P.S. I don't agree at all that every geo-engineering scheme has been thought of, or that all the proposed ones are totally impractical
Rick, I do not recall anyone mentioning future schemes that might work. Willy and Sally did not think the ones you proposed were realistic or feasible, and i had never thought they were.
So, that is when we started discussing the Adapting, as Willy suggested.
If your nightmares do come true, it is equally likely that someone in the future may think of a way to cope with it.
But when you get to talking about changing the Oceans by sprinkling iron dust, or changing the planets atmosphere by sprinkling Pixie dust, it reminds me of an old story.
A monkey was making love to an Elephant, and she coughed. The Monkey, being a Gentlemman, stuck his head around her hip, and shouted, "What's the matter, Old Girl, Am i hurting You?
The oceans and the atmosphere is bigger and Manknd is much smaller than you seem to think.
Ernie
Climate Change
Not to mean this going to go on as long as Religion , But , it brings to mind Moses and Daniel from the Bible , At least Hollywood's version of that .
Oh Well ,, The science and magic of this will go on a while , so I guess .
I forgot; Anyone know where the Ark might be hidden ? That is about the only place I can think of , that might have the answers .
This message was edited Mar 21, 2014 2:28 AM
Humans adapt everywhere from frozen tundra to desert to Amazon jungle. I imagine any of them seeing the other extreme , would think it inhospitable. Just saying, isn't it amazing how humans have adapted for many centuries?
I hope one of them thar metal balloons does not fail, fall to the ocean, and choke a whale.
Changing weather over desert- I read some interesting things about plans to grow trees in arid areas. Probably New Yorker magazine which has good in depth articles. No matter what I think this is a good area to put some effort into. For example, one plan was growing saplings and then taking them to desert and planting them. Too many died. So a new idea is a concrete trough that collects what rain might fall, channels it to a hole, shields a portion of ground from direct sun and and, and put the seeds in the hole. Lot cheaper to install than planting trees. We need SMART people to think of things this way.
jUHUR,
Last i heard the Ark was on top of Mt Ararat in Armenia or Turkey, so if the oceans rise high enough that will serve as one more Lifeboat, for at least a few of the people.
Sally,
That is the kind of Smarts i was talking about. The people in Israel did wonderful work adapting to the Desert, and changing it to support humans..
Ernie
For the record, Willy didn't say that none of the schemes were not workable. I do think that having to adapt is what will end up happening--our leaders don't have the courage to address the problem head on--but I am definitely not arguing that we shouldn't try to do something.
Nuclear power is one good answer in the short term, but even that is a decade or more away from starting to help. Natural gas emits half the CO2 of coal and could be very useful near term. Both solar and wind can make small contributions right away, too--small being the key word. But both nukes and natural gas face heavy political winds and again, the politicians haven't the courage to lead. Just like GMOs, too many people are (irrationally, IMO) afraid of nukes/fracking/what have you. There is little understanding that, in the real world, nothing is 100% safe. Polluted air kills millions every year. One African country (Tanzania?) refused corn shipments during a famine because they MIGHT have included GMO corn. Better to starve for sure than eat GMOs! Good thinking there.
Willy,
" No one anywhere is proposing, much less doing, anything realistic"
Thanks for the clarification. I would not want to misquote you.
The quote above is what you said. and I just assumed it included Rick's proposals.
Ernie
Ernie--re-reading my statement, I can see the interpretation you gave it. What I am trying to say is that, aside from loose talk about a carbon tax, or going 100% solar/wind (impossible for decades), or whatever else is offered, no one of import (a politician) anywhere in the world is actually trying to do something about the problem. As one former oil company CEO said (I forget who and I paraphrase) Not one world leader has the political courage, nor does any country have the political will, to actually DO SOMETHING.
juhur7, I have seem pictures of what could be the upper part of the ark of Noah. As far as the Ark of the Covenant goes, Ron Wyatt said he found it in a cave under the "Skull" in Jerusalem.
http://www.anchorstone.com/asi-newsletters/wyatt-newsletters.html
Willy,
First, I am glad you are not offended because the last thing i would want to do is offend my Spell Checker. Only God knows when i might need him again on this program.
And i agree completely with the paraphrase. That lack of courage the Oil Exec mentioned is one of the major reasons we are in the mess we are in.
