Global Warming... Bullshite!?!?!?!

[Exotic_D]

Well, i had to post this because my uncle proved to me last night how stupid and ignorant the human animal truly is. Our conversation began light-heartedly and turned down right ugly. He is a junk scientist (as i like to call them), who believes that it's, as he so non-eloquently put it "them damn tree huggers" that create all this "spooky" information about the degradation of ecosystems, species extinction, air/water/food pollution and oh yeah that little thing called "global warming".

He reiterated that is was total "bullshite" i was talking and that i was too young to understand how life truly works (he's german... he was 5 yrs old when Hitler began his reign of terror... nuff said). Personally, my uncle lost ALL of my respect last night, i thought he would agree with me that the preservation of our planet is the most crucial endeavour we as a species have. Nope, he said once again, that i was talking through my ass and didn't have an interpreter... what an idiot... God, he really is just a brainwashed consumer.. Big brother should be proud of his creation of the generations before mine... pretty much a big waste of space, if anyone is asking...

yes, my uncle is borderline retarded, if i had my way, i'd have him committed, unfortunately, i would have to do the same with his entire generation, he is not alone in his ignorance. Millions of people have adopted this "can't be" attitude over the course of several industrialized decades, history will in fact dictate our future in this case. This is the very same generation(s) (mindset if you will) who believed child slave labour and dumping human waste in waterways was not only well within their god-given rights...but also, very logical.

for those of you who believe that our world is "ok", that we are sufficiently protecting our natural resources, we have complete control over our Earth's degradation and that we have no reason to be afraid of environmental catastrophes such as Exxon and the fact that 1/3 of our fresh water is deemed "not suitable" for human consumption, BEWARE, what you believe does not necessarily make it true...

you are what you think but most importantly you are what you ingest people...be it toxic water, food or air, the fact remains, you are human and therefore will eventually be destroyed by these negative environmental factors.

here is a little slice of "reality" for those of you who refuse to believe in the absolute necessity for our species to rectify "NOW, not later" the more acute dilemmas we face. The sustenance of our planet and the preservation of our species will be rendered futile, if we do not ACCEPT the current level of destruction and CONCUR to change our wicked ways in the extremely near future, i can even say NOW is the time but who would believe me? Who would care?

morons unite if you must... and edify yourselves... those who are educated on the subject but have no idea what to do, talk about the situation we face as a species to anyone who will listen. What we will be subjected to is a far greater threat than racial cleansing and class division, a global environmental catastrophy is imminent. Remember, air/water and food pollution does not care who or where you are, it is indiscriminate, it cares only for your total annihilation.

the problems our grandparents and parents faced are not comparable to what we face today... the chemical compounds found in our air/food and water today were not present in 1905 (or 1955 for that matter), the toxins in our human bodies from factory emissions either... but most importantly the destruction of our precious ozone layer (Non-restorative i might add).

It has never been as obvious as today, icecaps melting and water levels rising are truly nothing to worry about, when you consider all the pollutants WE have systematically introduced into our air. Our degenerating air quality is no laughing matter, yet congress and governmental bodies appear to be nonchalant about the whole issue. Is that why Bush's administration dismantles a new enviro law on virtually a daily basis?

D

P.S.

Half U.S. Climate Warming Due to Land Use Changes

COLLEGE PARK, Maryland, May 28, 2003 (ENS) - The growth of cities and industrial agriculture is responsible for more of the rise in temperature across the United States than scientists previously believed, according to a new study by scientists at the University of Maryland. They found that land use changes may account for up to half of the observed surface global warming.

Meteorologists Dr. Eugenia Kalnay and Dr. Ming Cai have found evidence that the observed temperature increase of 0.13 degrees Celsius (.234 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 50 years has been influenced by changes in land use.

[Bridge]

First, the scientific evidence for a case of human induced global warming is woefully lacking. Humans are responsible for pumping approximately some 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the biosphere every year versus around 200 billion for nature, so even if carbon dioxide is causing global warming you're focusing on the wrong contributor.

Secondly, it takes thousands of years for the earth to cycle through its historical maximum mean temperature, and thousands more for it to retreat to its minimum. Since basically all we have is limited records of temperature and rainfall for perhaps the last 200 years in certain geographic locations, we basically can't see the forest for the trees.

Does that mean reducing air pollution, water pollution and clear cutting in the Amazon basin is a bad idea? Heck no. I favor reducing all those things. I just think a few political groups shouting that global warming is a reality when in fact it's BS, is something we should all be allowed to judge on evidence. Where is the hard data to support your position?

[ElectricFetus]

Unfortunately for you two there is actually evidence that global warming has been occurring. Try reading Nature: there were some very scary articles over the last few months about very conclusive evidence of global warming, it seem weather records and phenology don’t lie and that the earth has been getting steady warmer over the last century. What is not agreed apone is what the side effects will be and how drastic and how long we have tell things are very noticeably @#$%ed up.

If anything global warming is a ploy created by scientist, for scientist, in the hope of getting people to listen to them... strangely it is not working.

[ElectricFetus]

I was not saying global warming was cause by us or that it will be very bad. I was just announcing that evidence supports that it is happening be it natural or not, and that what it means for us in the short and long term is not agreed apone. All that can be said for sure is that things are changing.

[Exotic_D]

this truly sux... it's so logical yet so unsound... i want to believe it is a blatant lie.. but my instinct or humanity tells me different...

one thing i have learned from my years of working in the health industry (had to quit cause i was on the verge of a nervous breakdown... the information i have had to sift through was too discouraging) is scientists are not only opportunistic liars they are also corporate sluts... well, the ones i have met in my lifetime are... did you know that most scientific grants are now being rated on a economic sliding scale? what this means in accounting terms is "if you can prove this will help the general public, without contributing to the gross national product, you won't get your money"

i have worked alongside some serious scientific deviants... where life forms in general are exploited to the maximum, and finding cures is not necessarily the ultimate goal (sick people generate more operating costs, thus increasing budget projections... thus increasing govt funding... healthy people don't buy pharmaceuticals or require chemotherapy treatments at thousands of dollars per cycle...u do the math)... science is basically owned and operated by corporate conglomerates and supported by government bureaucracy, everyone wants a kickback... pharma co's like Johnson & Johnson, Bayer, Pfizer etc... are one of the worst enviro polluters of our day... pulp & paper plants destroy our air while these idiots destroy our water and soil... bunch of cheeky hedonistic bastards...

if you don't believe me... look in any medical journal and witness with your own eyes how a team of scientists develop a new pharma product or theory, firstly, you need serious cashflow (corporate funding), then you need serious marketing capabilities (corporate media), finally you need human guinea pigs to test it on (any unsuspecting human who has a family doctor or reads a bloody newspaper will do)... problem with this little 1,2,3 is the scientific data is corrupt... biased and no longer for the "betterment of human existence" but for the "exploitation of" it... which leads me to believe the big business of scientific misinformation is an out of control freight train, heading straight for the "bridge out" sign up ahead... and guess who the passengers are?

consumerism fuels this human society we have formed and issues such as global warming have their own gurus who without regard for the "facts" desire to alarm people... just as the junk scientists refuse to entertain the idea... some say there is NO viable data... yet they still want to warn people of the impending doom... some say they truly do not comprehend what the effects could possibly be... yet they don't see how classic hollywood this is... i have also learned over the years, working with scientists, that the more people who believe something to be true without substantiating evidence the more likely it is not the truth... with that said... does it then prove to be untrue? nope... unfortunately, we don't really know either way...

my last point on this is... who cares if they don't have scientific data? are you going to argue that the millions of pounds of toxic chemical compounds floating in our atmosphere due to our ignorance and stupidity is NOT at some point going to kill us? ok could be hundreds of years could be a couple... but shouldn't we at least be examining this and regulating it somehow?

you are what you ingest... and i don't know about you, but the last time i walked in the forest, i actually breathed deeply, it was fresh, invigorating oxygen rich air... but when i went to work this morning i coughed and choked from the bus stop to my office front door... and as i walked past the cigarette smokers and held my breath, i concluded they wouldn't kill me before my busride to work did...

