Octane ratings.....what's the truth?

You know, growing up in the 1970s, I distinctly remember our 5th grade teacher telling us about the huge upcoming environmental crisis...global cooling, "the coming ice age" and all that.

So...for some reason, algore's alarmist rantings just don't get my attention all that well.

I don't give a squat about Al. I also know that the temperatures we are currently seeing are not historical highs if you look back before the "mini ice age" that started around 1200. However, there's a difference this time in that man does appear to be causing the issue. Who knows how the Earth can deal with that. In addition, man has a lot more investments that will be devastated by the impending rise in sea levels.

Regardless of the cause, it's a problem. Whether it's warming or cooling, dramatic climatic changes have and will continue to cause serious issues. If we can counter or at least temper man's effects that would be a good thing.

A good suggestion. I have done that before in other areas. Perhaps I will dig out the notes and post some counter points to ponder.

But somehow the suggestion that the Vikings told people about these excursions is considered outrageous :-)

Perhaps, but my point is, I've heard all this before and it was the other direction, just a couple decades ago. Which was crying wolf?

(shrug) I'm doing my part, I've planted many thousands of trees in my lifetime and reducing consumption where I can. My point is, this issue is so damn emotional that I don't trust any of the talking heads, on either side, to tell me what the real deal is so I can evaluate the data and come to a conclusion based on facts.

"still me" blathered:

Where is the real, factual, documented evidence that man is causing the warming?

And why will the sea level rise? Melting glaciers? If that is the case then why doesn't my capt&morgan spill out over the top of the glass as the ice cubes melt? Isn't there something called displacement at work with the ice?

I think the UN should order that all volcanoes be fitted with scrubbers........

Yeah, I've been asking that for years and I just get ranted at for daring to ask such a qustion.

Well, to be fair on that regard, if it's on land, then it's not floating.

There will never, ever, be evidence that some specific piece of carbon caused a specific change in the climate. The system is too large. If you think you've proved something by being able to poke that hole, go say a cheer for yourself. On the other hand, you could go read some research without the expectation of a pre-defined outcome, and see what it seems to be saying.

If you pile the ice in the glass such that it rises above the top of the glass, then fill the glass with liquid, when the ice melts it will raise the level of the liquid. But, if this level of conceptual thinking is beyond you, I suggest you skip the research I suggested reading a moment ago.

He didn't ask for that, he asked for "...evidence that man is causing the warming?".

Got pointers?

The point you're trying to make, and the point he's trying to make, are the same. He seems to have said it better. It's not about "rising above the top of the glass" (you can do that with floatation), it's about the ice that's sitting on something solid rather than floating. I also question your volumetrics but that's another problem.

So...I'm not him, he's not me, but I'm still interested in unbiased research on this topic that I can read. And I'm still not getting any pointers. So I'm still treating the same as the "coming ice age" hype of the 1970s.

Start with Google and "global warming". That should get you rolling.

No, they're not. His (and your agreement) were some kind of childish suggestion that we're only dealing with "floating ice cubes".

Oh, no, wait, call scientists around the world! John on the usenet just figured out that melting ice caps can't raise ocean levels based on a simple experiment in a glass! They'll all be mighty embarrassed they didn't figure this out for themselves.

What happened in the 70's is irrelevant. Nearly all climate scientists agree on what's happening (with the notable exception except those being bludgeoned by the Bush administration to temper their writings on the subject).

Either go do some reading or just continue to act like an ideologue - your choice.

You aren't going to find "proof" from Googling, just hyperbole on both sides of the issue.

Why? Because it is impossible to prove or disprove a theory such as this. That is, unless you know of a parallel universe in which we can maintain a control group planet earth...

surely the 1st Q is whether it is going to happen - and the next is whether anything we can do makes a significant difference?

if your house ends up under water, do you care whether it is caused by solar variations, earth axis wobble or greenhouse effect or whatever alternatives get offered?

You still need a new house or flood protection......

and the ones who should be really upset are those already at or below current sea level?

lots of cubic Km of ice in the Antartic, on Greenland and other polar land.

AFAIR a chunk of the projected sea level rise is because as the average temp rises, the water already in the oceans expands with the temp change.

I mentioned that in another post Fred. The system is too large. The naysayers are clamoring around, and will continue to do so, claiming there's no absolute proof. There will never be absolute proof. There will be reasonable conclusions. So far the great majority of the world's scientists and every other industrialized nation (the USA notably excepted) have made reasonable conclusions about global warming.

However, they will continue to let their mindless ideological purity align them with campaigns which they support simply for ideology, not realizing they are mere puppets of those who profit handsomely from their support.

Sorry, I can't respond now as I've got to go pay my carbon fuel tax and purchase enough carbon offsets to pay for next week's computer usage and car usage that I use to go to work to pay my taxes which pays the salaries for people to collect the taxes and run the carbon offset programs and do the research that shows we need more carbon taxes and higher carbon offset fees..........

Perhaps you missed the "factual and not biased, alarmist handwaving" part of my request.

Don't presume to speak for me. You can't even make your own points clearly.

Your reading comprehension is as poor as your social skills.

And yet, people remember it. Which time were the alarmists wrong? Got any data to support one or the other?

See what I mean about getting attacked for asking for information?

still have the verified issue of the maps to deal with. Most

No, the maps are on such a scale that it's impossible to say with any certainty what is indicated, or whether it's at Newport or some other place along the east coast. It definitely isn't shown as a little tower on arches , exactly on the site of the Newport Tower.

My memory is rather that of ice age predictions being thousand years or more in the future, not within less than 100 years. If you gooogle on "ice age prediction" there comes a lot of references (like

)to the 70-ies where you basically see that the scientists where not speaking about imminent ice age occurence but it was rather the popular press that shortened the forecast. It seems more like a myth that in the 70-ies imminent ice age predictions were frequently occuring.

Dig around, you can find something factual. Oh wait, that might require work on your part and you always want other people to do your work for you.

Don't presume I'd want to speak for you. It would be embarrassing.

Really? I did pretty good in school on those tests they gave us.

Let me repeat: what happened in the 70's is irrelevant. What is today, is.

You're not being attacked, you're being highlighted.

Thanks for proving my point.

I was hoping for unbiased sources. Obviously you are incapable of providing same.

At least you're nearing self-awareness. Let me guess - I've plonked you before and you've nym-shifted yet again, right?

Riiiiight. So. One last try there sparky. Why should I believe this batch of idiots more than the batch of idiots 20 years ago? They both seem to have the same basic ideas, but with opposite results. What's the real deal, and why? Hint: if you respond with abuse, that weakens your credibility. Just so you know.

Right. So give me something useful then fi you can.