Nope...No signs of global warming here

[Leon m]

I think I'll go buy me a Hummer so I can contribute to the "Natural warming cycle". :rolleyes:

Top Stories
Storm shelters filling up
Gulf Coast evacuees taking shelter as Dennis approaches.
Story

Colo. wildfire spreads
Hot, dry winds spread a wildfire across 2,400 acres.
Story

Storms set July record
Four named storms in July portend fierce hurricane season.
Story



Dennis lashes Cuba
HAVANA — Hurricane Dennis slammed Cuba's southern coast with 135 mph winds Friday before slicing across the Caribbean's largest island, killing at least 10 people. The powerful storm headed toward a U.S. landfall, prompting thousands to flee the Florida Keys.
Story

Cindy slams Gulf Coast
BAY ST. LOUIS, Miss. — Heavy rain and storm surge flooded low-lying streets along the Gulf Coast on Wednesday as a rapidly weakening Tropical Storm Cindy pushed inland after leaving more than 300,000 homes and businesses without electricity.
Story

Tornado rips Atlanta track
HAMPTON, Ga. — The Atlanta Motor Speedway looks as if it was in a high-speed crash after a tornado caused as much as $40 million in damage. Every structure at the facility was roughed up by a half-mile-wide tornado spawned night by the remnants of Tropical Storm Cindy.
Story

More News



Cindy's remains drench Ga. Heavy rain from
remnants of tropical storm kills two.

European dry spell Drought in Europe drags on.

Shanghai set for blackouts Relentless heat strains electricity supply.

The great warm lakes Water temperatures ahead of schedule this summer.

Alaska getting stormier Thunderstorms increasing in Alaska.


• Stormy June 2005

web page (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/stormcenter/front.htm)

[ 07-10-2005, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Leon m ]

[Gary E]

It's just summer, come back in Dec and you of all people will be bitchin about the cold in Wisc untill you start suckin down Milwaukee's finest in your ice fishing shack... :D

[High C]

Science by anecdote.

And the weather used to always be so nice! :rolleyes:

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
Science by anecdote.
It's better than idiocy by political affiliation! tongue.gif LOL! :D

[Leon m]

Originally posted by High C:
Science by anecdote.

:rolleyes: Ah yes,of course...But what about the instinct factor? does it always have to be about politics or science?

As a person who spends most of his time outdoors ,and in nature...there is another factor at play here...call it intinct,or just a knowing from being a kindred of the wild...but I FEEL the imbalance of what we are doing.Science can only tell you so much,then you have to listen to that inner being that goes WAY back.Politics and science has nothing on that,we've lost touch with it, and it is starting to show...time to wake up people. ;)

[ 07-10-2005, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Leon m ]

[Leon m]

Originally posted by Gary E:
It's just summer, come back in Dec and you of all people will be bitchin about the cold in Wisc :D I don't think so...I like my lakes cool...The way it USED to be ,The only thing you'll find me "bitchin" about in DEC is the lack of snow we've been having the past many winters ;)


"A recent heat wave has helped increase temperatures on the Great Lakes and other bodies of water around the state, but rising water temperatures can encourage weed and algae growth.

This satellite image of Lake Erie shows algae (green) and sediment disturbances (white).
NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab

The average surface temperatures of the Great Lakes are at their highest in five years, The Detroit News reported Sunday. Readings in the 60s and 70s from all but Lake Superior already are warmer than last August.

Warm waters are welcomed by many swimmers. But Gary Towns, Lake Erie management supervisor for the state's fisheries division, said inland lakes may see more weeds and more frequent toxic blue-green algae slicks.

Low oxygen levels in some lakes could bring an earlier and more dramatic onset of the annual midsummer fish die-off, experts say. Some algae, such as the blue-green variety, can cause illness in animals.

"Heat is very good for making things grow, including weeds, algae and bacteria," said Rochelle Sturtevant, a systems ecologist with the Great Lakes Sea Grant network.

In West Bloomfield, Mary Kinzer said weeds grew so fast at her home near Orchard Lake that she has been unable to swim. Residents at the lake usually have the weeds cut and hauled out in July.

"It's like a carpet. I can see the fish making tunnels up through it," Kinzer said. "The algae is terrible, too. It seems worse than ever."

Meanwhile, those who fish on the lakes also will be seeing the effects of warmer waters. Walleye, for example, headed out to deeper, colder water in Lake Erie two weeks ago, more than a month ahead of normal, said Towns.

"People are having some trouble catching legal-sized walleye in Michigan waters. Normally, you don't see that movement until August," he said. "This year, it happened in the second week of June."

[ljb5]

Originally posted by High C:
Science by anecdote.Sure beats rejection of science, with neither anecdotes nor evidence for political reasons.

[shamus]

The sceptics seem to be saying 'One swallow does not a summer make" and in this case one summer does not make them swallow ...

[Del Lansing]

lead author of the study that used one the world's most powerful computers to simulate 1,300 virtual storms.
There is no reason to surrender sovereignty over computer simulations that are no more real than "MS Pacman."

[Leon m]

Originally posted by Del Lansing:
[]There is no reason to surrender sovereignty over computer simulations that are no more real than "MS Pacman."Forget about the simulations...I remember scientist saying 20 years ago that in about twenty years we would be experiancing stronger storms ,warming of the great lakes,weird weather in places not accustom such weather...well take a look at what I posted up top . So at what piont do we sit up and pay attention?

[brad9798]

Oh- The globe IS warming ... and will continue to do so for a LONG time ...
Unfortunately for some of you, my SUV (won't even mention what kinds! ;) ) has nothing to do with it!
tongue.gif

Cycles, people, cycles ... interpret how you like, but there IS NOT EVEIDENCE EITHER WAY that we TRULY affect them.

[Crusoe]

The G8 has agreed pay greater attention in 2008.

Hmmm................wonder what happens then?

[BrianW]

As a person who spends most of his time outdoors ,and in nature...there is another factor at play here...call it intinct,or just a knowing from being a kindred of the wild...Careful Leon! As you know most greenies don't accept that humans are part of the natural world. They feel that we are alien to the earth and have no right to exist anywhere...

[High C]

Originally posted by brad9798:
Oh- The globe IS warming ... and will continue to do so for a LONG time ...
Unfortunately for some of you, my SUV (won't even mention what kinds! ;) ) has nothing to do with it!
tongue.gif

Cycles, people, cycles ... Some of these true believers seem to think we lived in heated and cooled comfort before the industrial age.

As Brad said, cycles, cycles, cycles.

I've spent a lot of time the last few days watching meteorologists on the tube talking about hurricane Dennis. I saw, several times, a little scene I've seen before, when a news anchor would ask the meteorologist if there was a connection between these hurricanes and "global warming". In so many of these instances, it is clear that the meteorologist has to restrain himself from rolling his eyes and laughing at the "news" guy. "No, they explain, there is reason A, and reason B, and a little of reason C, but never do they endorse the "global warming" thing.

The Earth's climate has never been stable, and it's never going to be. Business as usual.

[Leon m]

OK so when has SO much burning of fossil fuel and deforestation EVER been a part of any NATURAL "cycle"?...Cycle my BUTTons.

[Leon m]

Originally posted by BrianW:
Careful Leon! As you know most greenies don't accept that humans are part of the natural world. They feel that we are alien to the earth and have no right to exist anywhere...Well...Guess I'm not a "greeny" then...Thats OK ,never did like labels anyhow.

[Leon m]

Originally posted by C223:
Labels suck! You....You....Labeler!!!!Not all labels ...take soup labels for example...without them how would we know whats in the can.

[Leon m]

Oh ,and you "Cycle" chanters... your still wrong ! tongue.gif

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Well, 6 billion people may be a cycle but it must be the first such cycle because there is no evidence it has ever occured before. When my great grandfather was born in 1842 global population was estimated to be about 1.8 billion souls and it took in excess of 100,000 years to get to that number. The run up to 6+ billion has only taken 163 years.
History tells us that deforestation of the planet has been going on for a long time but we must assume that is is going on at a quicker pace now because there are many more people to do it and the machinery they bring into a forest is of recent invention.
The rate of deforestation is measurable because we have various types of satellite imagery that has been recording it over time so we we have a fairly good idea of the pace at which forest cover is lost.
Both the written record and the fossil record tell us that certain areas of the globe were long ago cleared of forests and we can visits those places and see the environmental troubles they suffer, if any.
None of the above is proof that man-made environmental changes have affected the entire planet but prudence (one of the four theological virtues) would suggest we seriously scrutinize our global situation.
For those of you who are waiting for an encyclical from the Whitehouse affirming or denying the existence of global warming take note that the White house has not issued any encyclicals on any of the Gulf Coast storms nor have they been able to stay abreast of global terror, economic competition from China or the run up of oil prices. Since their power to penetrate everyday problems seems so limited their powers to unravel compound scientific mysteries would seem to run from scant to nonexistent.
But, "hope springs eternal....".
Charlie

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Originally posted by High C:
Science by anecdote.

Sure beats rejection of science, with neither anecdotes nor evidence for political reasons. Originally posted by High C:
Science by anecdote.

Sure beats rejection of science, with neither anecdotes nor evidence for political reasons. Originally posted by High C:
Science by anecdote.

Sure beats rejection of science, with neither anecdotes nor evidence for political reasons. Originally posted by High C:
Science by anecdote.

Sure beats rejection of science, with neither anecdotes nor evidence for political reasons. Originally posted by High C:
Science by anecdote.

Sure beats rejection of science, with neither anecdotes nor evidence for political reasons.

[Leon m]

Originally posted by Cuyahoga Chuck:


prudence (one of the four theological virtues) would suggest we seriously scrutinize our global situation.

[shamus]

Rebuttal by Re.Pete.al?

[ljb5]

It's all part of a natural cycle.

We burn 85,000,000 barrels of oil per day...

The cavemen burned 85,000,000 barrels of oil per day...

The dinosaurs burned 85,000,000 barrels of oil per day....

Only a fool would think that we're doing anything differently.

[Leon m]

Its true.

http://www.oldwoodies.com/img/weird/flintstonecar.gif

[Del Lansing]

"Environmentalists also have argued that since the United States is the largest emitter of CO2, the greenhouse gas of primary concern, it should take the lead in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately for their argument, it turns out that the U.S. is in fact a leading "air filter." According to an October 16, 1998, article in Science, North America removes more carbon (about 2 billion tons) from the atmosphere than it emits (1.5 billion tons) each year. One reason is the tremendous regrowth in the eastern U.S. of forests that act as carbon sinks, removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Even more damaging to the environmentalists' argument is the fact that most of the warming over the last century occurred before 1940 - preceding the vast majority of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Global warming alarmists have been unable to explain this mismatch between warming theory and scientific data.

Two scientific papers published in March of this year may explain the mismatch quite well. In the March 11 issue of Nature, scientists report that contrary to the belief that both CO2 and global temperature have remained fairly constant during the last 11,000 years, global temperature has remained relatively stable (± 1 1/2 degrees Fahrenheit from the average), but CO2 levels have varied greatly.

In a March 12, 1999, paper in Science, a team of researchers concluded that when the earth shifts from glacial to warm periods, as it does every 100,000 years or so, temperature rise consistently precedes increased CO2 levels by between 400 and 1,000 years. This finding is at odds with global warming theory and the idea that increased levels of CO2 force climate temperatures upward, but it does correspond with reality. The earth came out of a "Little Ice Age" during the middle of the last century. During that time global temperature was about 1 degree cooler than at present. If the current research is correct, one could surmise that the temperature increase at the end of the Little Ice Age has, like previous warming, preceded an entirely natural increase in CO2. While human activities have probably contributed to the current CO2 increase, the link between that increase and warmer temperatures becomes more uncertain with each new scientific discovery."
"James Hansen, whose 1988 pronouncements started the clamor for action to prevent global warming, wrote in the 1998 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that 'the forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.' So much for being sure."