D

[ElectricFetus]

Ya there is no physical way the mined oil will be able to supply are demand between 2020-2030! We need to start using alternative fuels like Ethanol, methanol or hydrogen (I proffer the first) the economical crisis at the end of hydrocarbon man might be a real bitch! So if anything we need to changer are habits for our energy future at the very lest, Of course any alternative fuel would be benign environmentally (compare to oil) so it would be killing 2 birds with one stone what a deal!

[ElectricFetus]

yes very true… are rates of methane and NO2 production is probable doing more damage. Still modern evidence does support that world climate is heating up so I don’t know what your saying about it all being false.

[Exotic_D]

Originally posted by Andre
Exotic_D

I guess Bridge is quite right. Commonly, reality is quite independent of opinion. We can all think that global warming is a nasty horror scenario that must be prevented at all cost, but you need something more. It must be there first, but it isn't.

Global warming is a premature conclusion based on poorly understood processes of the past. And countering evidence is growing rapidly.

So go ahead and fight everything that is wrong with the planet, but be sure to be right first.


Andre... i had to quote you... just because i find your "be sure to be right first" comment really kinda silly... no offense but hey... how can you truly be proven right when there are individuals who will stop at nothing to prove you wrong? or who won't even entertain your idea because it is not what they want to hear? i believe, as history often reminds us, until we know for sure, we really don't know... we should however be putting massive resources into proving or disproving this theory once and for all... but i will reiterate... science is corrupt... just like govt...

is the survival of our species about being right or wrong? is the preservation of our planet about who's telling the truth and who's lying? the strongest opposition to the global warming theory, is not by in large scientists, but is presented primarily by industry lobbyists like General Electric and Walden-Mott Corp., which is based on "A" version (their version) of scientific data that relies heavily on media relations and corporate profit margins... this obviously leads me to believe something is up, not you? who, prithee, ensures these people are "right"? they are permitted to present their unsupported theories to the public indiscriminately...

the leading contributors to air pollution are the very groups designated to provide the public with the science and information that disproves global warming and ozone deterioration... does this lead you to believe it is impossible or improbable? based on what "they" deem fact or fiction? i always examine the board of directors of any formed "scientific" advisory committee... if you see lots of big names like John Doe, VP, AOL Representing Partner and John Doh, Assistant Director of Programming, Fox News, then you "should" know something is up...

obviously this is an example... but i have seen it before... board of directors tend to have a vested interest in what they are representing... so by definition these committees and boards could potentially be corrupt from their inception... kinda like voting for Gore and Bush gets in cause he's the one "they" need in the Whitehouse to go to war... yada yada yada

if you examine closesly the board of directors of the majority of these formed "anti-environment" groups who lobby for more clear cutting, more fossil fuel burning and less accountability, you will see how truly ruthless big business is... global warming or not, you have to admit, if we can't trust our politicians to provide us with accurate truthful information on science (like we ever could before, but i digress) then how can we trust the scientists who are on their payroll?

D

[Exotic_D]

ok wait a minute.. don't tell me you just went there? are you now attempting to perpetuate that "acid rain" is a scientific myth or something? i certainly hope not... because all you will have to do is check out:

1 NAL Call. No.: 450 N42
Absorption of atmospheric NO2 by spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.)
trees. I. NO2 influx and its correlation with nitrate reduction.
Thoene, B.; Schroder, P.; Papen, H.; Egger, A.; Rennenberg, H.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press; 1991 Apr.
The New phytologist v. 117 (4): p. 575-585; 1991 Apr. Includes
references.

Language: English

Descriptors: Picea abies; Air pollution; Nitrogen dioxide;
Phytotoxicity; Absorption; Nitrate reductase; Enzyme activity;
Transpiration

2 NAL Call. No.: QD1.A45
Acid deposition: acidification of the environment.
Elder, F.C.
Washington, D.C. : The Society; 1992.
ACS Symposium series - American Chemical Society (483): p. 36-63;
1992. In the series analytic: The science of global change: the
impact of human activities on the environment / edited by D.A.
Dunnette and R.J. O'Brien. Includes references.

Language: English

Descriptors: U.S.A.; Acid deposition; Environment; Pollution

3 NAL Call. No.: SD13.C35
Acid deposition alters red spruce physiology: laboratory studies
support field observations.
McLaughlin, S.B.; Tjoelker, M.G.; Roy, W.K.
Ottawa, Ont. : National Research Council of Canada; 1993 Mar.
Canadian journal of forest research; Revue canadienne de
recherche forestiere v. 23 (3): p. 380-386; 1993 Mar. Includes
references.

Language: English

Descriptors: Picea rubens; Seedlings; Acid rain; Mists; Acidity;
Simulation; Seedling growth; Respiration; Photosynthesis;
Nutrient content; Calcium; Magnesium; Rooting depth; Altitude

Abstract: Two-year-old red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.) seedlings
were grown in a poorly buffered soil from a high-elevation site
in the Great Smoky Mountains and exposed for 16 weeks to acid
mist and rain chemically similar to that occurring at high-
elevation sites in the southern Appalachian Mountains.
Measurements of seedling growth, root distribution, saturated net
photosynthesis, dark respiration, and nutrient content were made
to test the hypothesis that acid deposition had caused reductions
in the carbon economy noted at high-elevation sites in previous
field studies. The role of base cation depletion in these changes
was examined by evaluating soil amendments of Ca, Mg, or Ca plus
Mg. Acidified rain and mist reduced (i) the apparent carbon
economy of foliage, (ii) seedling growth, and (iii) rooting depth
in these controlled greenhouse studies. Changes in gas exchange
physiology paralleled responses observed for sapling trees in the
field with increasing elevation and included both reduced net
photosynthesis and increased dark respiration. Calcium deficiency
induced by acid deposition is apparently an important mechanism
underlying physiological responses of red spruce previously
observed in the field. Calcium addition to soil partially reduced
the effects of acid deposition, but observed responses suggest
that both foliar- and soil-driven reactions are involved. Changes
in carbon metabolism associated with reduced Ca availability,
when high levels of acid deposition are superimposed on poorly
buffered soils, support the inferential association of acid
deposition with growth decline of mature red spruce in high-
elevation forests of the Appalachian Mountains.

