| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
So the environment of airport weather stations has changed. Its warmer near the airport. One hopes you have the proper adjustments for that, eh? That's another one that they tend to be tight lipped about the exact adjustments, but they do say they have adjusted for it. There are many documented cases where they have been able to show that a particular station had warmed more than surrounding rural stations. To get them back in line with each other they have actually increased recent temperatures of the rural stations that aren't affected by the very localized urban heat island. Well if that isn't about the stupidest adjustment you could make to adjust for the UHI effect, I don't know what is. It does help create the global warming "data" that has been reluctant to simply show up on the thermometers. It's really quite amazing that with all of the one sided adjustments that have been done that they still can't match their predictions of doom and gloom, even if history tells us that it will be more of a biodiversity paradise. It would be great entertainment if it weren't for the very real threat to economic prosperity, which tends to lead to dirty environmental disasters. Just look at China. | ||
| Sifo |
I fell in lust with these idiot things... http://www.int-moth.us/ Oh hell yes!!!  I started traveling to Maui for my windsurfing fix. Few places can compare to Maui's north shore for windsurfing. During wave season it's bumped up to a new level of insanity. I stopped going there after 2004. We got off the plane and went straight to the beach just to see it again. We found a makeshift cross stuck in the sand piled with leis, right where Bob who we had become good friends with hung out 4-5 days of the week. Turned out Bob had passed away the day before while sailing the waves that day. That turned out to be a very melancholy trip. I still miss hanging out with Bob on the beach. I also had a couple of encounters with large waves that had me examining my own mortality. The impact zone of a 25 foot wave is incredibly powerful. I did get to see Jaws going off once with 40+ foot waves. The sound of that is something that you just feel going through your body, and it never shuts off. Skip to about 2:45 to get to the action... | ||
| Reepicheep |
Todd, if you are interested and want to start to really dig into why science is so hard (and so easy to bias), send me a shipping address, and I will send you a "parts kit" you can eventually turn into a closed loop heated grip controller for your Buell. It is now on the Arduino platform (I'll include one for you) so you will need to be able to do some programming in C/C++ (though I'll give you a framework of code I wrote that gets you past the heavy lifting). I am at the stage now where I am trying to calibrate a new thermistor and get it to read accurate temperature. It's been a really interesting exercise to try and find a "real" and accurate temperature reference, instead of just trusting some other thermometer or thermistor, which was made by trusting some other thermometer or thermistor, etc. Truth be told I would be happy to trust them, except that I got about 4 different ones and they all read way different from each other, and way different from what I am getting, and trying to calibrate mine is turning out to be a real challenge (where in the bag of ice water do you measure? Has it stabilized yet? Is it leaking on my gear and changing my reading?) | ||
| Aesquire |
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-to-fool- the-world-with-bad-science-7a9318dd1ae6 I wanted the EM drive to work. It would mean so many things, unlimited wealth, cheap WMD's, interplanetary travel..... Yes, of course there were bad things in with the good, water is needed to stay alive, drink too much you die, you can drown in a few inches of it.... and it's the basis of cellular life. Good/bad is real. I won't even get into the science aspects. It violates some laws, but more important it makes general relativity and some of it's odd corners have to be revisited. And it looks like it really has to be revisited. We currently have in science a Dogma that one invisible thing invented to make the math work, ( aether ) does not exist, but another invisible thing invented to make the math work ( Dark matter & Dark energy ) MUST be real. I'm not too sure about that, and neither are all scientists. It IS certain that we need to have invisible things to make the math work. Or we need a better theory. I'll leave it to you to have an opinion on which invented invisible things are real. I'm agnostic. But I admit to wanting the coolest invented invisible thing to be real. Doesn't look good for the EM drive though, Pity. Of course, if the Chinese actually put one on a satellite, and it works, that makes all the argument moot. Of course then we'd have to fix the theory. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://marionharmon.com/2015/05/28/the-futures-so- bright-ive-got-to-wear-shades/ Blog of the Author of "Wearing The Cape", one of the best books I've read in quite some time, in a genre I didn't even know existed. Just buy it. Seriously. If you don't like it, give it away, preferably to a young woman. ( strong female characters, good morality ) (Message edited by aesquire on June 06, 2015) | ||
