[GCFL-discuss] Silence of the...

[Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List]

A newer theory I've heard talks about the poles changing. And so us
loosing our ozone isn't unusual. There is historical evidence of
societies using N or S poles as their main focus. Through Lava flows
they've proven that the major magnetic pole has changed through the years
by the ions that are sealed when the lava solidifies. Scientist have a
reason to believe that the poles change polarity over MANY years. Which
could explain the loss of our ozone in places. I've seen a huge
presentation on it and sadly I'm not doing it any justice because I can't
put words to the ideas, graphs, charts, and pictures I've seen.

The theory seems to be fairly substantial, but the time it takes for the
poles to change and what not no one knows. Will we lose the whole ozone
and then rebuild? Or will only parts disappear and then come back whole
like we once knew it? None of that's known. But it sounds well thought
out.

That's my two cents.
Lance
John 8:32 "You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free."

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:18:34 -0500 "Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
List" <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> writes:
> Dave,
> 
> I am complimented that you believe me to be 4 billion years old, the 
> age
> any mere human would require in order to understand everything about 
> the
> weather. Sadly, I cannot accept this undeserved honor, and must 
> admit
> that I was only born in 1954. Some of the most deadly hurricanes on
> record preceded my birth. The age when Antarctica was a tropical 
> paradise
> (?) was millions of years before I existed. I cannot say of my own
> personal knowledge whether continental drift put it at the equator,
> whether tumbling of the earth's axis put it at the equator, or 
> whether
> the over-all temperature of our planet allowed for palm trees to 
> grow at
> the poles.
> 
> It is a good possibility that the net result of global warming might 
> be a
> new ice age. Neither God nor the observable laws of nature as far as 
> we
> know them run in straight lines. Increased ocean depth could allow 
> waters
> of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans to mix in ways that they do not 
> at
> present, which seems to have been a factor in precipitating past 
> ice
> ages. That leaves two interesting problems.
> 
> First, while it might be natural, it might be quite inconvenient, 
> even
> deadly, for a large part of the earth's population.
> 
> Second, while certain progressions and swings might be natural, if 
> we are
> speeding things up, or introducing new variables, it could cause a 
> good
> deal of damage we would prefer to avoid. Of course, those with 
> their
> heads buried in the sand would prefer not to take the responsible 
> course
> of acknowledging cause and effect.
> 
> The subject is indeed complex, and our knowledge is terribly 
> incomplete.
> It is silly to respond to a hot summer, like this year, with the
> conclusion "global warming." After all, last summer was relatively 
> cool,
> and that was well after warnings about "global warming" began. We 
> will
> not KNOW for sure until and unless the worst damage is done. That is 
> a
> problem with preventive measures. A common response to a really 
> effective
> crime-fighting program is to cut the budget of the police 
> department
> because "there isn't much crime now anyway." Then, when the crime 
> rate
> goes back up, people demand billions for defense, not necessarily 
> for the
> most effective programs that were previously gutted.
> 
> Weather reports on the prospects for the hurricane season suggest 
> the
> possibility of something more than a natural cycle. It is true that 
> for
> the last forty or fifty years, the incidence of hurricanes has been
> unusually low. Sadly, that was the period when real estate 
> developers
> were crowding hurricane-prone coasts with expensive vacation homes 
> and
> the businesses to support them. That was short-sighted, and those 
> who
> bought those properties will be paying the price for many years. So 
> will
> taxpayers, since FEMA has to cover a lot of the losses. But there
> definitely seems to be a good deal of warmer ocean waters behind 
> this
> crop of hurricanes, which could mean things are going to get a lot 
> meaner
> than natural cycles alone would explain.
> 
> On the other hand, maybe the increased number and ferocity of 
> hurricanes
> is nature's, and God's, way of dissipating the increased heat, which 
> may
> reduce the drought and the high temperatures inland, which may be 
> good
> for people in the interior of the continent.
> 
> Quama may be right that the impact of greenhouse gases is being
> overestimated. But, there are solid studies of global temperature 
> which
> show a gradual rise directly matching the growth of wood-burning
> populations in Europe, India and China, then the growth of industry. 
> This
> pattern does not match what can be established of previous rise and 
> fall
> in temperatures.
> 
> It is worth considering all the data. It is worth having an open,
> no-hold's barred, discussion of all the possibilities. There is 
> some
> serious scientific work on the subject, which is more precise than 
> "oh
> look, the permafrost is melting." Among those who are doubtful, are 
> some
> who simply find it economically more convenient to keep doing 
> whatever
> they do to make money, without considering that they MAY in fact be 
> doing
> substantial damage to the rest of us. But that is nothing new. And, 
> those
> who want to deny the entire subject, can easily find some darn fool
> talking about how New York will be flooded by 2009, which is 
> probably not
> going to happen, and then the opposite fools will say "See, there's
> nothing to it."
> 
> Siarlys