D

[Exotic_D]

that was somewhat off topic but hey... it's my thread i can do what i want with it... i just stuck that in because it appears that you are only reachable via the "proven scientific data" medium... so... edify yourself... before you dismiss theories pertaining to survival of your species... no one really knows the long term effects acid rain will have on our already deteriorating environment nor do we fully comprehend the repercussions of blasting tons of sulphur dioxide into our atmosphere from paper and pulp plants... do we?

D

[ElectricFetus]

and your point is?

[DigitalPhalanges]

Just wanted to chime in and point out that Global Warming is generally acknowledged by the anthropological community as a natural phenomenon which coincides with the ending of an Ice Age (which we happen to be in at this moment). An Ice Age is signified by the prescence of ANY summer ice formations at the poles.

So when the Ice Age is finally over there will be quite a bit less landmass to live on and there will be a great increase in CO2 as the ice caps are each storing massive quantities of CO2 within the ice (as that is one of the distiguishing characteristics of polar ice).

Modern agriculture is (this is a fact) - causing the desertification of millions of acres of cropland across the globe. This land looses its ability to retain and purify sufficient quantities of water to support the local ecosystem. Thus huge deserts are being created over what was not long ago fertile prairie and forestland. I will allow you to draw your own conclusions as to the long term affect this will have on us as a species.

I would also like to point out that 10,000 years ago north Africa was a tropical jungle. That land was heavily logged and now it is a... yes you guessed it, it sadly is a big desert. The only thing that can heal a desert as of yet is its emersion under a body of water for many many years while sediment forms a new rudimentary soil layers.

So, these deserts we are manufacturing with our envirormental naivete will be here during a time when our decendants are trying to survive in a time of increased temperatures and shrunken landmasses.

Sorry, I think I started to ramble a bit there. Really I just wanted to point out that Global Warming is a natural process and that there are better things to focus your enviromental rage upon.


Love to yall,

DigitalPhalanges

[wesmorris]

Sorry I haven't read it all but wanted to note:

The issue isn't really "is there global warming". Hell I'll concede I believe I've heard convincing arguments. I think it issue is "did humans cause the globe to warm up?". I don't think that link can even remotely established. Sure you can find correlations with chemical levels, but how can you establishe them to be causal with no complete and valid model of the system? I doubt that can be done in a compelling manner.

[ElectricFetus]

Andre,

Well then you obviously have not been reading the articles I have. Many studies had p-values below 5% so I would say there at lest 1/20 chance that its not happening.

[Exotic_D]

thanks for the informative info.. it's awfully refreshing... however... if this is occuring naturally as you said then by definition we are going to die from this phenomenon eventually anyways, correct? and i agree.. we do have more pressing issues facing us... soil, water and food contamination by the industries who consider "human endangerment" a part of doing business... it's not only normal and natural that they are poisoning us... it's legal!

species extinction due to consumerism i.e. salmon/cod stocks, U.S army sonar testing and it's deadly effects on marine mammals... unsustainable development of natural resources and land mass i.e. destruction of ecosystems due to waste and overremoval of natural resources i.e. oil/natural gas, pollution of our waterways due to dumping... refusal to use safer methods of technology i.e. solar/wind power, hydrogen vehicles etc... dismantling of the Constitution i.e. the new Patriot Act and Homeland Security office...

these issues are directly affecting each and every human being on this planet today... whether they know and accept that fact is not my concern... edifying is however... the empire that Bush desires is real for him... that everything will be stamped "made in america" is not a false hope or a psychopath's delusional dreams of grandure... it is a prediction from the Bush administration... they are forewarning us and we are not taking them seriously... they want Iran now... i could have told you that when they decided to dust Iraq... i must be clairvoyant or something...

D

[DigitalPhalanges]

Personally I do not think that the phenomenon of Global Warming is life threatening by itself. However combined with all the nasty things humans are doing, I wouldn't be surprised if the planet will be incapable of supporting a large population of anything much larger then a cat for about a 100k years. A mere moment in the scheme of things but a significant period of time for a social species such as ourselves. I estimate this as beginning shortly after the caps are done melting. This is all dependent on whether or not we are free to pursue alternative means of living. This is being decided by the actions of the major governments and the inactions of the people of the world. I speak especially of the people of the U.S. of which I am one.

On a local level we need to push our cities and then states to pass resolutions against the Patriot Act. Also we need to warn congress that should they allow the Patriot Act 2 to pass they will be out of jobs and all of our livelyhoods in this country will be in jeopardy.

Most importantly there is a need to form strong bonds within your community so that there is trust amonst neighbors. Developing the skill nessassry to survive in a world without money is also important (I do not say this because I think there will be no money, I just think it is a good idea) and if you don't see the need then don't worry about it. Just sit back and change the channel.

"I act not only for my immediate benifit I act for the benifit of my decendants. Expand your attention span beyond your own life and you will have discovered what it will always mean to keep being human." - Hiroshima Reason

Here is a funny little piece of information for you all. The difference between a poor community and a rich one is this: Of every dollar spent in the poor community only $.10 recirculates throughout the community, In a rich community every dollar spent makes its way through that community an average of ten times before it is degraded to less then $1.00.

Think for yourself. You are incapable of doing this if you are an avid consumer of television.
"TV Programs." - note, this is a statement.

End Mutation.


Love is what you need,

DigitalPhalanges

[Essan]

For the past 10,000 years the earth has experienced a relatively stable climate - this stability may well be one reason for the sudden emergence of human civilisation.

But even within this period there has been constant slow variations in the global climate - most famously with the 'Little Ice Age'.

Accurate climate measurements have only been made for the past 150 or so years.

The only surprise would be if we found that there had been no climate change over the past 150 years. If that happened than I really would believe in an anthropogenic cause!

And anyway, taking the bigger picture, it's all a total irrelevance. There's absolutely nothing that humans can do that will affect the long term viability of the planet Earth to sustain life. How vain we are to think that we - or anything we do really matters. Maybe in 10 million years time some truely intelligent species will evolve? :D

[ElectricFetus]

For the past sever million years the earth has had brief Ice and Hot ages every couple of 10,000 years or so, so it not illogical to assume we will have another again with the next 1-2 dozen thousand years.

[Xevious]

As an Astronomer, I would like to offer an observation:

It has been known for some time that Global Warming is occuring on Mars. At first, this was thought to be caused by Martian ice caps melting and releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, until new images from the Mars Orbital Camera revealed that the ice caps are mostly water ice. Since their is no active volcanism on Mars or any other phenomenon causing increased CO2 on Mars, the only factor in Marian weather which can possibly cause global Warming which we know if, is increased solar activity.

Furthermore, if increased solar activity is causing global warming, then global warming should be found in some mannor on EVERY object in the solar system. However, their is one standard of proof which greatly interests me. Short period comets, which reside in our inner solar system, should be greatly effected, as increased solar activity (and thus increased solar winds) should make the tails more spectacular and the nuclei more luminous.

To be fair, not every object however, will be testable for the hypothesis. Jupiter radiates as much energy as it recieves from the Sun and it's weather is not as influenced by solar activity.

