Although it picked up a bit recently, the "engine" that powers the Gulf Stream is disappearing as the Arctic ice melts. The difference between the density of the salt water in the North and the ocean near the equator is what powers the Gulf Stream. This flow of water is what warms Europe and keeps it from looking like Siberia. This issue is "big" and has gotten some news coverage but as in all news, if it lacks excitement, it's time to move on. This true story and real problem is the basis of the movie "The Day After Tomorrow".

http://www.gulfstreamshutdown.com/

In case anyone has forgotten, the rainforest is disappearing at an ever increasing rate. There is some evidence that, at some point, the rest may disappear rapidly due to the inability to retain water (rainforsest removal usually results in desert conditions). This factory is what makes much of the air we breathe. The primarily third world nations where the rainforests are located are typically poor and have exploding populations who expand by destroying the rainforest for cropland. Since the soil is poor, they then abandon the land (which promptly turns to desert) and cut down more forest.


http://www.bionomicfuel.com/loss-of-tropical-rainforest-biome-may-be-a-catastrophe-for-mankind/

Any comments?

The earth is changing this is true. It is over populated too. This will change.

"How?" you might ask.

People (and other living things) will die in masses as the earth begins to heal. It will not die yet.

2/3 of the population of the earth will die before the golden age establishes itself.

It is what it is. What is to happen, will happen. There is very little we can do to change it.

BUT THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR.

DEATH IS NOT THE END, IT IS THE BEGINNING.

I beg your pardon, Metalwing, but you haven't answered my question regarding your choice of actions in the gloomy hypothetical scenario I presented.

That would force you to be in the other person's shoes, so to speak, i.e. your assuming identity of the other...

Yeah, I agree, space exploraion might take a while to bear any "edible fruits". (that's why I mentioned the Marshal Law) And I comprehand your sarcazm, Precious, regarding Germ Warfare... However, I'd like you to consider Your own actions in a certain extreme situation:

[b[ A CRUISE SHIP EXPERIENCED A BREAKDOWN -- A TOTAL COLLAPSE.. (somewhere in the uncharted waters of the Pacific Ocean)
Most of the passengers managed to escape in safety boats. Yet, the boat you happened to be in (together with your wife and three kids) also preserved a few instruments, weapons and a bit of food and water, while a few of the other boats have neither the instruments or the weapons, but lots of food and water...
At first, all boats were tied together with the rope -- sharing the resources: your boat provided the navigation, other boats provided the food and water -- rationed to the minimum.
However, as the food supplies got scarce, the other boats raised the question of separating from Your boat and continuing drifting on their own -- which would mean a slow but certain death of all the passengers in your boat...(*including your wife and kids*)
And, since you have been elected a captain of your boat, you face the dilema:
1) Either try reasoning with the other boats -- since without "your" instruments they're sure bound to parish -- and together there's a *Slim* chance of finding the way home (Although it would be impossible avoiding some canibalism, since the supply of food and water is already at the minimum),
. . . . . . OR
2) use your weapons for taking the other boats' food and water by force (and leaving them at the mercy of Fate) but preserving the lives of everybody in your boat (*including your wife's and three kids' -- two boys and one girl*)
. . . . . . . . --------*-------
Its easy playing a great Humanitarian when the matters of survival do not depend on you! * * * But it is quite different when the lives of those precious to you, my dear Metal, ARE ON THE LINE! -- in which case, even a Germ Warfare might seem appropriate**

http://www.albalagh.net/population/overpopulation.shtml

Over the years many researchers have authentically proved that the problem is not too many people at all. Contrary to the claims of family planning and population control specialists, world population growth is rapidly declining. United Nations figures show that the 79 countries that comprise 40 percent of the world's population now have fertility rates too low to prevent population decline. The rate in Asia fell from 2.4 in 1965-70 to 1.5 in 1990-95.

http://www.albalagh.net/population/overpopulation.shtml

The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is based on half truths and pseudo science. It is just another way for politicians to control us and steel from our pockets.

Where do you live Metalwing? Where I live I can see for miles and miles and miles. Not a person in sight over the vast prairie. We still have a lot of space.

Over population is probably a matter of perspective. If humans were to take care of the earth instead of to **** it dry of resources, over population would be a benefit for the earth. But they don't do that.

Instead, they don't even return their dead to the earth, they lock them inside of caskets and bury them in a plot of ground.