[George Roberts]

Leon m ---

Are you aware that the most extreme treatment for global warming will only slow the clock by 6%. That is:

If we cut out ALL production of CO2, the climate in 2106 will be equivalent to the climate of 2100 if we do nothing.

We might as well stand by the ocean and command the tides to stop.

[Popeye]

this could be the kind of proof we are looking for :D

[ljb5]

Del, your historical data would be relevant if we were repeating an historical pattern.

However, nothing like this has ever happened before.

We burn 85,000,000 barrels of oil per day. The cavemen did not do this. The dinosaurs did not do this.

This has never happened before, therefore the historical record cannot show us what will happen as a result.

In the last 200 years, CO2 levels have risen as much as they did in the preceeding 10,000 years. They are now at a level that has never been seen before.

We are in uncharted waters. The historical data only shows what has happened before -- but we are doing something very different, so there is no reason to think that we will repeat the patterns of before.


James Hansen, whose 1988 pronouncements started the clamor for action to prevent global warming, wrote in the 1998 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that 'the forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with accuracy sufficient to define future climate changeI wonder if we've learned anything in 17 years?

[ 07-11-2005, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[Popeye]

why do you keep insisting a spike in the last few years data of CO2 is part of a cyclical trend?

[ljb5]

In the 1940s, no one in American had a television.

If you come home tonight and discover that your television is missing, it does not mean that you've been robbed....

...it's just reverting to an historical trend!

[Dan McCosh]

In the last 200 years, CO2 levels have risen as much as they did in the preceeding 10,000 years. They are now at a level that has never been seen before. One of the basic points of CO2/global warming theory is that CO2 in the atmosphere was being absorbed by the exosystem faster than it was being created-- until the begining of the industrial revolution. If levels currently are at an all-time high, the theory doesn't work.

[Popeye]

driving a car down the road with ones eyes closed, could easily be interpreted as no certainty an accident is about to happen

[ 07-11-2005, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: popeye ]

[ljb5]

Dan, I think you misunderstand the theory.

Prior to the industrial revolution, carbon was released and sequestered at approximately the same rate, so CO2 levels varied within a certain range.

Since the industrial revolution, we have released more CO2, and sequestered less carbon, so the CO2 levels have gone up to an unprecedented level.

This comes from the article which Del posted. If you've a problem with the numbers, take it up with Del.

We burn 85,000,000 barrels of oil per day. That oil has been sitting undisturbed, underground for hundreds of thousands of years. Where do you think all that carbon goes?

Do little fairies eat it with caviar and pork rinds? Did Superman carry it off into outer space? Are gnomes refilling the oil fields every night as we sleep?

Where does the carbon go?

[ 07-11-2005, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[Dan McCosh]

Has anyone seen any data as to why there would be a sudden increase in CO2 output since the 1940s? How much is it?

[Popeye]

science is a method, not simply a collection of facts, the arguments presented here are circular since conclusions are neatly confined with psuedo-data

[ 07-11-2005, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: popeye ]

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
Has anyone seen any data as to why there would be a sudden increase in CO2 output since the 1940s? How much is it?I don't know the numbers for output, but Del posted the numbers for atmospheric concentration.

In 1950, it was 280 ppm. Now, it's 360 ppm.

At the end of the last ice age, 11,000 years ago, it was 200 ppm. The level went up 80 points in 11,000 years, then another 80 points since then.

Del's graph, which he has posted many times, shows no value higher than 280.

Why was there an increase? Gee, I dunno.... care to take a guess?

[ 07-11-2005, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[Dan McCosh]

Atmospheric concentration isn't the output of man-made CO2. The concentration is rising at about half the rate of the output, last I saw some figures.

[seafox]

Ljb
you ask whes all that carbon from 85 milion barrels per day goes

you knote that it was safely stored undeground for huinderd of theousands of years
and you have said that previously it was sequestered and expended in roughtly the same perportion and now the atmospheric levels are above the "normal range"

my question to you is where did all that carbon come from?

I understand that we get about 800 tons of water from space per day is carbon also comming inn that way? are volcanos producing it? are plants taking it up from the soil or do they get all their carbon from the air?

did not some one write here recently that iff all the man made co2 emission were ended inatntly that it would not effect anything because water vapor is of greater influance?

what if america were to plant a tree for every gallon of gas burned would that do any good?

[Gary E]

what if america were to plant a tree for every gallon of gas burned would that do any good? It might if you planted them in your yard, and that would eliminate the need for your lawnmower.
:D

[ljb5]

Seafox, the amount of carbon on earth is approximately fixed. A little enters the atmosphere from stardust and a little leaves on the space shuttle, but in general, there is a given amount which is neither created nor destroyed -- it simply moves from one form to another.

For the purposes of global warming, there are two forms of carbon: CO2 (gas) and everything else. 'Everything else' includes plants (the largest portion), animals and fossil fuels. Other solids and liquids (diamond, carbon fibre) are insignificant to the overall balance.

Plants and animals absorb carbon when they grow and emit carbon when they expend energy or decompose. The balance for any plant or animal is zero across its lifetime. Ashes to ashes, as it were.

Every spring, a tremendous amount of gaseous carbon is converted to leaves and plant matter, but a similar amount of carbon is released when these leaves decompose (or burn). When a forest is mature, the inputs and outputs are roughly the same. The same is true for animal life.

Fossil fuels are not the largest portion of carbon, but they are the largest imbalance of absorption/emission. Currently, we use fossil fuels, much, much faster than they are being created.

Fossil fuels contain a lot of carbon and all of this carbon is converted to CO2 and it does end up somewhere. It does not disappear, it does not get converted to diamonds. It goes into the sky.

Water vapour is also an important greenhouse gas. It is also formed by burning fossil fuels, although there are many other processes that convert water vapour to liquid or vice-versa.

Obviously, most water is sequestered in the oceans, which are relatively stable. However, the ice caps are important in terms of inputs/outputs. Currently, the ice caps are melting, which indicates less water is being held on earth and more is being released to the sky.

The good news about water vapour is that it does condense and precipitate on its own (rain and snow) as a result of a temperature change.

The same is not true of CO2. CO2 does not rain out of the sky. It does not condense naturally in dry ice. Currently, the only way to get CO2 out of the air is photosynthesis.

In order to stay in balance, the rate of photosynthesis must be the same as the rate of decomposition, plus the rate of forest fires, plus the rate of respiration of all animals and plants, plus the rate burning fossil fuels.

If photosynthesis can't keep up, all that carbon will end up in the sky -- as in fact it has.

[Leon m]

Severe Signs Of Global Warming

LONDON

(AP) Global warming has accelerated the melting of two Antarctic ice shelves, which lost nearly 1,200 square miles of area in the last year, U.S. and British researchers say.

Researchers at the University of Colorado and the British Atlantic Survey in Cambridge say regional warming has increased the annual melt season by up to three weeks over the past two decades, putting the Larsen B and Wilkins shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula in "full retreat."

Ice shelves are floating plates of ice that are still attached to continents, which form when large glaciers flow toward the ocean in polar areas.

Satellite photos show the Larsen B ice shelf has continued to crumble after an initial small retreat in the spring of 1998, the researchers said Wednesday. Since November, another 660 square miles of shelf area caved away.

On the other side of the peninsula, the Wilkins ice shelf retreated nearly 420 square miles in early March 1998, said Ted Scambos, a research associate at the University of Colorado at Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center.

"The radar images showed a large area of completely shattered ice, indicating an ice front 35 kilometers (21 miles) back from its previous extent," said Scambos.

He said thousands of small icebergs had appeared, suggesting "that the shelves are essentially broken up in place and then flushed out by storms or currents afterward."

David Vaughan, a researcher with British Antarctic Survey, said ice shelves in the area have been in retreat for 50 years but those losses have only included about 2,700 square miles.

"Within a few years, much of the Wilkins ice shelf will be gone," he said.

But Vaughan said the meltdown has few implications for the environment. Birds and animals are not known to rely on the ice shelves and there would be no increase in sea levels "because an ice shelf is floating anyway."

Since the 1940s, British researchers have reported an increase in mean annual temperature in the Antarctic of 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Summer temperatures now approach, and sometimes exceed 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

Larsen B is about 2,700 square miles, the size of Delaware. Wilkins is nearly twice that size.

Copyright 1999 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Leon m]

From Alaska to the snowy peaks of the Andes the world is heating up right now, and fast. Globally, the temperature is up 1°F (.5°C) over the past century, but some of the coldest, most remote spots have warmed much more. The results aren't pretty. Ice is melting, rivers are running dry, and coasts are eroding, threatening communities. Flora and fauna are feeling the heat too, as you'll read in "EcoSigns." These aren't projections; they are facts on the ground.

The changes are happening largely out of sight. But they shouldn't be out of mind, because they are omens of what's in store for the rest of the planet.

Wait a minute, some doubters say. Climate is notoriously fickle. A thousand years ago Europe was balmy and wine grapes grew in England; by 400 years ago the climate had turned chilly and the Thames froze repeatedly. Maybe the current warming is another natural vagary, just a passing thing?

Don't bet on it, say climate experts. Sure, the natural rhythms of climate might explain a few of the warming signs you'll read about in the following pages. But something else is driving the planet-wide fever.

For centuries we've been clearing forests and burning coal, oil, and gas, pouring carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere faster than plants and oceans can soak them up (see "The Case of the Missing Carbon," February 2004). The atmosphere's level of carbon dioxide now is higher than it has been for hundreds of thousands of years. "We're now geological agents, capable of affecting the processes that determine climate," says George Philander, a climate expert at Princeton University. In effect, we're piling extra blankets on our planet.

Human activity almost certainly drove most of the past century's warming, a landmark report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared in 2001. Global temperatures are shooting up faster than at any other time in the past thousand years. And climate models show that natural forces, such as volcanic eruptions and the slow flickers of the sun, can't explain all that warming.

As carbon dioxide continues to rise, so will the mercury—another 3°F to 10°F (1.6°C to 5.5°C) by the end of the century, the IPCC projects. But the warming may not be gradual. The records of ancient climate described in "TimeSigns" suggest that the planet has a sticky thermostat. Some experts fear today's temperature rise could accelerate into a devastating climate lurch. Continuing to fiddle with the global thermostat, says Philander, "is just not a wise thing to do."

Get the whole story in the pages of National Geographic magazine.

[Leon m]

Grim Signs Mark Global Warming
By Stephen Leahy
Wired.com

Wednesday 10 November 2004

Global warming has disrupted the lives of dozens of types of animals, birds and insects in the United States and will soon make the Arctic nearly unrecognizable, according to two reports released this week.

The reports document sweeping "you-can-see-them-with-your-own-eyes" ecological changes underway and offer dire predictions of massive species extinctions, an elevation of sea level by 3 feet and widespread disruptions to Earth's life-support systems.

These dramatic changes should be a wake-up call to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and bolster efforts to conserve American wildlife and natural habitat, said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that commissioned the Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U.S. report.

"Continued climate change could drastically alter the U.S. natural landscape," said Claussen.

Half of the approximately 150 wild plants, animals and insects scientists examined have been affected by global warming. "This is a surprisingly high number," said report co-author Camille Parmesan of the University of Texas at Austin.