[Xevious]

The moon has no atmosphere, and no weather phenomenon which can be tested for this hypothesis.

[Stokes Pennwalt]

There are two studies that I regard as the absolute worst science of the twentieth century: the first was the ozone hole. These idiots postulated a question that had only one possible answer and then acted surprised when it turned out to be true. Running a close second to that insult is side-show Global Warming. Having the same lack of factual support (grounded in biased data collection and patently stupid experimentation), global warming has systematically used correlation to imply causality.

The only two things that are known for certain is that Average global thermal count has been increasing in the timespan of the measurements. Human CO2 production had been increasing in the timespan of the measurements. That was seemingly all the linkage these people needed to construct a vast and complex mechanism for them to actually be related. They then back is up with measurements taken 10 miles downwind from and active volcano to show the horrors that civilization is bringing to the poor defenseless planet. There are perhaps 30 people on the planet who are making a honest and truly scientific investigation, and sadly, they are getting lost in the static generated by the people whose most compelling arguement is "can we afford to wait?" My own response to that would be "do we even get a choice?" With the numbers they create their own studies would indicate that we're already fucked, so why bother?

The reduction of CO2 production is probably going to be a good thing, but for absolutely none of the reasons the global warming supporters would have you believe. I have ignored them (as opposed to attacking them) based on the strength of this belief alone. Global Warming is absolutely happening. Humans have absolutely nothing to do with it. Just like the ozone hole, global warming will die a quiet death in the coming years and will undoubtedly be replaced with something else. We've seen this kind of long term faddish nonsense before and it has yet again taken on a different form. I've have been singularly unimpressed by their preformance this time around.

[ElectricFetus]

Andre,

I can see that you hate global warming theory with all your might, I’m ok with that, but I get the idea you think burning fossil fuels is a good idea for infinite time of constant progress and growth.

Obviously if this is so then reality is a very hard concepts for conservative like you to understand.

[ElectricFetus]

I have nothing against of for global warming: it is base on simple logic CO2 and CH4, we produce a lot of this stuff, global levels of this gaseous are up, so therefore one would expect world temperatures to go up, unfortunately the weather has proven its self to be beyond complicated, the side effects of pumping out this gaseous could be anything, including nothing at all. Even so it does not matter naturally or not the earth is changing. I prefer to look at more eminent problems like what going to happen when we out demand are supply of fossil fuel, Kyoto treaty helps answer problems like that.

[Svensk_Tiger]

I just thought I'd point out that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, as seen in the geological record. The levels today are nothing unusual. I don't have a definite opinion on the matter as I don't really know enough about the subject, but I think this is an interesting point.

[ElectricFetus]

Andre,

Thank you for reinforcing what I was just saying: the basic premise of global warming though simple is a nightmarish complex thing in reality that has totally unpredictable result (at this time.

Second of all fossil fuels will not run out, but they will not match are demand for them soon! Mining Deep-sea methane could cost more energy then is mined up! You try dredging the sea floor at several km down. Finding new oil reserves has dropped sense the 1960, demand for oil goes up exponentially yet production has gone up linearly. The human race will be 12 billion strong by 2020, are demanded for energy will increase 7-10 fold! At that rate of exponential growth Oil (by the most pessimistic measurement) would no long be able to supply our demand by 2006+-2, estimates based of all possible energy positive minable oil reserves in existence projects that it will not be economical to mine oil by 2020-2030.

And there is a serious problem with your Venus theory and that is that you did not account for mercury! Mercury also has a very slow spin, the idea was the earth and mars were hit by very large asteroid at slated angles late in their development and thus give them their high-speed spin. Also boiled off most of there volatiles which made our atmosphere nice and thin, Venus though was left with one 91 times earth pressure and made out of gaseous that you refuse to believe can trap heat at all, such as CO2 and SO2 those having a ~860 degree air surface temperature. I advice the book “Venus Revealed” by David Harry Grinspoon.

[Essan]

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt

The only two things that are known for certain is that Average global thermal count has been increasing in the timespan of the measurements. Human CO2 production had been increasing in the timespan of the measurements. That was seemingly all the linkage these people needed to construct a vast and complex mechanism for them to actually be related.


Glad to see I'm not the only way who disputes the one basic assumption upon which the whole of AGW theory stands...or falls :)

[eburacum45]

It is difficult to be sure, but it seems likely that CO2 was ten times as high during the Mesozoic as it is today.
Gradually carbon is being taken out of the atmosphere, and incorporated into sedimentary rocks...
some of which is naturally recycled, but the long term trend for CO2 in the atmosphere is probably downward. This might be a cotributory factor to the formation of first, the Antarctic ice sheet, and more recently the Arctic.

Admittedly the variability of the Sun, the circulation in the Great Southern Ocean and North Atlantic, and the Milankovitch cycles also contribute to tempreature changes, and are no doubt responsible for the pattern of glacials and interglacials.
But as CO2 goes down the Earth will get colder.
Anthropogenic Global Warming may be the only thing which is keeping the ice at bay...

as I have mentioned elsewhere, the Sun will gradually get warmer as it converts its H into He... so the cooling trend of the Earth will eventually reverse itself...

but again, it is difficult to be sure. I think that the first candidate for terraforming in our galaxy will be the Earth; with careful management of the carbon and other cycling materials, the Earth can remain at a comfortable temperature for more than a billion years.
__________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

[drnihili]

I'm not going to jump in to the debate, at least not yet. But I did want to point out that www.climateprediction.net is starting up a DC project in this vein. If you're so inclined...

[ElectricFetus]

Andre,

I did mention mercury in one of your (or was is some other guys?) Venus threads (there were so many!) the moon and mercury have very little in common historically because mercury is a planet while the moon is a spin off of earth and another planet that no long exists. No you do not understand what I meant by large asteroids perhaps planets would have been a better word: Earth and Mars were hit by planets! Earth it self took an impact from a planet the size of mars, as a result earth has its high-speed spin and the moon. Also again you do not acknowledge the fact that CO2 does trap heat (at lest better then Nitrogen)

[ElectricFetus]

The moons origins from earth is quite well proven also the physics works out fine.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/moonwhack_side_000901.html
http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/content/article/0,,NAV2-78_SAR1279,00.shtml
you want more? type it in on google I got more then 1000 links here all saying the same stuff.

[eburacum45]

Although the Moon and the Earth are geochemically very similar, they have very different densities; the Big Collision theory explains this by separating the denser rocks from the lighter crustal rocks, some of which splashed into orbit during the impact and became the Moon.
This implies that the Earth is more dense than other planets of its size, and I believe this prediction is in line with the lower density of Venus.
However, I am not absolutely convinced...
it turns the early solar sytem into a game of pool.
__________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

[TheCat]

But it was a game of pool. You had planets and planetoids whizzing around, coalesing, colliding and re-forming. It must've been a chaotic system until it settled down. It only seems stable to us on our meagre timescale of vobserving things for a few millenia. The formation happened over hundreds of millions of years, so viewing things on this time scale, one or two early collisions are not unexpected. Remember, there was a huge meateorite bombardment in the early solar system history. This just shows the chaos that was going on, even after the planets had formed!

