Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Anesthesiology' started by jetproppilot, Dec 11, 2008.
Send some my way, PLEASE!
I'd say teaching your boy to drive that gas guzzling monster should help warm things up.
it is unfortunate that "global warming" is the phrase that has proliferated.
"climate instability" would perhaps more accurately reflect what we are continuing to see, and provoke less eye-rolling when we see unexpected cold weather.
That was very well said.
In relation to what? A 4+ billion year history of "climate instability"?
We humans. So egocentric. So adept at overstating our importance and impact. Like this is somehow "our" planet.
walking to the hospital today in mid-December 90 degree Southern California sun, burning sweat seeping through my short white-coat made me look forward to the next ice-age. winter is coming though, a week of exams and one cross-country plane ride away.
PS. nice pics. some of my earliest memories are of steering my dad's truck around in the snow before my feet could touch the pedals
Very well said as well.....please reference my LMFAO icon dudes prefacing the pics....
I'm not a fan of all the theories referencing WE THE HUMAN RACE as the cause of our climate changes.
"YEAH, YOU HEARD ME, AL GORE."
So after your latest philanthropic speech on GLOBAL WARMING rolleyes, we all see you boarding your CORPORATE JET to fly home on. rolleyes:)
First time DA MONSTA TRUCK has had snow on her...
Dude, it just cracks me up. It's all about the ENSO (Google it).
But, we set our prospects on some "property", we have a surveyor come out, and that surveyor marks it off and says, "This is the parcel". We call the bank and say, "Give me a loan so I can 'own' this land." And, then we say, "This is my property, get off." All the while, for the vast majority of us, in no short amount of time - on a cosmic scale - are going to be turnip food. Cracks me up sometimes. I'm sure the dinosaurs thought they were the **** when they were around, despite their pea-size brains.
Who's gonna come along in a billion years and dig up all of our trash and say, "Thank you! You were an interesting culture for us to study and write papers about." I'll tell you who: some carbon-dioxide breathing super creature with a brain ten times the size of ours.
Eat, f*ck, and be merry. Life is short, my friends.
Shoot, if I was still there I woulda dragged my snowboard and some wood for a ramp out to the levee by the Fly and had myself a little session.
Kinda funny, I agree, that I think of my truck as a HER....
Especially since "she" trumped TRUCK NUTS (google that please) for a period of time.
Maybe she's a SHIM.
Ahhh. How refreshing. The exact mindset that has gotten us into the climate change, not to mention current economic crisis.
Gotta go with Cop on this one.
It's all a mirage my friend. Fear and consumption. That's how they keep us going. I generally disprove Michael Moore's tainted take on most things aside from its humorist perspective, but Marilyn Manson hit the nail on the head with that one.
not thinking beyond one's lifespan. it's great for progress...
You know what's funnier than people who don't (or refuse) to understand the difference between weather and climate?.............................nuthin'.
The only real question is how much are humans contributing to the current warming trend.
Dude, ENSO?! Thats 7th grade earth science, so no need to google. Although it's widely accepted that a warming climate will effect El Nino (or ENSO if you want to be fancy) it's unknown to what degree. (Pun fully intended) Other oceanic oscillations may effect it as well, there is no evidence to suggest El Nino itself has a lasting effect on the earths climate.
I'm not prepared to fully engage you in one of the multitude of pointless, repeat every point/counterpoint ad nauseum debates that you can find at various places on the Internet on this topic. If you'd like, I'd be happy to steer you to at least three or four different websites where you'll be able to get into a real doozie of a discussion if you feel you really need to exercise your beliefs that, as humans, we've been capable of effecting significant climate change over the past fifty years by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide, a negligible gas, into the atmosphere.
Who's they? They are a multitude of researchers, a coalition if you will, who stand to gain a lot of notoreity and research dollars if they continue to make it look like we're the ones causing something, let alone that we have the capacity to fix it.
Observation then speculation is different from true cause and effect. An observation can follow a phenomenon without there being a cause/effect relationship. To then extrapolate that into a theory, based on further speculation, especially when there is a much more simplistic and obvious correlation out there, is what I call junk science. Actually, it's not even junk science. It's computer modeling trying to predict the future.
Fact is, this (read all of it):
You'll hear people say things like, "El Nino does not cause global warming." Duh! This is how these puported scientist confuse cause and effect. El Nino is correlated with the increase in temperatures, and is therefore inseparable. El Nino isn't causing anything. It is an outcome. And, that outcome results in observation. And, people then see that observation and confuse it with something else...