It's the first look at climate change's impact on U.S. wildlife, and the report shows that global warming is "changing life in your own backyard," said Parmesan.

Global warming is blamed for the 1-degree Fahrenheit temperature increase in the United States over the past 100 years. This warming is uneven, however: Alaska has warmed 4 to 7 degrees in just the past 50 years.

Many wild plants and animals are going extinct in the southern edges of their ranges, but doing better at the northern edge, said Parmesan. Edith's checkerspot butterfly, for example, is in sharp decline near the Mexico-California border where it has become too warm and dry. But its numbers are expanding in British Columbia, which used to be too cold for the butterfly.

In a similar fashion, the red fox is heading north and can now be found in Arctic regions where winters have become less severe. That's bad news for the cold-hardy arctic fox, because it can't compete with its larger, more aggressive cousin.

Meanwhile, tropical species are moving into Florida and the Gulf Coast. "People are seeing many, many new species coming up from Mexico and the Caribbean," Parmesan said.

Similar changes are happening to wildlife the world over, said Parmesan, who published a study on global warming's impact on 1,500 species globally in 2003.

"Small levels of climate change have (already) had strong impacts on the natural world," she said.

But it could get much worse. As much as a third of all species will be extinct by 2050 by some estimates, said report co-author Hector Galbraith of Galbraith Environmental Sciences and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Galbraith said he also worries that entire ecosystems are being affected, which could disrupt soil creation, plant pollination and the natural cleaning of water and air. "Climate change has the potential to affect all those benefits that we get for free."

The damage is most evident in the Arctic regions, according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, an unprecedented four-year scientific investigation.

Polar bears, walruses and some seals are on their way to extinction, warns the report, which was released Monday at an international science meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland. Summer sea ice may disappear entirely and, combined with a rapidly melting Greenland ice sheet, will likely help raise the world's sea levels 3 feet by 2100, swamping homes from Florida to Bangladesh.

Average winter temperatures in Alaska and the rest of the Arctic are projected to rise an additional 7 to 13 degrees over the next 100 years because of increasing emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities, said the report.

The assessment was commissioned by the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental body involving eight nations - Canada, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Russia and the United States - and six indigenous peoples' organizations.

The area is warming twice as fast as anywhere else because of global air circulation patterns and natural feedback loops, such as less ice reflecting sunlight, leading to increased warming at ground level and more ice melt. Native peoples' ways of life are being threatened as well. Animal migration patterns have changed, and the thin sea ice and thawing tundra make it too dangerous for humans to hunt and travel.

The Arctic Council wanted the scientific study and policy recommendations to be released at this week's meeting in Reykjavik, but the latter has been delayed until Nov. 24, said Susan Joy Hassol, author of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report. Although unwilling to explain the reason for the delay, Hassol said that seven of the eight Arctic nations had agreed to the recommendations some time ago.

When asked about the Arctic climate policy report, Claussen said the U.S. government does not want to see strong policy recommendations. "They prefer to stick with their own policies," she said, and she doesn't expect any major changes in the Bush administration's policies on global warming.

[Leon m]

Europe?s natural ecosystems are generally fragmented and disturbed, making them very sensitive to climate change. Most of Europe experienced temperature increases this century that are larger than the global average, and precipitation generally increased in the north but decreased in the south. The warming is clearly noticeable in mountain regions by the widespread retreat of glaciers in the Alps. Plant and animal species are also apparently responding to the changes by shifting their ranges northward and by changing the timing of their activities to coincide with an earlier spring. The fragmented nature of the European landscape, however, may make it difficult for less adaptive species to respond to continued climatic warming.

For Europe (and North America) we have many more hotspots than for some other regions of the world, although impact studies have been emerging in larger numbers in recent years from previously under-studied regions. This higher density of early warning signs in Europe is due in part to the fact that these regions have more readily accessible climatic data and more comprehensive programs to monitor and study environmental change, in part to the disproportionate warming that has been observed over the mid-to-high-latitude continents compared to other regions during the last century, and in part to emphasize the importance of the industrialized countries of Europe taking strong action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Fingerprints
6. Central England -- Cold days declining, hot days increasing, 1772 to present. 1995 brought 26 days above 68?F (20?C) versus an average of 4 days per year since 1772.

60. Caucasus Mountains, Russia -- Half of all glacial ice disappeared in the past 100 years.

63. Austria -- Record glacial retreat. Emergence of a frozen Stone Age mummy from a melting glacier in the Oetztal Alps indicates that glacial ice is more reduced today than at any time during the past 5,000 years.

66. Spain -- Half of glaciers present in 1980 are gone.

97. Southeast Europe and Middle East - Widespread heat wave, July-August 2000. Temperatures reached as high as 111?F (43.8?C) in locations across Turkey, Greece, Romania, Italy, and Bulgaria. In Bulgaria, 100-year records for daily maximum temperature were broken at more than 75% of the observing stations on July 5th. For Armenia, 2000 was the hottest summer of the century. Jordan reported the longest stretch of summer heat in its 77-year record. Continental Europe warmed 1.4?F (0.8?C) during the past century, with the last decade being the warmest on record.

98. Denmark and Germany - 2001 - Warmest October on record. In Germany temperatures were as much as 7?F (4?C) above average. The record-breaking temperatures occurred in the context of a warming trend of 1.4?F (0.8?C) over continental Europe during the past century.

99. Central England - 2001 - Warmest October on record. Over the 20th century Central England temperature has warmed by about 1?F (0.5?C). Four of the five warmest years on the 343-year record occurred in the last decade.

137. Greenland - Rapid thinning of ice sheet. Rapid thinning of the Greenland ice sheet in coastal areas, especially of outlet glaciers, has been measured in two studies during the 1990s. The coastal land ice loss is attributed to a combination of warming-driven factors, including increased melting during warmer summers, high snow accumulation rates feeding the outlet glaciers, and increased rates of melting at the bottom of glaciers due to ocean warming.

138. Arctic Ocean - Decreasing ice thickness. Ice thickness at 29 stations, as measured by submarine sonar, decreased by an average of more than 4 feet (1.2 m) compared to 20 to 40 years ago, representing a 40% reduction in ice volume. From 1966 to 1995, annual temperatures in the Arctic increased by as much as 1.8?F (1?C) per decade, and spring temperatures increased by as much as 3.6?F (2?C) per decade. Temperature reconstructions from tree rings, ice cores, and other long-term records indicate that the 20th century was the warmest century in the Arctic since 1600.

139. Arctic Ocean - Decreasing ice cover. Satellite measurements indicate the area of perennial ice cover has decreased by about 7% per decade since 1978.

Harbingers
20. United Kingdom -- Toads, frogs, and newts spawning early. Spawning was 9 to 10 days earlier over a 17-year period.

21. United Kingdom -- Birds laying eggs early. From 1971 to 1995, 31 percent of 65 bird species studied in England showed significant trends towards earlier egg laying, moving up the date by an average of 8.8 days.

22. Southern England -- Early leafing of oak trees. The four earliest leafing dates occurred in the past decade, a response to increasing temperatures during January to March over the past 41 years.

27. Austria -- Alpine plants retreat up mountains. Over a 70 to 90 year period, alpine plants in the Austrian and Swiss Alps moved higher up on mountain slopes in response to an increase in average annual temperature.

29. Europe -- Butterfly ranges shift northward. 22 of 35 butterfly species studied have shifted their ranges northwards by 22 to 150 miles (35-241 km), consistent with a 1.4?F (0.78?C) warming over the past century.

30. Germany -- Mollusc range shift. 20% of 40 mollusc species in a national park have changed their distribution in response to warming.

37. United Kingdom -- Birds shift northward. Over a 20-year period, many birds have extended the northern margins of their ranges by an average of about 12 miles (19 km).

83. Mediterranean -- Intense drought and fires. Spain lost more than 1.2 million acres (485,622 hectares) of forest to wildfires in 1994, and 370,000 acres (149,734 hectares) burned in each of Greece and Italy in 1998.

104. Tornionjoki River, Finland - Earlier ice break-up. Spring ice breakup now comes about 7 days earlier compared to a century ago. Thirty-eight of 39 records of ice cover from throughout the Northern Hemisphere show a trend toward earlier spring ice breakup and later winter freezing between 1846 and 1995. This shift corresponds with surface air temperature measurements showing the largest rates of warming since 1976 over the mid- and high latitude continental regions of the Northern Hemisphere.

106. The Netherlands - Earlier flight peak of moths. Between 1975 and 1996 the flight peak of small moths shifted to a date 11.6 days earlier. Warmer temperatures promote the earlier appearance of insects and earlier peak flight times.

107. Hungary - Earlier flowering dates. Flowering dates of the locust tree occurred 3-8 days earlier during the period 1983-1994 compared to 1851-1930. The study indicates that a rise in temperature of 1.8?F (1?C) causes an advanced flowering by 7 days.

108. Europe - Change in timing of spring and autumn events. A study of European plants from 1959 to 1993 shows that spring events (such as flowering) have advanced by about 6 days and autumn events (such as leaf coloring) have been delayed by about 5 days. The plant response occurred during a period of a warming. Annual average temperature over continental Europe has increased 1.4?F over the past century.

111. Europe - Earlier growing season. A study of the timing of leaf unfolding for four tree species shows that from 1969 to 1998 the beginning of the growing season has advanced by 8 days. The earlier leaf unfolding corresponds with increasing early spring temperatures over the last 30 years. The greatest warming occurred in Portugal, where average air temperatures in early spring (February to March) increased by nearly 1.1?F (0.6?C) per decade, and the beginning of the growing season has advanced by about 14 days since 1969.

112. Turku, Finland - Longer growing season. The growing season has lengthened by over 10 days over the last century. Throughout the Nordic region the start of the growing season has become progressively earlier by between 4 and 12 days.

113. England - Earlier first flowering date. One of the most comprehensive studies of plant species in Britain revealed that the average first flowering date of 385 British plant species has advanced by 4.5 days during the past decade compared with the previous four decades: 16% of species flowered significantly earlier in the 1990s than previously, with an average advancement of 15 days in a decade. These data reveal the strongest biological signal yet of climatic change. Flowering is especially sensitive to the temperature in the previous month, and spring-flowering species are most responsive.

118. United Kingdom - British birds extend their ranges northward. A comparison of the breeding distributions of birds for two time periods, 1968-72 and 1988-91, showed that the northern margins for many species had moved northwards by an average of about 12 miles (19 km). The range shift occurred during a period when central England?s temperature warmed by about 0.9?F (0.5?C) over the last century, and the 10-year period 1988-1997 was the warmest such period in the record.

144. Southeastern Norway - Wettest year on record, 2000. The year 2000 was the wettest year since records began in 1895. Precipitation in northern Europe has increased 10-40% in the last century.

152. Samos Island, Greece - Fires, July 2000 Fires due to dry conditions and record-breaking heat consumed one-fifth of the island. Temperatures reached up to 104?F (40?C) in some areas. Averaged over the continent, Europe has warmed 1.4?F (0.8?C) during the past century.

[Leon m]

And I got plenty more where that came from...Time to own up people.

[Crusoe]

CO2 as a greenhouse gas is actually a bit of a lightweight. It's cyclical nature is the thing that makes it so attractive to the sceptics.

Other emissions have much higher Global Warming Potentials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential).

Human activity doesn't affect the environment?

By 2020 atmospheric Methane is projected to increase by up to 26% just from the extra 350 million tons of rice that will need to be grown to feed the increasing global population.