[drnihili]

Originally posted by Andre

I'm not an astronomer, but couldn't Earth and moon have been formed like twin stars are formed?

The linked articles specifically address that argument and provide the argument and evidence which shows that they could not have.

[Xevious]

The idea that the moon and Earth formed togeather in close proximety was one of the leading hypothesis until after Apollo. Most of the Moon's material was found by Astronauts to be identical to that which is found on Earth.

Mercury is a completely differnt world. While the surfaces of the Moon and Mercury appear to be very similar in terms of their color and abundancy of cratering, a closer look just at the surface reveals immidiately how differnt they are. The Moon has great massive spots of Mara, or "seas" as they were called in ancient times - ancient volcanic lava beds which covered up sizeable parts of the moons surface and erased the impact craters in those areas, leaving relatively smooth surfaces. Mercury has no such places on it's surface, save one (IF I remember correctly), and that particular basin was caused by a massive impact melting a part of the surface, not volcanic activities.

Cutting the two worlds in half and looking at them like apple-slices, one quickly sees the heart of the matter, as it were. The Moon once had an active core of Magma, causing active volcanism at one time. Over 60% of Mercury as a whole is taken up by a massive core of solid iron - the denses material formed by nuclear fission in super-active giant stars.

We should not blame Andre for his ideas or his confusion. Many Astronomy books, including College textbooks and some of the best books period on the subject of the Solar System, present Mercury and the Moon togeather in one chapter and thus imply they are related similar objects. His questions are very typical of many of the Astronomy students I once taught and entirely understandable - even logical based on the knowledge he has.

[Xevious]

No agrument can be made that CO2 is not a significant heat retainer with the right conditions. Venus for example, cooks in extrordinatly high temperatures, because it's atmosphere of 98% Carbon Dioxide traps nearly all of the energy it recieves from the Sun. This process may never stop - Venus has volcanoes on it's surface which are thought to have errputed as recently as within the last few thousand years and might still have active volcanism increasing the CO2 levels in it's atmosphere.

However, Mars clearly shows an example of CO2 not functioning in this role in differnt conditions. The atmosphere of Mars is around 1 / 3 as thick as ours, and obviously many times thinner than the atmosphere of Venus. Nonetheless the atmosphere is primarily CO2. Apparently, even at being purely CO2, the Martian atmosphere cannot seem to retain significant amounts of heat... or can it? During the Martian summer, temperatures can reach an Earth-like 60F during the daytime. Nighttime temperatures however, are still well below zero. Clearly, Mars recieved a great deal of solar energy - enough to reach Earth-like temperatures during the day despite being nearly twice Earth's distance from the sun. But at night, the atmosphere cannot retain enough of that energy to maintain a comfortable night-time temperature.

Considering however that CO2 is not a particularly abundant gas in our atmosphere compared to say 76% nitrogen, then I do not see it as a significant cause for global warming. Mars probably has more despite it's smaller size and it can't retain half the heat it gets. Venus has many times as much as Earth does. I do not feel the conditions that Earth has, based on what I know CO2 does in the atmospheres of other planets, are sufficient for CO2 to be a significant heat retainer.

[ElectricFetus]

The atmosphere on mars in not one 1/3 as think as ours: that’s a very gross understatement! Earth sea level pressure is 1000mbars, Mar’s is at 7mbars or less then 1/100 our pressure!

The Moon does not rotate because it is a Moon! Almost all the satellites in the solar system do not rotate but remain fix pointed to the planet.

Very parabolic orbits decay to a more circler one; Mars and Earth have parabolic orbits, not nearly as round a Venus.

[ElectricFetus]

What relationship? Orbits do decay mind you, but the parameter of a orbits control by many factors. What conclusion? Was I suppose to have one?

[Xevious]

We're getting way off topic.

[Xevious]

I personally cannot find any fault in your statements reguarding Venus's orbit. However, I am unsure how this ties into the conversation of Global Warming on Earth. Venus has no life, liquid water, or any other known mechanism found on Earth which would keep the CO2 in check. It also has from whaw we know, no way of filtering out all the energy it is recieving from the sun and it retains it until the atmosphere is stimply too satturated to hold any more. Furthermore, Venus is though to still be volcanically active. If true this would mean CO2 levels on Venus are still increasing. Venus has no atmospheric convection, no changing weather patterns near it's surface, nothing, nadda, zilch. It's a dead world which has accept for it's size and perhaps it's functional core, little to nothing in common with Earth.

All Venus contributes to our discussion is what CO2 CAN do when their is sufficient quantities of it, left in a static enviornment. Even with solar activity increasing, Venus's atmosphere should not undergo any kind of global climate change, because it seems Venus is already at the maximum temperature it's atmosphere can retain.

Now, I am somewhat in your courner with reguards to how significant or insignificant CO2 is to Global Warming on Earth. However, I think you are useing a very poor example to make your point. It is far more profitable to compare Earth and Mars, which both have water, convecting atmosphere, similar day / night lengths, similar geographic features if not totally similar geology, and of course Mars has a very thin atmosphere compared to ours (Thank you WCF for correcting me on the Martian atmosphere - I looked it up and will conceed my error) and thus finding Global Warming on that world is very important to the discussion particularly if you want to invoke Solar Activity as the common dunominator.

[ElectricFetus]

Actually Venus may have life, no internal analyzes of Venusians cloud particles has yet been done. Once again I advice the book “Venus Revealed” by David Harry Grinspoon. By ya this is off topic.

[Xevious]

Andre, as I said earlier - I am in your courner here. I do not believe that Global Warming is a phenomenon linked to human emissions. You don't have to push me around or throw around insults, particularly in a civilized intelligent discussion. However, what I want is for you to put this observation into a CONTEXT for the discussion, and explain why you disagree with what I said earlier.

What bearing does this data have on the discussion of Global Warming? What conclusion does it bring you to? Please clear up your point. I think you are going somewhere, have a well thought-out idea, but the problem is I think you have explained it poorly.

[Xevious]

That's OK Andre - I have lots of respect for a concession and apology. It is rare particularly here on Sciforums, where humility seems particularly rare. We all let our emotions get in the way - no matter what you believe. We are all human. The point is you have learned the lesson: Be very careful how you let your emotions interfear with the subject. We are all guilty of this time to time, but if you do this too much your observations will be less likely to be accepted or even considered by others. It's a less I have learned the hard way.

Back on subject:

If Global Warming is a Solar System wide phenomenon, then how do we go about setting standards of proof for this idea? What are the effects of a more active sun, and how will we look for these effects? How will the other major and minor planets be effects?

[NileQueen]

Hi Xevious

I think the reason Andre brought in Venus was that it supposedly has a runaway greenhouse effect, and therefore is a parallel to the greenhouse hype on planet earth. It's on topic in that respect. Venusian greenhouse hype B.S. No I don't think we are globally warming. KT is a big political money chute & power play. But humans should consider their impact on the environment, pollution and overfishing and so on.