The only thing i have against wind and solar is the exorbitant cost. Many sailors have been using solar panels for a long time, and of course the Old Windmills were a Godsend 100 years ago, before cheap electricity came along. Nuclear power is what i think we need, but then again, it is the timid people along with the timid Government that has kept us from having that.
Ernie
Indy: I have seen several films and information documentaries about the Ark ( of the covenant).
It has been known in Ancient History to change climate .
Have actually seen a piece of wood from Mt. Ararat Many decades ago . (Noah's Ark)
Part of the Ark of the Covenant is said to be in Africa , The Control Part and Tablets of Judgement and Prayer are under Or in a wall (most likely of what use to be any one of 15 of King Herod's Palace's
Well anyway , with those, the Tablets it is said to Control (weather , us , Various )
It is about as much a chance as anything here ..
Juhur,
I apologize for thinking you were referring to Noah/s ark, but now that you have explained about the Weather Control aspect, i understand.
I was thinking along the line of using it for a lifeboat.
Ernie
It's pretty hard to offend me, especially in a forum like this.
I enjoy the interchange and the perspectives of all contributors, but I can see that many don't understand the fundamental guideline: Be reasonable, see it my way.
Ernie , Not a problem , I should of been clearer , Comes back to likely finding that(the Ark of the covenant) about as soon as finding answers to all this conversation here.
There are only a few ideas where 5 of King Herod's Palace's were , In Either case , all will be looking for while as to answers ..
All things being , I was really referring to it all being Science and Magic second guessing Creation (we all do not do that all that well ) and not to be-little Religion either .
Takes a lot of work .. to guess with creation ...
WillyFromAZ I was not ignoring your point either , Last I was considering wind solar here , they Have Raised The Taxes on that now also .
Most only want CONTROL ! not Resolution or Resolve !
Pardon Willy , Years ago I lived near the Great Salt Lake in Utah , It was about at it's lowest level in history then , You could see the erosion levels where the lake had risen and fallen for centuries ,
Decades after , It was up over a stop sign where i use to drive from Utah to Nevada .
I don't believe all this is any different than what has happened before , Science and us are worried about the challenges it all suggests , that is not any different either , always was, always will be ..
This message was edited Mar 21, 2014 7:47 PM
Ernie said:
>> And the information about very little Warming having taken place in the last 15 or 17 years is pretty well reported.
Once again, I'll look to NASA, NOAA and every reputable scientific organization on the planet (Footnote *1) for facts, not biased reporting by flacks for EITHER partisan side, many of which are pretty intoxicated from huffing their own flatulence for decades.
(I wonder whether hot air from politicians is included in global climate models?)
MEASURED FACT: global average temperatures are already rising. The sound-bite from National Review is untrue and known to be untrue by anyone with back40bean's research skills and determination - and 97% of everyone who studies climate.
(see image below)
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
>> It is also well documented by polls that about 60% of the population disagree with your beliefs about Global Warming
I'm sorry to sound elitist, but I do give more credence to climatologists about climate modeling, than I do to "polls", many of which are conducted by groups with agendas.
>> what the most important problem we face is now. Jobs and the Economy was near the top, and Global Warming was near the bottom.
Short term, that makes sense.
But I make fun of managers for only looking at quarterly profits.
I make fun of politicians for only thinking about the next election, when planning for problems that might take decades or more to become widely life-threatening, and might take centuries to cure,
So I am also going to urge even people worried about their next paycheck, or lost home, to think about their next generation, and their lost ability to grow food. Ideally, the industry to save the planet will also create jobs.
My uniformed view of why the economy stagnates is that excess capital is flwoing into a small number of bank accounts and sitting there, instead of circulating through a middle class, being spent and stimulating industry.
-------
* Footnote 1 - collection of scientific organizations that acknowledge the problem:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus : near the bottom
"nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)
ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)
Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)
Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)
Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)
APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)
GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010)
Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005)
Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)
RE: Geo-engineering
Ernie said:
>> The oceans and the atmosphere is bigger and Mankind is much smaller than you seem to think.
That's been true for many hundred thousand years (or more, depending on which primates you call "human").
And mostly I agree with the tone of humility in the face of the entire planet. It is big, and each human is (physically) relatively small and weak.
Unfortunately or fortunately, technology does give us a lever big enough to move the world.
We are already well underway in the process of damaging the climate without even trying, through technology and The Power Of Mega-Stupidity And Short-Sightedness.