As ice fields retreat Methane is released from previously frozen wetlands. Don't even think about the emissions generated by Ronald McDonalds activities, or landfills.

Edited to add: AND US (http://www.mrmethane.com/)

[ 07-11-2005, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Crusoe ]

[Dan McCosh]

Currently, the only way to get CO2 out of the air is photosynthesis. This is a common misaprehension. The largest CO2 sink is the gas dissolved in ocean water. This in turn can either be re-released to the atmosphere, or percipitate in a variety of insoluble chemicals, such as calcium carbonate, etc. The second largest source of CO2 in the atmosphere is respiration from organic life. Human-made sources are one the smallest sources--between 1-3% of the annual output.

Might also point out the methane is produced when virtually anything dies. Manmade sources are a tiny fraction of this total.

Last--the primary greenhouse gas that hold the heat in the atmosphere is water vapor. The rest are tiny percentages. The concept of CO2 increasing the heat retained in the atmosphere is based on a very small percentage change destabilizing the system. For whatever reasons, the non-manmade constitutents tend to be ignored in many discussions. I suspect one reason is that it is difficult to think in terms of a change of 0.015 percentage points destabililzing the system.

[Crusoe]

Last time I was in a math class 26% was not a tiny fraction. 1/4ish in fact. tongue.gif

[ljb5]

Dan, I addressed all of those issues above.

Man-made causes are studied for two reasons. First, they are the causes that we are able to change. Second, they are new.

For hundreds of thousands of years, all of the natural effects co-existed in what could be called a 'natural cycle.'

In the last 200 years, all of those natural processes have continued and the man-made causes have been added on top.

We do not ignore the natural processes. We recognize that they existed in balance. We concentrate on the man-made processes because they are relatively new.

[Dan McCosh]

Last time I was in a math class 26% was not a tiny fraction. 1/4ish in fact That's a good reason to question the "study". The numbers look extremely suspect. Without looking at it, I would guess it is projecting an increase in the methane produced by some kinds of agriculture--not an increase in the percentage in the atmosphere. That would take much more than rice farming. Methane is unstable to begin with, and decomposes rapidly in sunlight, which is why it doesn't build up in the atmosphere. Almost all the soil in the world is producing quite a bit every day, not to mention the wastes from all the animals on the planet, etc. etc.

[John E Hardiman]

Man is an insignificat little ant on the planet. Always has been, always will be. We need not to let our overvalued ego of our might influence fact.


The Record of Climate Change in the Recent Past

Paleoclimate data show that the Earth's climate began to slowly cool at the end of the Eocene Stage, about 40 million years ago. The Eocene was unusually warm, with hippopatamus living in England and alligators living north of the arctic circle. By about 5 million years ago, cooling began to accelerate, leading to the modern Ice Age beginning at about 2 million years ago.

The oxygen isotope record shows climate for the past 1.6 million years fluctuating between relatively cold glacial periods, when ice sheets grow, and warm interglacial periods, when ice sheets shrink. Although only four glaciations are evident from the record of moraines and glacial features preserved in the landscape, the oxygen isotope record shows more than 60 episodes of glacial advance over the last 2 million years.

At first, glacial and interglacial periods appear to have been of equal duration, each lasting about 50,000 years, with only a moderate difference between warm and cold climate states. This changed about 1 million years ago when glacial episodes became fewer and longer (about 100,000 years) with much shorter interglacial warm periods. Also, the contrast between glacial and interglacial periods became more intense, with larger growth of ice sheets followed by more extensive melting during interglacials.

The most recent glacial episode (called the Wisconson Glaciation in North America and the Wurm Glaciation in Europe) began about 115,000 years ago. From a climate very similar to that of today, perhaps slightly warmer, temperatures declined by 21,000 years ago to an average of 12F to 18F cooler. High latitude temperatures were at least 27F cooler and huge ice sheets covered northern North America, western Europe, the British Isles, and ice caps covered most mountain ranges. Albany, New York was buried beneath more than a mile of ice in a sheet that extended south to the center of Long Island. At about 17,000 to 18,000 years ago the Laurentide Ice Sheet reached its maximum southern extent in North America and began depositing the terminal moraines of Long Island.

Although it took tens of thousands of years for the great ice sheets of the Wisconson Glaciation to form, they melted away in only a few thousand years. The retreat of the ice sheet from the center of Long Island northward can be followed in a series of recessional moraines developed throughout New York State and Canada.

A brief warm period, the Allerod, at 11,500 bp was followed by a short glacial readvance, the Younger Dryas, which ended abruptly with rapid warming around 10,000 years bp. By 10,000 years bp the ice had retreated into northern Canada. By 8000 years bp North America was relatively ice free.

For the last 9,000 years of the modern interglacial climate has been relatively stable, with fluctuations in average temperature of less than 6F. There have been four cycles of high to low temperature, with the lows referred to as little ice ages and the highs called little climatic optima. The most recent, the Little Ice Age, lasted from about 1450 to 1850 AD. Prior to The Little Ice Age warm temperatures had allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland (which actually was green, at least in areas along the coast) and Iceland, growing crops in both places. Following 1200, the cooling climate forced colonies in Greenland to be abandoned and wheat growing in Iceland had to be given up in favor of sheep farming. Similarly, in England growing grain became impossible above 600 ft elevation and severe winters forced the river Thames to freeze more than 2 dozen times (it has not frozen again since 1815). In the Alps, glaciers advanced far down their valleys - as evidenced by moraine deposits and paintings from that period. The high mountains of Ethiopia were blanketed in snow.

The current trend of climate change

If the cycles of the last 10,000 years continue we can expect, on average for a little ice age to occur every 2000-3000 years. If the cycles are symmetrical (meaning you spend half the time going into one and half the time coming out of one) then we should expect global temperatures to climb for 1000 to 1500 years following the middle of the last little ice age. So, global climate should warm slowly at least until the year 2600, although it probably wonât do so steadily and smoothly.More at http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/j_b_bennin gton/33notes/ice_ages.html (http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/j_b_bennington/33notes/ice_ages.html) or another thousand papers/lectures I could look-up in any good geology-climitology bibliography.

[Dan McCosh]

Ljb5--

The explanation for CO2/global warming includes the observation that CO2 from fossil fuel burning exceeds the amount being measured in the atmosphere by a factor of about two. About half is ending up in the atmosphere--the rest is ending up in the so-called "sinks". From this, it would appear that prior to the burning of fossil fuel, the "sinks" were taking out CO2 faster than it would have been generated--causing a long-term decline from some high point in the past.

Another explanation would be that the CO2 was in equilibrium, then destablized by the addition of CO2 due to fossil-fuel-burning. In this case, one would expect a new equilibrium to be reached at a somewhat higher level.

Re: the study of manmade CO2. Obviously, it's the effect of the relatively recent burning of fossil fuel that is the focus of much study. Regardless, the lack of reasonably accurate information in most of the reports on the subject always seems a little odd to me. Also the lack of perspective. There are still people who think driving an SUV or not is a significant act. As I have pointed out before, to stabilize the CO2 in the atmosphere would require ending all driving, and all home heating and air conditioning. At least that's what the numbers indicate what it would take to cut the current consumption in half.

[Crusoe]

Strangely enough, the biomass of the ants in the Brazilian rainforests alone, is greater than all terrestrial veretebrates.

[Dan McCosh]

Re: humans and ants. The total mass of insects on earth is about four times the mass of all humans.

[John E Hardiman]

Originally posted by Crusoe:
Strangely enough, the biomass of the ants in the Brazilian rainforests alone, is greater than all terrestrial veretebrates.It's the Brazilian ants!!!! And thier oxygen guzzling friends the zooplankton!!!! And all those radioisotopes hiding underground!!!! The government should do something!!!!

;)

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
Another explanation would be that the CO2 was in equilibrium, then destablized by the addition of CO2 due to fossil-fuel-burning. In this case, one would expect a new equilibrium to be reached at a somewhat higher level.Yup, that's the point exactly.

Although I'm not sured I'd characterize the new condition as 'equilibrium.'

It could take a very, very long time for the system to settled down to equilibrium. It might go through a long period of violent fluctuations first.

When it does reach equilibrium, I'm not sure you or I will be around, or would like to be around.

What if global temps were to go up 10 degrees, all terrestial ice melted, the stable ocean currents disappeared and the American midwest turned to a desert while the oceans were consumed by massive algea blooms which killed all the larger fish and mammals....

...would you sit back and say, "Ah, let's enjoy the new equilibrium!"?

The point isn't that we will acheive "a new equilibrium at a somewhat higher level," it's that we really, really like this equilibrium at this level and we should try to avoid changing it.

Remeber, the last ice age was only 11,000 years ago and only about 4 degrees different than today. It's not a question of how much the earth might change... it's a question of how little change we are able to tolerate.

[ 07-11-2005, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[Meerkat]

Don't forget hysteresis! :eek:

[ 07-11-2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

[Crusoe]

John,

Krill outweigh humans by up to 5x.
As do Termites and Squid.

But it's those brazilian ants! 4x the biomass of ALL terrestrial vertibrates. (Holldobler & Wilson 1990, sorry Dan ya got it wrong tongue.gif )

Something does need to be done, if each of us sends George. a can of ant spray we may make a dent :D

[ljb5]

Ants don't drive SUVs.

Although our physical bodies may be small, the effect we have on the environment is much larger, in proportion.

Some people say we are insignificant. How right they are. They may be amazed to find out how fragile we are. When we go extinct, we'll see how truly insignificant we are.

[Meerkat]

Do I recall correctly that termites are responsible for most of the O2 production?

Do NOT piss off the termites! :D

[Dan McCosh]

It would seem, as it took 200 years to go up one degree, that it would take 2000 years to go up the ten degrees noted. In fact, I've only seen the crudist extrapolations of past trends to make such predictions. Adding one percent or so to the total annual output of CO2 would seem to be something that would reach equilibrium at a far lower level.

[Dan McCosh]

It would seem, as it took 200 years to go up one degree, that it would take 2000 years to go up the ten degrees noted. In fact, I've only seen the crudist extrapolations of past trends to make such predictions. Adding one percent or so to the total annual output of CO2 would seem to be something that would reach equilibrium at a far lower level.

[ljb5]

"It would seem"?

Care to show your work on that?

First, as Del has noted, an increase in global temperatures gives rise to increased water vapour and CO2 levels, which are greenhouse gases.

Therefore, a rise in temperature actually accelerates the rise in temperature.

Second, our CO2 production is going up on a yearly basis. The industrial revolution started 200 years ago, but it's really been cooking in the last fifty years.

Third, I'm not sure we can tolerate a ten degree rise. Four degrees might hurt real bad.

[John E Hardiman]

Originally posted by ljb5:
Some people say we are insignificant. How right they are. They may be amazed to find out how fragile we are. When we go extinct, we'll see how truly insignificant we are.ljb5, you, and I, and all the rest of us are doomed to die. You must come to grips with this fact. It has been that way since our parents decided, without our input, to commit us to this implacable fate. Since they decided to throw us, naked and doomed to death, into this harsh, unfair, and constantly changing world. And all the hand wringing and cries of outrage are not going to change the inexoriable death decreed upon us. The universe changes and we have very little effect on it. It spits us out and swallows us up again without breaking stride, oblivious to our petty arguments or weepings.

To try to change the course of the universal omniscient juggernaut of natural change when one is only armed with the porous screen of human knowledge and the frail sword of human spirit, may be meritorious in some minds, but doomed to, if not failure, but then the unintended negative consequence to future generations of humans. Of course, one who posesses any spark of life must do something , but even that, good or bad, has a plethora of unintended effects.