| Strokizator |
Here's a couple more simple questions. Simple enough that even those quoting the "97% of scientists" BS can maybe answer (but they won't). First, the "scientific" predictions for hurricanes in both the 2013 and 2014 seasons were off by a factor of 4 (only 1/4 of the storms they predicted actually occurred). If they can't get that right, what makes you think that science can accurately predict what the weather will be like in 40 or 50 years? Secondly, if they can't make it rain in California (0.08% of the earth's surface) or stop the rain in Texas (0.14%) what makes you think they can effect GLOBAL weather with a carbon tax or driving a Prius? | ||
| Aesquire |
I know! I Know! By making YOU give up your Camaro, That offsets 1500 new coal fired power plants in China that have no pollution controls! Right? Do I win?  | ||
| Aesquire |
One of my favorite things about the Climate Con Cult, is the ONE time a journalist asked Al Gore if he thought it hypocritical that he flew around the world in private jets and traveled in convoys of SUV's ( full of Secret Service & minions ) while chastising others for using energy, he responded that he bought carbon credits to offset his usage. Now who do you think he bought them from? Himself. So he can take money out of one pocket, put it in another, claim a tax break, and feel no guilt at all for using more energy in a week than most do in a year. See also Medieval Indulgences. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/286800/i ndulgence Short form, to get forgiveness, you must confess, do penance, and do a good work. Pilgrimage to Jerusalem was a biggie. But what if you couldn't take the time off to go to Jerusalem, or volunteer in a hospital? Would not donating some money to build a cathedral be good enough? Sure was. Naturally, as with all human institutions, it got corrupted, and naturally, the local Princes wanted a cut on any transaction, so there rose a whole industry in the practice. You could even pay in advance for sins not yet committed. ( not of course spoken of as such, but it's good to have a little credit, right? ) | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/i taly/11655510/Colosseum-killing-machine-reconstruc ted-after-more-than-1500-years.html | ||
| Pwnzor |
 | ||
| Sifo |
I wonder how much of these sorts of predictions our friend Tod has bought into? FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015 | ||
| Aesquire |
The political irony is the Green Party is a creation of the Soviets. Purpose? To destroy western industry. The left embraces the Climate Cult as a means for power. How can you argue with saving the world? What makes it ironic is the Soviets murdered a Sea. The communist countries are ecological disaster areas. Ask a German about cleaning up the mess when they reunited. That said I'm all for rational pollution control. Rational pollution control would shut down curly florescent bulbs because of the mercury. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/bi ll_nye_the_scienceissettled_guy_vs_facts.html Why is it the political side that wants absolute control over your life is all about global warming and the side that values freedom is for real science? I think I just answered my own question. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/how-cli mate-change-doubters-lost-a-papal-fight/2015/06/20 /86af3182-15ce-11e5-8457-4b431bf7ed4c_story.html I suppose I should be grateful the Pope hasn't declared me a Heretic, yet. I'm shooting for Arch Heretic, since I'm a Lexx fan. May even change my handle to Thodin. I'm increasingly of the opinion the current Pope is heavily influenced by Liberation Theology, a perversion of Catholicism called by the previous Pope "Demonic". You know the planet is messed up when I agree with a Pope, and the former Grand Inquisitor, to boot. Well, things are back to normal on that front. The bad news is, this guys sounds good but the underlying message is one of planetary rule by the most evil of theologies in the name of kindness and Good. And not just because scientific skepticism is criticized by the Pope, himself. This is where science and religion mix, and it may end badly. Last time scientific heresy got Papal attention was Galileo. Ah, well, we got missed by another asteroid on schedule, this month, so that's all good. | ||
| Ducbsa |
From Instapundit: "They told me if I voted Republican, America would wind up taking scientific dictation from religious leaders. And they were right!" | ||
| Aesquire |
It's not just the Pope. Osama bin Laden also exploited climate change as a rationalization for dictatorship. Only by giving up all freedom can you save the planet. Personal choice has no place when the crisis is so dire. This mantra isn't new. People just think it is because they don't teach history anymore, just indoctrinate. "The planet has a fever. " ( super villain quote from "Kingsmen- The Secret Service" ) | ||
