Global warming is it really happening [Archive]

Edufer

10-21-01, 11:36 PM

<blockquote>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Banshee
[B]Hi Edufer, nice to see a person from Argentina at the Sci Forums, welcome.
So in your country temperatures are no good either? It doesn't belong to be so cool in this time of year?

Temperatures are good, but they have not been the high ones we usually had in past decades. It has been cooling down (in the high range), but that probably is due to an increase in humidity in our microclima at the center of Argentina. As I posted before, the erection of big dams in the southwest and big dams in the northeast (Yaciretá and Itaipú in Brazil), right in the axis of prevailing winds SW-->NE (cold and humid now) and NE-->SW (warm and extremely humid now), buffers the extreme temperatures, so we have not the high temps of past decades. This would also buffer the cold ones, but unfortunately this is not the case, as every year in record seem to be colder than the previous. This last winter we had the worst snow blizzards in history, with thousand of trucks getting blocked in the Patagonia and the Andes Cordillera pass to Chile. So here we might be seeing a "smoking gun" of a incoming cooling --not an Ice Age, but a cooling trend in the Southern Hemisphere.

I do not agree with your point that we go back to medieval temperatures, it is not so.

Depends on which Medieval temperatures. Certainly not the Medieval Little Ice Age of 1250 to 1850, but I hope we could get at the Medieval Climate Optimum of 800 - 1250 AD, when the global media was 2°C higher than today. Ever wondered why climatologists call that era the "Climatic Optimum"? Because those are the best temperatures suitable for human, animal and vegetal life on Earth. The conditions set by those temperatures allowed the coming of the Renaissance and a boom of human activity all over the world.

Then came a severe cooling (caused by the Maunder and Spoerer Minima of solar activity) that sunk humanity into the Dark Ages. All kinds of calamities happened then, from the Black Plague to the Holy Inquisition, extended famines and depopulatin of the northern areas in Europe. People didn´t like it cold. Not then, not today.

Through the ages, the Earths crust moved, slowly and not noticable, but Earth moved. The Poles are on another degrees of longitude and latitude these days. That happens through the years. So it comes that even the meridian is moved. The degrees of longitude and latitude change every day a very, very little, you can't even notice it, so slowly. But it happens. And through the ages, land moved with Earth, but not at the same 'speed', you see.

I am aware of the tectonic movements, and the shift of Earth axis, the slight change in the precession of the equinoxes, changes in the magnetic field, etc. But this has been happening so slowly --at geological scale-- that has been barely noticeable during the past 10,000 years. Since then we came out of the last glaciation and went into the Holocen. Now we are getting close to the end of the Holocene and back into a new glacial era. Milantkovitch proved that in the thirties, and until now that seems to be the "sacred words" for climatologists. Human activities have nothing to do with any increase in global temperatures. As much man can be "destroying" the environment, assuming we can alter Earth climate is an expression of arrogancy from our part.

About the rest you tell me, I find you seem to be a sensible person worried about all the catastrophes "perceived" and denounced by enviromental groups. There is little we can discuss here, when emotion prevail over science and verified evidence. Perception is quite different from observation, and as science (or "knowledge") is based fundamentally in repeated observation of events, emotional arguments can not be tested against verified facts. There is no ground for comparison. Apples and horses...

The mess people leave behind. There are ashtrays there to throw your garbage in. But no. Why? Lets throw it in the woods. Plastic bags, everything. I hate it, humans acting like nothing cares but they themselves. And you go on thinking that it is not so bad. It is bad, look and listen...
Maybe then, you people will understand what I mean.

I understand very well how you feel and what you mean. I share your contempt for careless people throwing garbage everywhere. But that is a matter of education. Children must be taught to keep a clean bedroom, a clean kitchen, a clean environment. We must teach children sciences and philosophy, we must teach children how to LEARN, how to use their brains effectively, and not how to hug a tree or kiss a whale every morning. If we want mankind, the human species, to survive on this planet we must act intelligently, and try to better ourselves in all possible manners, materially and spiritually. Quite a task!
</blockquote>

Banshee

10-22-01, 05:11 AM

If you know it all so very well, why don't you start with yourself then?
And be some friendlier, because you do not know me, and you can call me whatever you want, I don't care.
Haha, you make me laugh.
You sound like a teacher who did just lose his job because of knowing to little about the subject he is talking about.
Believe me.
I am not just a tree kisser or a whale kisser or what so ever.
Though, I love to kiss a whale, wish the oppotunity was there, I would do it in a second, I love whales.
And no, I am not such an intellct like you maybe, but man, what way off you are here.
Guess you better read and learn about people you take down without knowing any more of them then just one reply.
Have a nice day.;)

kmguru

10-22-01, 01:13 PM

Hi Edufer:

We need a few Renaissance people in the age of specialization. Welcome to the group. - and keep up the good work....

Edufer

10-22-01, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Banshee
<blockquote>
If you know it all so very well, why don't you start with yourself then? 

If I knew all so well, I would be a millionaire. Sadly, I´m not. Perhaps I´m not that good at practical things as balancing a budget. I have being trying to improve myself all my life, but according to you it has been unsuccessful. However, I will keep trying; harder every day.

And be some friendlier, because you do not know me, and you can call me whatever you want, I don't care. Haha, you make me laugh.

My apologies if you think I have offended you, though I couldn´t find where I called you names or said a word that can be interpreted as offensive or scornful or disdainful. On the contrary, I thought you were a sensible person worried (and concerned) by the "perceived destruction" on the environment. As I must judge by what you wrote, I thought you were sensible. Now I think you are hyper-sensitive and prone to overreact with emotional bursts. Keep talking and I might get to know you even better. It makes me happy if I make you laugh; nothing nicer than giving people a moment of joy.

Believe me. I am not just a tree kisser or a whale kisser or what so ever. Though, I love to kiss a whale, wish the opportunity was there, I would do it in a second, I love whales.

I love whales too, but not as much as love human beings, especially those unfortunates living in Third World countries, prey of greedy and corrupt politicians, multinational corporations and colonialist governments. Don´t take me wrong: I am not leftist at all. On the contrary.

And no, I am not such an intellect like you maybe, but man, what way off you are here. Guess you better read and learn about people you take down without knowing any more of them then just one reply. Have a nice day.;) 

Thanks you for considering me an intellectual (I wish I was). I have been reading (in five languages) since I was 11 years old, infected by a rare virus transmitted by my father, that provokes the syndrome of Quest for Truth. Vain task, if there is one. You´ll never get even close to it. Ever. But the joy of the road to knowledge makes life worth living. And having children to whom you can pass this nasty virus.

By the way, in your profile you state: "paranormal items; ufo's; the universe; all the unexplained and read a book by S. King".

I love unexplained things (because I like to get closer to the Truth, remember?). Have you ever heard about the "stones of Ica", also known as "the stones of Ocucaje", engraved stones found in the Ica Desert, Perú?. They are more than 65,000,000 year old, and depict men hunting dinosaurs, and heart transplants too. They have been proven as authentic. Or the Paracas Mantle, a piece of robe more than 3,000 years old, where you´ll find a perfect lesson on genetics: the description of "syndactilia", the syndrome of absence of thumbs in a family, transmitted by the males and updated by the mother.

If interested, I could give you links and email you pictures (.gif and .jpg) of these mysterious things.