I SEE THIS SIGHT TOOK ONE OF MY WORDS AND TURNED IT INTO STARS AS IF i AM USING BAD WORDS. I AM NOT. I RESENT THAT IMPLICATION.

THE WORD WAS S*UCK AND I DON'T SEE HOW THEY CAN SAY THAT IS A WORD THAT NEEDS TO BE CENSORED. I HATE CENSORSHIP OF THIS EXTREME.

What? no pictures of polar bears standing on an ice cube?

Hi JennieBean. I live South of Houston in the coastal plains. I can see nothing but grass and trees for over a mile from my window.

Overpopulation has many faces. Over half the Earth's land has been cultivated for crops. If the population must expand into the rainforests of Brazil, is that a sign of overpopulation? If we continue to multiply to the detriment of every other species on the planet, but we still manage to feed ourselves, is that overpopulation?

If you check the fish stocks in the oceans, we have eaten most species almost to extinction. Is that result a sign of overpopulation? If Somalia has far more population than it can feed, but the population continues to grow, it that also a sign of overpopulation?

Overpopulation is not about how many of the population can survive. It is about how many can live in harmony with the rest of the planet without damaging the ecosystem. The Islamic overpopulation post above says you can put twenty times the current population in the United States and that is "OK". I don't know anyone who would find that reasonable... except some Islamics who don't want to be bashed for rapidly growing populations.

Hi JennieBean. I live South of Houston in the coastal plains. I can see nothing but grass and trees for over a mile from my window.

Overpopulation has many faces. Over half the Earth's land has been cultivated for crops. If the population must expand into the rainforests of Brazil, is that a sign of overpopulation? If we continue to multiply to the detriment of every other species on the planet, but we still manage to feed ourselves, is that overpopulation?

If you check the fish stocks in the oceans, we have eaten most species almost to extinction. Is that result a sign of overpopulation? If Somalia has far more population than it can feed, but the population continues to grow, it that also a sign of overpopulation?

Overpopulation is not about how many of the population can survive. It is about how many can live in harmony with the rest of the planet without damaging the ecosystem. The Islamic overpopulation post above says you can put twenty times the current population in the United States and that is "OK". I don't know anyone who would find that reasonable... except some Islamics who don't want to be bashed for rapidly growing populations.

Actually, if the Gulf Stream continues to shut down, it might cause the habitat of the Polar Bears to improve quickly. The problem would be one mainly for Europe. Several years of Siberian winters would wipe out most agriculture. There might be so many bears we could have them for dinner.

Or they could have us for dinner.

Actually, if the Gulf Stream continues to shut down, it might cause the habitat of the Polar Bears to improve quickly. The problem would be one mainly for Europe. Several years of Siberian winters would wipe out most agriculture. There might be so many bears we could have them for dinner.

This is not a true statement. The science is clear we are effecting our climate the effect is measurable and we have good models to show how the quantity of carbon and other green house gasses can and will raise the global avg temp.

The effects of such a change dependent on the specifics have been in certain cases over dramatized IMHO, that is not the same as what you have said here.

