End of the world in 1,000 years - To stay alive, we have to meet a deadline.

From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun Feb 19 2006 - 13:29:16 EST

Little known fact of interest to those who aren't afraid to "go
there": Since Algore was offered the opportunity to facilitate
serious debate on the underlying science of enhanced greenhouse and
global climate change 1 month, 2 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 18 minutes,
and 36 seconds have elapsed. Despite milking lucrative speaking
engagements and book deals with his global warming schtick he
declines any such debate. http://www.junkscience.com/ ~Janice :)

End of the world in 1,000 years?
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1581559//^http://us.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/17sea.htm?q=np&file=.htm>rediff
Features Desk ^ | 2.17.
2006 http://us.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/17sea.htm?q=np&file=.htm

"To stay alive, we have to meet a
deadline. ......" [snip] Click above link to continue reading.

JunkScience.com: Jim "They'll Never Shut Me Up" Hansen:
<http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article345926.ece>"Climate
change: On the edge" - "Greenland ice cap breaking up at twice the
rate it was five years ago, says scientist Bush tried to gag." (Jim
Hansen, London Independent)

We know all about 'publish or perish' Jim but The Indy? Now that's desperate!

Never mind - let's see what you've got... different look at Greenland
ice egress gives different volume metrics, nothing unusual about that
- you (correctly) declare this as the first time we've had such a
view and consequently we have no comparator - this may be normal but
we couldn't see it before; interannual variability, nothing unusual
about that either; current egress possibly 200 Km3 (out of something
well over 3,000,000 Km3 estimated ice cap volume - that'll take a
while then - like about 15,000 years); and, well, nothing really.

On the other hand we have recent empirical measures showing Greenland
has mostly been cooling over the last 5-6 decades and is actually
cooler than it was in the 1950s (heck Jim, even the
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2840137.stm>Beeb knows that or
you can check out Hanna and Cappelen (2003)
<http://www.shef.ac.uk/geography/staff_cms/hanna_edward/grl_2003_30_3.pdf>here
(.pdf)) so sudden catastrophic meltdown due to cooling would be
counterintuitive, to say the least. Or you could check out
Johannessen et al (2005)
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115356v1>Recent
Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland, that might suggest an
alternative causal mechanism for
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5763/986>Changes
in the Velocity Structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet as mass balance
with a thickening interior requires an acceleration of egress. Of
course, with the massive interior Greenland shield actually gaining
mass then the allusion of increased sea levels from minor
acceleration of egress in
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;311/5763/963>The
Greenland Ice Sheet and Global Sea-Level Rise is invalidated.

Gosh Jim, there's a lot of noise here but seems precious little
substance - maybe you should stick a sock in it. Uh-oh... now we've
done it! Calamity Jim'll be saying we're trying to gag him now.

*
Some FR <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1581559/posts>
# comments:

A week or so back I watched a program on the Science Channel that has
much more dire predictions and is a tad more serious that any Global
Warming hooey. And there 'ain't' a darn thing we can do about it either.

It's a scientific fact that the earth's molten metal core is cooling
and is solidifying. This is where we get our magnetic poles and our
magnetosphere. This just so happens to protects us from the solar
winds directly bombarding us with GAMMA RAYS (which will kill you in
a NY minute).

Some scientists said we may have 1000 years at the longest, others
said ten years on the short end before the core turns solid. THIS
will end life on earth - period. Besides the gamma ray 'thingy',
we'll loose our gravity and our atmosphere, which means the moon also
goes by-by And if we're still alive from the gamma rays, when the
moon goes, all hell will break loose anyway.

This is what happened on and to Mars, it's once molten core solidified.

Global warming?!? Hell bring it on. # 40

Wait a minute. How does losing the molten core change gravity? That
is a function of mass alone best I remember. # 45

Isn't the impending, (yet another Doomsday scenario), flipping of the
Earth's magnetic field supposed to occur precisely because of
circulation in the Earth's mantle? # 46

That sounds like a Chicken Little story too.

Yeah, I agree, it does somewhat. Then again most of the programs on
the Science Channel's Tuesday lineup aren't exactly 'happy-happy'
pieces, i.e: Killer asteroids; The Sun dying, turning into a Red
Giant and swallowing us whole; The moon's orbit moving further away
(which it is) - again ending life on earth; etc. etc.

But the the difference is, unlike the Global Warming 'scientists',
these guys aren't kooks.

"There's significant radioactive decay in Earth's core that will be
going for a long, long time keeping it hot - it's still molten after
billions of years.... Did they mention that?

 From what I recall the decay you mention is exactly what will turn
the core solid. And 'billions of years' was defiantly not part any
scenario. However since you mention 'billions of years', I have to
get back to the moon as by that time our moon will be 'gone'.

The average earth-moon orbit distance in now 239,000 miles. As it is
moving away at 1 1/2" a year (3.8 cm), in one billion years it will
be an additional 55,555,555.6 miles further out, or about
55,794,555.56 miles. So by then it makes zero difference if the
earths core will be molten. Once the moon gets to the point that we
loose its gravitational effect, life on earth ends.

But since we are long overdue to get hit with anther Dinosaur killing
type monster asteroid, all that becomes moot anyway.

WE ARE DOOMED. (but not from global warming) # 51

Don't fall asleep on this one. Yes, they're crackpots, but they have
influence and they have academia and the media (the last bastions of
Socialism) in their pockets. Here's what another alarmist had to say
back in the 1960s:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s
hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any
crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can
prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."

Paul Ehrich was what today's media elite would term a respected
scientist. He predicted that overpopulation was already past the
point of no return and that mass starvation due to famine would kill
hundreds of millions before the year 2000. NOT. The last 25 years of
the 20th Century showed fewer deaths from starvation than any other
period in human history. There were still horrendous episodes
(Ethiopia, Biafra, Bangladesh) cause more by local corruption and
ethnic hatred than overpopulation, but nothing compared with previous
generations.

Ehrlich even suggested that the U.S. government slip contraceptives
into the food supply, yet this was the moonbat that the media
revered. Keep vigilant. They're out there. They're nuts. And some
people in positions of power and influence still take them seriously.

Most of all, being WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING never seems to dampen their
enthusiasm. # 55
Received on Sun Feb 19 13:30:20 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 19 2006 - 13:30:20 EST