I think this whole thing has underscored just how bad everyone's gotten at understanding science and the scientific process. There are dubious practices being used to determine what the temperature was 500 years ago (e.g., looking at tree rings in conifers, etc.). People in the field can't even fully decide what's the most meaningful place to measure the temperature.... is it the lower troposphere? Mid troposphere? And, they are hunting for any data that will prove what they already believe. It also matters how that data is presented.
I suggest you read the following - in it's entirety, if you want to look at this issue from a different, less biased angle:
To me, what is happening no longer resembles science. It has become demogoguery. Or, in the words of the late Michael Crichton...
So if this global warming is brought on by human activity, what harm can be caused by ignoring it? Much!
And if it is not related to human activity, what harm can be caused by acting as it is? None! Actually we stand to make life and our environment better. Just look at China. If we behave like emissions cause GW then we limit the pollution. And places like China cease to pollute as they currently do. We all benefit, right? If this pollution is not the cause of GW it is still the cause of health related issues, right? What about the crap dumped into the Mississippi River. Doesn't that lead to health related issues? What about deforestation? Strip mining like we see here in Colorado? The list goes on and on. And all of these things are bad for our environment whether or not they cause GW. So what harm is it to act now?
This was forwarded to me by another member of this forum. Watch it in it's entirety. It was an excellent discussion.
Its a compelling speech but thats all it is. My priorities are a little different. And notice that only one of his highest priorities was not health related, free trade. I consider the climate as a health issue as much as anything. Again, think of China. Their pollution leads to a whole host of health concerns, asthma, lung cancer, heart disease, cancer in general, etc. Are more people dying of AIDS than of all these things put together? And sure, without pollution these health issues will still be here but in what numbers? If what many say is true about climate change then we will have far greater famine. More disease. More death, possibly.
We can make a difference in this world but instead we are bailing out banks to the tune of 700 billion and the Big 3 to the tune of god knows what in the end. Why? So that we don't lose our precious money! We are human we can adapt. Of TED's top 4 priorities, all of them could be fixed with the 700 billion dollars we gave the banks.
I don't know the answer. Nobody does. That's why its such a hot debate.
The crux of that discussion, and I agree that's all it was, is that we need to come up with a set of priorities, something that most are loathe to do. The fact is, with the current debate raging (and, yes, there still is a debate) on whether or not there is man-made global warming occurring and, if there is, what - if anything - can be done about it, it is currently not a realistic priority to spend vast amounts of money on, when there are so many more immediately pressing concerns, as you yourself adeptly point out.
Do you have children Cop?
If not, do you plan too?
I do not... not yet.
I do have nieces and nephews. I have cousins who have children. I have a lot of family members, many of whom are below the age of 5.
This isn't an issue about "the children" for me. Honestly, I look around and I am disgusted by the excesses that I see heaped on children today. A gajillion toys at Christmas.... DVD players in the back of every car.... constant stimulation with either "play dates" or "Gymboree" or driving around to the next meaningless time filler.... the celebration of mediocrity.... the acceptance of obesity..... excess.
You are not going to change that with laws or throwing money at the environment.
The brainwashing... errr.... education of children starts very early on. I can assure you that far more kids know who Hannah Montana is than where the state of Montana is. That's the real problem right there.
What we need to teach children is to question things appropriately using the right intellectual tools. We need to provide them the framework to develop interests outside of iPods and "High School Musical" DVDs (not that they can't or shouldn't enjoy that stuff in moderation). And... that's the key. Moderation. We need to stop coddling them and providing them everything they want, from stimulation to crappy-ass food, whenever they want it.
If you want to make this an issue about kids, it has less to do with working towards giving them an environment that they can grow up in only then to subsequently f**k it up because they haven't been fully taught or learned a true work ethic and the true concept of cause and effect.
In my estimation, the future has less to do about this current trendy and soon-to-be-forgotten ALGORE alarmist pseudoneoenvironmentalism (spearheaded by an overweight - dare I say obese, typically "do as I say, not as I do" self-serving, self-promoting fearmongering politician). It has far more to do about about instilling in our children the right values now. In that regard, I assure you, my friend, nothing that you and I can or could do at our age is going to have any meaningful impact, positive or negative, on the future of this planet except that.