With technology plus the (supposed) power of intelligence and wisdom (if we can muster enough of both), we actually COULD nudge the climate in various directions if we put the world's industrial might behind the effort with some kind of agreement about "let's not commit suicide".
The hard parts will be to get any agreement on "let's survive", and then do it WISELY enough that we make matters better, not worse.
If we had invested in lower-cost lift-to-orbit technologies 20-30 years ago, we would have stimulated the economy and soon be able to build solar power satellites, easing the electrical power genration CO2 footprint.
But we were short-sighted and cheap, and "drill drill drill" plus "burn clean coal" (!) won the day. Thanks, Koch brothers, burn in Heck.
If we had pushed space industry 2-3 decades sooner, orbiting "Telstar"-like mirrors from steroidal nickel-iron or lunar aluminum would have been possible by this date. But people thought O'Neil was a dreamer.
Yes, the SCALE of orbiting enough mirrors to shade a whole 5% of the globe would be HUGE. You could only do it with asteroidal (Near-Earth-Orbit) or lunar resources. But how about selectively shading 2% of the near-equator zone? When we understand climate better, that might be enough to avert some of the more damaging near-term chaotic downsides.
Deferring the catastrophic effects by 50 or 100 years would be VERY worthwhile, if it postponed global famine long enough for (say) us to build enough nuclear reactors and/or solar power satellites to drop the NEW CO2 production by a lot.
Unfortunately, the dirtiest and riskiest geo-engineering scheme is the easiest to do without space-based industry. Pump millions of sulfuric acid into the stratosphere. Let's see ... require burning only high-sulfur coal. That might be enough by itself ... if it didn't cause deforestation through acid rain.
Using fusion bombs to throw huge amounts of dust really high. We might get that "for free" when Pakistan decides that nuking someone is preferable to dying of thirst, or India gets cranky about losing a few hundred million more to monsoon floods.
I don't think it is BEYOND our ability to hit the climate with an even bigger brick than we already doing without even trying. The hard part will be doing more good than harm.
But apparently it is beyond our wisdom to even try.
"Lack of leadership" ... that's true and a very relevant point. But I fear that the WORST aspect of democracy is that we only occasionally get better leaders than we deserve.
BTW - I do include myself in the group of voters who should NOT be made King of the World. I would have spent the entire global budget on pie-in-the-sky schemes before I was 30.
Willy wins the humor prize for today:
>> but I can see that many don't understand the fundamental guideline: Be reasonable, see it my way.
I've seen variants on that:
"I'm not bossy, you just need to be told what to do."
"I'm not nagging, I'm right!"
Sallyg said:
>> I hope one of them thar metal balloons does not fail, fall to the ocean, and choke a whale.
Totally! And that all the other, much much more horrid kinds of damage remain LESS damage than what is coming if we do nothing.
Flipping that problem around: the very first thing that would be tried (if we could) would be to throw a few thousand tons of refined asteroidal iron from orbit into the iron-poor regions of the ocean. That's why I originally said "foam". I would melt it in orbit, than expand it in vacuum with gas into tiny spheres that would be light enough to float in salt water. That way they would stay near the surface but release iron slowly as they rust away.
First they would notice that the "bloom" effect is pretty limited, then notice that the sequestration doesn't last very long (100 years is not long enough for a long-term improvement), and then notice that it also hurts existing ocean life (or helps some and hurts others).
Sure it would be hideously risky and certain to upset the oceans in SOME way. We probably would not take that risk until we saw, say, 90 million people die from famines that were OBVIOUSLY caused by man-made climate change. 1% of the world's population will spur desperate measures.
Too bad the climatologists can't convince us to start CAREFUL measures now, or 10-20 years ago, while we might still have had a chance of succeeding.
Remember: we add 9 BILLION TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere every YEAR.
The problem is getting that much worse, THAT FAST.
Willy said that someone said:
>> Not one world leader has the political courage, nor does any country have the political will, to actually DO SOMETHING.
Whether that was an oil company CEO or you, whoever said it is right. The "caps" and "carbon taxes" are typical politician/diplomat approaches: things you can pass laws about, but unlikely to solve the problem. At ;east they were trying ... but the US Congress voted it down, didn't they? It would have been very bad for their biggest campaign contributors, and also hurt everyone in the short run.
The Unabomber was also wrong, but at least he knew he was wrong, when he pointed out that you COULD greatly reduce industry (and by implication CO2 emissions) if 95-99% of the population was willing to give up industrial technology and hence commit suicide "for the greater good. We simply are NOT going to do that, even if it is the same thing as signing a pledge that our grandchildren will have to march into the sea en masse.