Keep cool, have a nice Belgian lambic (sorry if you are Dutch) and stop worrying. Enjoy life! We had two days in a row of beautiful shining sun, and temperatures here might go back to normal.
</blockquote>

Banshee

10-23-01, 02:31 AM

Well, I am sorry to tell you, but yes, I know of these items you mention.
I do love whales and other animals much more then humans.
Maybe that is just for me to decide.
I see what we humans do to this world, given to us to live on, the best we can.
Not to make a big mess from Nature and we are sure not here to pollute everything with our garbage.
That means all the oil, floating in the Sea's and Oceans, when a big tanker is going down at Sea or Ocean. All the oil comes to beaches, and kills all life on its way. Even at the beaches the oil kills the animals. All doing of humans.
This is just one, just one thing, humans do to Earth, then I do not talk about the mess they make with their stupid wars.
So, I see you love to quote. I am glad you quote me in the color 'blue', I love the color 'blue'.
Thank you and be welcome at Sci forums.
You make good discussions.
Talk to you later.
Bye.;)

Rick

10-25-01, 02:26 AM

in AMERICA millions of dollars are spent over weather research,still the future predictions are not very accurate .how can we then predict the climate correctly for the future.global warming has been going on since the time of ice ages.the rate HAS been the same throughout.arent those millions of dollars the only reason for envoirnmentalists to caution us about global warming?

kmguru

10-25-01, 03:23 PM

....blind leading the blind....

Edufer

10-29-01, 01:01 AM

Hi, kmguru! I don´t know if you found information about PCBs on ACSH website. In case you didn´t, here is a link to our webpage in Argentina to a report by the ACSH, where you´ll find full details about the issue. (It is in English). Nothing was left out. Hope you enjoy it!
<center>
<A HREF="http://webs.sinectis.com.ar/edufer/INGLES/PCB.html">PCB Report</A>
</center>

Ana

11-14-01, 03:58 PM

Occurring? Yes. At what rate? Depends what you consider as fast and slow. Global warming is the rise in AVERAGE global temperatures but we've only been averaging for how long? Who knows, in the past, the average might have gone up and down and it was all "natural"....ice age, yes....but that was a "bit" extreme....let's not get carried away.

The greenhouse effect -->natural, and yes, human activity in the past 200 years may have contributed to global warming but HOW much? Is it that bad? It can get really bad, but I'm sure by then we will have solved our energy concerns in a more environmentally friendly way (no more spewing off greenhouse gases up into the atmosphere). Afterall, aren't environmentalists pushing the panic button on the global warming thing to encourage us into finding and using alternative energy resources? Not that I'm against them or anything....I support the noble cause....we should look for alternative energy sources....global warming or not.

I just don't see us roasting in this century....our great great great grandkids, maybe....if we don't nuke ourselves into oblivion first. As long as we are taking preventative measures (which we are) then I don't think we need to freak out over global warming...just keep it in mind and do our share.;)

Banshee

11-14-01, 09:20 PM

The Ecosphere is badly damaged and it won't take a century before the human race shall be wiped away by 2/3 of the worlds population.

The main cause of this are the so called holy wars. Earth is hurt and damaged by the human race and it gets worse every day.
Better think of in between 40 years, 2/3 of the worlds population will be erased from Earth. Only the ones who nurture and take good care of Earth will remain.

Edufer, I don't need your reply on this, this is something different.
I know, for sure....
For you to find out how.
Enjoy your days in the Sun while you still can, haha.
I sure do the same, you don't know me and who I am, so no quotes please. I just give information.
Thank you.:)

Ana

11-15-01, 01:08 PM

Well, I seriously doubt that "Mother Earth" will individually select the people who have nurtured her and protected her to remain living 40 years from now. I suspect you were joking but ANYWAY...

Global warming is not as emminent as ozone layer depletion (granted they may have similar causes although CFCs are the main culprits in the ozone problem). Ozone layer depletion also occurs naturally---kinda like mutations in DNA only we've managed to turn it into a type of cancer...where the damage is pretty awful and almost irreversible (we are working on it!). Now THAT is a big concern. People in South America in Chile and Argentina (Tierra del Fuego) are having serious problems....skin cancer, blindness....hell, why do you think NASA has chosen to set up camp there? For all the pretty little points of light they can see?? The sheep are going blind for cryin' out loud!!!:mad:

Banshee

11-15-01, 08:38 PM

No, I am not joking and Earth doesn't pick individuals.
That is for the human race to see who will remain.

And you name a lot of things which are very true, all pollution.
There are more autistic babies too the last 15 years.
And so there is a lot more.

The Ecosphere is really badly damaged. Something will happen, as always has been through the ages. Once in a while Earth cleans Herself from the little pests on Her back.
And right She is....

Edufer

11-18-01, 10:35 PM

Ana: I am sorry to contradict you, but people in Tierra del Fuego and southern Chile have no problems at all with the infamous "ozone hole". I live in Argentina, and am well aware of anything concerned with the status of the ozone layer.

According to studies made by Drs. Isidoro Orlansky and Martinez, from the National University of Buenos Aires, back in 1996, the levels of ultraviolet radiation (UV-B) coming through a "mini ozone hole" above Ushuaia (the capital of Tierra del Fuego), were in the order of 150 watts/m2, while the "normal" radiation falling at the same moment in Buenos Aires (1800 km north) were 350 watts/m2. This means that the amount of UV-B coming through the ozone hole was less than half than the UV-B falling over Buenos Aries. By the way: UV-B right below the "hole" in Antarctica never go over 120 watts/m2.

The incidence of skin tumors (basal and squamous cells) among people in Tierra del Fuego are far below those seen in people living in more irradiated places like my city (Cordoba, 31°South). And regarding the malignant melanoma tumors, the rate is uniform from Ushuaia to the north border with Bolivia --which gives you a hint that melanomas are not related in any form to solar irradiance. Surely you must have been getting your information from the wrong places. According to Lic. Victoria Tafuri, form the National Observatory in Villa Ortuzar, Buenos Aires, in charge of cheking ozone layer thickness: "We have not seen any decrease in the levels of the ozone layer during the last 25 years". Please pay a short visit to the website by the <A HREF="http://webs.sinectis.com.ar/edufer/">Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology"</A> (the English version) and check for some truths regarding some common myths and misconceptions on the environmental issue.

Banshee

11-19-01, 03:00 PM

Edufer, I have to say that it is not much of a coincidence that it is better in Argentina, for it all started in South America in the first place, long, long ago in the Ancient Times.

And in the countries in South America is less pollution then in other parts of the world because they don't have the same kind of polluting material luxury in big places in the country.
I don't mean the cities, but inwards the countries.

So I should prefer to live there too, always wanted to go there, because of the Ancient Pyramids and the culture that is still there, less then it supposed to be, but oh, would I want to go there and have a look and feel the sphere at the Ancient Pyramids and their history.

For that I envie you very much. ;)

Have a nice day.

Tristan

12-25-01, 10:35 AM

All I can tell you is that people who cherish this earth will be prepared for whats coming, and wont live in the places that will have the most devestation. I know that I will have a home in the wilderness.

I actually think that I would enjoy the peace and quiet of living in the wilderness with a beatiful wife. There would be no government to tell us that that is someone eles land. We would return to the life that we once loved so. The Hunter-Gather Life, the wanders.

Why become a space ferring Civilizatiion? We can't even take care of our own home let alone Mars and Titan. I dont know what is coming, I cant tell you that. But what I can tell you is that we are at fork in the road. Either we learn to live with ourselves or we will be demoted to the Hunter-Gathers that we once were. For we are All wanders, yearning for exploration and new places. All the explores have had to hang up their coats because the only place left to go is UP. And we have barely gotten our feet wet in the cosmic ocean. So I leave you with this: If we become a space ferring Civilization, something must have awakened us. Because without something that will awaken every soul on this earth, there is no way that this civilization, at its present state or given any number of years, will become a space ferring civilization that would have learned to live with its self and take care of our mother, the earth. For it will always be our home.

wet1

01-01-02, 12:47 PM

Not exactly what you would expect from global warming is it?

From CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/12/28/penguin.peril.ap/story.ap.jpg

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Massive icebergs and an unprecedented amount of sea ice have nearly isolated one of Antarctica's largest populations of Adelie penguins, jeopardizing attempts by the birds to breed, scientists report.
Each year at this time, the penguins flock from their feeding grounds at sea to Ross Island, where they breed and lay their eggs in shallow nests lined with pebbles.
But satellite images released Thursday by NASA show the coast around Cape Crozier -- normally home to a colony of about 130,000 breeding pairs of the penguins -- is choked with ice and icebergs.
The largest of the bergs, dubbed B-15A, covers 2,100 square miles, roughly the area of Delaware.
The amount of sea ice has increased -- and in some cases, doubled -- the distance between the breeding grounds and the open water, where penguins feast on krill, fish and squid. That means the birds must now walk rather than swim to their colonies, which can take them five times as long.
Scientist David Ainley of H.T. Harvey & Associates, ecological consultants based in San Jose, said the numbers of Adelie penguins is on the "low side" at Cape Crozier, threatening the survival of the colony.
The colony, the world's sixth-largest and southernmost population of the penguins, has been studied continuously since 1959. It had been increasing in size in recent years.
A smaller Adelie colony at nearby Cape Royds will "fail totally," Ainley said. A colony of 1,200 Emperor penguins at Cape Crozier also failed to raise chicks this year, according to researchers working on the National Science Foundation-funded study.
Among the natural culprits are B-15A and a smaller iceberg, C-16. The two bergs broke off from the Ross Ice Shelf in March 2000 as part of a natural calving process and have gradually migrated along the shore, altering wind and current patterns in the process.
The bergs may eventually seal off sea access to McMurdo Station, the main United States facility in Antarctica, said Ian Joughin, a researcher at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The movement of the icebergs, and subsequent growth of sea ice in the region, was seen in NASA imagery captured by the agency's Terra satellite.

Banshee

01-01-02, 02:24 PM

How you think it comes that those ice mountains are there in the first place? Natural? So it is Natural that those penguins die?

NASA tells this and NASA tells that. One tale after another.

Why did NASA take the satelite from Arecibo out of orbit? Because they care so much about Earth? Or because they care so much about themselves?

Why doesn't NASA release the hidden Spacecrafts? And why doesn't NASA tell us what they really found?

Tales, no more than stupid american tales. To keep the society quite.

I'll give you another american tale and please don't make me mad.:(

Saturday, 29 December, 2001, 00:32 GMT

Birds 'missing' after US bombing

The Siberian crane is globally endangered

By Jill McGivering
BBC South Asia correspondent

Ornithologists in Pakistan fear that populations of birds whose migration route takes them over Afghanistan may have been devastated by the weeks of bombing there.

For the birds, the timing of the bombing could not have been worse

On the shores of Rawal Lake, a key conservation area only about 10 minutes drive from the centre of Islamabad, there is a sound that cannot be heard this year: a whole bird population which has suddenly gone missing.

Dr Masoud Anwar, a biodiversity specialist who monitors wildlife, says he usually sees several thousand ducks and other wildfowl migrating here from Central Asia via Afghanistan.

So far this year, not one has arrived. It is a conservation disaster.

"We are trying to conserve biodiversity here, and we need the birds for that. If there're no birds, we cannot go for the conservation," he says.

Killed or derouted

The same reports are coming from all over Pakistan. Tens of thousands of ducks, cranes and other birds depend on Pakistan as a winter habitat, and Afghanistan is a key migration route.

Ducks and other birds depend on Pakistan as a winter habitat

For the birds, the timing of the bombing could not have been worse.

Oumed Haneed, an ornithologist with Pakistan's National Council for Conservation of Wildlife, says it is unclear why the birds have not appeared.

"One impact may be directly the killing of birds through bombing, poisoning of the wetlands or the sites which these birds are using.

"Another impact may be these birds are derouted, because their migration is very precise. They migrate in a corridor and if they are disturbed through bombing, they might change their route," he says.

Devastation

Cranes are perhaps the most at risk. Three species of crane winter in Pakistan. All of them are rare. One, the Siberian Crane, is globally endangered.

Asheik Ahmed Khan of the Worldwide Fund for Nature says the signs so far are very disturbing.

"Previously, the hunters used to see cranes in a group of 50 or 55. This year, they could not see them in a group of more than three. The group has become very small, and it means something is happening, somewhere."

Down at the lake, monitoring teams are waiting in the hope of seeing late arrivals.

The real impact on migrating birds will not be known until surveys are completed. But ornithologists fear the bombing in Afghanistan could have devastated bird populations, some of which will struggle to recover.

NASA has nice pictures, but let them stay with that please and out of Earths behaviour. :confused:

Stryder

01-03-02, 08:54 PM

I have an understanding of how our Ozone is from a Satellite Chronological Scan of CO emissions that I found some months back.

The Ozone (O3) is the shell that protects us from Ultra Violet radiation (and other radiations), for many years people have been concerning about it's destruction as aparent holes begin to take shape over the poles. The following is my explaination of what occurs and why, as for what we can do about it???? well For any disease to be treated, it starts with a Diagnosis.

The Ozone, is above other gases that are sent into the atmsophere, Some are very natural:

like Hydrogen (H) and Oxygen as Water (H2O) Evaporates from the planet surface.

There is an amount of Methane (CH4) that comes from the breakdown of biological materials like waste at a landfill site, but is also vented from Oil rigs. (Since Oil is made from biological breakdown)

Cars output Carbon Monoxide (CO) through there Exhausts with an amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) which we also Exhail.

There are many other combinations of elements that are also expelled into the atmosphere from Volcanoes and Fridges/Old Aerosol cans. (Some have molecules that are too acute to name in full and can have alternative configurations, Like Chloro-fluorocarbon CFC's)

All these gases that can rise up to the Ozone, layer beneath, and because they intermingle with the ozone at it's base level, some Radiation manages to get through and photoelectrically change how a molecules electrons react.
This causes changes and the swapping of atoms between molecules, most notibly Oxygen from the Ozone.

This for a time Lowers the Strength of the Ozone and increases the amount of Molecular changes that occur in the Gases below the Ozone. The Molecular Gas clouds below the Ozone fluctuate in strength, at one given time CO,O3,CH4 might be high and next H2O, H2O, CO2 will be more prominant. (You'll notice a missing C, thats because Carbon on it's own falls back to earth to create Dust and Dirt)

This is where the planets Atmosphere shifts in Equilibrum, At one given time the Ozone is in emense depletion and next it's over repaired. The reason for such drastic shifts is due to the amount of Gases that Us humans have unnaturally forced into the Atmosphere.

If the world was naturally dealing with a natural amount, then its Equilibrium would be pretty much set and have close perimeters (This is because the planet has had Millions of years for development of it's climate), our shift has destablised the planet back to the point of Re-Development, and that is what we will have to deal with.)

The only way that a balance can be attempted to regain is by lowering CO, CH4 and CFC Emmisions GLOBALLY, And that is why almost all Worldly Countries Accepted the Kyoto Summits ruling (Other than one particular Country that I won't mention [CoughAmericaCough], Of course there was a Mention of "Not Economically Viable", Well thats a self-destructive statement, okay... your nearing retirement, you reaping some money in... But your Grandchildren aren't going to have a planet to live on where they don't get cancer, So I hope your moneys worth it.)