NQ :)

[Xevious]

I can appriciate that. Yes, the "runaway greenhouse" effect we see on Venus is what happens when you have nothing but CO2 to play with. Yes, the Venus example is taken highly out of context to support the propaganda that we're all going to die by the year 2050. I guess after Global Cooling's prediction of a freezing Earth by the end of the 1970's fell on it's face, it was realized that a much longer deadline had to be set so the phenomenon could be less testable.

[Exotic_D]

i am thrilled to see such active minds having a "real" discussion about this... however... you have lost me on the whole solar system discussion.. out of my realm of expertise... but on that note... i believe i have learned a few things... and am grateful for that... thanks for contributing but i have a question...

do you think it's possible that we may be "speeding" up an already existing process? with all the toxic compounds we have carelessly introduced (and continue to do so) into our atmosphere, is this a totally unacceptable, totally unprovable or totally impossible hypothesis based on your understanding of our planet? or do you just not have a clue?

D

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Xevious
a much longer deadline had to be set so the phenomenon could be less testable.

That's classic. ;)

[Xevious]

Perhaps so, but that's just my opinion... but it's a healthy one based on real events. As a second example, remember how much hype came with the supposed Y2K bug.... which actually caused no real issues. Supporters claim that this was because people took notice and adverted the distaster by upgrading their computers. Proponets state that nothing happened because their was nothing to happen - that Y2K was nothing more than a hype which brought tons of money into the computer industry.

When in the last few years their has been a cooling trend, I've known several friends of mine who are global warming activists stand up and say that banning CFC's, regulating emissions car and factory emissions, ect. were the main causes of this cooling trend... yet the data at hand is very sketchy. Banning the production of CFC's has not taken out air conditioners which still use CFC's either. Yet despite this apparent short-term cooling effect, we still live in an Earth which does show signs of increased CO2 - our greeing and expanding forests being a very apparent example.

In the end, Global Warming's predictions of doom and gloom are not entirely a scientifically testable hypothesis. If the predictions come true, then proponents of the idea will say that it was a correct assumption, while opponents may still be asking for the data which directly link human emissions with our changing climate. If the predictions do not come true, then the proponets will applaude themselves for stopping a world catastrophy and saving us all from a horrible end, while the opponets will still be waiting for proof that the phenomenon was ever of our doing.

It is ironic that the prophecy of doom and gloom predicts events which would already may have been predicted, be it based on human phenomenon or not. At the time the idea of Global Warming was first concieved in the late 1800's, global temperatures were already increasing. The ice caps were already melting. From the end of the last Ice Age to present, global temperatures have risen 16 degrees F. Areas which humans once walked on like the land bridge between Russia and Alaska are now underwater, and have been long before we started burning coal and gasoline. The sea level has risen 300 feet from the end of the last Ice Age to present.

Long before factories showed up, the sea levels were rising, and the ice caps have been melting. Global Warming as caused by human emissions furthermore does not make any predictions for the future which cannot be placed in any other context.

[Exotic_D]

peace... outty...

[Xevious]

I am not convinced we can put a time-frame on the natural development of Global Warming. Their are too many factors involved. Firstly, I don't think we really have a complete idea of how much CO2 nature is already putting out, between the trees, the volcanic activity, underground coal fires, dried lakes turning over, ect.

If you can't get an exact figure on how much CO2 the world is putting out, you don't have the first variable in the two part equasion. Next, you would have to figure out how much we humans are putting out, and add two and two. You can't add a variable with an integer and get a real whole number.

[ElectricFetus]

Dam I did not know CO2 was combustible? So how much CO2 would the world need tell it “burst into flames”? Answer: what kind of stupid ass question is that!, CO2 does not burn it inhibits combustion in fact.

CO2 is being produced and reabsorbed we want to know if more is being produce then absorded.

[and2000x]

Well, you have to throw in some other factors. It is true that nature is mostly responsible for any form of global warming by quantity, but certain human conditions may speed up the process:

1.) The cattle industry=high methane emissions.

2.) Ozone hole- Despite the fact that the Ozone hole is almost healed, it has allowed more heat onto the planet than usual, which gets trapped by the gases.

3.) The oil on water theory- brought up in another thread.

[Xevious]

I was thinking about Global Warming the other day and I realized that this whole time, the mechanism which really causes Global Warming has been staring us in the face this whole time. We have all treated the melting ice caps as a symptom of global warming. I think it is the single most significant cause of Global Warming. You might laugh at that, but I have a real argument to make:

It is undesputed that WATER VAPOR is the single most influential Greenhouse Gas. Secondly, the polar ice caps have been melting since the end of the last Ice Age. As the ice caps melt, they put more free water into our biosphere. The more water that is available, the more water vapor we have. More water vapor in turns means more heat retention. This of course, will cause the ice caps to melt more, freeing up even more water to vaporize. I speculate the process is runaway and indeed, geologic history would seem to line up with this argument. It is RARE for our planet to have Ice Caps in the first place. So what happens? In the end, all of the water on this planet is made into free, liquid, running water. Once the ice caps are gone, the process stops because there is no longer any more free liquid water being introduced into our biosphere. Basically, the atmosphere reaches an equilibrium.

This hypothesis would not only fit all of the same evidence presented for CO2 caused global warming, but it would make the same predictions, and yield the same results.

Do I have an example of this as a workable idea? Yes.
It is called Mars.

[Xevious]

If the ice caps melt, large chunks and icebergs enter the oceans and start melting over there. This cools the ocean surface with two effects. The evaporation decreases and the general convection cycle is disrupted. Both have as consequence that the air moisture is decreasing, terminating the enhanced greenhouse effect.

On a more local scale, yes. However, this does not change the fact that more liquid water is now in play in our Biosphere overall. Eventually, that water will end up in a warmer area and get evaporated. Besides, when the ice caps finally do melt off there will not be a source of ice to keep the cooling mechanism you are discussing active. Same result. In addition, you cannot say with certanty that the enhanced greenhouse effect is termintated by colder oceans, but it seems far more likely that it would only be slowed.

[Xevious]

There is another problem however: Satilite data has shown that the temperatures in our atmosphere have not changed in well over 20 years... the atmosphere isn't warming, but only surface temperatures seem to be IF you accept the surface temperature data isn't faulty. (And it probably is).

However, the underlying premice that melting ice caps means there is more liquid water in our biosphere and thus more water available to be vaporized has not been changed and can easily be confirmed or denied between determining how much the ice caps have melted in recent times, and checking out global rainfall totals. It is no secret that weather patterns are getting more extreme, but if the amount of rainfall reported globally has increased over the past few year then there is a stronger case to be made.

[Exotic_D]

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Dam I did not know CO2 was combustible? So how much CO2 would the world need tell it “burst into flames”? Answer: what kind of stupid ass question is that!, CO2 does not burn it inhibits combustion in fact.