One of the most significant and contentious tools in the arsenal of climate change researchers are climate models. A simple understanding of how climate models work is necessary to understand the debate over their results. Climate models are computer programs designed to simulate the Earth's climate over a period ranging in length from ten to hundred simulated years. They can be simple enough to run on the average home pc at one extreme or complex enough to tax super computers at the other extreme. The basic premise behind climate models is that the Earth?s climate can be summed up as a balance of energy: all energy that goes into the system must eventually come out.
There are several types of climate models. Zero degree models use measured values for solar radiation and atmospheric gases. They are designed to produce a single global mean temperature.
2D and 3D models represent the atmosphere in two and three dimensions and add exponentially to a model's complexity. These are low resolution (detail) versions of the same models used in weather forecasting. Weather forecast models describe atmospheric conditions over a period of a few hours or days whereas climate model describe the atmosphere over a period of seasons, decades, or centuries.
Weather forecasts calculate the likely evolution of observed data over a course of hours or days. They are inialized (given a starting value) with observed data such as temperature, humidity, and wind. These are gathered from numerous sources such as weather balloons, ground stations, etc.Thus they are said to be predictive.
Global climate models are inialized with observed data. They simulate climate change starting with a few empirically derived inputs such as solar radiation, atmospheric composition, sea surface temperatures, and orbital precision. They can take several simulated years to reach equilibrium.
Weather prediction models use high resolutions and take into account small scale variables such as cloud formations. Global climate models can handle high resolution and small scale variables, but time and computer power make such details too restrictive. It is necessary for them to make a trade off between resolution and complexity (number of variables simulated and level of detail). All small scale variables must be accounted for, thus in global climate models they are said to be represented parametrically. American Heritage Dictionary defines a parametrical as, "One of a set of measurable factors, such as temperature and pressure, that define a system and determine its behavior and are varied in an experiment." (Ellis) Most models don?t directly simulate a large number of variables. This is one reason for uncertainty in these models.
Clouds represent another problem for global climate models. They play a large role in Earth's climate such as trapping heat at night and reflecting the sun rays. Their functions are hard to observe and their exact climatic roles are a matter of controversy. Because of this they are frequently not effectively modeled.
Global climate models have yet another problem with the planetary boundary layer. The planetary boundary layer is the layer of the atmosphere that is closest to the surface. Many factors relating to land surface like mountains and elevation are often improperly modeled. "Many models represent the entire region between Sierra Nevada and the Rocky mountains as a single plateau of uniform elevation." (Edwards)
Parameterization relies on a theory that small scale variables can be accurately represented through large scale variables. Most physical variables are parameterized and are the most extensive aspect of a modeler's job.
Modelers look for links between meteorological data and observation data. When they find a link, that parameter is said to be physically based. When links are not found, which they often aren't, modelers take an impromptu approach to making links.
It is not enough just to create parameters; these parameters must be tuned. Tuning is a process of adjusting the values of the coefficients and/or equations to produce a desired model outcome which more closely agrees with observations, or the modeler?s judgment of the physical plausibility of the changes. Sometimes parameters fit well; other times they need to be highly tuned. Tuning is a delicate and complex process; the smallest changes to one parameter can affect other parameters and even the whole model.
Modern models couple atmospheric models with general circulation models of the oceans which act very similar to atmospheric models. These combined models must reflect the exchange or "fluxes" of heat, momentum (wind and surface resistance), water (precipitation), and evaporation between the ocean and the atmosphere. The effects of these relationships have a profound effect on the models, but are not well understood. This brings in "flux adjustments" which are similar to tuning.
It is obvious from these descriptions that there is vast array of uncertainties in global climate models. Parameterization and tuning may be more of an art form than science and their connections to physical theory or observational data vary wildly.
"In an ideal climate model, the only fixed conditions would be distribution and altitude of continental surfaces. All other variables, such as sea surface temperature, land surface albedo [reflection from land], cloud formation, etc. would be generated internally by the model itself from the lower-level physical properties of air, water, and other basic constituents of the climate system. To say that current GCMs are far from reaching this goal is a vast understatement." (Edwards)
Further questions of the validity of global climate models come from their heritage. There are only about fifty models world-wide and many of these share a common heritage. It is not atypical for a modeler to borrow from previous model to save time and effort. It is said that substantial segments of computer code in current global climate models remain unchanged from the original. New models created in this way are subject to the same flaws that may have plagued the original. The outcomes of these models are only as accurate as those of their source. Until global climate models can simulate the Earth's climate with no tuning or flux adjustments, their results are no better than the modeler's best guess.
One would think that with all these predictions of the future climate, that climatologists would have a good understanding of past climates. The fact of the matter is that official temperature records only go back a little over one hundred years. Historically this is but a fleeting moment. This is like judging a novels quality after reading only ¾ of one page somewhere in the middle of the book.
One can't hope to understand what is really going on, or even what will happen on the next page. But climatologists believe they can predict what will happen a couple chapters ahead. Let me put that one hundred years in context. The age of the Earth is estimated to be 4.6 billion years. Humanity is said to have originated some 130,000 years ago. Those one hundred years are only .002% of the Earth?s history and .076% of human existence. Even if we had records from the beginning of humanity it would only be 2.8% of the Earth?s history. It is obvious that we have no idea what is going on with the current climate in relation to climatic history.
{/quote]

The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is based on half truths and pseudo science. It is just another way for politicians to control us and steel from our pockets.

Why does EVERYTHING have to be a grand conspiracy to control people and take their money? If "the government" is so damn powerful, why is it broke?

We just don't have enough Chief Seattles in the world. But sign me up as one.

I don't mean to suggest suggested that it is grand conspiracy, just that a lot people see this as a cash cow and have no desire to see anything but status quot on the issue because global warming is beneficial to their bottom line.