The holes are over the poles because the ICE sheets act like "Focal Mirrors", Namely Radiation strikes the ice and rebounds back up, attacking the Ozone from below.

(This with the added fact that originally Our Radio networks use to use a method of bouncing radiowaves off of the bottom of the ionosphere also cause Ozone damage.)

Banshee

01-04-02, 11:07 AM

There you explain it very well Stryder. You can do so much better in English.:) Thank you.

And it is true that we humans are damaging the Ecosphere immensly at the moment and if we go on like this, we return to the state of cavemen.:(

Evolution, but than in reverse meaning.

So lets try to stop this and start at home, with your trashcans and cars and spread the word to your fellow humans who want to listen. Though I think it is already to late to 'cure' this.

Come on people, think about it. Earth is hurt badly and it is our fault...:confused:

Adventure

01-09-02, 07:53 PM

With all the fuel we burn in cars and trucks, boats planes etc, you cannot jsut be ignorant and pass it of as not doing anything lol.
Yes the earth was probably coming out of a ice age.....naturally over thousands of years im sure, this gives life time to adapt, we speed it up to levels that will cause extinction, it will unless we make huge changes to the way we think, right now its bigger/more which will end humans. My grandfather who is 80 years old this year has seen the human population increase 6x since he was born, you think that that can go on?

Global warming is a reality, we need to react now!

Deus

01-12-02, 10:15 PM

So lets try to stop this and start at home, with your trashcans and cars and spread the word to your fellow humans who want to listen. Though I think it is already to late to 'cure' this.

You seem to be pretty hopeless already. I don't believe that it's too late for us to improve the Earth's condition. I just think it will take concerted effort. I know that we are moving in the right direction, I just don't know if it is fast enough.

For instance, five or so years ago the city where I live in built a huge recycling center and started having people separate out glass, plastic, tin, aluminum, and paper for recycling. Within 1 year the recycling center was already too small because of the huge response from the community. My city also has power generators placed around our landfill. They generate a small amount of power...using the methane produced by the landfill.

Hyundai and Toyota have this year released gas-electric hybrid cars that don't have to be recharged; they get 50-60 miles per gallon on the highway.

On the other hand, we also have an increased demand by people for 6 and 8 cylinder jeeps and SUVs. Not to mention that I heard that they are going to put 12 cylinder engines in Cadillacs. Even this does not have to be so bad; the technology is not beyond us to improve the efficiency of these vehicles drastically, yet the car companies do not do it...because of pressure from the oil companies, and because most governments do not require it. Notice that both of the hybrid cars are made by Japanese companies, although BMW has a prototype for a car that runs on hydrogen and Ford has said that they will have a hybrid out soon.

I have to have hope. I have to keep faith. Otherwise why bother at all?

Banshee

01-13-02, 03:13 PM

You have to spread the word. Because Sciforums is a world wide Forum and humans from all over the world are posting here. Including a lot of Americans who have a rotten government which doesn't listen to anybody.

Why did the U$ leave the Kyoto convention in the first place? To make money, money, money. That is what they care for. You know how many cars the averidge american has? They don't care about separating glass, paper, iron, batteries and other poluting materials.

In the Netherlands they do that yes. Separate trash and have cars with less poluting fuel. They have windmills to make energy and Sun energy and there are a lot of houses connected to these 'new' form of energy.

That is a very good sign. I don't see it happen on such large scale in the U$ though and that is the most poluting country on Earth, so they say. I wonder about Russia and India. By my means they are pretty polutive too.

Where do you live Deus? Tell some more about it. Do you have a drivers license? I don't. I prefer to ride my bycicle.

And I am sure you have to keep faith in life. At the same time you can do something for Earth, by keeping your mind on the important things.

Thank you for listening, have a nice day...:)

Deus

01-13-02, 05:21 PM

Including a lot of Americans who have a rotten government which doesn't listen to anybody.

Actually, the American government DOES listen to people, but the people have to take the time to make their voices heard. The trouble is, not enough people care.

Why did the U$ leave the Kyoto convention in the first place? To make money, money, money. That is what they care for. You know how many cars the average American has? They don't care about separating glass, paper, iron, batteries and other polluting materials.

Bush said that he would sign the Kyoto Protocol. He lied. I am very angry about that. The fact that Bush and his corporate supporters don't like the Kyoto Protocol doesn't mean that we all feel that way. The average American family has 2 - 2.5 cars per household.

In the Netherlands they do that yes. Separate trash and have cars with less polluting fuel. They have windmills to make energy and Sun energy and there are a lot of houses connected to these 'new' form of energy.

There are quite a few windmills in California, where they can be placed to make it worthwhile. Even in Wisconsin, where I live, there are a few windmills. My aunt has solar panels on her roof.

That is a very good sign. I don't see it happen on such large scale in the U$ though and that is the most polluting country on Earth, so they say.

No, we could certainly do more. You're right, the US is the most polluting country in the world. We use up 25% of the fossil fuels burned each year. That's horrible.

Where do you live Deus? Tell some more about it. Do you have a drivers license? I don't. I prefer to ride my bicycle.

Yes, I have a drivers license. I got it at 18 and I need to drive to get to work. I drive a 3 cylinder compact car which is one of the most efficient non-electric, non-hybrid cars on the road. In the summer I do ride my bike, but in Wisconsin it's not very smart to ride it during about half of the year.

Keep the faith.

Adventure

01-14-02, 01:47 AM

Bottom line is that a radical change in life will be required to save earth as we no it and prevent overpopulation, resource overuse.

We must reduce global polution, and live lifestyles that use far less resources.

This requires that our lives must change a LOT, people don't like, or will not accept that currently, a major catalism will fix this. Nature will force it upon us if we don't do it ourselves.

As sick as it may seem we have to use birth control, we are having WAY to many new babys born every day. I can't remeber the total population to date, over 5Billion i belive, that will go at least 5x in my lifetime, thats 20billion, really can earth keep on supporting that level of growth? No. People will die.

Banshee

01-14-02, 02:02 PM

That is what is going to happen yes. Earth will take care of Herself if we 'intelligent' humans have bothered Her long enough. And it won't take long now for Earth to do so and get rid of the little pests on Her back who only torture Her with their stupid inventions.:(

On the other hand, children are the hope of the humans. When the children are raised well and with care for Nature, there'll be hope for Earth. It is case to teach the children well. Most of the times the children are forced into their parents narrow minded kind of view. So make sure you live your own life, not take the easy way out, learn from the mistakes other humans have made before you.;)

Over population is also a case of letting every human live as long as possible. Artificial garbage to keep humans alive. And why? Because humans are afraid to die. They want to live forever, immortality please, if possible.:( Crap, death is a part of Nature, a part of life.

You are right though, there are way to much humans on Earth nowadays...

Deus

01-14-02, 03:30 PM

As far as overpopulation goes, I don't know if what you're saying is completely true. I think I read somewhere that the Earth could easily support 20 billion people with our current technological advances if we want to make it work. That means that there is no way that people should be going hungry now, since global population is only around 6 billion. Unfortunately there are people who are hungry. :(
I do agree that we need to slow down, though. I don't want to see Earth get to the 20 billion people mark in my lifetime because we might not be ready to leave by the time I die. C'mon people, 2 children per pair of consenting adults and the population stays steady. Is that too much to ask?

odin

01-14-02, 07:22 PM

Have a look at this!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1752000/1752999.stm

Deus

01-15-02, 09:26 AM

Interesting. Of course, overall temperature changes over Antarctica neither prove nor disprove the existence of global warming.