Just plain giving up on electrical power and comfortable lifestyles is NOT going to happen. Instead, the Third World is going to adopt our rate of resource consumption and CO2 release as fast as they can.
That's why the Keeling Curve is inflected upwards.
It is one of the reasons I think we need to find smart solutions, starting 20-30 years ago.
Rick,
I am glad you have so much blind faith in the Government that you trust them so implicitly.
But, to honest, aren't you very glad that you will not have to have Obamcare handle your health problems? lol.
It seems to me that some of the Scientists have been making huge mistakes, ever since they were arguing about whether the Earth revolved around the Sun, or vice versa, so I am going to wait until i see what ever reputable Scientist should do, and that is to wait until his ideas are proven before he starts hyping them. In fact, it seems like you said that is what a good Scientist should always do, is to prove his perceptions.
I am going to try real hard not to attempt to correct all of your mistakes tonight, as i know you make them in good faith, so I will stop here for a while.LoL
Ernie
Rick,
There are enough qualifiers in what you wrote tonight that i have to correct only one mistake
rr"Unfortunately or fortunately, technology does give us a lever big enough to move the world"
It does not matter how long your lever is, if you do not have a fulcrum, it will not move anything, and so you cannot move the World.
Ernie
>> I am glad you have so much blind faith in the Government that you trust them so implicitly.
Naah, just "better than the alternative".
>> so I am going to wait until i see what ever reputable Scientist should do,
I thought you were going to say "and then do the opposite"!
>> wait until his ideas are proven before he starts hyping them.
Real-world scientists do start hyping their theories, to each other, as soon as they can get into print (in reputable journals).
In an ideal world, they would refrain from yacking to reporters and trying to get it into textbooks until their results were at least fairly convincing to the researchers that used to disagree with them.
Like "a consensus". Like what we do have in climatology.
The sin is to call a "maybe" "certain".
In climate change, we are still at the point of "probably" many different things in the short term.
However, there is agreement that reversing the effects of many decades of huge CO2 emissions WILL take hundreds of years.
And unlike political leaders and most ordinary people, climatologists are already used to looking at various time ranges, where most of them consider 100 years to be "the near term".
Weathermen consider 5-10 days to be the very LONG term.
I do tend to consider the "scarier" side of the bell curve of their predictions, because I think it is prudent to insure against things that are only 20% likely. Heck, I pay a ton for car insurance even though that risk is lower than 2% per year.
My attitude is that, when it is "all our lives" that we're protecting, we should be more concerned than we are about totaling one car.
But if a 10% risk of starving 10% of the world population to death in either 50 years or 100 years is an acceptable risk and preferable to paying the premiums this year, continuing on the way we are going is also an acceptable risk.
In those models, the risk goes up sharply if the model assumes continued release of 9 gigatons per year. When you talk about the 100-200 year window, I think most of the modelers just look at you funny and say "Yes, of course, if we did THAT we would ALL be hosed, DUHH!"
>> if you do not have a fulcrum, it will not move anything,
False analogy. Good rhetoric, but false analogy.
Proof:
acid rain
DDT killing off birds
Chernobyl
the climate change MEASUREMENTS you don't talk about much
coral reefs dieing
deforestation
ozone layer thinning
irrigation in the USA and Israel, visible from space
All those are global modifications that already happened without anyone even trying.
If we start trying, for sure we will CHANGE things.
Ecologists are right to be horrified: the odds are great that we will do at least as much harm (to some things) as we do good to other things.
But as soon as people realize that doing nothing means things like more expensive food (and famines and desertification and monsoon floods etc etc etc) , we will start doing the notorious "something".
I'm urging that realistic planning and action be started ASAP, before it is obviously too late, instead of only maybe too late.
On the other hand, the population curve, in any other context, would scream out "Look at me! I'm about to top out and then crash!"
Climate damage will start that process. If it goes far enough, war will carry it through to a point where civilization and industry crash, too, and then the climate will heal and come back over some centuries.
Will civilization come back?
That depends on how far the wars go. Larry Niven came up with a phrase something like : "THAT war will go to a conclusion ... it will continue until it's fought with stones and sticks." Einstein said something similar.