So, in summary, this planet doesn't care about you or me. It's going to be here whether you and I (or our progeny) are or not. And, whatever this planet turns into, we'll adapt. That's how Life (with a capital "L") works. Personally, I haven't yet seen the evidence for the alarmism regarding the purported dire straits the planet is in, but - since you brought it up - you can see that I am more than a little worried about the future of this world based on a lot of the children I've seen wandering around in it. And, that has nothing to do with how hot or how cold the air is.
life with a capital l is one thing. and inasmuch as it includes cockroaches, yes i'm sure "we" will likely adapt to a bad future scenario. but at best it's optimistic to think that *human* life (with a lower-case l) will adapt to whatever comes. at worst, "adapting" means a decrease in life expectancy or increase in morbidity or a lower quality of life. screw that. this simplistic notion that humans will just "adapt" to the future rationalizes a self-centered "screw the future and the people in it" viewpoint. a good example of values that we shouldn't be passing on to the next generation.
adapt? we aren't even adapting now, with a preponderance of evidence in favor of the negative impact of humans on the environment. there's far more convincing evidence of this than there was of wmds in iraq, yet we spend the billions to invade iraq instead of limiting our impact on the environment. and much like this iraq war fiasco, when the environmental impact is negative enough that even people on the right admit to it, they'll shift the debate to "well it's clear now that our impact on the environment is screwing us. it's doesn't matter how we got here. we just need to find a way to fix it."
so if "adapting" means fixing the problem we've created after it has already happened, instead of preventing the problem by not creating it, then life with a small l is screwed sooner than later. but if we accept the preponderance of evidence instead of using this political posturing to pretend that it's more unclear than it is (vaccines and autism, anyone?), then at least we might be screwed later than sooner.
I tried to follow the logic in your post, igaq, but (no offense) it seemed a little circumlocutory... and hard to figure out exactly what your point is... but let's address the following:
(1) I think there is a "preponderance" of speculation and correlation, not "evidence" of causation of human activity and long-term consequences. Like most systems, the planet primarily operates in a negative-feedback manner mechanistically, not postitive-feedback (or feed-forward) as the alarmists would have you believe.
(2) Did you watch the video I posted above? If not, please do. It's not a matter of recognizing or formulating a list of problems, it's about prioritizing solutions. And, these solutions cost money and may or may not have an impact. The old mantra "think globally, act locally" falls mostly on deaf ears because most Americans (and other citizens of the world, for that matter) want someone else to solve these problems. They won't act unless they are forced to act.
I've always spoken about the "carrot and stick" approach to motivating people. If you're all carrot and no stick (how most of us currently live), most of us will be fat and lazy and figure that they system is there to provide for us. Conversely, if you're all stick and no carrot, people will avoid engaging in a behavior altogether and/or revolt against it.
An effective carrot/stick approach would be to give huge tax credits to corporations who cut emissions, develop new technologies, and rebuild the infrastructure. To a large extent, this is already happening. Also, "green credits" (in the form of tax relief, etc.) to individuals who buy vehicles that have lower emission standards, among other things (such as building green), will all help. Conversely, people should be taxed higher if they choose not to employ these new technologies. In a large way, a lot of that is already happening. But, our instant gratification society expects that we'll have all the solutions right away... and that everyone should be responsible and act now to immediately eradicate this perceived problem.
Fact is, society and social problems just don't get solved with that level of alacrity and attention to detail, especially when you expect Americans (and other citizens of the world) to sacrifice without getting something in return. That's just simply human motivation stuff.
So, while I appreciate your input, it's a bit simplistic and dilettantish. This problem is political as much as it is environmentally and scientifically debated, and to worry excessively about it now - and make it the priority when there are so many heads to this hydra - seems a bit foolhardy to me.
I don't disagree with your view of how we are ruining our children one bit. And its not our childrens fault.
But I afraid you missed my point. I'm saying that if we don't start "helping" our environment now then we leave the burden to our children if we're lucky. If we are not so lucky there may be little left for our children to work with. If we don't set the example for our children now then we are that much further behind. I don't have all the answers, nobody does. But I have some beliefs and those are apparent now with my posts. I'm not a fear monger, altruist, etc. I'm just an open mind with some beliefs.
Start showing the youngsters how to be earth wise now and we all benefit. But the message in my post was dealing with, "what are we leaving our children with?"