Banshee

01-15-02, 12:59 PM

Sandpoint, ID — A small publisher has “tithed” $30,000 worth of new books entitled Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare to members of Congress and American libraries in support of the “Space Preservation Act of 2001”—legislation that would ban “Star Wars” programs if passed. The book, written by Harvard-trained health science investigator, Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz, discusses the risks posed by space weapons cited in House Bill H.R. 2977, issued by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich. The bill, currently in review committees, and certain to be opposed by the Bush administration, urges a “permanent ban on basing weapons in space.”

Included in the proposed ban are devices capable of directing lasers, chemical or biological sprays, and electromagnetic radiation to inflict “death or injury on . . . biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person.”

Tetrahedron Publishing Group of Sandpoint, Idaho invited the nation’s librarians and congressional representatives to order free copies of the 525-page hardcover, in an effort to inform the public and law makers about the health risks posed by military space programs targeted by the bill. Included here are the latest technologies for population control that H.R. 2977 calls “exotic weapons systems.”

The Congressional Record cites these exotic weapons as—(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons; (ii) chemtrails; (iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems; (iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons; (v) laser weapons systems; (vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and (vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons. All of these were critically examined in Death in the Air, which recently received a scientific endorsement in CHOICE—the nation’s leading academic library journal published by the American Library Association. (See; http://www.deathintheair.com/reviews.html)

According to the House bill, available for review at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery, the term “exotic weapons systems” include those designed to “damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, . . . with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.” This proposed legislation would clamp down on the government’s highly controversial High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) that heats portions of the ionosphere from Alaska. Critics contend that atmospheric heating is related to global warming, jet stream modifications, and weather changes causing more super storms and droughts.

:rolleyes:

Deus

01-15-02, 01:47 PM

According to the House bill, available for review at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery, the term “exotic weapons systems” include those designed to “damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, . . . with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.” This proposed legislation would clamp down on the government’s highly controversial High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) that heats portions of the ionosphere from Alaska. Critics contend that atmospheric heating is related to global warming, jet stream modifications, and weather changes causing more super storms and droughts.

Messing with nature is definately not a good thing to do. We know very little about how the weather works, and it is a very powerful thing to be screwing around with. Any project that alters large portions of an environment is in danger of radically changing hundreds of parameters with potentially disastrous effects. Just look what engineers have to deal with when they dam a river for hydro power or a resevoir. It radically alters the surrounding landscape, and that is nothing compared to screwing with the atmosphere. F*cking government/military, trying to play God.

odin

01-17-02, 06:22 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1766000/1766064.stm

:cool: :cool:

odin

01-20-02, 11:18 AM

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$QWZT0RIAACZIRQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2002/01/20/wenv20.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/20/ixworld.html

:cool: :cool:

Banshee

01-31-02, 08:42 PM

The scenario we are heading into is getting clearer when the impact of global warming on genetic changes is considered in-hand with the article below addressing rapid changes at the Antarctic published by Reuters.

Global warming has accelerated rapidly in the 20 years since the first of three consecutive double-peaked solar maximums began. A key question that we need to be looking into is what percentage of global warming the result of cyclic solar changes and what percentage is attributed to environmental degradation. I suggest that a good portion of global warming is the result of cyclic solar changes that are exacerbated by environmental pollutants.

Montana has had an incredibly warm winter and it seems that winters this mild did not occur in the memory of long-term residents before 1980. The current series of double-peaked solar maximums would have started around 1980, with the current one being in 2002 and 2000, the previous one in 1989 and 1991, and the first of the series in 1978 and 1980.

Antarctic Island Called a Unique Climate-Change Lab
Last Updated: January 24, 2002 02:04 PM ET
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An unexpectedly rapid warming of lakes on a desolate Antarctic island provides compelling evidence of the environmental impact wrought by rising global temperatures, scientists said on Thursday.

Writing in the journal Science, British and Canadian scientists said a 20-year study has revealed dramatic changes in Signy Island's lakes caused by a 1.8-degree Fahrenheit rise in air temperature.

This increase has triggered a series of changes in the lakes on the island, located 435 miles northeast of the Antarctic Peninsula. The scientists consider polar lakes to be early detectors of change wrought by global warming.

The gain in winter lake temperatures was three times higher than that of local air temperatures, the scientists said. The amount of time during a given year that the lakes were completely frozen over declined by more than four weeks.

This decline allowed the lake water and sediments to absorb solar energy that normally would be reflected away by the ice.

Nutrient levels in the lakes rose, most likely because streams ran over thawed ground rather than ice. Algae and phytoplankton in the lakes also increased.

'ALMOST A BEACON GOING OFF'

"This is almost a beacon going off saying, 'Look, we've gone through this threshold at this point on the planet, and it's an indicator that the environment is changing rapidly,"' researcher Lloyd Peck of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge said in a telephone
interview.

"The main finding of our work is that the ecology and the ecosystem in the lakes that we've looked at have changed really dramatically fast. ... What we're seeing is an amplification of the larger-scale environmental change signal," Peck added.

Signy Island, in the South Orkney Islands, is named for the wife of a whaling ship captain who had a station there in the early 20th century. It is about four miles long and three miles wide. There is permanent ice cover over a large part of the island.

But in summer, extensive areas of moss and some grasses are exposed, and there are numerous freshwater pools and lakes.

Researchers say the island's isolation allowed them to come up with measurements not affected by local pollution or heating associated with cities.

"In the Northern Hemisphere, where they're seeing fast changes in lakes, they've often been associated with large human centers of population," Peck said.

"So it's hard to say whether it's a global change ... or whether it's something to do with extra heating and pollution from big cities, like Chicago and the Great Lakes. Whereas here, we're in an island that is several thousand miles away from the nearest big city," Peck added.

CONTRADICTORY FINDINGS?

The study was published just two weeks after other researchers reported in the journal Nature that temperatures had dropped since the mid-1980s in Antarctica's arid and inhospitable desert valleys. Those researchers noted that the climate is warming up on average globally, and that Antarctica's Dry Valleys region represented an exception.

Peck said his team's findings and the seemingly contradictory results from the Dry Valleys illustrate that regional variations exist in the global warming phenomenon.

He also noted that the Dry Valleys are about 4,000 miles from Signy Island.

"You would not expect to get the same message from every point on the planet of warming, or whatever, during a changing environmental scenario. It just doesn't work that way," he said.

John Turner, also of the British Antarctic Survey, said a complex picture has emerged of temperature change over the whole Antarctic continent. He noted that while the Antarctic Peninsula region experienced one of the largest temperature increases on Earth over
the last 50 years, the South Pole has experienced a modest cooling.

"However, what we can say with certainty is that Antarctica is extremely sensitive to environmental change," Turner said.

thoughts

02-02-02, 03:50 AM

Hello there I am from Canada and would like to say a few things about this post that i have tried to read. I have lots of things to say and the flow may not be to coherent.

First off, there is no way that we can say without a doubt, be able to claim global warming is really happening. We as people have not been following weather patterns(globaly) long enough to determine that a global warming pattern is happening.

This is exactly why the large coorperations support the reasearch into global warming. They know as well as all the scientists in the world, that no study can say without a doubt that "it is not a natural cycle of the earth to warm and then cool". It is far to large of scale to predict with such a small study isolated in small region around the globe.

All of the studies put out will contradict each other because the time lines are far to short,

"just because i have walked 5Km on a road does not mean i know where the road will go"

what i mean by that is, we have only been following global patterns for a very short period of time! sure we have watched the weather but not on a global scale.

As a Canadian I am concerd with the enviroment! but if it gets a little warmer up here I won't be complaining!