Can humans without technology or agriculture compete with rats, wolves and coyotes? Wolves know how to cooperate with each other in packs, which gives them an advantage over humans, who only have politics.
>> if you do not have a fulcrum, it will not move anything,
rr"False analogy. Good rhetoric, but false analogy."'
True anology.
Every item on your Proof list impacted very limited areas of the World, and did not "Move the World", and most of those problems were limited and have been corrected.
acid rain ......has been greatly reduced.
DDT killing off birds... Banning it has turned out to be a mistake. Probably as many babies have died in Africa from Mosquito carried Malaria as birds died in the USA. Should have been regulated, not banned. Panic stricken Eco nuts responsible for the dead babies in Aftrica.
Chernobyl.... Animals and birds have returned and are thriving in the area affected by Chernobyl.
the climate change MEASUREMENTS you don't talk about much...... Figures do not lie but Liars can select from a wide array of measurements to get the charts they want, You and Drobarr can settle that.
coral reefs dieing,,,Coral reefs in many places were destroyed by an explosion of starfish. Dead reefs both far above and far below current sea levels prove Coral reefs have been growing and dying for millions of years.
deforestation. Necessary to provide shelter for the population. Kill the trees or kill the people.
ozone layer thinning . I thought that was solved with the expensive banning of Fluorcarbons. or was that another mistake by the Eco Nuts.
irrigation in the USA and Israel, visible from space....Increased food kept millions of people from starving or going to war over the last loaf of bread.
Larry Niven probably wrong. People become weary of war and will probably stop fighting and share the last few loaves of bread and make some babies and start all over againl
Rest of post i pretty much agree with.
Ernie
This message was edited Mar 21, 2014 7:06 PM
Where does all this CO2 come from? It comes from oil, natural gas and coal. And these three substances are incompletely decayed plant and animal matter that have been trapped under the soil surface over millenia. Where did the carbons originate from? They came from the air.
Humans by using fossil fuels are returning that carbon back to the air where it originated from. Of course we are doing this very quickly thus the CO2 level is rising quicker than nature can put things in equilibrium.
But fossil fuels wont last forever at least at the pace we currently consume them.
And since much of what climate scientists have predicted...yes all 97 percent of them...its been way off....they will not be able to predict the future correctly. So I have a hard time believing them or their numbers...not what has happened...those are facts....but what they have predicted or are predicting.
This message was edited Mar 22, 2014 10:34 AM
Rick...you ask if civilization will come back...im not so sure its going anywhere...at least not yet.
Humans have been able to successfully adapt to ever climate extreme on this planet. And they will continue to do so whether the climate changes or not.
This message was edited Mar 22, 2014 10:39 AM
Climate scientists have failed to explanin all of the natural resasons why temperatures and climate have fluctuated over time....nor proposed that those same mechanisims can be a part of the changes in climate we have seen.
Drobarr,
Very well said, but too much common sense in what you say for the Warmies to want to sit still and discuss those points.
The only other time in my life that i have seen 97% of any group agree on anything, is when the People of North Korea "ELECT" there Dictators, It should embarrass those Government Climatologists {i hesitate to call them Scientists], to be a part of such a group, siince, as Americans they have the freedom to make up their own minds.
Ernie
The oil exec I paraphrased was John Hofmeister from Shell. You can hear him here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/elements. This is a BBC podcast called "Elements" His interview portion starts about 23 minutes into the episode on carbon. Good series of podcasts.
I give up on most topics here , good information for the ones who will be around to use it ,
Thing is though , another fact , I might be able to find convincing substantiation for is ; Nuclear Background radiation is rising two points every twenty years around the planet .
11/2 to go rads , in 60 to 80 years ,, and every mammal on this planet is dead ,,, that's all folks , ' From Happening now !!! smile I will see you all there ! ^_^ Where climate won't mean a thing !
Already happened ,, generation and a half , and no more mammals ,, it has already happened
Wouldn't happen to a cure for radiation poisoning handy ,? would any of you ?
Sleep tight and dream wonderfully tonight ...he , he , he ,
What is the date of all our deaths? I would like to prepare my obituary notice. LOL
P. S. Is this the same "End of the World" as we have heard about for the last 100 or so years?
Ken
Ernie said earlier Chernobyl , Birds , insects , various animals , Apple groves , various plants , all doing well there ,
We (human) cannot live there ,
No is sure when anyone is going to crossover (our Deaths , time of from klrkkr )
Radiation has only been rising slightly since , mid 1960's . increasing all the time (geometric )some since then ,
It goes beyond a certain point and that all .. (yes that )
This planet does not need us humans , and that most life on earth developed in a radioactive environment , How come Mammals did not ?, How come Man did not ?
