So really, how far off is the movie "the day after tomorrow", with out the cinematography and L.A. and N.Y.C? Obviously the names and places are changed to protect the innocent. I lived next to a major interstate for 15yrs. When it used to snow the other side got 8-10 inches and we got 3 inches, year after year. Day after day those 3 million+ cars made some heat! Yes, I lived on the smog side. When we woke in the morning there was a white spot on the pillow where our heads laid down.

Were you seeing the effect of the prevailing wind-driven road salt spray and dust? That would explain the white spots on the pillows.

On the PA turnpike near where I live there is a considerable zone of dead and dying trees on the downwind sides in the higher snowier areas - a result of a sort of "zero-tolerance" policy for snow-covered pavement.
The result is massive use of salt, or calcium chloride and other more exotic de-icing materials when the temperature is low.

Of course, to suggest reducing road salting is absolutely out of the question - you'd be accused of promoting carnage on the highways. But somehow, 20-30 years ago drivers somehow got by with just plowing and cindering, driving slower, using chains, or postponing the trip.

'Cindering' I haven't heard of that in years. Ash, yes?

If you have an office pool, you better hope you get the year 2050.

Beam me up Scotty...There's no intelligent life down here....

The hamsters run frantically on the wheel until they find they have become lemmings running down the hill towards the cliff edge and the accumulated speed they have built up, prevents them from stopping. Has anyone noticed that ten years ago this was supposed to happen a century from now. I suggest you think in terms of an accelerating dash down the hill because the edge of the cliff arrives so quickly. In ten years not fifty, we will be screaming about how could it have gotten so bad so quickly. While in twenty years, we will just be screaming. And on and on...it isn't the end of the world but it will sure feel like it...and when in 2050 when people will be saying "How could it have gotten like this?" ...we will be stuck with the sure knowledge that it will get worse. But remember...it will not be the end of the world, however much that many might welcome such a thing.

The white spot was the clean spot from my head, the soot was what made the rest of the pillow filthy! You check your windowsill in any big city! Its ok though, the bees are dying so life on the rest of the planet might soon too. Apocalyptic redemption? Anyone? Cream?

http://www.freepublictransit.org

end the auto now

Having worked at UCAR division (UCAR runs and manages several divisions, of which NCAR is one), these scientists are an extremely conservative lot. So your office pool year shohuld be much sooner than the year 2050.

At this rate, I would say a safe office pool bet would be the year 2019. 12 years from now. I say this not only because the scientists who program the models are conservative, but because the positive feedback aspect of the model tends to be implemented linearly.

Put it like this: what are the ramifications of increased melting? Does increased melting lead to even more melting? Then the feedback from one event needs to be implemented exponentially.

Also, I believe the IPCC report mentioned - and then buried - this fact: that the models on climate change still haven't accounted for all of the emissions spewed out from cars from 1970 - present day. I that's the case, then the bill is coming due and there's a huge overpayment fine: the Earth will heat up dramatically.

And if this is the case, this scenario pushes scientists into a role they're extremely uncomfortable with: sociology. They could start mass panic, resources wars and other acutely negative events by being un-conservative with their projections.

They won't go there. What they do is tweak the models the best they can in hopes that somehow this runaway train can be controlled, or isn't as bad as their gut intuition is telling them.

My gut tells me it's way worse than the scientists can professionally let on. With the current DC 'leadership' able to exploit anything for political gains at the expense of humanity, you can bet that it's a lot more palatable to acknowledge among fellow scientists that we're really fucked and nothing can be done about it, and let events unfold naturally than to hand the whacko nutcase Bush the slightest sliver of rationale for starting a worldwide nuclear holocaust.

Which would you rather see: a nuclear holocaust or powerful storms and melting events that will destroy LA and other coastal cities?

I'd rather see LA under water and watch us all cope the best we can because frankly, we as humans haven't tapped into our potential. It would be really exciting as long as you turned off your TV because mainstream media LOVES death blood and destruction. I'd rather see what we're capable of because the insanely evil dickhead in the WH has already shown us that he thinks very little of humans in general and would have no issue whatsoever in pulling the trigger that brings down the entire planet.

jungleboy:
The bees dying might have to do with genetically modified corn. Specifically, GMO corn has Bt in it. Bt is generally not toxic to bees, meaning it in itself won't kill bees. But now reports are coming from Germany that Bt acts to lower the bees natural defense mechanism, which in turn allows a parasite that they normally does't pose a problem to kill them.

So, if you're buying non-organic corn you're part of the problem.

Other reports blame radiation on cell phones. Who's going to give up their cell phone? No one. That's why the media has been pouncing on that as a possible culprit for bee die offs.

Could be any other facts, but my point is and always will be that we have no place in messing with mother nature.

They've tried to generate electricity using parabolic mirrors to focus the sun's rays on some sort of steam engine. The trouble was the mirror wasn't cost effective. So why not use a convex lens made of a plastic material filled with water? It would be extremely cheap, and I believe the refractive properties of water would make a serviceable lens. We could all have inexpensive electric generators in the back yard. And get paid to feed power back into the grid. And have electricity anywhere - without the grid. Virtually free power to the people. And goodbye to the vast majority of fossil fuel applications. And its pollution. And global warming.

bmartling:
do you have a link where we can read about this? Sounds awesome.

How very interesting this all is. I saw a public TV program the other night which stated that John Newton, of Gravity fame, was most interested in alchemy and how long the world would last, and after a great deal of study and mathematicl work, concluded it would end in 2060! Perhaps we should be very worried. He was right about so many other things.