Secondly

The US pulled out of the summit because the developing countries were not having to follow the rectrictions that were going to be imposed on the developed nations. Thus not helping the global enviroment. can't restrict some and let the other go nuts with polluting the globe!

lastly

Global warming is not the problem we face today, the real problem is the imediate enviroment around the very houses we live in! we all the world looking at global warming the companies continue to poison the water supply! Bad water is a far worse problem to tackle.

Not sure if any one is aware of the problem here in Canada right now, here is a brief note. A town's (which i won't mention) water treament facility was neglagent in there job. Several people died from the contaminated water pumped into there houses!(this is happening in more than just some towns)

Is the water so bad now, if we drink it we DIE! think of EVERY LIVING CREATURE THAT DRINKS FROM THAT WATER. DEAD

Move the presure from global warming(which i don't know if we can EVER prove) back to the companies that pollute are back yards! Think back a few years and see if you can remember all topics of concern we use to have. Notice how they don't seem to be at the for front now, I wonder why and how?

that for letting me rant and lending your eyes.

Bambi

02-02-02, 10:47 PM

Would the greenhouse effect deniers explain the following (and please note the exponential nature of the ongoing increase):

http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/~plh2/group/glblwarm/CO2TEMP.GIF

Note that no 10,000 year old ice age can possibly even begin to explain the exponential rise that occurred in the last couple of centuries. Also note the correlation between C02 and average global temperature over the past 160 thousand years. Notice the graph above ends with C02 ppm concentration of under 250. Notice the graph below shows current C02 ppm concentration of ~350 and rising exponentially. Finally, note that in the graph above the total range of variation of C02 concentration is about 100 ppm, corresponding to a temperature range of about 12.5 degrees.

Now, would someone please deny all of the above so that we can breathe a collective sigh of relief and go about our normal daily business of screwing our children over?

Banshee

02-03-02, 12:00 AM

I agree that the fresh water all over the world is in great danger. There is a lot more salt water available on Earth then fresh water. The human race is screwing up, big time, in all kind of ways.:(

So, why don't we take a collective breathe and go on with our daily screwing up business...:mad:

We'd better stop screwing up right away. Than again, guess it is already to late. Oh what a joy to be human.

It makes me sick, literally. And I don't need bad water for that. I can see for myself how terrible irresponsible the human race is behaving. It shows in everything.

Sorry for this post, I am real ticked off about this. We are not here on Earth to screw Her up you know.:confused:

Bambi

02-03-02, 05:34 AM

thoughts,

I'll tell you why you should care about global warming. Because when the polar glaciers melt, all those great expanses of low-lying Canadian land will be drowned under the rising ocean. Because the Gulf Stream could be halted by decreased salinity of arctic water, which would plunge Canada into another ice age even while the rest of the Earth warms up. Because the dislocation and misery it will cause throughout islandic and third-world nations will impact you no less directly than the Arabic plight with respect to the U.S. Imagine hundreds of millions of very pissed off people looking to wreak revenge upon all those who fattened and gorged at the expense of their land and future.

Banshee

02-04-02, 05:01 PM

Antartica Becomes Too Hot For
The Penguins - Warning To World
By Geoffrey Lean
The Independent - London
2-4-2

Penguins are starting to desert parts of Antarctica because the icy wastes are getting too hot.
The numbers of adelie penguins on the Antarctic peninsula the most northerly part of the frozen continent are falling as global warming takes hold. And experts predict that, as the climate change continues, they may abandon much of the 900-mile-long promontory altogether.
The archetypal "tuxedoed" species like the cold even more than other penguins. And the peninsula has been warming up faster than almost anywhere else on earth, with temperatures increasing at least five times faster than the world average. Scientists believe this is disrupting their food supplies.
Global warming is also causing them grief in another of their strongholds, the Ross Sea. Two giant icebergs have broken off the Antarctic ice sheet and are blocking the way from their breeding colonies to their feeding areas. As a result they have to walk 30 miles further to get food no small matter when they can manage only one mile per hour. And, on the other side of the continent, thousands of emperor penguin chicks drowned near Britain's Halley base after the ice broke up early, before they had learned to swim.
Like miners' canaries, the dinner-jacketed penguins of Antarctica are providing an early warning of danger to come. For global warming is heating up the frozen continent faster than the rest of the world, and the penguins are among the first to feel the effects.
Flightless, and so unable to escape like other birds, they are affected by what happens both on land and sea. And, because they are easy to spot and count, they provide an early indication of what may be happening to other species.
They are feeling the heat most strongly on the Antarctic peninsula, which juts out from the polar land mass towards South America. Studies of air temperatures around the world over the past half-century suggest that this is one of the three areas on the planet along with north-western North America and part of Siberia warming up fastest. The British Antarctic Survey says flowering plants have spread rapidly in the area, glaciers are retreating, and seven huge ice sheets have melted away.
As the peninsula has warmed up, the numbers of adelie penguins have been dropping. Scientists suspect that the rising temperatures affect the small fish and other marine animals on which they feed, though they are not yet sure how.
Professor Steven Emslie, of the University of North Carolina, believes that if the warming goes on the penguins "would continue to decline in the peninsula, and may completely abandon much of it". Studies of fossilised remains that he has carried out near Britain's Rothera base show that the numbers of the penguins have sharply declined during warmer periods in prehistory.
On at least one occasion, the decline in the peninsula was marked by a rapid increase in the penguins in the Ross Sea more than 2,000 miles away. But in recent months global warming has been causing them trouble there too. Researchers for the US National Science Foundation said that one colony of adelies at Cape Royds will "fail totally" this year. And scientists at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography add that a colony of emperor penguins at Cape Crozier has also failed to raise any chicks.
Global warming also threatens the food supplies of emperor penguins. When there is less ice in the sea, populations of krill a staple in their diet fall.
Despite all this, penguins are not in danger of extinction; there are millions of them still in Antarctica and one species the chinstrap penguin seems to be thriving in the warmer weather. But they still provide a warning. In the words of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the world's leading conservation body: "Things happening to penguins are a foretaste of things to come."

goofyfish

02-06-02, 02:22 PM

These guys (http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/) make a pretty good case that global warming isn't proven, though they are definately on the anti side of the fence.

Things we know:

We know that the weather varies.
We know about seasons, El Nino and Ice ages.
We know that the temperatures have varied considerably in the past 1000 years. (More info here. (http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/lec19.htm))
We know that we have relatively recently come out of a "little ice age" (from 1560-1890.)
We know that volcanoes can have large effects.
We know that the Sun's output varies by a few percent.

Given all this, it seems fair to say that we DON'T know:

a) if global warming is actually occurring
b) if the weather is getting worse than it used to be
c) if it's our fault if (a) or (b) are happening
d) if we can, or should, be doing anything about it

What we should be doing is more RESEARCH. Trying to find the answers to these questions. Instead we seem to be implementing policy based on flimsy evidence.

Unfortunately "the environment" has become so politicized that it's impossible to have a sensible public debate on it at the moment. On one side are the ultra-environmentalists who are the heroes of their own worldview, fighting against the evil rest of the world. On the other are the backlash movements - rabid anti-environmentalists who wouldn't believe the sky was blue if an environmentalist said so. Finally there is the press, who will always print "We're All Going to Die!" in preference to "There's Nothing to Worry About".

Peace.

Deus

02-06-02, 06:05 PM

What we should be doing is more RESEARCH. Trying to find the answers to these questions. Instead we seem to be implementing policy based on flimsy evidence.

Unfortunately "the environment" has become so politicized that it's impossible to have a sensible public debate on it at the moment. On one side are the ultra-environmentalists who are the heroes of their own worldview, fighting against the evil rest of the world. On the other are the backlash movements - rabid anti-environmentalists who wouldn't believe the sky was blue if an environmentalist said so.