By Emanuella Grinberg
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font
(CNN) -- Between 1.5 trillion and 2 trillion tons of ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted at an accelerating rate since 2003, according to NASA scientists, in the latest signs of what they say is global warming.
This image shows the changing rate of mass in mountain glaciers on the Gulf of Alaska.
This image shows the changing rate of mass in mountain glaciers on the Gulf of Alaska.
Using new satellite technology that measures changes in mass in mountain glaciers and ice sheets, NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke concluded that the losses amounted to enough water to fill the Chesapeake Bay 21 times.
"The ice tells us in a very real way how the climate is changing," said Luthcke, who will present his findings this week at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco, California.
NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, mission uses two orbiting satellites to measure the "mass balance" of a glacier, or the net annual difference between ice accumulation and ice loss.
"A few degrees of change [in temperature] can increase the amount of mass loss, and that contributes to sea level rise and changes in ocean current," Luthcke said.
The data reflects findings from NASA colleague Jay Zwally, who uses different satellite technology to observe changing ice volume in Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctica.
In the past five years, Greenland has lost between 150 gigatons and 160 gigatons each year, (one gigaton equals one billion tons) or enough to raise global sea levels about .5 mm per year, said Zwally, who will also present his findings at the conference this week.
* Planet in Peril
GRACE measured that mountain glaciers in the Gulf of Alaska lost about 84 gigatons each year, about five times the average annual flow of the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, according to NASA.
"Every few extra inches of sea level have very significant economic impacts, because they change the sea level, increase flooding and storm damage," said, Zwally, ICESat Project Scientist. "It's a warning sign."
Melting ice, especially in Greenland and the Arctic, is also thought to contribute to global warming, Zwally said. When the vast ice sheets and glaciers melt, they lose their reflective power, and instead, oceans and land absorb the heat, causing the Arctic waters and the atmosphere to warm faster.
"We're seeing the impacts of global warming in many areas of our own lives, like agriculture," Zwally said.
As an example, he cited the pine beetle infestation of this summer in the forests of Colorado and western Canada.
"They were believed to be spreading because the winter was not cold enough to kill them, and that's destroying forests," he said.
In the 1990s, Greenland took in as much snow and water as it let out, Zwally said. But now, about 15 years later, sea levels are rising about 50 percent faster, making the global climate situation even more unpredictable.
"The best estimates are that sea levels will rise about 18 to 36 inches by the end of the century, but because of what's going on and how fast things are changing, there's a lot of uncertainty," he said.
We can do this all day, Arch. Until we agree upon such things as a global timeframe, what historical "expectations" actually should be, and other things such as whether or not we've been coming out of a mini ice age over the past 500 years, this doesn't prove anything. That's why it's pointless to argue this, point by point, on this forum... or anywhere else on the internet.
And, that's the point.
Jury is out.
The alarmism is mainly politically, not scientifically, driven.
And, it should be for anyone who calls himself/herself a true scientist (and, if you actually read the reports and not just the media spin, you'll see that many, if not most, scientists engaged in this debate are very circumspect and willing to admit that we need more data).
Here, lemme add another one.
What's the benefit to a politician? We all know they don't do anything without some personal gain.
I am not arguing. I simply posted a relevant article from the web. Those NASA boys are a lot smarter than my stupid old redneck self. That is unless it's the ones that covered up the whole moon landing thing.
How about the one that drove across the country (not quite) in a diaper to kill her exboyfriend fellow NASA employee?
Well, I actually said it is politically driven, not driven by politicians. Big difference. You can have politics in the workforce... as evidenced by ample discussions on that topic here. Point is, researchers benefit tremendously in the terms of grants and notoreity if they keep the alarmist fires stoked. No one is willing to fund the study of something that the feel doesn't threaten their very existence. My feeling is that, much like the AIDS epidemic of the 1980's, the interest in this hullybaloo will blow over once people realize in the forthcoming decade that the world is not, in fact, coming to an end.
But, if you want to talk about direct benefit to a politician... or maybe ex-politician... all you have to do is look at how Al Gore has benefitted from being the spokesmodel for the fear-mongering arm of the Global Warming Alarmists Brigade. Of course, if you don't think the million-dollar Nobel prize or the several tens of thousands of dollars he gets per speech amounts to much, then I've got some prime real estate in central Florida that I'd like to offer you... or maybe a deed on the Brooklyn Bridge...