| Aesquire |
http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptol emaic-smackdown.html?m=1 | ||
| Gaesati |
Excellent link, Aesquire. | ||
| Aesquire |
Thanks. Owe that one to Jerry Pournelle's blog. Today the heresy isn't what goes around what, it's aether vs. Dark Matter. General relativity is on the line. And one of my favorites is the discussion on which crater is the dinosaur killer. The idea that a space rock was the cause is still in some dispute, which is better than absolute rejection that meteors could be rocks at all. So today, some religious types have no doubt that one theory is correct on climate change and wish to brand heresy any questions. A sitting congressman wants such heresy punished with prison. Some of the salesmen of the theory want heresy punished by death. Placing them in the category of the strict adherents of Islam. ( with far less moral justification. Islam spells out the punishment for heresy in loving detail. Sadistic adolescent revenge detail. The Climate Con folk are following Soviet and Alinsky doctrine of selective reality. .....aka lies. ) Now if only the Climate change would let my lawn dry some I could mow. | ||
| Aesquire |
Whatever happened to Tod? His repeated insistence that 97% of all scientists believe in Global Warming was mildly amusing. Who believes what and it what numbers has nothing to do with the truth. Last I heard 53% of people did not think Hillary Trust Worthy. ( That means that 47% of the polled are idiots ) How many people believe Hillary is a liar has nothing to do with the fact that she is a liar. It's that she IS a liar that is a fact. Polls don't change that. I wonder if Tod knows that the former head of NASA, Hanson, made a number of illegal campaign appearances? ( the head of NASA isn't supposed to campaign ) and established the "pay us to tell you about climate change" dogma at NASA? I can also direct Tod to the CPUSA website which will also pimp Global Warming. Lie to gain power is the creed. Of Course they love the idea taking your freedom to ride in the name of Saving the Planet. ( you don't think putting your house thermostat in the hands of a bureaucrat is enough, do you? Non Governmental Recreational fuel use MUST BE STOPPED TO SAVE THE WORLD! Haven't heard that one yet? Pay attention. ) | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11688994/The-Po pe-joins-the-EU-in-a-sad-world-of-make-believe.htm l .. When future historians come to look back on our age, few things will puzzle them more than the extent to which our politics became so dominated and bedevilled by two belief-systems, each based on an obsessive attempt to force into being an immensely complicated political construct which defied economic, psychological and scientific reality. One of these was the peculiar way in which Europe’s politicians, with full support from the US, had set out to unite their continent under a form of supra-national government unlike anything the world had seen before. The other was the way those same politicians fell for the idea not just that human activities were disastrously changing Earth’s climate, but that by taking the most drastic measures they could somehow change it back again. Although for quite a time these two belief systems seemed to carry all before them, each was essentially based on a fantasy view of the world; and it is in the nature of trying to act out a fantasy that it must eventually overreach itself, to the point where it collides unpleasantly with reality. ..... ...The attempt to create a Europe at one with itself, living prosperously and happily under a new kind of unelected government, has led it to become such a sad, unhappy, divided place, economically in decline compared with the outside world, ruled by a strange form of government it no longer trusts, respects or understands. Similarly, the last desperate throw by the EU and the US to achieve a world agreement next December to “halt climate change” is not going to succeed, not just because the “science” on which it is based is so increasingly questionable, but because the emerging powers of the East, led by India and China, are simply not prepared to go along with it. If the West wishes to commit economic suicide, so be it. In their own national interest, they are not willing to follow. In fact, what we are seeing here is a geopolitical shift of huge proportions. So lost is the West in its bubbles of self-deceiving fantasy that the hegemony it so long exercised over the rest of the world is passing to the world outside it, to India and China, even, in its own way, to Russia, still a nuclear power which can prevent us pushing too hard in our support for a bankrupt Ukrainian dictatorship, and which also still supplies Europe with a third of the gas it needs to continue functioning. How forlorn in light of all this looks that would-be well-meaning 300-page document in which the Pope, under the spell of his chief scientific adviser, a fanatical German climate activist called Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, calls for an end to use of the very fossil fuels