I agree. I think that I may have come in my earlier posts as being someone who is adamant that we are causing an increased greenhouse effect which is causing global warming. We do know that the average temperatures on Earth since the industrial revolution have been getting higher. So global warming IS happening. The question is really whether we are causing it, or whether it is just part of a natural cycle. Either way, I think it is a good idea to err on the side of caution. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't develop more efficient appliances and engines, why we shouldn't strive to conserve more and pollute less. We may not know for sure that we are making the Earth warmer, but we do know about emissions and smog. We also know about the carbon-dioxide/oxygen cycle, and we know that if we cut too many trees down then they're won't be as many large plants to take in carbon-dioxide and release oxygen.

Anyone who's ever been in the Boy Scouts (such as myself), knows that the rule is that you should try to leave your campsite as clean as you found it, if not better. I think it might be a little too late to do that for the Earth, but at least we can make a better effort. It's not only good for other living things, it's good for our health too.

Banshee

02-07-02, 02:00 AM

Will you please come and tell that to all the humans who leave their GARBAGE behind in the Woods and the Rivers and everywhere they can find a place to leave their GARBAGE behind???!!!:confused:

We cleaned up after the humans left you know. Late in the afternoon, on sunny Sundays and through the week. Go figure how long we were busy doing so.

Research??? Just take a look in the Woods, after the 'civilised' humans have done their visits to the Woods with their food supplies and chairs and play toys.

A little respect for the Woods, Nature in general that is, should be nice.

Global warming is happening yes. Hell, lets do some research how it comes that it is happening. How much research and doing nothing about it has yet to follow before humans understand that their inventions are the main problem here?:(

goofyfish

02-14-02, 09:35 AM

The Antarctic has cooled during the past 35 years despite the worldwide temperature rise, according to a study published today. The finding challenges the belief that global warming is raising temperatures across the whole of the southern continent. But the authors accept that some Antarctic "hotspots" have got warmer over the past few decades. (full text here (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/14/wtemp14.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/14/ixworld.html))Dr Ian Joughin, of the American space agency's (Nasa) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Slawed Tulaczyk, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, say they have found "strong evidence" that the ice sheet in the Ross Sea area is growing, by 26.8 gigatons per year. (full text here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1766000/1766064.stm)) That is about 27 cubic kilometers of new ice/year (check my math, because I suck at it.) Given the very low precipitation in Antarctica that's a lot of new ice. I assume it is net growth, because I understand that two years ago the scientist who was measuring cracks and movement of the ice shelf (using a GPS system) determined that it was calving. People I talked to figured that meant it was warming up there. Just goes to show today's research conclusions might be quickly reversed by tomorrow's research observations.

Working on a few decades of reliable data and trying to predict 100,000 year cycles and assess blame for every litlle perturbation is assinine. Of course it's also assisine to rule out possibilities just because the data is incapable of confirming those possibilities. I absolutely believe that humankind is having a negative impact on the planet, but I also believe the model is more complex than we can understand at this point.

Peace.

Banshee

02-14-02, 08:29 PM

Guess you say it very right. Doesn't take away the fact that humans can try, at the least, to have a little more respect for Nature.

Ever walked in a Forest? Did you see all the garbage left behind, because of the people who had an entertaining afternoon in the Forest? It's ridiculous to see what they leave behind and than I don't even mention the trashcans which are placed a few meters from the place the garbage is left behind.

Yeah, imagine, that the people walk that few meters to put their garbage actually IN the trashcan.:(

And I am talking close to 'home' now, not even about the damage done to the Planet.

Guess it messes me up too much. I always get angry from this crap. Don't understand this kind of mentality...:confused:

odin

02-25-02, 03:26 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1833000/1833902.stm

Deus

02-26-02, 08:48 AM

It seems to me that this article suggets that if we can't link greenhouse gas emissions to global warming, then there is no reason to legislate against their release into the atmosphere. What about protecting the quality of air we breathe? What about preventing acid rain, which damages buildings, cars, etc?

goofyfish

02-26-02, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Deus
What about protecting the quality of air we breathe? What about preventing acid rain, which damages buildings, cars, etc?A good observation. As I said previously in this thread, positions concerning the environment have become so polarized, that it's impossible to have a rational discussion surrounding the facts. Data can be presented to support both sides of the issue, which would indicate to me that we are not yet looking at the correct data.

Peace.

kmguru

03-01-02, 10:35 PM

Global warming?

It is March and we are freezing here in Louisiana....

Miss Chicken

03-02-02, 02:07 AM

Global warming?

Tasmania has just had its coldest, cloudiest and stormiest summer on record. The mean daily maximum was less than 20C. We normally have 10 days in summer over 30C, this summer we had one (32C). I think we only got about 5-6 days over 25C.

Unidentified Flying Object

03-05-02, 07:51 AM

I think that would the global warming be caused by humans or not, when world ends it'll be caused by humans

goofyfish

03-05-02, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Unidentified Flying Object
...when world ends it'll be caused by humansFear not. Though we may dent it and damage it, the world will not end. The worst we will be able to do is make it unfit for us to inhabit. And then the problem is solved, eh? :D

Peace.

kmguru

03-05-02, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Unidentified Flying Object
I think that would the global warming be caused by humans or not, when world ends it'll be caused by humans

If a very large asteroid comes our way or the sun goes supernova or a blackhole shows up next door or massive radiation from a pulsar etc etc humans will not be the cause.

Banshee

03-05-02, 11:51 PM

*Tasmania has just had its coldest, cloudiest and stormiest summer on record. The mean daily maximum was less than 20C. We normally have 10 days in summer over 30C, this summer we had one (32C). I think we only got about 5-6 days over 25C.*

*It is March and we are freezing here in Louisiana....*

What you think causes these weather changes? Just a 'coincidence'...? :(

goofyfish

03-06-02, 02:18 PM

Lawsuits may be next weapon in climate change fight (http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/03/03062002/reu_46587.asp)

Wednesday, March 06, 2002
By Michael Christie, Reuters

SYDNEY, Australia — Lawsuits may become the next weapon against climate change as impotent, tiny islands, sinking beneath the waves, seek revenge on the rich, polluting nations and multinational concerns they accuse of wiping them out. ....

Tuvalu, a string of nine coral atolls 16 feet above sea level at their highest point, says its last palm tree could sink beneath the aquamarine waters within 50 years. Last year it appealed to South Pacific heavyweights Australia and New Zealand to give its people special visas in case they became "environmental refugees" forced to flee. It was rebuffed. ....

Some scientists remain sceptical about global warming. But the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts sea levels will rise by up to 0.80 yards by 2100 as ice caps and glaciers melt and increasing temperatures cause water to expand.

ISLANDS IN FIRING LINE

In the firing line are low-lying coral atolls and islands, such as the Maldives in the Indian Ocean and Tuvalu, Kiribati, Niue, and the Marshall Islands in the Pacific. ....

Australia was vulnerable and had to brace itself for years of possible litigation as the country with the highest per-capita emissions of greenhouse gases in the world. ...I’m not exactly sure how I feel about this one. They might take a moment to consider how coral reefs turn into islands in the first place before lamenting the fact that some of them may, again, disappear beneath the waves.

Peace.

Banshee

03-07-02, 02:53 AM

Well, I heard that parts of the world, including a piece of Texas, will be flooded within a couple of years. There will come flooded land above Sea level again then too.

