Some reasons I don't worry too much about global warming.

[scamper]

The magnitude of the earthquake was originally recorded as 9.0 on the Richter scale, but has been upgraded to between 9.1 and 9.3. At this magnitude, it is the second largest earthquake ever recorded on a seismograph. This earthquake was also reported to be the longest duration of faulting ever observed, lasting between 500(8.3 minutes) and 600(10 minutes)seconds, and it was large enough that it caused the entire planet to vibrate as much as half an inch, or over a centimetre.[4] It also triggered earthquakes in other locations as far away as Alaska.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake

A new island at Home Reef, Tonga

NASA's ozone monitoring instrument (OMI) onboard the Aura satellite detected SO2 emissions from the vicinity of Home Reef beginning on 8 August . . .. Emissions appear to have peaked sometime on 8-9 August, indicated by the large SO2 cloud detected east of Tonga on 9 August. The total SO2 mass detected by OMI on 9 August was ~25 kilotons. The emission episode was over by 15 August. HYSPLIT forward trajectories indicate that the SO2 released on 8 August may have reached altitudes of 5 km or more. To our knowledge this is the first example of satellite detection of emissions from a submarine volcano. (SI/uSGS GVP Listserv)

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/current_volcs/current.html

The asteroid's chance for hitting Earth on April 13, 2029 has now been categorized as a 4 on the Torino Scale. The level 4 rating — never before issued — is reserved for "events meriting concern" versus the vast majority of potentially threatening asteroids that merely merit "careful monitoring."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2004-12-25-meteor-potential-hit_x.htm

[Guitar Shark]

I think I missed your point.

[scamper]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I think I missed your point.

Probably because I'm not that great at making points. The thing I was trying to say is that I don't think global warming is the thing thats going to destroy this planet. This planet plays by its own rules it doesn't really care what we do. I'm not saying we should ruin it but I think our impact is small on the scale. I mean if something is going to scare you it should be this "and it was large enough that it caused the entire planet to vibrate as much as half an inch, or over a centimetre". This statement is from the same article "The shift of mass and the massive release of energy very slightly altered the Earth's rotation."

[Nitro Express]

I went on a cruise to Antartica a few years ago and this was before the mass global warming hype. A group of scientists were down there studying global warming. I would talk with these guys and there were so many different oppinions these people didn't agree with each other.

I just see it this way. We need to get off oil for national security reasons and the less we pollute the better. Global warming or not.

You are right. There is a lot we don't understand. We can't even predict a hurricane season accurately. We can't even help a flooded New Orleans. Gee, what's going to happen when a super volcano goes off or a massive asteroid hits us?

Darwin will be king then. All the do good shit will evaporate and the strongest will survive. Maybe it's natures way of cleansing itself.

[FORD]

Well, the asteroid is easy.... we just send Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck up in a rocket to take care of that bitch.

As for the theory of the Yellowstone "super volcano"....

Maybe that's God's way of telling Cheney that he can't hide in Wyoming?

[Nitro Express]

Theory? Yellowstone is a supervolcano. They knew there were ancient caulderas in the area but the Yellowstone cauldera is 30 miles across and wasn't noticed until photos were taken from Skylab in the 1970's.

It's a hotspot in the earth's crust just like the Hawaiian Islands but the magma doesn't escape and errupts in spetacular fashion every 600,000 years. You are talking an explosion that goes 40,000 feet in the air and is 20-35 miles wide!

[scamper]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
Theory? Yellowstone is a supervolcano. They knew there were ancient caulderas in the area but the Yellowstone cauldera is 30 miles across and wasn't noticed until photos were taken from Skylab in the 1970's.

It's a hotspot in the earth's crust just like the Hawaiian Islands but the magma doesn't escape and errupts in spetacular fashion every 600,000 years. You are talking an explosion that goes 40,000 feet in the air and is 20-35 miles wide!

My kids think this is pretty cool, they know mother nature is a bad ass.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
Theory? Yellowstone is a supervolcano. They knew there were ancient caulderas in the area but the Yellowstone cauldera is 30 miles across and wasn't noticed until photos were taken from Skylab in the 1970's.

It's a hotspot in the earth's crust just like the Hawaiian Islands but the magma doesn't escape and errupts in spetacular fashion every 600,000 years. You are talking an explosion that goes 40,000 feet in the air and is 20-35 miles wide!

Then maybe they should figure out where they could drill some holes to relieve the volcanic pressure.

Obviously, it would be a little tricky figuring out where you want to risk lava flows, but it would probably beat the Hell out of the alternative.

