not a denier, I have had 5 years of geological study in high school and college. This is a normal cycle. Here's 400,000 years worth of data: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/co2-400k-years.gif note carefully that the temperature on the chart is *LEADING* CO2 levels. According to the chart, we are headed for another Ice Age. Stock up on socks and blankets now! I knew we were headed for an Ice Age back in 1974 when I first started studying geology. What's interesting is the CO2 data is new, taken from ice core samples inthe last 10 years or so. I find it particularly interesting the data appears to show the temp rises first. Also, if you look at the chart, the rise in temp has leveled off, at an even lower temperature than in the past. It's probably going to be a colder Ice Age than previous ones, and start sooner. Man is pretty arrogant to think he can alter the cycles of the Earth to that extent. >>> Explain this to me please. >> its true that islands can sink, but its something global warming deniers [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > note carefully that the temperature on the chart is *LEADING* CO2 levels. To me, it appears the [CO2] is leading the temp variation around 325,000. The highest [CO2] on the graph is less than 300 ppm. But it is almost 400 ppm now. > According to the chart, we are headed for another Ice Age. Stock up on > socks and blankets now! You'll also notice that the temperature was at least -2 C during the entire period except thrice, each time around peaks in the [CO2]. > I knew we were headed for an Ice Age back in 1974 when I first started > studying geology. What's interesting is the CO2 data is new, taken from > ice core samples inthe last 10 years or so. I find it particularly > interesting the data appears to show the temp rises first. Or the [CO2] changes first at other times. > Also, if you look at the chart, the rise in temp has leveled off, at an > even lower temperature than in the past. It's probably going to be a > colder Ice Age than previous ones, and start sooner. And, if you look closely you will notice that there is a temp. plateu now. In the past, there were sharp peaks that quickly went down. Our present temp has been up for a while. > Man is pretty arrogant to think he can alter the cycles of the Earth to > that extent. Man is pretty arrogant to think that he can double the [CO2] concentration, destroy rain forests, increase the pH of the ocean and kill off a large percentage of species without ill effects of this. Jeff >> Man is pretty arrogant to think he can alter the cycles of the Earth to >> that extent. > > Man is pretty arrogant to think that he can double the [CO2] > concentration, destroy rain forests, increase the pH of the ocean and kill > off a large percentage of species without ill effects of this. The Earth is fairly resilient. We are but a gnat on the a.s of the Earth... >>> Man is pretty arrogant to think he can alter the cycles of the Earth to >>> that extent. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The Earth is fairly resilient. We are but a gnat on the a.s of the > Earth... And Loonie Leftard LIEberals are but a boil on the buttocks of the world that desparateley needs lancing.  SignatureCharles the Curmugeon Bring back the Rotary Dial and the days when no one had to press 1 to continue in English. On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:42:27 -0600, n5hsr wrote: >>>> Man is pretty arrogant to think he can alter the cycles of the Earth >>>> to that extent. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And Loonie Leftard LIEberals are but a boil on the buttocks of the world > that desparateley needs lancing. And AlGore is the head... >>> Man is pretty arrogant to think he can alter the cycles of the Earth to >>> that extent. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The Earth is fairly resilient. We are but a gnat on the a.s of the Earth... It doesn't take a lot of bacteria to bring down a man (by down, I mean down about 6 feet under). The earth will recover from out effects pretty much in a few thousand years. The question is, how many of us (I mean our descendants) will be there to see it? Jeff I've seen the obvious changes in my life time (almost 50)...The area I grew up in rarely had floods (onec every 100 years. Now it floods often. The area I now live in has barrier islands that are being encroached upon by the sea. The local governments pour millions of dollars of money into the beachfront to protec the multimiillion dollar properties. But it's starting to become obviousl that they are growing weary of this and the writing is on the wall for these barrier islands. The more frequent hurricanes haven't helped either. The property values that used to be escalating constantly are now dropping like a rock and insurance is going out of sight.. > I've seen the obvious changes in my life time (almost 50)...The area I > grew up in rarely had floods (onec every 100 years. Now it floods often. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that used to be escalating constantly are now dropping like a rock and > insurance is going out of sight.. Hurricane frequency and intensity has not yet equaled that of the 1930s. > I've seen the obvious changes in my life time (almost 50)...The area I > grew up in rarely had floods (onec every 100 years. Now it floods often. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that used to be escalating constantly are now dropping like a rock and > insurance is going out of sight.. What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Yeah, barrier islands are encroached upon by the sea. That's nature. The islands are built up. Then they are destroyed. That was happening long before animals walked the earth. Over time, the ocean does destroy wear away beaches. It's a natural cycle. Get a geology textbook and read about it. >> The more frequent hurricanes haven't helped either. The property values >> that used to be escalating constantly are now dropping like a rock and >> insurance is going out of sight.. > > What does this have to do with the subject at hand What have you done with Jeff, you fiend?!?! OF course this has to do with Global Warming. Because of the drastic rise in temperature, there are more frequent and more violent storms in the ocean. Transpiration from the higher temp means more water in the atmosphere, and it has to come down someplace. It's just doing so more violently. See, I can do k00k speak, too... Of course, the followers of AlGore see the world burning to a cinder. Sorry, not going to happen. Of course there is a change in weather patterns, like there is every few thousands of years. It's just time for a change, and man hasn't a lot to do with it, and can't do a lot to stop it. In case you missed it, I even explained the heavy snoes this uear in terms AlGore would be proud of... >>> The more frequent hurricanes haven't helped either. The property values >>> that used to be escalating constantly are now dropping like a rock and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > See, I can do k00k speak, too... The problems the guy is facing are do to the normal changes brought by the ocean. The ocean erodes the beaches. The storms come in cycles. Global warming may or may not have had anything to do with the hurricanes in 2005. > Of course, the followers of AlGore see the world burning to a cinder. > Sorry, not going to happen. Of course there is a change in weather [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In case you missed it, I even explained the heavy snoes this uear in terms > AlGore would be proud of... Why would he be proud of your stupidity? Jeff >> In case you missed it, I even explained the heavy snoes this uear in >> terms AlGore would be proud of... > > Why would he be proud of your stupidity? > > Jeff Huh? Did you miss it? It was quite a good explaination of why Global Warming is leading to heavy snows. Like I said, AlGore would be proud. I can even explain away record snowfalls via Global Warming. One might suspect all that extra moisture in the air would cool the earth.. LOL >>> The more frequent hurricanes haven't helped either. The property values >>> that used to be escalating constantly are now dropping like a rock and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > In case you missed it, I even explained the heavy snoes this uear in terms > AlGore would be proud of... > One might suspect all that extra moisture in the air would cool the > earth.. LOL Actually, quite the contrary. Water holds heat (hence humidity...) the more water in the atmosphere, the warmer it should be. So why the hell is it SNOWING so much? >>>> The more frequent hurricanes haven't helped either. The property >>>> values that used to be escalating constantly are now dropping like a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> In case you missed it, I even explained the heavy snoes this uear in >> terms AlGore would be proud of... Re: Do you care if the ice caps melt? Group: alt.autos.toyota Date: Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 2:44pm (EST+5) From: kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com (Jeff) Charles Pisano wrote: I've seen the obvious changes in my life time (almost 50)...The area I grew up in rarely had floods (onec every 100 years. Now it floods often. The area I now live in has barrier islands that are being encroached upon by the sea. The local governments pour millions of dollars of money into the beachfront to protec the multimiillion dollar properties. But it's starting to become obviousl that they are growing weary of this and the writing is on the wall for these barrier islands. The more frequent hurricanes haven't helped either. The property values that used to be escalating constantly are now dropping like a rock and insurance is going out of sight.. ==================== What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Yeah, barrier islands are encroached upon by the sea. That's nature. The islands are built up. Then they are destroyed. That was happening long before animals walked the earth. Over time, the ocean does destroy wear away beaches. It's a natural cycle. Get a geology textbook and read about it. ================= Have you heard of decafe...? >The more frequent hurricanes haven't helped either. Please tell us about last year.... ...and the year before that..... SignatureScott in Florida Re: Do you care if the ice caps melt? Group: alt.autos.toyota Date: Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 3:00pm (EST+5) From: JustAskl@verizon.net (Scott in Florida) On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:19:22 -0500, pisanochas@webtv.net (Charles Pisano) wrote: The more frequent hurricanes haven't helped either. Please tell us about last year.... ..and the year before that..... SignatureScott in Florida ============= Do you let the fact that you're a republican rule every thought that comes into your head? I'm a republican, but that doesn't mean my mind closes up after I watch Bill O'Reily.. Everything you (and alot of the democrats and republicans on this NG) say follows along the lines of your political party. There is only so much I can agree with before I start to feel just a part of the herd. And if you've ever seen a real herd, it's basically one animal after another with their heads in each others a.ses.. CP > > Re: Do you care if the ice caps melt? Ice caps aren't melting. They are transforming, a natural occurrence on our magnificent and dynamic planet called Earth. > > Group: alt.autos.toyota Date: Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 3:00pm (EST+5) From: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Please tell us about last year.... > ..and the year before that..... Signature"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton >> Re: Do you care if the ice caps melt? > > Ice caps aren't melting. They are transforming, a natural occurrence on > our magnificent and dynamic planet called Earth. Just like the climate changes every few thousand years... whether man is spewing carbon or not. It's recovered before, it'll recover again... > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> last year.... >> ..and the year before that..... Re: Do you care if the ice caps melt? Group: alt.autos.toyota Date: Tue, Jan 29, 2008, 3:24am (EST+5) From: Trueno@ae86.gts (Hachiroku) Re: Do you care if the ice caps melt? Ice caps aren't melting. They are transforming, a natural occurrence on our magnificent and dynamic planet called Earth. Just like the climate changes every few thousand years... whether man is spewing carbon or not. It's recovered before, it'll recover again... ==================== Denial... Not just a river in Egypt....? I'm a republican, therefore that old, ill performing SUV in front of me spewing smoke here in Flori-duh (because we don't have emissions testing or state inspections) does not bother me.. Nope.. I don't feel it... Not me...cough. Baaah... said the sheep as it was 'herded' to slaughter..? As I said, a lot of the demo's and republicans on this 'bored' are a lot like the harley guys who all wear the same pathetic uniform on following the herd to a dumb a.s back slapping meeting about nothing. They read from the same manifesto and repeat the same things as if robots: It doesn't matter it is right or wrong all they see is right or left.. CP " The internal combustion engine is the scourge of the 20th century". - Al Gore > Denial... Not just a river in Egypt....? > > I'm a republican, therefore that old, ill performing SUV in front of me > spewing smoke here in Flori-duh (because we don't have emissions testing > or state inspections) does not bother me.. Nope.. Actually, me neither. I wish we didn't have inspections. But I thought the emissions tests were Federally mandated...? > > Denial... Not just a river in Egypt....? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But I thought the emissions tests were Federally mandated...? No, I believe it is by locality. We had emissions test every six months in Northern VA and never in SE VA. Pensacola, FL and Shreveport, LA did not have them when I lived there. Neither did Utica, NY or Caribou, ME. Federal law requires emission inspections only in areas of the county were the pollution levels exceed a pre-determined rate. Generally, in and around large population areas. In Pa for example in and around Pittsburgh and Philadelphia >> > Denial... Not just a river in Egypt....? >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Shreveport, LA did not have them when I lived there. Neither did > Utica, NY or Caribou, ME. > Federal law requires emission inspections only in areas of the county were > the pollution levels exceed a pre-determined rate. Generally, in and > around large population areas. In Pa for example in and around Pittsburgh > and Philadelphia And less dense areas, like Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties and Erie (where Scranton and Wilkes-Barre are located), visual inspections and gas cap checks are required, as well. >>>> Denial... Not just a river in Egypt....? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> Shreveport, LA did not have them when I lived there. Neither did >> Utica, NY or Caribou, ME. Re: Do you care if the ice caps melt? Group: alt.autos.toyota Date: Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 2:28am (EST+5) From: kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com (Jeff) Mike hunt wrote: Federal law requires emission inspections only in areas of the county were the pollution levels exceed a pre-determined rate. Generally, in and around large population areas. In Pa for example in and around Pittsburgh and Philadelphia And less dense areas, like Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties and Erie (where Scranton and Wilkes-Barre are located), visual inspections and gas cap checks are required, as well. --------------- I spend half the year in Luzerne and lack counties (Pa). What is that extra sticker for then..? They've got 2 now... Florida had emmisions testing at one time in Broward (77ish) I know for sure. Not sure what other Fl counties did. >> Denial... Not just a river in Egypt....? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >But I thought the emissions tests were Federally mandated...? No emissions testing in NW Ohio, west of Toledo. Jack >> Denial... Not just a river in Egypt....? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >But I thought the emissions tests were Federally mandated...? No inspections in my area of Florida.... SignatureScott in Florida >>> Denial... Not just a river in Egypt....? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No inspections in my area of Florida.... And our governor here in Illinois, aka Governor Blow Job, just exempted all vehicles prior to 1996 from inspection for emissions anywhere in the state. So the polluters are now buying up all the AE10x Toyotas, because they don't have to be tested anymore. I'm surprised someone hasn't made me an offer for my 95. I'd like to know how BJ got away with that one. SignatureCharles the Curmugeon Bring back the Rotary Dial and the days when no one had to press 1 to continue in English. > And our governor here in Illinois, aka Governor Blow Job, just > exempted all vehicles prior to 1996 from inspection for emissions [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'd like to know how BJ got away with that one. He probably got away with it because most vehicles built before 1996 were not OBDII compliant. Most emissions inspections now are conducted by accessing the OBDII port and downloading the data. Without an OBDII port, conducing an emissions inspection requires some sort of exhaust gas stiffer and if you want to actually test it at anything more than an idle, a dynometer so you can run the car up to speed. All very complicated and expensive compared to just reading the OBDII Data on a 1996 or newer vehicle. Emissions inspection for non-OBDII vehicle were unreliable and easily faked. No so easy to fake with OBDII. Ed >> And our governor here in Illinois, aka Governor Blow Job, just exempted >> all vehicles prior to 1996 from inspection for emissions anywhere in the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ed Is it possible to delete every check code ever shown from the OBDII memory? >>> And our governor here in Illinois, aka Governor Blow Job, just exempted >>> all vehicles prior to 1996 from inspection for emissions anywhere in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Is it possible to delete every check code ever shown from the OBDII > memory? Hmmm...this information is stored in NVRAM (non-volatile RAM) this means you can leave the power off for quite a while without clearing the RAM. On comuters, this is accomplished by "flashing the BIOS". Optionally, there used to be 'clear' jumpers on early motherboards with flashable BIOS' that had to be set for about 5 minutes before you couls flash the BIOS. Or, applying a voltage to a certain pin would clear the memory. There isn't any real easy way to do this unless you know what type of NVRAM you're dealing with and have a Data Sheet, or someone who's hacked one before. In the US, I believe this may be a Federal offense. No, Thank You... Re: Do you care if the ice caps melt? Group: alt.autos.toyota Date: Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 3:17am (EST+5) From: Trueno@ae86.gts (Hachiroku) Actually, me neither. I wish we didn't have inspections. But I thought the emissions tests were Federally mandated...? --------- Of course I was being sarcastic about the 'smoke' not bothering me. But I'm glad 'I' don't have to put up with state inspections and emmissions. But unfortunalty not everyone is self policing like I am and (I'm sure) many on this board are.. We have true MONSTER trucks that routinely cruise our streets here in S. Fla. Couldn't get away with that in inspection states. The police here in Fla will tell you there is a vehicle code that prevents things like monster trucks and overly tinted windows and coffee cans on the exhuast, but it is only enforced on the whims of police (as an excuse to pull over a drug suspect for instance).. But back to the melting ice caps, I can't see how anyone can ignore the overwhelming evidence..? CP "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?'" -Groucho Marx > But back to the melting ice caps, I can't see how anyone can ignore the > overwhelming evidence..? That there's an Ice Age coming? > I've seen the obvious changes in my life time (almost 50)...The area I > grew up in rarely had floods (onec every 100 years. Now it floods often. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that used to be escalating constantly are now dropping like a rock and > insurance is going out of sight.. So the climate in your area has moved around within the last 50 years. How do you justify extrapolating that into panic? The world has existed for billions of years. The climate no doubt moves around. To throw around the whole "global warming" thing like some people are doing is nothing but lunacy. > I've seen the obvious changes in my life time (almost 50)...The area I > grew up in rarely had floods (onec every 100 years. Now it floods often. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that used to be escalating constantly are now dropping like a rock and > insurance is going out of sight.. The earth is not a static entity, rather, it is dynamic, meaning it's changing all the time, regardless if humans are on it or not. Why hell in time, our star will turn to a red giant when it's fuel begins to run out and will then envelop it's attending solar system completely (including us) yikes!! So what do you think about that cataclysm? What can we do about it? How can we stop it from happening? Nothing. Living creatures seem so insignificant in the large scheme of things don't they. Signature"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton > So what do you think about that cataclysm? What can we do > about it? How can we stop it from happening? Nothing. Living creatures > seem so insignificant in the large scheme of things don't they. Hammer...Nail...head... >> I've seen the obvious changes in my life time (almost 50)...The area I >> grew up in rarely had floods (onec every 100 years. Now it floods often. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >out and will then envelop it's attending solar system completely >(including us) yikes!! So what do you think about that cataclysm? What did G.W. Bush do to cause this? We all know it's his fault, all we need to do is figure out how he caused it. Jack > >> I've seen the obvious changes in my life time (almost 50)...The area I > >> grew up in rarely had floods (onec every 100 years. Now it floods often. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Jack Not even Super AlGore can save us from this...doom before us. Signature"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton > > > The earth is not a static entity, rather, it is dynamic, meaning > > > it's changing all the time, regardless if humans are on it or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Not even Super AlGore can save us from this...doom before us. AlGore can save us from the Sun. He will eat so much that he will grow into a larger buffoon than he already is. His shadow will cast a shade over the Earth that will protect us from the overwhelming heat effects of the Sun. Signature"In politics stupidity is not a handicap." ~ Napoleon > I've seen the obvious changes in my life time (almost 50)...The area I > grew up in rarely had floods (onec every 100 years. Now it floods often. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that used to be escalating constantly are now dropping like a rock and > insurance is going out of sight.. Again, the Earth changes ev ery so often. It may just be about time for a change. The poles shift, weather patterns change, desert regions change. Data shows there is an ice age every 10-15,00 years. It's been 11,000. Sure has been a lot of snow this year... >>>> Man is pretty arrogant to think he can alter the cycles of the Earth to >>>> that extent. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Jeff You lefties believe all this crap? Suicide is your answer.... SignatureScott in Florida >>>>> Man is pretty arrogant to think he can alter the cycles of the Earth >>>>> to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Suicide is your answer.... Through early morning fog I see visions of the things to be the pains that are withheld for me I realize and I can see... [REFRAIN]: that suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I can take or leave it if I please. I try to find a way to make all our little joys relate without that ever-present hate but now I know that it's too late, and... [REFRAIN] The game of life is hard to play I'm gonna lose it anyway The losing card I'll someday lay so this is all I have to say. [REFRAIN] The only way to win is cheat And lay it down before I'm beat and to another give my seat for that's the only painless feat. [REFRAIN] The sword of time will pierce our skins It doesn't hurt when it begins But as it works its way on in The pain grows stronger...watch it grin, but... [REFRAIN] A brave man once requested me to answer questions that are key is it to be or not to be and I replied 'oh why ask me?' [REFRAIN] 'Cause suicide is painless it brings on many changes and I can take or leave it if I please. ...and you can do the same thing if you please. SignatureCharles the Curmugeon Bring back the Rotary Dial and the days when no one had to press 1 to continue in English. >>>>>> Man is pretty arrogant to think he can alter the cycles of the Earth >>>>>> to [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > >...and you can do the same thing if you please. Mash! SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>> Man is pretty arrogant to think he can alter the cycles of the Earth >>>>>>> to [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > Mash! But I keep hoping the Leftards will take the hint. I also hope they vote for Hillary on Nov 5th. <g> SignatureCharles the Curmugeon Bring back the Rotary Dial and the days when no one had to press 1 to continue in English. >>>>>>>> Man is pretty arrogant to think he can alter the cycles of the Earth >>>>>>>> to [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > >I also hope they vote for Hillary on Nov 5th. <g> They may have to write in the Hildebeast..... SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>>>> Man is pretty arrogant to think he can alter the cycles of the >>>>>>>>> Earth [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > > They may have to write in the Hildebeast..... OTOH, I'm not sure whether I'm going to be interested in the Republican on the ballot Nov 4th. SignatureCharles the Curmugeon Bring back the Rotary Dial and the days when no one had to press 1 to continue in English. >>>> Man is pretty arrogant to think he can alter the cycles of the Earth >>>> to that extent. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jeff Not a lot. Like any other parasite, the Earth will probably find a way to rid itself of us. >> Islands can sink. > > Explain this to me please. http://kauaian.net/blog/?p=116 The earthquake on Hawai`i island last week was caused not by slipping tectonic plates, but by the weight of the island bending the underlying lithosphere. Fact is, the Hawaiian islands are slowly sinking under their own weight, even as sea levels rise. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1994/94_10_14.html There is abundant evidence that the island of Hawaii is sinking, and that different parts of the island sink, or subside, at different rates and for different reasons. At any location, the net subsidence is the sum of these different types of subsidence and any change in global sea level. The first type of subsidence is widespread and affects the entire island.In the short term, say the last 50 years, there are detailed tide gauge data that show that Hilo has sunk, relative to Honolulu, at a rate of 2.3 millimeters per year, or roughly 4.5 inches in 50 years. At the same time, global sea level has risen about 1.8 millimeters per year, so that Hilo has actually sunk about 8 inches relative to sea level in that 50-year period. ___________________________________________________ This is actually one of the first things you learn in Geology, because it encompasses both vulcanism and plate tectonics. If you look at a map of Hawaii, you see the southwestern islands are larger, and get smaller as you look to the northwest. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1994/94_10_14.html This is because the island of Hawaii is on top of a 'hot spot', a volcanic spot in the ocean that causes eruptions that 'grow' the island. Because of plate tectonics, the Pacific plate is moving to the west. As the plate move, the island currently being formed by the volcanic activity is shifted away from the hot spot and begins to sink. As a new area is placed over the hot spot, a new, larger island is built. > There is an island, somewhere, that is 12 ft above sea level. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Of course, the story about the island and the remarks of the Governor were > heard on the BBC... Ocean levels are rising. I have heard the "islands sink" stuff before, but if you think all Islands are sinking then youre just using that as a smokescreen... >> Look at the Hawaiian islands. The ones to the nortwest are smaller. >> Because they are sinking. Islands can sink. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if you think all Islands are sinking then youre just using that as a > smokescreen... OK, volcanic islands sink. I don't care if the island is disappearing; 5,000 people have left already. The governor and the other remaining 10,999 want the US to PAY for them to stay on the island (riiiiight...). A man was flooded out of his house, and was sitting on the roof. A boat from the Fire Department came by and asked if he wanted to board. The man said, No the Lord will take care of me! Soon the man had to stand on the roof. A speedboat with a bunch of people came by, and the owner asked if he would like to board. The man said, No the Lord will take care of me! Soon, the man was on his tip-toes on the chimney, up to his neck. A helicopter came by. The Coastguardsman asked him if he wanted to board. The man said, No the Lord will take care of me! Soon, there was nothing left to cling to and the man drowned. He got to Heaven and he saw the Lord. He said, Lord, why did you abandon me and let me drown! I had full faith in you and you let me down! Jesus looked at him and said, "HEY! I sent two boats and a helicopter! What the hell did you want?!?!?!" So, you tell me what a 'fund' of a billion dollars would be split amongst 11,000 people. Time to leave the island!!!! Even the 'man is the cause' nuts are predicting a rise of only 3 inches in fifty years. The higher numbers are IF all of the ice caps should melt. Actuuly if you do a bit of researtch you will discover the heads of some ice caps are GROWING, not melting and the average earth temperature has NOT gone up since 1998.. The sky is falling, the sky is falling ;) >> Honestly, do you care? >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Of course, the story about the island and the remarks of the Governor were > heard on the BBC... > Even the 'man is the cause' nuts are predicting a rise of only 3 inches in > fifty years. The higher numbers are IF all of the ice caps should melt. > Actuuly if you do a bit of researtch you will discover the heads of some > ice caps are GROWING, not melting and the average earth temperature has > NOT gone up since 1998.. The sky is falling, the sky is falling ;) Yer preacing to the chior, du-u-u-u-ude... > I know some people take it quite serious. The truth is that if > Greenland were to melt along with the ice caps, that the oceans would > rise 19 to 24 feet (depending on which Scientist you believe). All > Scientist agree that the oceans would rise. Here's an idea: Let's say the water level begins to rise due to global warming. Coastal cities will begin to experience floods and we will lose habitable land back to the sea. Of course this would have a very negative effect on waterside properties. One way to reduce the rise in water levels albeit not dramatically would be to expand oil drilling all over the world. By pumping up whatever oil we could find we would be emptying huge cavities of space within the Earth itself. This would allow much of the water in the oceans to fill these voids and lower the water tables of the surface. Since the planet already has these pockets of liquid we wouldn't be making much of a dent to the crust by replacing one form of liquid for another. This plan would extend mankind's existence several hundred more years and essentially put the environmentalists and Al Gore out of business. It would also virtually eliminate our dependence upon Middle East oil. Signature"If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide." ~ Mahatma Gandhi |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.