In the final analysis, everything we touch changes the future to some degree, and luckly, for most people, we are just a gentle ripple on the boundary of good and ill. The question is not the insignificant amount that we change the future of the universe, but how we, as individuals, wish to see ourselves as we make those changes. You see a dying planet that needs a crusader to salve your feelings...I see a bright new world full of new adventure and goals for my sons.

Everyone must answer their own question...

Ad astra or Ad umbilicus?

(edit...typo)

[ 07-11-2005, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: John E Hardiman ]

[L.W. Baxter]

John E Hardiman: Funny, tragic, true. Well said.

[ljb5]

Rage, rage against the dying of the light!

I know we will all die, I just don't see any reason to make it happen any sooner or any worse than it need be.

[High C]

Way to go, John.

[Dan McCosh]

Although in a previous post, I asked for the data, it doesn't seem logical that there has been a huge increase in CO2 production in the last 50 years. Per capita consumption would have declined, offset by an increase in population. Industrial production is much more efficient. Aircraft would be worse. The shift in population to the south and southwest is likely a wash--more AC, less heat. The shift from coal to oil and gas would be a significant improvement. The large increases in population have been in low-consuming areas, until China begins to change things.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
it doesn't seem logical that there has been a huge increase in CO2 production in the last 50 years.What brand of logic are you smoking?

More people, more cars, larger houses, more consumer products, more miles driven, longer commutes, longer traffic jams....

How could it not add up to more CO2?

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp030/graphics/glo94cl.gif

Does a 300% increase from 1950 to 1992 count as 'huge'?

[ 07-11-2005, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[htom]

Per captia energy consumption has declined?!

Year . population . energy consumption (quadrillion BTU, "quads") (USA)

1960 . 151oooooo . 45.12 --> 0.298 quad/million
2000 . 281oooooo . 96.34 --> 0.342 quad/million

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
it doesn't seem logical that there has been a huge increase in CO2 production in the last 50 years.This gets my vote for the dumbest thing ever said on this forum.

[Leon m]

Originally posted by John E Hardiman:
I see a bright new world full of new adventure and goals for my sons.

But you are playing Russian Roulette with your grandsons...Sooooo irresponsible ...Tisk Tisk.

[John E Hardiman]

Originally posted by Leon m:
But you are playing Russian Roulette with your grandsons...Sooooo irresponsible ...Tisk Tisk.I am making no decision at all about playing with my grandsons. They will either be here or not. Not my decision.

Would you, as a parent, bring your children into the world knowing that they are going to die? And how do you justify that? And how do you know that the world will be a worse place?

It seems that you, Leon, have chosen Ad umbilicus.

[Ross M]

"This gets my vote for the dumbest thing ever said on this forum."

Oh, the irony!

[High C]

Originally posted by Ross M:
"This gets my vote for the dumbest thing ever said on this forum."

Oh, the irony!:D

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Ross M:
"This gets my vote for the dumbest thing ever said on this forum."

Oh, the irony!You still have your panties in a twist about that Afghan election?

I'll say this: the results of that election were much less clear than whether or not there has been an increase in CO2 production in the last fifty years.

[Leon m]

Originally posted by John E Hardiman:
I am making no decision at all about playing with my grandsons. They will either be here or not. Not my decision.

.It may not be your dicision , but it is your RESPONSIBILITY to leave this planet in as good as or better condition than you found it...kinda like when you borrow a nieghbors tool...after all we are only borrowing this planet from our grandchildren.

Furthermore I am not a pessimist...I'm just paying attention. ;)

[High C]

Originally posted by Leon m:
...I am not a pessimist...http://www.whatihaveread.net/i/1059.jpg

[Meerkat]

Meanwhile, the hurricanes keep on coming. tongue.gif

[High C]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
Meanwhile, the hurricanes keep on coming. tongue.gif They always have...

[Ross M]

"I'll say this: the results of that election were much less clear than..."

Unclear results, indeed. How then was a declarative statement of failure in order?

I take solace that you are probably not a Range Safety Officer over at Canaveral!

[John of Phoenix]

Leon, you should try some of that faith-based reality for a while. It’s far less worrisome and the research is so much easier.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Ross M:
Unclear results, indeed. How then was a declarative statement of failure in order?Okay Ross....

But at least I had a handful of news reports to back me up on that.

How could Dan possibly say anything so stupid as, "it doesn't seem logical that there has been a huge increase in CO2 production in the last 50 years."?

There isn't a news report in the world that would back him up. It violates every rule of common sense and it was disproven by two of us with less than twenty seconds on Google.

Whatever mistake you attribute to me, it's nowhere near as dumb as Dan's.

I hope he returns to explain himself.

[George Roberts]

World oil consumption is about 5qt/person/day. Sounds a bit different than 185 million barrels/day.

The earth's mass is 5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. Makes oil consumption look very small.

All numbers related to people are huge.

[brad9798]

I'm evil to be sure ...

but I am not truly losing sleep over 10 generations from now!

[brad9798]

Think about the new quantam computers in develope ... a BILLION times more powerful than the transistor BS out there today ... these new computers will use light beams to functions ...

Do you really think humans will be running the world in 200 years? Self-awareness is only a matter of time and technology in our computers of the future.

Sounds crazy ... but so did 20 GB of memory 15 years ago ...

[Leon m]

Originally posted by brad9798:
I'm evil to be sure ...

but I am not truly losing sleep over 10 generations from now!I'm not losing sleep either, I just care .
One might say I have the ability to think outside my wallet.

[John E Hardiman]

Originally posted by Leon m:
…it is your RESPONSIBILITY ( for your children ) to leave this planet in as good as or better condition than you found it….It is not my responsibility, in fact it is an impossibility (Third law and all that). Indeed, if one espouses your position, one should see to it that he does his utmost to exterminate all other men, women, and children in the world, expect for 20 or so other breeding pairs (sound familiar…say circa 1937) so the maximum amount of natural resources is conserved. And what do I do about their population growth? Do I forcefully manage that…like some overused STARTREK plot?

Setting aside your ill-conceived premise, I cannot stop the sun from cooling, or the radioactivity of the core, or save all the photons that strike the earth, or stop the oil in the ground from forming rock (like…what do you think happens if you leave it there). There will be less available energy available to my children than there was to me, regardless of what I do, even if I never use another gallon of oil (and that includes anything I buy). Most economists discount E.F. Shumacher now, his theories do not pass the reasonableness test.

My responsibility only extends to ensure that I raise mature, responsible, children, for me to teach them to respect the obligations to our responsibilities to others that respect our rights. What they do is their responsibility. Every other animal in this world is either food, a pet, or a pest. And I have no illusion on which list I come down on for certain other people or species. Or them on mine.

To paraphrase Robert Heinlein:


A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. To this add plant a tree, build a boat, raise a child Specialization is for insects.To me a human that sits in this controlled environment and bemoans the changes in the natural world is like any number of species that couldn’t adapt to a new environment and became extinct. Man, rats, and cockroaches didn’t end up on top of the heap because they are frozen in their environment. They adapt to change.

My grandchildren, if my sons decide to have any, will do fine. They will have my genes…which is the only thing I hold in trust for the future….and they will do just fine like I did with what was passed on to me.

[Leon m]

Originally posted by John Teetsel:
Leon, you should try some of that faith-based reality for a while. It’s far less worrisome and the research is so much easier."Faith based reality" LMAO

[ljb5]

Gosh, you fatalists are soooo unimaginative.

We're all going to die, so let's do nothing.

Don't bother to fight terrorism, we're all going to die.

Don't bother to promote freedom, we're all going to die....

[Crusoe]

http://www.phschool.com/science/planetdiary/jpeg03/methane.gif

And then we have the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_thermal_maximum)

[Leon m]

Originally posted by John E Hardiman:
Indeed, if one espouses your position, one should see to it that he does his utmost to exterminate all other men, women, and children in the world, expect for 20 or so other breeding pairs (sound familiar…say circa 1937) so the maximum amount of natural resources is conserved.

Setting aside your ill-conceived premise, .
Oh come on now :rolleyes: That Rush Linbaugh extreemist stuff don't wash with me...its old hat.

Sorry if my asking to exercise some caution threatens your cozy lifstyle ,but Im really not asking that people convert to the Amish way here.
I'm simply saying ...hey lets try some new technology that might benifit the environment ...and I'll just bet we can create some new jobs in the proccess.

But its ok, I understand the rightwing agenda I know where your coming from...Squeeze that lemon
for all she's worth... ;)

[brad9798]

Leon M- How presumptuous of you ...

What does my wallet have to do with anything I've said ... other than your perverted interpretation, based on less fact than ANY global warming issue, of what you think I am.

Remember ... don't ASSume ...

Kind of a sloppy post, at best, in response to my completely honest statement.

[brad9798]

Leon- What are you DOING to save the planet ... seriously!

:cool:

Not necessarily directed at you, Leon- But I get tired of the half-assed preachers around here ...

Unless you are driving a 50mpg hybrid, use solar, have a sistern, do NOT own a powerboat, use only the old-fashioned push mowers, etc., etc. folks don't need to preach to me about how much that give a sh!t about global warming/saving the planet.

Half-assed effort is no better, in principle, than just carrying on status quo.

Like the vegetarian I know that can't stand killing animals for food ... yet he wears a leather belt and shoes! :rolleyes:

[ 07-11-2005, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: brad9798 ]

[John E Hardiman]

Originally posted by Leon m:
[QBOh come on now :rolleyes: That Rush Linbaugh extreemist stuff don't wash with me...its old hat.[/QB]LOL... :D
Funny, I'm a Democrat...I thought you were the neocon...you know, willing people to believe something they don't think is true rather than taking a reasoned approach through good arguments.

Anyway, how else am I supposed to stop those who won't or can't pay to convert to the "new lifestyle". I'm sure you'll have methods that fit into your "rightwing agenda".

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meerkat:
Meanwhile, the hurricanes keep on coming. tongue.gif They always have...</font>[/QUOTE]You must be a lot older than you act to know this... tongue.gif

[Memphis Mike]

Got me a hundred. tongue.gif

[ 07-11-2005, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Memphis Mike ]

[Leon m]

brad9798
.
Member # 1807

posted 07-11-2005 09:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leon- What are you DOING to save the planet ... seriously

Sail boat instead of motor boat

I grow organic

Talked the Boss into trading in my Dodge Ram for
a Toyota Tacoma.

I plant lots of trees

I conserve energy and water

I donate to Nature Conservancy

and I vote with my wallet every chance I get

and other stuff that seems appropriate

See, nothing too radical ...I'm not a tree hugging,granola eater ,I just try to respect the planet, plain and simple.

[ 07-11-2005, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Leon m ]

[Leon m]

Originally posted by John E Hardiman:
[ :D
Funny, I'm a Democrat...".That is funny ! :D

I'm neither a democrat or a republican...I'm open minded. ;) tongue.gif :D

[John E Hardiman]

HOLD IT!...HOLD IT!...HOLD IT!.....

Leonnnnnnnn.......


Originally posted by Leon m:
See, nothing too radical ...I'm not a tree hugging,granola eater ,I just try to respect the planet, plain and simple.
Then why did you start this topic the way you did?! To draw a conclusion from another news topic....running buck-nakid in front of a Formula 1 car does not reflect well upon yourself or the agenda you espouse. You just look like a crackpot. And so ditto for what ever ideas you are trying to put over.

You cannot convert the world, focus on those around you and let the six degres of seperation work for you. You don't need to troll bait.