which keep the Vatican’s own lights on. In asking us to pray for that global climate treaty, Pope Francis solemnly trots out all those familiar plaints about “melting polar ice caps”, “rising sea levels”, unprecedented droughts, “extreme weather events” and the rest of that greenie litany which has no basis in honest science whatever. The outside world is no longer listening to this claptrap. But it is not just the world outside the West which is beginning to call the shots. Reality itself is now knocking loudly at the door. ..... | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/earth-is- entering-sixth-extinction-phase-with-many-species- -including-our-own--labelled-the-walking-dead-1033 3608.html Fair is fair, here is an opposing view. Don't completely disagree with it either. I was just hoping to be gone before the Last War, Last Plague, or Civilization Killer hit. I'm getting too beat up to survive Fallout 5 in real life. | ||
| Aesquire |
And.... in response to the above article. http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism /420082/paul-ehrlich-still-pushing-ecological-doom sday-wesley-j-smith So, let’s take a look at some of his predictions, made in 1968: 1) “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s 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,” he said. He predicted four billion deaths, including 65 million Americans… What actually happened: Since Ehrlich wrote, the population has more than doubled to seven billion – but the amount of food per head has gone up by more than 25 per cent. Of course there are famines, but the death rate has gone down. I don’t think a significant number of Americans have starved. 3) “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” What actually happened: I’m not hungry. I just ate. Are you hungry? Were you hungry in 2000, especially? Does England exist? Here’s my point: You can’t report a doomsday story straight-faced as if Ehrlich doesn’t have a history. People know who Ehrlich is and many will–rightly or wrongly–discount the study precisely because we know that he has an ideological agenda. And then they moan that no one trusts “the science” anymore. This is an example of why–and why there is also so little trust remaining in the media. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420090/pope-v s-popper-andrew-stuttaford Since then, however, inch by inch, the huge green pressure groups have grown fat on a diet of constant but ever-changing alarm about the future. That these alarms—over population growth, pesticides, rain forests, acid rain, ozone holes, sperm counts, genetically modified crops—have often proved wildly exaggerated does not matter: the organisations that did the most exaggeration trousered the most money. In the case of climate, the alarm is always in the distant future, so can never be debunked. VERY good article about Science. Real history. https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-w ars-done-science/ Opinion piece by a "Lukewarmer". I an a "skeptic". ( in Islam I am an Infidel ) The Author is a "lukewarmer". ( in Islam an Apostate ) We are both to be silenced or killed, but he is considered more dangerous than I. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/397138/my-lif e-climate-lukewarmer-andrew-stuttaford | ||
| Aesquire |
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-w ars-done-science/ im Hansen, recently retired as head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA, won over a million dollars in lucrative green prizes, regularly joined protests against coal plants and got himself arrested while at the same time he was in charge of adjusting and homogenising one of the supposedly objective data sets on global surface temperature. How would he be likely to react if told of evidence that climate change is not such a big problem? Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University, who frequently testifies before Congress in favour of urgent action on climate change, was the Environmental Defense Fund’s senior scientist for nineteen years and continues to advise it. The EDF has assets of $209 million and since 2008 has had over $540 million from charitable foundations, plus $2.8 million in federal grants. In that time it has spent $11.3 million on lobbying, and has fifty-five people on thirty-two federal advisory committees. How likely is it that they or Oppenheimer would turn around and say global warming is not likely to be dangerous? Why is it acceptable, asks the blogger Donna Laframboise, for the IPCC to “put a man who has spent his career cashing cheques from both the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace in charge of its latest chapter on the world’s oceans?” She’s referring to the University of Queensland’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. These scientists and their guardians of the flame repeatedly insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate change—that it’s real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that it’s not happening (the wrong way). But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that it’s