Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (213895)	12/26/2004 3:29:09 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574854

"He thinks snow in Victoria undermines the theory of global warming." If true, that would show not only ignorance of the issue, but also a lack of understanding of history and a muddling of the facts. For example, Victoria did not experience record cold temperatures for those days, just unusual conditions. Assuming that a single point can invalidate the theory of global warming, an assumption that has no scientific validity at all, there have been much colder spells in the past. And that seems to argue against this particular datum. Off the top of my head, the winter of 1982 (IIRC) there was ice in both Galveston Bay and Laguna Madre as there was in the 1940s. In the 1800s, Galveston Bay froze so solid that people could walk on it. Temperatures were much colder, and colder longer, that the recent cold snap we had. Are you sure that is what he meant? LOL. You need to ask. You aren't new to this thread. You've seen how Harris thinks. "Pro choice people are killers". "We're winning in Iraq....the media isn't telling the truth". "Bush is a great president". Of course, he saw snow in Victoria as proof positive that global warming is not happening. Forget the 1990s was the warmest decade in the 20th century. Forget that 2004 was the 4th warmest year in American history. With a brain like Harris's, who needs facts.

To: combjelly who wrote (213895)	12/26/2004 6:29:03 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 1574854

About now I'm getting less worried about global warming, and more worried about a mountain in the Canary Islands. A computer model of a future collapse on La Palma (click here to go to pdf of paper) by Steven Ward of the University of California at Santa Cruz and Simon Day of BHRC, indicates that this is not the case. Although wave dispersion effects do significantly modify the waves, nevertheless the results indicate that these will retain a significant proportion of their energy as they propagate outwards from the Canaries (where their initial heights are around a kilometre, in agreement with the other independent predictions by Fritz and others) towards the USA, Europe and northern Brazil. Tsunamis travel at high speeds in the deep ocean ---- as fast as passenger jet aircraft ---- and then slow down and pile up, increasing their height, as they enter shallow water. The upshot of the model is that it predicts that between 6 and 9 hours after the collapse of the Cumbre Vieja, tsunami waves with amplitudes of around 50 metres will strike the entire western seaboard of the Atlantic: these values are consistent with the size of the giant boulders and other deposits in the Bahamas, lending support to the model. Hours before the waves arrive in America, the coasts of the Canaries and of western Africa and Europe will have been swept by waves that have refracted around the submarine flanks of La Palma. This last is a complex process, and so it is difficult to predict the size of waves that will strike Europe in particular: but the model predicts that the waves in the Canaries may run up to several hundreds of metres above sea level on the steep slopes of the islands. from benfieldhrc.org