[Leon m]

HOLD IT YERSELF MISTER MAN ! tongue.gif

I wasn't trolling I have a seriuos concern about the environment.I think people need to wake up here.I think if we all made simple adjustments as I discribed(as I do), and we let our government know that we want serious energy alternatives it would make a huge difference in the future of this planet.Its really that simple but people keep making it complicated so they can drag their feet, and keep suckling the breast of fossil fuel money.

[Leon m]

Originally posted by John E Hardiman:
[
You cannot convert the world, focus on those around you .Your around me... :D

[Meerkat]

And both of you are probably rounder than me! tongue.gif :D

[Leon m]

6" 185lbs of solid muscle baby. smile.gif

[Donn]

Originally posted by Leon m:
6" 185lbs of solid muscle baby. smile.gif A bit stubby, no?

[Leon m]

Originally posted by Donn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leon m:
6" 185lbs of solid muscle baby. smile.gif A bit stubby, no?</font>[/QUOTE]Oh no ...Tall and lean,and I look real good in a wetsuit. ;)

[Leon m]

OOps I ment 6'. redface.gif hee hee.When your this good looking you can afford those kinda mistakes . :D tongue.gif

[ 07-12-2005, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Leon m ]

[Dan McCosh]

The chart that shows the rapid increase in the production of something called solid and liquid carbon was introduced to show how the man-made introduction of CO2 in the atmosphere dramatically increased since in the past 50 years. I'm particularly interested in the liquid carbon, as I'm unaware that carbon exists in liquid form. Obviously there is something wrong with either the labels or the premise of the chart, which seems pretty suspect me. Likewise the next chart showing the US consumption of energy, which doesn't relate to the world per-capita consumption. I realize this is detail stuff, and I could well be wrong about the general trend in man-=made CO2 release spiking suddenly in the mid-20th century. The data introduced here, however, hardly refutes the notion, instead it introduces more confusion.

[Leon m]

Forget about the charts man! Burning all this fossil fuel aint natural,and we are cutting down too many trees,and we are getting over populated.
Its out of balance. have less kids, drive efficiant cars, plant more trees...oh...and eat more granola.Its that simple...have a nice day! smile.gif

[brad9798]

"Sail boat instead of motor boat

I grow organic

Talked the Boss into trading in my Dodge Ram for
a Toyota Tacoma.

I plant lots of trees
I conserve energy and water

I donate to Nature Conservancy

and I vote with my wallet every chance I get
and other stuff that seems appropriate
See, nothing too radical ...I'm not a tree hugging,granola eater ,I just try to respect the planet, plain and simple."

Other than I have power boats ... we are pretty similar then!!

I am glad you are not a tree hugger!

smile.gif

[Crusoe]

Instead of concentrating on one particular issue, would any of the sceptics care to speculate on the cumulative affects of a continued degradation of the ecosystem.
Particularly with regard to the ongoing rapid industrialisation of China, India, Afica and the SAFTA & NAFTA countries, with little or no environmental or work place regulation.

Or maybe you would suggest we all just increase our dosage of Soma.
Oh yeah, it's kicking in now.. smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif

[Dan McCosh]

FWIW--First Google hit says that energy consumption per capita has been declining for the past 15 years, worldwide: web page (http://http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/variable-351.html)
Doesn't get back to 1950s, but its reasonable to assume that the trend predates 1990.

[Dan McCosh]

I don't think being skeptical about CO2-related global warming has much to do with a broader agenda of enviromental concerns. In my opinion, it is an issue that has successfully diverted attention from more significant issues, and opened the door for blanket rejection of policies that may be more important. GW already has become a part of the effort to dramatically increase the amount of nuclear energy--with no way in sight to deal with the waste products. Unregulated (environmentally) growth in China, India, etc., is a serious issue. It is taking place with a mix of modern, emission-controlled industry, offset by other industrial relics. The rapid proliferation of autos aleady has choked most asian cities. Sheer population growth is another--and it ought to be controlled.
The technology is available to cut most industrial pollutants by 95% or so--adoption of this on a world basis would do much to offset some environmental issues. The US itself still subsidizes and supports its own industrial relics, particularly in oil and steel production. I guess one issue I have is that of all the man-made sustances being dumped into the environment, CO2 is among the most harmless. It's not at all clear to me why it get the bulk of the attention.

[Del Lansing]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Hansen, whose 1988 pronouncements started the clamor for action to prevent global warming, wrote in the 1998 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that 'the forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with accuracy sufficient to define future climate change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if we've learned anything in 17 years?
Read that again Hansen stated in 1998 "the forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with accuracy sufficient to define future climate change"

He has adjusted his original forcing factor from 1, to .75, now to .45. So the originator of the computer model that sparked the CO2/temperature debate is adjusting his estimates downward. So I guess Hansen has learned something in 17 years.

The temperature/CO2 charts I've posted show a peak historic Antarctic CO2 at 295 ppm, and a peak temperature of 3 degrees C higher than present-day (1950). We do have some warming coming; scientific records show that. It still is not shown that CO2 will affect the warming or to what degree, and Hansen states this clearly. "the forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with accuracy sufficient to define future climate change"

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b273/del32/mloco2.gif

This graphic show the seasonality of the CO2 readings in Hawaii. The winter/summer cycles are clear. The difference is about 6 ppm CO2. That is 1ppm per degree ocean temperature. "The seasonal range of sea surface temperatures near Hawaii is only about 6 degrees, from a low of 73 or 74 degrees between late February and March to a high near 80 degrees in late September or early October." Extrapolating 1 ppm/degree puts the 270 ppm at Antarctica at approximately 310 ppm in Hawaii. (I used your 270 peak not the 295 *real peak* because of the round number works neatly,if I used the real peak 295 there is less CO2 increase) That is the starting point for the increase of atmospheric CO2 discussion. And it quite accurately is reflected in the data. So the rise in CO2 levels is from 316 yearly average in 1959 to 376ppm latest readings. Slightly less than 20% increase of CO2, not the "more than 1/3" I see quoted. The CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.0316%, x 20% = 0.0063%. And you think a 0.0063% change in the atmosphere is going to do what? If I use the 295 ppm start point the increase is 40 ppm (376-335)(assuming 40 degree difference from Hawaiin to Antarctic oceans) or 12% or .004% change in the atmosphere, 4/1000th % is going to do _WHAT_?

[ 07-12-2005, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Del Lansing ]

[Crusoe]

Well that was kinda my point about Methane, Dan........

With CO2, the notion that it will be absorbed naturally is fine, but only if those natural processes are functioning unhindered, and are not degraded. Even the most die-hard sceptic of global warming is going to suggest that those absorbers are not in decline. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

If you remove fluffy, happy tree huggers from the equasion and go to Wall Street it is interesting to see that although the oil industry refutes any possibility of GW, the insurance companies take it very seriously and are urging an immmediate response.

Did not the tobacco companies once insist that smoking was good for you?

[Dan McCosh]

The basic problem with cutting energy consumption dramatically (say 50% or so). is that using energy pretty much defines what we call the western world. Developing sources of power to replace human labor was what freed men from everything from slavery to an early death. It's been the main achievement of the past 200 years. We are learning to use it a bit more efficiently, but the big total consumption numbers aren't going to go down, barring a total collapse of almost everything. The rest of the world, given a choice, would also use far more energy. I haven't seen any sign any major corporation has a scenario that assumes dramatic global warming. I don't know why an insurance company would even care.

[Dan McCosh]

Even the most die-hard sceptic of global warming is going to suggest that those absorbers are not in decline. The evidence for that is overwhelming. Actually, I've never seen any evidence that the basic absorbers (i.e., ocean water, total photosynthetic biomass). are in decline. The idea is their capacity is being exceeded, not in decline.

[Crusoe]

Phytoplanckton (the greatest absorber of CO2) has declined.

The Northern tree line is moving North, while the existing trees are subject to diseases and insects (from farther South) they have no resisance to, and are dying off.

The worlds forests in general are being cut down at a rate of 1 acre a minute(?).

The Insurance Industry (http://www-cgi.cnn.com/EARTH/9609/insurance/) from 1996.

[Crusoe]

Make of these what you will.

Plankton Poo (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1178638.htm)

Alaskan Forests (http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/education/alaska/ak-edu-5.htm)

US energy consumption (http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html)

[Popeye]

Does WHAT??

A 1 , underscore 1, ppm change in atmospheric CO2 is about a 1 Gt Carbon/year change in source flux!

Now, calculate the point at which carbon absorption in (fewer and fewer) trees, and soil and the flux in and out of the ocean becomes very sensitive to temperatures.

This then becomes a dangerous feedback loop, a small change in carbon dioxide leads to higher temperatures, leading to more water and more water leads to more GW ad nauseu.

--------------------

"Give me a lever big enough and a place to stand, and I will move the world."

[ 07-12-2005, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: popeye ]

[Dan McCosh]

The link on photoplankton doesn't say anything about whether they are coming or going. They aren't the largest sink--they are likely the largest mass of plant life absorbing CO2 with photosynthesis. Cutting down trees doesn't mean anything without knowing how many are being seeded. The insurance site appears to be sponsored by State Farm, and State Farm has no mention of any research on global warming in its annual reporting--odd if billions are in fact being spent (they mention other community service projects). This still doesn't mean the premise is wrong, but it would be interesting to see something that actually supports it.

Re: the bootstrap theory of water vapor... If water vapor wasn't self-limiting, it would not need any CO2 to trigger a catestrophic rise in temperature. The vapor would trap heat, the heat would raise the temperature, creating more vapor, etc., all by itself. What prevents this is the heat absorbed and lost in the phase change from liquid to vapor and back to liquid, along with the resulting cloud cover. Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas, but it tends to stabilize itself.

[Crusoe]

PLANKTON (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0820_020820_TVwireplankton.html)
Jeez, do I have to do everything? tongue.gif

I was conservative about the forested areas, as I couldn't remember, it is actually 150 acres a minute that gets felled. Which translates into a massive daily total and that is developed ecosystem, which planting can in no way replace.
I'm pretty sure that area is not being replanted every day.

The point is that all of the natural processes that you are relying on to buffer you from any imbalance (GW or not) are in decline. The vast majority from human activity.

[Dan McCosh]

The plankton story notes a decline of about 8% over a 10 year period, and says it isn't known whether this is a normal cycle.

Forests are still declining, albeit at a decelerating rate. They are increasing in North America, declining in Africa and South America. They have been replaced mainly by grass and croplands. I don't know what this does to the overall "sink".

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
FWIW--First Google hit says that energy consumption per capita has been declining for the past 15 years, worldwide: web page (http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/variable-351.html)No it doesn't.

It says:
</font> 1990 1633.6</font> 2000 1639.6</font> 2001 1631.3</font>If anything, it shows that per capita consumption came down in 2001, but it clearly shows that 2000 was higher than 1990.
There is no way to pervert that into a fifteen year decline. A one-year decline, perhaps.

But no data about a fifteen year period.

Moreover, it shows that per capita consumption increased from 1990 to 2001 (the entire range of data) for every geographic region, all developed countries and developing countries, and all income categories.

In the U.S., per capita energy consumption went from 7538 to 7920

Thanks for the data, jerk.

Next time, try being honest with us.

[Crusoe]

"The greatest decline was in the Northern Pacific Ocean, where summer levels dropped by more than 30%"

This when combined with the other reductions translates into:

"an overall global decline of more than 8%"

How you view these figures is up to you, but these things absorb 40% of atmospheric CO2 and are the basic food source of all marine life. I think it warrants more than a shrug.