real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the “lukewarmer” school, and I am happy to put myself in this category. Lukewarmers do not think dangerous climate change is impossible; but they think it is unlikely. I find that very few people even know of this. Most ordinary people who do not follow climate debates assume that either it’s not happening or it’s dangerous. This suits those with vested interests in renewable energy, since it implies that the only way you would be against their boondoggles is if you “didn’t believe” in climate change. What consensus about the future? Sceptics such as Plimer often complain that “consensus” has no place in science. Strictly they are right, but I think it is a red herring. I happily agree that you can have some degree of scientific consensus about the past and the present. The earth is a sphere; evolution is true; carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The IPCC claims in its most recent report that it is “95 per cent” sure that “more than half” of the (gentle) warming “since 1950” is man-made. I’ll drink to that, though it’s a pretty vague claim. But you really cannot have much of a consensus about the future. Scientists are terrible at making forecasts—indeed as Dan Gardner documents in his book Future Babble they are often worse than laymen. And the climate is a chaotic system with multiple influences of which human emissions are just one, which makes prediction even harder. The IPCC actually admits the possibility of lukewarming within its consensus, because it gives a range of possible future temperatures: it thinks the world will be between about 1.5 and four degrees warmer on average by the end of the century. That’s a huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger, and if you look at the “probability density functions” of climate sensitivity, they always cluster towards the lower end. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://warontherocks.com/2015/06/the-future-of-clo se-air-support-is-not-what-the-air-force-thinks/?s inglepage=1 We need Close air support. Supersonic fighters at a billion bucks a pop are not good close air support machines, no matter what some Pentagon idiot says. It's physics. A F-16 does not want to fly slow. To be able to see the enemy, you have to fly slow. If you fly transonic close to the ground, it's all a blur. Is that blur the enemy? Or our troops? We need the A-10. Or a replacement, but there is no such aircraft in the pipeline. The Air Force is struggling to keep fighter planes at all in the face of cutbacks. Drones are not the answer, since we now know the Chinese ( and presumably the Russians ) have hacked our systems and can just tell our drones to dive into the ground. You think they won't share that tech with the enemy? Iran has a contract with China for fracktons of oil, and China already supplies them with anti-ship missiles. Russia sends them anti-air systems. You don't think that drone the Iranians claim to have captured was caught with equipment made in Tehran? Seriously? The U.S. Airforce has a problem. First is budget. The entire military budget is now less than a third of the budget. Airplanes capable of fighting the latest Soviet & Chinese Stealth fighters are expensive, no matter what they tell you about how primitive the enemies planes are. Second is the myth that you can have multi-role airplanes that can do everything. You can't. The F-111 was a decent bomber, still pretty advanced, ( but all gone now ) but was useless at air to air fighting. The Navy version didn't work on aircraft carriers. Due to physics, the ideal characteristics making a plane, manned or unmanned, effective at CAS generally detract from its ability to excel in air-to-air combat. Key characteristics ideal for CAS include efficient fuel use (loiter time), low and slow flying (target discrimination and acquisition), and rough landing strip capability (close to the fight). These characteristics generally lead to greater wing area and weight. Response time is also important and more congruent with air superiority requirements but less important than the ability to distinguish friend from foe and precise targeting. The Air Force needs more specialized planes (manned or unmanned) to increase capabilities while reducing costs; mediocre “multi-role” fighters create excessive costs. So we have a handful of air superiority airplanes that are less than 40 years old, a rapidly shrinking stock of planes older than a college student, and nothing to replace them except a fantasy airplane that still has teething problems, won't do all the jobs it's supposed to, and, talking about age, is one I flew in flight sims as the new big thing during the Carter administration. Helicopters are too fragile. F-22's can't slow down to do the job. Using 100 million dollar missiles to shoot a truck full of guys waving AK-47's isn't practical in the long run. It's been suggested we build the next gen A-10 with fight in the dark capacity, and a rail gun. I want to see that. | ||
| Aesquire |
| ||
| Blake |