CO2 is being produced and reabsorbed we want to know if more is being produce then absorded.

haha... you're a prick dude... just by me saying that, do i sound like a freakin scientist? of course not, so i don't know that CO2 is NOT combustible.. you could have just told me dickhead.. you could have attempted to edify me rather than ridicule me... i hope it happens to you someday, in a large circle of your "oh so intelligent" friends and you look like a total ass, the exact assness you attempted to project onto me...

you know, when you laugh at people who are learning or who would LIKE to learn something, you stifle not only their ability to trust people (you're such a bloody typical human being wellcookednothingness) and to continue trying to better themselves and our human family...your intolerance of those who know less than you is a perfect indicator of what type of human being you are... your holier-than-thou attitude doesn't produce any other effect on this planet other than continuing to inflate your already massive ego...

you could have perhaps enlightened me and shown me something where a bond of trust and respect could have been built... this is what i believed coming into this section of sciforums would help me do... but you've just proven my previous theory... scientists are devoid of real human emotional bonding capabilities... and are intolerant of those who do not think like them... you don't know me, but i love to learn, i loathe being laughed at unless it's in good fun (what makes you any better than me, you're human and therefore will be maggot food someday, just as i and the rest of us here will) and i abhor you're flippant attitude...

leave it to an ostentatious sexually repressed scientist to take all the fun and joy out of sharing with my fellow human beings... no wonder i gave up hope on our species, with such camaraderie, how could i not... i'm out of here... good riddance...

thanks for nothing jerk...

peace

D

[ElectricFetus]

Jess man relax, I was just busting your balls. :o

[Xevious]

Woah, be lucky. She blessed you to touch them.

[ElectricFetus]

Xevious,

you mean I screwed up again? :( I should have said instead: "Jess dudette relax, I was just busting your ovaries."?

I'm sorry I just assume everyone know CO2 was the product of combustion and could not burn anymore. All the orbitals are full on the carbon, the only way you could get it to burn more is if you had a atmosphere of halogens like Cl or F, in such a case CO2+2Cl2 = CCl4 + O2 would (I guessing) be exothermic and spontaneous. huuuh you could also try extreme ionization such as CO3-2 but such a ion would not last long as it would be horrible unstable and react with N2 or O2 in the air forming O3 and NOx, it would also require huge amounts of energy. H2CO3 is stable though (in water) as it is what happens when H20+CO2. This is a common acid (very common biochemical acid) slight increase in H2CO2 in water would not produce noticeable increase in corrosion nor would it hurt bio-systems.

[Xevious]

Relax, Wellcooked :) I was just pulling on your leg!

[ramirez]

A decade ago I graduated with a degree in Environmental Science, ready to save the world. Since then, I've spent a reasonable amount of time being a corporate slut, studying marketing and what-not. 'Marketing' has come to mean significantly more than it used to, its about how a company continues to grow through staying on top of their product/s 'life cycles' (how purchasing of any item will initially grow, and then diminish over time). To look at it from the human perspective: how confident of your investment in a major oil company would you be right now? and how confident of delivering returns and continued growth would you be if you were on the board, or the Chief Executive Officer of one of these companies - bearing in mind you'll have a 40-year plan, and forecast of sales based on real information (not the info supplied to governments in order to gain subsidies) right in front of you. I think you'd be bricking it. Only, you wouldn't...
Back in the '90s it was no secret that BP was buying up independent research projects into alternative fuel sources like kids picking out candies. It caused an amount of outcry among my peers, but you can be 100% assured that BP weren't binning them. Using their 'cash cows' of oil and its derivatives, such companies are continuing to fund research into their next major market moves. The life cycle of oil will have a pretty turbulent ending when it becomes scarce enough to massively inflate the market value. At which point, (most likely a few years before it) a big enough player, who has done their research and has plans to tackle the logistics, will roll out their ace card and do their damndest to sell it to us. And there will be a choice - not one alternative product, but many (mainly because of the incredible amount of differnet uses oil gets). The major oil companies have a lot to lose if they don't do something to maintain the cash flow, but I'm sure there will be others - a new market will open up to an increasingly desperate commercial and industrial world. Would Richard Branson pass up an opportunity like that? Would you? If you had the financial resource to launch and deliver such a thing? Nope. Couple that with the modern high-profile of environmentally conscious purchasing, of the regular column inches that environmental issues now get in the media, of increasing global and local awareness among populations of industrialised countries, and you're looking at the changes you seek. It wouldn't be the same if those concerned about the environment had kept quiet these last few decades. But given the rising tide of scientific evidence, and increasing stories of degredation and environemntal disaster, those voices were inevitable. So what else needs to be sorted out?

[Carcano]

Question:
The ice core records shows that levels of CO2 have gone up and down with changes in average temperature over the last few hundred thousand years.

Actually, the CO2 levels lag behind the temp changes by about 800 years, so we might assume that its not the CO2 thats causeing it.

Its an important principle to distinguish between what is a cause and what is an effect when observing scientific phenomena.

A curious thing however is that during ice ages there is relatively little vegetation on earth - the northern hemisphere being covered with ice.

So you would expect there to be MORE CO2 in the atmosphere at that time - seeing as there is less vegetation to absorb it???

[nicholas1M7]

Global warming isn't bullshit. David Suzuki is fightin the good fight right now.

[Zardozi]

Sorry I cannot find any references but I have heard a theory that Global Warming will melt the ice caps which will cause the cooling of tropical waters which in turn has some kind of role in maintaining the earths atmosphere climate resulting an effect that will cause global freezing. So Global Warming will cause Global Freezing?

[John Connellan]

Just like in "The Day after tomorrow"

[iceaura]

Humans are responsible for pumping approximately some 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the biosphere every year versus around 200 billion for nature, so even if carbon dioxide is causing global warming you're focusing on the wrong contributor. That doesn't matter: the increase in CO2 concentration has been measured, and confirmed by isotope analysis at Mauna Loa among other places to be from fossil fuel combustion. radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise

Regardless of our relaive contribution to the total flux, we are contributing all of the accumulation - we are contributing more than the accumulation, actually, so somewhere something is damping our effects. We hope whatever it is keeps working, and is not getting overloaded (the accumulation seems to be ramping up, lately).

btw: past cycles of warming, and past levels of CO2, only shed light on possible effects etc. It doesn't matter if past warmings were caused by CO2 or not, if this one is - as it seems.

[boppa]

That doesn't matter: the increase in CO2 concentration has been measured, and confirmed by isotope analysis at Mauna Loa among other places to be from fossil fuel combustion. radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise

Regardless of our relaive contribution to the total flux, we are contributing all of the accumulation - we are contributing more than the accumulation, actually, so somewhere something is damping our effects. We hope whatever it is keeps working, and is not getting overloaded (the accumulation seems to be ramping up, lately).

btw: past cycles of warming, and past levels of CO2, only shed light on possible effects etc. It doesn't matter if past warmings were caused by CO2 or not, if this one is - as it seems.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

is the link i think you were trying to post iceaura

however i cant find anything that resembles your quote "That doesn't matter: the increase in CO2 concentration has been measured, and confirmed by isotope analysis at Mauna Loa among other places to be from fossil fuel combustion"
(1996 published date)

wiki has this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa_Observatory

Critics claim that the "worldwide" rising CO2 levels measured only at this site are man made, point out that it is probably due to the fact that these measurements are a result of its location on an active volcano. A very important point since new and coming environmantal legislation is using these and only these possibly erroneous CO2 measurements as a basis to justify sweeping and probably expensive measures to lower man made CO2 emissions.
This page was last modified 08:31, 4 March 2007.