Not the same 100 yrs. syndrome ,, Only it leaves me with the thought , no matter what happens , some of this here, is not looking good for the future !!!
A documentary, maybe National Geographic, on Chernobyl evidentally surprised a lot of researchers that expected to find a lot of mutant specimens, like two head coyotes and such, but aninmals are thriving. The researchers spend time in there, of course, but i do not recall how much time they are allowed to spend.
I remember when people were sure there would be a lot of deaths from the problem at Three Mile Island, but nothing bad happened, so maybe we are over cautious about the damage limited amounts of radiation cause. And of course i understand and agree that there has been a lot of proven damage from too much radiation.
I do not know enough about it too have strong opinions either way.
Ernie
Ernie; I am wondering something like this ; What happens when a Radioactive Bird catches and spreads Bird Flu , A human catching a radioactive virus or bacteria , Or perhaps a radioactive mange or Anthrax ,?,
Lots of very bad things come to mind ... I don't know enough about this to be concerned to intellect level myself , only it does set the mind questioning ,,
I am of the opinion ; Radiation ,nuclear , from weapons and power plants , came as the "No Choice Option"
with the "Cart Before the Horse"
Sometimes ,I am not to sure the people who work and invented the use of Nuclear Power really know or knew what they doing either, besides how to make the mix of particles explode or produce electricity ..
This message was edited Mar 23, 2014 11:40 PM
Juhur,
I know some people worry about a lot of thngs, and some of us do not worry very much about what may happen. I suppose each way is best for those that choose. I just happen to be in the segment that does not think it does much good too worry, as the things people usually worry about seldom happen.
We always get hit by a different bus than the one we expected and worried about..
Ernie
I am only the question , answer type , question come , most of the time to few answers ,
I was standing on the deck of a cargo ship once decades ago , A 90 foot wave came out of a clear sightly rough sea . (not anymore than normal at the time )(the sea)
My reaction from crew ( not allowed to report or log ) that as being a giant freak wave ) " "Those do not exist" officially ,,
I thought ' "Fun Place" lol It was not though . I was hanging from the side of a table (like Poseidon adventure) A while before hearing that , looking through the upper viewing deck windows at the clear blue Algae line of the Atlantic Ocean ..There is about four to six feet of Algae that sit on the top of the Atlantic at the surface .. (for those that might not )
I am not a worry type , I am only happy some questions are even being recognized.
There is a lot of "seeing" that happen that is not noticed , and some is noticed to much ,,
Juhur,
Well, you have changed the subject to something i know a little bit about, as i have spent a lot of time on the ocean the last fifty years, but have been lucky enough to never have seen one.
It is well understood now that Freak Waves like you describe do happen, but not often enough for them to be completely understood. Very few of them get as big as the one you saw, but even a 30 or 40 footer can do a lot of damage as they are always unexpected.
They seem to be influenced by normal waves stacking up on tope of each other as the seabottom becomes more shallow. But like a lot of things, people have different ideas about what causes them.
Ernie
Ernie I like the documentaries about Giant Waves , Something nearer to you perhaps ,
Is think of them as a Earthquake on water ..
All this together i suppose is Climate change , Has a lot more to it , than inclimate weather ..
Lots of Climate change in very nice weather ..
I had hardly ever heard of straight line winds before the late 80's either , clear sky and poof , they happen ,,
I guess everything in the History of the world has either been influenced by Climate Change or has, in turn, partly caused Climate Change, as it has been changing ever since the World began.
One thing that seems to be scaring and upsetting so many people is the constant barrage of information we get now.. We all hear about everything bad as soon as it happens.
Strong winds out of clear skies without warning are a fairly common occurrence in certain places, and under certain conditions.
Ernie
Exposure to radioactivity DOES NOT make you radioactive. If one ingests a radioactive substance (moral: don't eat uranium), that substance is in the body and it continues to emit radiation, but even then, you do not become radioactive.
The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the materials we build our homes from ALL contain tiny amounts of radioactive materials. This has been true since the beginning of time.
Willy,
That sounds factual and makes sense to me, but the people that are afraid of it will not stop worrying about it just because of a few facts.
Ernie
It is factual.