That piece on Ehrlich is priceless. Yet the Progressives remain staunchly in the warmist alarmist camp. I've never seen so many smart people so willing to ignore so many blatant lies and so much corruption. Doesn't give one much hope for the future. As our friend Cityslicker says, "it comes." | ||
| Aesquire |
Lie to gain power is the heart of progressive theology. Of course the coming Ice Age is a great reason to take property and freedoms to save the world. Redistribution of food & wealth will be needed when crops fail. Never let a crisis go to waste. If one doesn't exist, create one or boost a non crisis to panic appearance. | ||
| Reindog |
 | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/pr otecting_humanity_from_ice_ages.html the following might be a repost. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/pr eventing_a_coming_ice_age_.html from the first article. There are two kinds of ice ages; they are fundamentally different and therefore require different methods of mitigation: (i) Major (Milankovich-style) glaciations occur on a 100,000-year time-scale and are controlled astronomically. (ii) “Little” ice ages were discovered in ice cores; they have been occurring on an approx. 1000-1500-yr cycle and are likely controlled by the Sun. The current cycle’s cooling phase may be imminent -- hence there may be urgent need for action. I recently published an essay on these pages on how to avoid the next major ice age; there have been nearly 20 such glaciations in the past two to three million years. The coolings are quite severe: the most recent one, ending only about 12,000 years ago, covered much of North America and Europe with miles-thick continental ice sheets and led to the disappearance of (barely) surviving bands of Neanderthalers; they were displaced by the more adaptable Homo Sapiens. According to the Serbian astronomer Milankovich, glaciation timing was controlled by astronomical parameters, such as oscillations, with a 100,000-year period, of the eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptic orbit around the Sun, oscillations with a period of 41,000 years of the Earth’s “obliquity” (inclination of the spin axis to the orbit plane, currently at around 23 degrees), and a precession of this spin axis, with a period of about 21,000 years. While many consider the timing issue as settled, there are plenty of scientific puzzles still awaiting solutions: For example, how to explain the suddenness of de-glaciation, transiting within only centuries from a glaciation maximum into a warm Interglacial, like the present Holocene period. Most expect the next glaciation to arrive rather soon; but calculations by Prof Andre Berger of the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, suggest a delay of up to 40,000 years -- so there may be no great urgency. Nevertheless, it would be useful and of great scientific interest to verify the existence of a hypothesized “trigger” that might be disabled by human action -- at low cost and negligible risk. Little Ice Ages (LIA) and the Dansgaard-Oeschger-Bond (D-O-B) cycles After digesting hundreds of comments about my essay on stopping the next major ice age, I recognized the need to explain the existence also of “little” ice ages, which are likely of solar origin. They occur quite apart from the major glaciations, have a cycle length of about 1000-1500 years, and demand different methods of mitigation. They were discovered in Greenland ice cores by the Danish researcher Willi Dansgaard and by (Swiss scientist) Hans Oeschger, and further observed in ocean sediments by the late US geologist Gerard Bond [see Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years] We don’t know what triggers an LIA, but suspect a strong correlation with a quiet Sun and prolonged absence of sunspots. Experts in this field -- Willie Soon (Harvard Observatory), Harjit Ahluwalia (University of New Mexico), Russian astronomer Habibullo Abdussamatov, the Hadley Centre in UK, and many others -- believe that the next LIA is imminent. The most recent LIA lasted from 1400 to 1830 AD -- off and on. It followed the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), when wine grapes grew in northern England and Norsemen were able to farm in southern Greenland. The impact of the recent LIA was rather severe. The Norse settlements were abandoned; indeed, Scandinavia was hardest hit. Climatology pioneer Hubert Lamb documents crop failures, starvation, and disease in Europe, together with ice fairs on the frozen Thames. During much of the American Revolution, New York Harbor was frozen over. And we recall paintings of George Washington crossing the Delaware River, impeded by ice floes. The author goes on to propose a few solutions to the possible ( probable ) onrushing crisis. I note that big geo-engineering projects are risky. Consider the Colorado River, which feeds a major part of the west. Glen Canyon Dam was placed where the sub surface rock is porous & cracked and a LOT of water just slips away. Also the evaporation of water ( a Major and Powerful Greenhouse gas ) from huge reservoirs changes the local ecology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Canyon_Dam |