[scamper]

Originally posted by FORD
Then maybe they should figure out where they could drill some holes to relieve the volcanic pressure.

Obviously, it would be a little tricky figuring out where you want to risk lava flows, but it would probably beat the Hell out of the alternative.

Originally posted by FORD
Well, the asteroid is easy.... we just send Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck up in a rocket to take care of that bitch.

As for the theory of the Yellowstone "super volcano"....

Maybe that's God's way of telling Cheney that he can't hide in Wyoming?

Problem solved

[scamper]

Originally posted by scamper
Problem solved

Except for the Cheney part...

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by scamper
Probably because I'm not that great at making points. The thing I was trying to say is that I don't think global warming is the thing thats going to destroy this planet. This planet plays by its own rules it doesn't really care what we do. I'm not saying we should ruin it but I think our impact is small on the scale. I mean if something is going to scare you it should be this "and it was large enough that it caused the entire planet to vibrate as much as half an inch, or over a centimetre". This statement is from the same article "The shift of mass and the massive release of energy very slightly altered the Earth's rotation."

Jesus Christ! Are you really this fucking stupid or is just an act?

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by FORD
Then maybe they should figure out where they could drill some holes to relieve the volcanic pressure.

Obviously, it would be a little tricky figuring out where you want to risk lava flows, but it would probably beat the Hell out of the alternative.

A supervolcano doesn't vent so the gases are suspended in the magma much like gas is suspended in soda pop. The volcano errupts when the magma chamber is exposed to the atmosphere like opening a can of shaken soda pop. So drilling holes is the last thing you want to do!

They figure a large earthquake sets off supervolcanoes. Since the earth is superheated, the ground is soft and maliable and doesn't fissure like normal ground does. There's earthquakes in Yellowstone all the time but you don't feel them.

We could use the park to generate electricity. They could drill wells outside of the park boundries and pump water down to the superheated rock make steam and run turbines. The whole opperation could be hidden from view and the waste would be water. Why we don't do this is beyond me.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
Why we don't do this is beyond me.

Uhhh.... who's your state's most famous resident again?

You think Uncle Dick's going to allow a clean energy source (that he and Halliburton can't own) in his home state?

[scamper]

Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
Jesus Christ! Are you really this fucking stupid or is just an act?

If you're saying that me quoting history is stupid, then yes I'm stupid. If you're saying that my opinion on global warming is stupid then...enlighten me smart guy.

[Hardrock69]

Scientist Accuses White House of "Nazi" Tactics
By Joel Havemann
The Los Angeles Times

Monday 19 March 2007

Washington - A government scientist, under sharp questioning by a federal panel for his outspoken views on global warming, stood by his view today that the Bush administration's information policies smacked of Nazi Germany.

James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, took particular issue with the administration's rule that a government information officer listen in on his interviews with reporters and its refusal to allow him to be interviewed by National Public Radio.

"This is the United States," Hansen told the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. "We do have freedom of speech here."

But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) said it was reasonable for Hansen's employer to ask him not to state views publicly that contradicted administration policy.

"I am concerned that many scientists are increasingly engaging in political advocacy and that some issues of science have become increasingly partisan as some politicians sense that there is a political gain to be found on issues like stem cells, teaching evolution and climate change," Issa said.

Hansen said the Bush administration was not the first in U.S. history to practice information management over government scientists, but it has been the most vigorous. He deplored a "politicization of science."

"When I testify to you as a government scientist," he said, "why does my testimony have to be reviewed, edited and changed by a bureaucrat in the White House?" Sitting beside him was one of the bureaucrats Hansen was talking about: Philip Cooney, chief of staff to the White House Council on Environmental Quality from 2001 to 2005.

Cooney, an official of the American Petroleum Institute before going to the White House, acknowledged having reviewed some of Hansen's testimony as part of a long-standing practice designed to result in consistency.

Cooney was asked about changing "will" to "may" in prepared testimony describing the impact of human activity-particularly the burning of oil and coal-on the Earth's temperature. He said his edits were based not on political views but a 2001 report by the National Academy of Sciences.

"I offered my comments in good-faith reliance on what I understood to be authoritative and current use of the state of scientific knowledge, and for no other purpose," Cooney said.

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) didn't buy that. He said the basis of Cooney's editing changes was not scientific evidence but "loyalty to a person who had appointed you to a political position."

Some of the sharpest exchanges came between Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the committee, and a Republican member, Mark Souder of Indiana. Souder said the Democrats' approach made "a mockery of the hearing process."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032107N.shtml