I doubt very much that forest coverage is increasing in North America. If it is, it's probably in the form of Sitka plantations which are little better than deserts for bio diversity.

[High C]

Originally posted by C223:
...go into their garage, fire up the car engine and sit with the garage door closed for an hour. Now there's some solid science! :D :rolleyes:

[George.]

Originally posted by Crusoe:
I doubt very much that forest coverage is increasing in North America. If it is, it's probably in the form of Sitka plantations which are little better than deserts for bio diversity.Which brings us to the real point of all this:

web page (http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=024681)

[Dan McCosh]

The story doesn't say photoplankton absorb 40% of atmospheric CO2. It says 40% of the CO2 absorbed via photosynthesis. I didn't say that wasn't important. This started out by noting that photysynthesis is only the second-largest carbon sink. The photoplankton would be about 20% of the total--assuming the number roughly accurate. The story doesn't say this is a long-term trend.

Re: The noted decline in per-capita consumption in energy. I thought a smaller number was smaller than a larger number, and a smaller number represents a decline. It's entirely likely there are ups and downs over the period. This is getting borderline psychotic once again.

[Leon m]

The signs are everyware, those who have ears, let them hear, those that have eyes let them see.

THE
ONLY SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE PREDICTOR IN THE LATEST SHIPS STATISTICAL
MODEL RUN IS CLIMATOLOGY. SO FAR...THE 2005 HURRICANE SEASON SEEMS
TO HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN CLIMATOLOGY.

WHILE WE OFTEN TALK ABOUT THE COLD WAKE THAT HURRICANES LEAVE
BEHIND...IT APPEARS THAT HURRICANE DENNIS HAS ACTUALLY MADE
PORTIONS OF THE CARIBBEAN SEA WARMER...AND HENCE MORE FAVORABLE FOR
THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF EMILY. HEAT CONTENT ANALYSES FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI INDICATE THAT WESTERLY WINDS ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF DENNIS HAVE SPREAD WARM WATERS FROM THE NORTHWESTERN CARIBBEAN
EASTWARD TO THE SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST OF JAMAICA...AN AREA THAT COULD
BE TRAVERSED BY EMILY IN THREE DAYS OR SO.

[ 07-12-2005, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Leon m ]

[Crusoe]

"Phytoplankton can absorb up to 40% of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

Are you dyslexic Dan? If not, It isn't me that is exhibiting psychosis.

http://www.franklin.ma.us/auto/upload/schools/fhs/472-man_nero_fiddling.jpg

[ 07-12-2005, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Crusoe ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Leon m:
OOps I ment 6'. redface.gif hee hee.When your this good looking you can afford those kinda mistakes . :D tongue.gif Last I guy I knew that said something like this tried to ask me out on a date... is there something we should know, Leon? ;) :D

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C223:
...go into their garage, fire up the car engine and sit with the garage door closed for an hour. Now there's some solid science! :D :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]An experiemnt worth repeating - you try it out and report back to us, HiC. :D

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
I thought a smaller number was smaller than a larger number, and a smaller number represents a decline. It's entirely likely there are ups and downs over the period.You said, "has been declining for the past 15 years."

And then you posted data from three years, none of them 15 years apart, which showed that it went up for the first 10.

How in the world do you call that "declining for the past 15 years"????

Going up for ten, then going down for one is not going down for 15.

And what about the larger picture?
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp030/graphics/glo94cl.gif

Face it Dan, you were mistaken. You're right, you are bordering on psychotic.

Everyone and their dog knows that energy consumption and CO2 emission have gone up over the last 50 years. It's as obvious as the number of cars on the road.

Let's move on.

[High C]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
...Last I guy I knew that said something like this tried to ask me out on a date...Given your extraordinarily good taste in women's fashion, I'm not the least bit surprised! tongue.gif

[Leon m]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
Last I guy I knew that said something like this tried to ask me out on a date... is there something we should know, Leon? ;) :D So Meerkity...What ya doing tonight? ;) ;)

[Leon m]

Yet another sign of global warming :eek: http://www.lpths.org/Photos/wm003.jpg

[captain's gig]

Del and Dan
Del and Dan
Riding across the land

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meerkat:
...Last I guy I knew that said something like this tried to ask me out on a date...Given your extraordinarily good taste in women's fashion, I'm not the least bit surprised! tongue.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the compliment sweetie, but the answer is still the same! tongue.gif

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Leon m:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meerkat:
Last I guy I knew that said something like this tried to ask me out on a date... is there something we should know, Leon? ;) :D So Meerkity...What ya doing tonight? ;) ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Setting you up on a blind date with HiC. :D :D :D

[Dan McCosh]

Everyone and their dog knows that energy consumption and CO2 emission have gone up over the last 50 years. It's as obvious as the number of cars on the road. Nice to see you have something straight. I never disagreed with this.

[Paul G]

Oh dear the sky is falling again :D

Didnt we thrash this one out in a previous thread. No one changed anyones mind, the envirofreaks are still feeling guilty, and I am wondering why antartic ice is getting thicker, and our glaciers are advancing (thas'a fact).

What is really going on here? is it the capture of the moral high ground that seems to dominate the bilge, or is it, god forbid, the warmer weather driving up all nuts

[Dan McCosh]

To Crusoe:

Here's what the story that you posted says: "The photosynthesis of the ocean's tiny green plants account for about half of the carbon dioxide that plants remove from the atmosphere each year. " Note that is says "plants"--it doesn't include the CO2 removed via dissolving in the ocean. The problem with both numbers--either 40% or 20%--is that if in fact the population of photoplankton is declining by 8% or so in just 10 years, that change in the carbon sink alone would dwarf the effect of man-made production of CO2 added to the atmosphere. It would be far and away the largest single cause of an increase in concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere--which in turn contradicts the notion that burning fossil fuels is the main culprit. That would be a much different scenario than is currently held by most GW theorists.

[Popeye]

Originally posted by Paul G:

Didnt we thrash this one out in a previous thread. i ain't proud .. or tired

[Paul G]

1999 was cooler than the year before. The hottest day in all recorded history was at Al Azizah in Libya back in 1922. There was warming from the 1880s to the 1940s, then a cooling for the next 40 years. Some of the hottest years were in the 1930s, when builders in Britain began putting pipes on the outside of buildings because frosts were only a memory. Then the thermometers turned around and from 1940 right up to 1980, global mean temperatures fell by about 0.3degC. All those houses in Britain started getting burst pipes.

Some over-reacted and called it the start of a new Ice Age, due to global warming. Pardon? Yes, a heating up OR cooling down now was, apparently, because of global warming. The 40 year downturn in temperature was in spite of supposed rising CO2 levels due to the new industrialisation after the war, showing then that rising CO2 does NOT fit into the scenario of Greenhouse gases.

Fact: CO2 occupies 0.035% of the atmosphere. If it doubled it would only be 0.07%. We can all live with that.

[Del Lansing]

Popeye:

the flux in and out of the ocean becomes very sensitive to temperatures.

This then becomes a dangerous feedback loop, a small change in carbon dioxide leads to higher temperatures, leading to more water and more water leads to more GW ad nauseu.
I have stated many times the flux in/out of the oceans varies with temperatures, I posted the seasonal chart from Hawaii that shows this. The failure comes when you make the leap from that to, "small change in carbon dioxide leads to higher temperatures,"
IT IS THE WARMER OCEANS RELEASING CO2.
You are correct in that water vapor is a great concern, but that is not caused by CO2.
So why the warming? you ask...
How about volcanism...
"This new volcano, dubbed Nafanua after the ferocious Samoan goddess of war, did not exist just fours years ago, according to co-chief scientists Stan Hart, a geochemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) , and Hubert Staudigel, a geologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. With a growth rate averaging eight inches per day, the volcanic cone has rapidly formed since the scientists' last expedition to this area in May 2001. Nafanua now stands at 300 meters, or nearly 1,000 feet. "
How about...
"The North Pacific's Ring of Fire can claim a new member - a previously unknown underwater volcano in Alaska's Aleutian Islands that researchers in Alaska revealed Monday. Scientists this summer mapped the cone-shaped volcano, which rises beneath the waters near Amchitka Pass, a gap in the chain of largely uninhabited islands that separate the Pacific Ocean from the Bering Sea."
How about...
" Lo'ihi, the youngest Hawaiian volcano. It's summit is still about 975 m below sea level so it has a way to go yet. You may hear all kinds of estimates about how lont it will take to break the surface but the truth is that nobody knows."

How many mega watts of energy do you think each one of these is putting into the water?

"A volcano has erupted underwater near the Pacific island of Iwo Jima off the coast of Japan, sending a column of steam rising a kilometre into the air."
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid177/p4e1945021a921e53869ec9dffe9e55df/f34701d6.jpg
And there's a new one off of Antartica,"Highly sensitive temperature probes moving continuously across the bottom of the volcano showed signs of geothermal heating of seawater, according to the agency. " Antarctic volcano (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/20/tech/main618807.shtml)

So yes there is some global warming going on, but the birth of new volcanoes indicates the heat is coming from the inside. These are real measurables things. A lot more measurable than "CO2 might be warming the earth so we better be careful."

[Popeye]

Originally posted by Paul G:


Fact: CO2 occupies 0.035% of the atmosphere. If it doubled it would only be 0.07%. We can all live with that.just another groundless spin on fact

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Everyone and their dog knows that energy consumption and CO2 emission have gone up over the last 50 years. It's as obvious as the number of cars on the road. Nice to see you have something straight. I never disagreed with this.</font>[/QUOTE]You never disagreed with it?

Well, pardon me, because when you said:


...it doesn't seem logical that there has been a huge increase in CO2 production in the last 50 years......I naturally assumed you were trying to use logic.

It didn't occur to me that you would declare something to be illogical, argue against it, and then not deny it.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
I'm particularly interested in the liquid carbon, as I'm unaware that carbon exists in liquid form. Obviously there is something wrong with either the labels or the premise of the chart, which seems pretty suspect me.Gee, Dan... you ever seen an oil rig or a gas pump?

You know that liquid stuff that flows out of the ground and you put in your car? What did you think that is, fairy snot?

It's about 90% octane. Eight carbon atoms, ten hydrogen atoms. That's more than 90% carbon by weight...

...and believe it or not, it's a liquid!

Idiot.

That tears it Dan. If you're so gad-awful stupid that you don't know gasoline is a liquid, why do you even attempt to discuss these matters? Just admit that you're stupid and listen to the smart people.

A couple of weeks ago you insisted that a watt was a unit of energy and a joule was a unit of power. You just plain don't know what you're talking about.

If you want to be stupid, that's your prerogative. If you want to believe that up is down and left is right, that's no business of mine....

...but if I need directions, I hope you'll understand that I'm not going to ask the idiot; I'm going to listen to the guy who knows what he's talking about.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Paul G:
Fact: CO2 occupies 0.035% of the atmosphere. If it doubled it would only be 0.07%. We can all live with that.Are you sure?

How much can we live with?

At what level can't we live with it?

Is 1% too much? 10%? 0.1%?

How do you know?

Did you study the subject for decades, or just make that up on the spot?

How come most scientists disagree with you?

How much carbon monoxide can we live with? How much cyanide?


Fact: The world's average temperature is about 290 Kelvin. If it doubled, it would only be 600 Farenheit. We can all live with that....or can we?

[Dan McCosh]

I can't tell if it is a reluctance, or an inability to read what you write that is the problem here. It is tiresome, however.