currently trying to find other sites that do same or similair measurements

[boppa]

strange a quick google shows that rising co2 is also (only in first 3 pages) assosiated with flask measurements made on Lampedusa Island

Lampedusa
Distant from the Sicilian coast 205 km (150 from the island of Malta and 114 from Tunisia),
it has superficial ones of 20.2 kmq, and the higher point is the mount Tree of the Sun (m.133).
Its land limestone, lacking in water sources, has insufficient coltivations of cereals, legumi, and vineyards.
Its cliffs are nearly copletamente full of rocks and full of coves, that are attended from the common seal.
The center inhabited Lampedusa, with its port, and situated in one deep gulf.
From the country it can be gone to the Maluk cove, to the Maccaferri tip and one series of coves.
Lopadusa for the Roman, already lived in the age of the bronze, remained then to along deserted until 1843, when Ferdinand II of Borbone established a population of 700 inhabitants.
Linosa
The ancient Algusa or Aethusa is distant from the Sicilian coast 161 km, 114 from Pantelleria, and 42 from Lampedusa.
It has superficial ones of 5.5 kmq, is of volcanic origin, emerged perhaps in the ancient fourth period, its higher point is the mount Volcano 195 m.
It was colonized in 1845 from Ferdinand II of Borbone.

once again co2 rising near a volcanic origined island..

any results not near volcanoes??

;-)

[swivel]

Since anti-consumerism fascists can't convince people that their ideas are correct, in an intellectually open and honest atmosphere, they have to result to fear-mongering in an attempt to shut down human progress. This is just like the Rain Forests, the Ozone Layer, Endangered Species, etc... Their ideas are not wanted by the vast majority of humans, so they have to subvert the process in a backhanded way.

The problem with this trend, and with these fascists, is that they have cried "Wolf" for so long, and been wrong and immoral so often, that if there really is a tragedy looming, nobody is going to give them any credibility. If global warming really is happening, and we are causing it, and it is a bad thing, and we can fix it for less money than the consequences will cost, I still hesitate to take anything that the anti-consumerists say to heart. They are a disgusting and ignorant lot that rails against all of the things which benefit humanity.

I go out of my way to shop at WalMart just to support them from the vicious attacks that this crowd launches at them constantly. I think there are far more people like me, who silently combat them with our dollars, than there are hypocrites like them. I will never buy gas at a BP again just because of their envirowhacky commercials. I consider myself a social liberal, and these pretenders are social fascists from where I stand.

[DubStyle]

^

I agree bro.

The anti-consumerists who just so happen to be environmentalists will take any issue possible and hijack it so long as it works to further their goals.

Global Warming, Peak Oil, and Evil Corporations etc....all these ideas may perhaps contain a nugget of truth somewhere, but the crowd that supports them have radicalized to an extent where I simply hesitate to buy in 100%.

I've said it before, Peak oil is just a ploy used by environmentalists to stop people from burning hydrocarbons. You just ass easily say ___________ is a ploy used by environmentalists to stop ___________________.

They try to hijack the science behind these ideas to enact their activist policy.

[swivel]

One of the co-founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, left the organization when he realized that anti-capitalists had hijacked his baby. He now spearheads other organizations which try to make sure that capitalism is as green as possible. He is helping make realistic changes, while his anarchist friends make noise and do nothing useful. There is a difference between conservatism, which we should all strive for, and the impossible goal of preservation, which nature abhors.

Change is inevitable. We should try to make as many good changes as possible, and make our bad changes as harmless as we can. The problem with the Global Warming debate is that nobody has convinced me that global warming is a bad thing. It could have more net benefits than harm. Since the movement is spearheaded by anti-capitalists, there is no question in their minds. The change is being made by *vehicles* and *power plants* and *consumerism* and *TV's*. These things are all evil. So the result of their use MUST also be evil.

That, seriously, is the unspoken logic at work here. I want to know if we'd be better off if the Soviet tundra would thaw. If the Sahara would return to grasslands sooner than normal. If Greenland would support more farming. If new habitats for more varied life would arise in currently frozen wastelands. If coral reefs would spread and grow in places where none exist now. Will there be the destruction of some habitats? Absolutely. Will there be the creation of just as many new ones? There would have to be.

If only the environmentalists understood the environments that they pretend to love, they would know that these changes will happen with or without our help. And shifting the timetable a few thousand years one way or the other is nothing when compared to the 4.5 billion year history of our rock. But, alas, we know that they aren't even concerned about the environment, or they would be cursing the Soviet Union for the environmental offenses waged under communism. They would have vile and venom for the tribes which clear-cut rainforests so they can grow crops to survive. Instead... they attack WalMart, McDonalds, GM, et al.

So transparent. We should stop giving them a pass, and start calling people out on this bullshit. Force them to be intellectually honest with us about their motives.

[URI]

>> It could have more net benefits than harm>>>

well it is comforting to think of a warmer Earth, with new greenery and new uninhabited land to colonise....

LOL

In truth the ice of frozen wastelands will thaw, and yes for a while new greenery will flourish until....

GLOBAL DROUGHT.... now there's a thought, now all land is barren and there is no food for the billions...... and terrestrial species all extinct.....

Well that is only the initial consequences of the oil in the marine micro-layer

Then because the sea is not evaporating water, it has become over hot.... it is overhot now..... how to get that heat out will lead to...

LOL

From that will come a GLOBAL ICE AGE.... oh only a massive one, that will cover the whole Earth.... OH and this will last just a few hundred million years.....well from then on, no one will care, LIFE here is as good as totally extinct.......

That is if the world wide nuclear war doesn't come on line first, LOL.......

It really is time to call revolution. The people must rise up and demand mitigating action... ooooh its really too late, but we should try for the sake of the children.. LOL, stupid Darwinian adaption will never solve anything, LOL.

see http://www.omegafour.com/forum/

[URI]

Oh and sorry I may have mislead you

This will all happen in YOUR lifetime.

[swivel]

Oh and sorry I may have mislead you

This will all happen in YOUR lifetime.

I never trust a word from anyone who says this. It comes from delusions of grandeur to think that *I* live in special times, and *I* will see the end of the world, etc.

You are obviously not sane, welcome to my ignore list.

[iceaura]

Critics claim that the "worldwide" rising CO2 levels measured only at this site are man made, point out that it is probably due to the fact that these measurements are a result of its location on an active volcano. The critics "overlook" the isotope analysis, showing accumulation of fossil fuel combustion CO2, and no accumulation of volcanic origin CO2.

They also "overlook" the seasonal fluctuations of CO2 at Mauna Loa, which match others elsewhere, and do not match any observed pattern of volcanic activity.

Is your contention that atmospheric gas concentration measurements are being made at only two locations on the planet, both of them on volcanoes?

The researchers at Mauna Loa have been there a while, taking CO2 measurements among many other atmospheric gas measurements, used for many purposes other than the recent global warming investigations, and are not complete fools, OK?
btw:
however i cant find anything that resembles your quote No quote. I label quotes. I cannot post links yet, being new.

[Avatar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6610125.stm