[Popeye]

ok, blue team, your assignment is to calculate the total carbon flux for a global environment using manmade forcing conditions as input for a complex computer model

red team, your assignment is to place a hardboiled egg in a box, good luck

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
I can't tell if it is a reluctance, or an inability to read what you write that is the problem here. It is tiresome, however.Care to explain?

Are you saying that you are unable to read what I have written? I can believe that.

As far as I can see, you're an absolute idiot. I'm amazed you can find the letters on the keyboard. I've written in plain English. My spelling is pretty good and I've got my facts straight.

If you are reluctant or unable to read it, that's your problem, not mine.

If you can't figure out that 'liquid' refers to oil you've got no business trying to discuss complicated matters like science.

If you can't figure out the difference between a watt and a joule, maybe you shouldn't spend your time lecturing others about energy policy.

You should concentrate on something to which you are better suited.

Have you considered finger painting?

[ 07-13-2005, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[Crusoe]

In any thread about global climate change, the emphasis remains on CO2. The sceptics never stray from CO2. To a certain extent I agree with them on the viability of short term increases in atmospheric levels as an indicator of long term change. But this is NOT just about CO2.
The cumulative effects of increased CO2, Methane and "super warmers" (all man made) combined with a degredation in the ecosystems that maintain a balance, paint a very different picture than the one derived from an obsession with ppm of CO2.

Dan et al. studiously avoid any discussion of other factors, taking the path of least resistance when it comes to concidering the viability or sustainability of human activity as it has been for the last fifty years or so.

[Crusoe]

http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/gas-hydrates-3.gif

Anyone care to speculate on what might be the result of tapping into the "new frontier" of methane hydrates as an energy source?

[Dan McCosh]

I'm hardly fixated on CO2 as an issue. Just the opposite. I've spent a long time reporting on various issues involving air and water pollution. I do tend to believe that the elimination of toxic chemicals from the air and water should have a higher priority than concern about the effect of relatively benign chemicals such as CO2 and methane that are for the most part naturally occurring. It tend to think that the GW issue has detracted from concern about what I see as more serious issues. At one point, this thread was addressing the notion of what has happened in the past 50 years vs. the previous eras. clearly the past 50 years marks a dramatic improvement in fuel efficiency, where most fuel is consumed, as well as a broad-based effort to reduce industrial and municipal pollution. I don't like to see these issues sidetracked by an obsession with GW. It tends to remind me of the obsession during the 1970s with deposit bottles as an environmental issue, compared to nuclear waste.

[Dan McCosh]

Methane hydrates could be an interesting form of future energy. They would, of course, have the same impact on CO2 in the atmosphere as any other fossil fuel. I don't know what the energy loss would be to recover and use them as a fuel.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
Clearly the past 50 years marks a dramatic improvement in fuel efficiency, where most fuel is consumed, as well as a broad-based effort to reduce industrial and municipal pollution.An increase in efficiency? Yes, but you miss the big picture.

The increase in efficiency has been completely overwhelmed by a massive increase in consumption.

If you make a car 10% more efficient, but make three times as many and drive each one twice as much, it is not an improvement.

[Crusoe]

Methane is in no way "benign". Depending on what you read it has a GWP of anywhere from 10 to 21.
That is, it is 10-21 times more effective as a greenhouse gas as CO2. http://phschool.com/science/planetdiary/jpeg03/methane.gif

It is indeed short lived (8-10 years) in the atmosphere, but it breaks down into CO2 (100 years).
Firstly concider the effects of a combination of increased CO2 and Methane.
Then secondly that increased CO2 may be a symptom and not a cause.

[Dan McCosh]

Sorry, i can't read much of the chart. What is it showing?

[Crusoe]

It is a bit crappy, but it shows a direct corelation between methane levels (remember how short lived and "benign" it is) and human population.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Crusoe:
It is a bit crappy, but it shows a direct corelation between methane levels (remember how short lived and "benign" it is) and human population.Remember, Crusoe, correlation is not causation.

This doesn't necessarily mean that people create methane -- it might mean that methane creates people!

[Crusoe]

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/cartoon6inyougothumans.jpg

[Dan McCosh]

The methane correlation to population growth is interesting. Wonder why the methane rate of increase has been decline recently, while population is still increasing? Also--the reduction in wetlands and livestock in North America for the past hundred of years or so doesn't seem to have had any effect.

[Paul G]

Someones got the moral high ground,

I wonder who that is lbj5 tongue.gif

[Meerkat]

Reduction of livestock in the US? When did that happen?

[Dan McCosh]

In the late 19th century, when most of the buffalo were killed off.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
In the late 19th century, when most of the buffalo were killed off.Meerkat, don't bother...

He's a blithering idiot. He's already admitted that he can't read. He doesn't know what a liquid is and he can't figure out the difference between a watt and a joule, even when I post the definitions over and over again. He thought that CO2 production in the U.S. had gone down over the last 50 years and he thinks that 11 years is 15.

Obviously, since the population of the U.S. has declined over the past 100 years, so too has the amount of livestock.

[ 07-13-2005, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[Leon m]

Ya know , listening to these guys argue the scientific facts to see how long, and how much we can get away with polluting,is like listening to two guys standing at a drinking well trying to figure out how long they can use it for an outhouse before they get sick... :rolleyes:

[captain's gig]

ya, it's kinda like eating a lot of carrots and corn, yah, a lot of carrots and a lot of corn, that's what it is like.

[ 07-13-2005, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: captain's gig ]

[Dan McCosh]

Laser-Based Photoacoustics and Atmospheric Trace Gas Detection

EXPERIMENTAL

Principles of photoacoustics
The photoacoustic effect is based on the sensitive detection of acoustic waves launched by the absorption of pulsed or modulated laser radiation via the transient localized heating and expansion in a gas, liquid, or solid. This effect is due to the transformation of at least part of the excitation energy into kinetic (translational) energy by energy exchange processes [1]. Therefore, the absorption of modulated laser radiation generates an acoustic signal, which can be amplified by tuning the modulation frequency to one of the acoustic resonances of the sample cell, e.g. a longitudinal mode in a cylindrical chamber. In this resonant case the cell works as an acoustic amplifier and the photoacoustic signal is amplified by the Q factor of the resonance, which usually is in the range of 10 - 300.

The above is a description of the technology developed to detect methane and other trace gases within a reasonable accuracy at concentrations of 1ppm. That's what it takes to measure the methane concentrations in the atmosphere. The technology was developed within the last five years or so, and is being used to study auto exhaust concentrations in the atmosphere. The chart starts in 1750. Dunno what was used to measure it then.

[Popeye]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:

The chart starts in 1750. Dunno what was used to measure it then.probably some old fossil with a glass titrator and a lot of patience, reactive chemistry maybe?

[ljb5]

Originally posted by popeye:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dan McCosh:

The chart starts in 1750. Dunno what was used to measure it then.probably some old fossil with a glass titrator and a lot of patience, reactive chemistry maybe?</font>[/QUOTE]My guess would be tree rings. Perhaps gas bubbles in glass bottles. You can learn a lot from coral.

Someday, I hope Dan will learn that there are many things known to others which are not known to him.

Many of his arguments take the form, "I can't figure it out, therefore it's impossible."

[ 07-15-2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[Crusoe]

You can buy methane detectors on-line, wonder how they work.
They might not be as accurate as your laser, but probably good enough.

[Dan McCosh]

A commercial gas sniffer can detect methane at a concentration of about 100 ppm. It's getting down to 1/10,000 of that level that starts to get difficult--which is where you are when you want to detect small increments of 1 ppm. .

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
A commercial gas sniffer can detect methane at a concentration of about 100 ppm. It's getting down to 1/10,000 of that level that starts to get difficult--which is where you are when you want to detect small increments of 1 ppm. .Difficult for whom?

Difficult for you? I don't doubt it.

For someone who knows what they're talking about, maybe not so much.

And since when is 1 ppm equal to 1/10,000 of 100 ppm?

I thought 1 is 1/100 of 100.

[ 07-15-2005, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[Dan McCosh]

That's very good. What are you imagining that you are referring to?

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
That's very good. What are you imagining that you are referring to?I am referring to the exact statment you made, you idiot.

It was posted by you, directly above my comment. I quoted it exactly, in my comment.

How can you not see that? I quoted you exactly!

Those are your exact words!

Now, please explain to us, you brain-dead snot, exactly what you meant by this:


A commercial gas sniffer can detect methane at a concentration of about 100 ppm. It's getting down to 1/10,000 of that level that starts to get difficult--which is where you are when you want to detect small increments of 1 ppm.

[Don Olney]

Definitely an Asperger's candidate.

[ljb5]

Dan, I make an honest effort to read and think about every comment you make.

That's a pre-requisite for open, honest discussion and exchange of ideas, which is why I am here.

I would appreciate it if you would also make an honest effort to make sense.

If you post something, please make sure it makes sense. Please be aware of what you have written so we can have an honest discussion.

Don't deny you have written something, especially when it's plainly visible.

Please be ready and able to explain your reasoning.

I realize that some people think lying and contradicting themselves is an effective tactic because it frustrates others, but I believe it is dishonest and disrespectful.

I don't show you much respect, because you're an absolute idiot.

However, I do show respect for the process. When you write something, I read it. When you make a mistake, I correct it.

If I go through the trouble of reading your comments, quoting them and responding to them, it's not too much to ask that you read your own comments, understand them, admit to having written them and be prepared to either defend, explain or retract them.

The very least that honesty and integrity require of a person is to acknowledge their own words.

Do you have that much honesty and integrity?

[ 07-15-2005, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[Don Olney]

Or a Droid.

[TomF]

ljb5

I realize you're angry ... but do you really think that anyone is about to answer any questions you pose, if you spice them by calling them an idiot (twice, recently) on a public website?

[Dan McCosh]

You are studing an incremental change from 1-1.7 ppm over a period of a hundred years or more The incremental annual change would be something like .01 ppm. To get a reasonable accuracy (say +- 10%), the level of detection is down to .001. OK, it's actually a level 1/100,000 lower than 100 ppm. I'm not that good at decimals. It is difficult to measures gas concentrations at these low levels.

[Donn]

Dan...are you the Dan McCosh I've read in Popular Science and other mags? If so, I've enjoyed your work.

[Dan McCosh]

LJB5--A "small increment of 1ppm" is not the same as "1ppm". This is an important distinction. You seem to have tendency to atttribute your misunderstanding--or lack of comprehension--to me, even after you C&P. This seems a little odd.

[Dan McCosh]

To Donn--I am. Thanks for the notice. You often wonder who reads what you write.

[Donn]

Well well. That probably means you're also the guy who's been writing the Driving series in the NYT. Well done!

[ljb5]

Originally posted by TomF:
ljb5

I realize you're angry ... but do you really think that anyone is about to answer any questions you pose, if you spice them by calling them an idiot (twice, recently) on a public website?If he wants to prove he's not an idiot, he sure ought to answer the questions.

I didn't call him an idiot for no reason. I called him an idiot because of what he said. If he didn't act like an idiot, I wouldn't call him an idiot.

When I quote him exactly I expect him to be able to figure out that I'm referring to what he said.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
LJB5--A "small increment of 1ppm" is not the same as "1ppm".:eek:

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

This whole line of reasoning is stupid because it started with you denying scientists have made measurements which they obviously have made.

Why do you deny the obvious?

If those methane concentration figures were reported, you can be certain that they were measured.

You may not know how they were measured.... You might think they are difficult to measure...

Yet the data is there, so don't deny it.

[ 07-15-2005, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[High C]

Oh man, it just gets better and better! :D :D