Wish I could remember where I've read that. I'll look it up and get back to here and post it. It's a little foggy in my mind, can't remember it well. ;)

Rick

03-10-02, 12:41 AM

Many Channels like discovery,FOX had stated that the yellow stone park volcano erupts every 600,000 years and it is due this year.catastrophes...ahaha...(NOTE THIS WAS IN 1999)

As i said earlier in U.S itself millions of Dollars are spend annually for weather research purposes,needless to say many people hold jobs due to it.what will happen if we prove that weather forecasting is B.Shit and nothing else?

simple they"ll loose their jobs.i often wonder we cant predict weather perfectly and here we are talking about climate!!ha! talk about frantic money makers.I stayed(During a convention in Miami on FSOs) in hotel and only after say erm...5-6 hours before were able to say that storm was coming,this was only recently,1997 or 1999 i dont remember correctly.

bye!

Banshee

03-10-02, 07:22 AM

It's not from the television or internet I've heard it. It is somewhere in my emails, from someone who predicts Earthquakes and amazing, she's always right!

The weather forecast doesn't say a thing to me. You can smell it in the Air when a Storm is coming and Rain and Snow you can smell in the Air, and Thunder and Lightning... Also hours up front, so what I'm concerned, all weather forecasters can go home.

Don't believe in doom predictions like Yellow Stone Park. So many of those predictions, they never come true.

I'll look for the email, it is a mess in my emails. Have to do a good clean-up in there. :) Trashy me... :p

kmguru

03-10-02, 07:46 PM

Banshee:

You could use the search feature if you are using outlook. Anyway, I have a resident psychic who has been right too many times than wrong. She predicts that we will have a major anamoly in the world in about 10 years, but could not say if it is climate related. Another prediction that may happen in 30 years or so is that part of Louisina will be under water. Which means, the sea - level may rise another 50 feet or so. It may mean also that, while we feel cold, the temperature swing can cause icebergs to melt in a big way.

Banshee

03-11-02, 03:29 AM

That is what I've been looking for and haven't found back til now.
It's somehow the same prediction. Are we talking the same Psychic here?

Now I am curious! I will do a search for the original message. Thank you for the tip... :)

She also said that Land which is under the Seas now will come above Sea level while parts of (among other Land) Texas and Louisiana will go under. You recognize this?

kmguru

03-11-02, 11:37 AM

Banshee

There was a television program that discusses these predictions. I taped it several years ago, but can not find it now. I do not put much faith in other peoples prediction because unless that person is consistently correct in the past, that prediction is useless.

I only count on my friends over the years. Each friend have different capabilities. So, once they are tested, I can use a certain probability (confidence factor) for each event. I think, we all have predictive capabilities because of the way our brain works. But each of us can be good in certain specific areas because that is the point of focus for that brain.

Anyway, time will tell...

Banshee

03-13-02, 01:18 PM

Goodbye cruel world
A report by top US scientists on climate change suggests that catastrophe could be imminent

Jeremy Rifkin
Friday March 1, 2002
The Guardian

We live in a world that has become so desensitised by watching calamities unfold on global television - both natural and human-induced - that it takes something really spectacular even to get our attention.

And it usually has to be visually dramatic to register, much less elicit a deep emotional response - such as the tragic events of September 11.

Recently, I came across a frightening report published by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - the nation's most august scientific body. Yet, because there was no visually provocative content, the report had received only a couple of short paragraphs tucked away inside a few newspapers.

Here is what the academy had to say: it is possible that the global warming trend projected over the course of the next 100 years could, all of a sudden and without warning, dramatically accelerate in just a handful of years - forcing a qualitative new climatic regime which could undermine ecosystems and human settlements throughout the world, leaving little or no time for plants, animals and humans to adjust.

The new climate could result in a wholesale change in the earth's environment, with effects that would be felt for thousands of years. If the projections and warnings in this study turn out to be prophetic, no other catastrophic event in all of recorded history will have had as damaging an impact on the future of human civilisation and the life of the planet.

A year ago the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) issued a voluminous report forecasting that global average surface temperature is likely to rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees centigrade between now and 2100. If that projection holds up, we were told, the change in temperature forecast for the next 100 years will be larger than any climate change on earth in more than 10,000 years.

The impacts on the earth's biosphere are going to be of a qualitative kind. To understand how significant this rise in temperature is likely to be, we need to keep in mind that a 5 degrees centigrade increase in temperature between the last ice age and today resulted in much of the northern hemisphere of the planet going from being buried under thousands of feet of ice to being ice-free.

The UN study predicts that a temperature rise of 1.4-5.8 degrees centigrade over the course of the coming century could include the melting of glaciers and the Arctic polar cap, sea water rise, increased precipitation and storms and more violent weather patterns, destabilisation and loss of habitats, migration northward of ecosystems, contamination of fresh water by salt water, massive forest dieback, accelerated species extinction and increased droughts.

The IPCC report also warns of adverse impacts on human settlements, including the submerging of island nations and low-lying countries, diminishing crop yields, especially in the southern hemisphere, and the spread of tropical disease northward into previously temperate zones.

The newly released NAS report begins by noting that the current projections about global warming and its ecological, economic and social impacts cited in the UN report are based on the assumption of a steady upward climb in temperatures, more or less evenly distributed over the course of the 21st century. But that assumption, they say, may be faulty - there is a possibility that temperatures could rise suddenly in just a few years' time, creating a new climatic regime virtually overnight.

They also point out that abrupt changes in climate, whose effects are long lasting, have occurred repeatedly in the past 100,000 years. For example, at the end of the Younger-Dryas interval about 11,500 years ago, "global climate shifted dramatically, in many regions by about one-third to one-half the difference between ice age and modern conditions, with much of the change occurring over a few years".

According to the study: "An abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause." Moreover, the paleoclimatic record shows that "the most dramatic shifts in climate have occurred when factors controlling the climate system were changing". Given the fact that human activity - especially the burning of fossil fuels - is expected to double the CO<->2 content emitted into the atmosphere in the current century, the conditions could be ripe for an abrupt change in climate around the world, perhaps in only a few years.

What is really unnerving is that it may take only a slight deviation in boundary conditions or a small random fluctuation somewhere in the system "to excite large changes ... when the system is close to a threshold", says the NAS committee.

An abrupt change in climate, of the kind that occurred during the Younger-Dryas interval, could prove catastrophic for ecosystems and species around the world. During that particular period, for instance, spruce, fir and paper birch trees experienced mass extinction in southern New England in less than 50 years. The extinction of horses, mastodons, mammoths, and sabre-toothed tigers in North America were greater at that time than in any other extinction event in millions of years.

The committee lays out a potentially nightmarish scenario in which random triggering events take the climate across the threshold into a new regime, causing widespread havoc and destruction.

Ecosystems could collapse suddenly with forests decimated in vast fires and grasslands drying out and turning into dust bowls. Wildlife could disappear and waterborne diseases such as cholera and vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue and yellow fever, could spread uncontrollably beyond host ranges, threatening human health around the world.

The NAS concludes its report with a dire warning: "On the basis of the inference from the paleoclimatic record, it is possible that the projected change will occur not through gradual evolution, proportional to greenhouse gas concentrations, but through abrupt and persistent regime shifts affecting subcontinental or larger regions - denying the likelihood or downplaying the relevance of past abrupt changes could be costly."

Global warming represents the dark side of the commercial ledger for the industrial age. For the past several hundred years, and especially in the 20th century, human beings burned massive amounts of "stored sun" in the form of coal, oil and natural gas, to produce the energy that made an industrial way of life possible. That spent energy has accumulated in the atmosphere and has begun to adversely affect the climate of the planet and the workings of its many ecosystems.

If we were to measure human accomplishments in terms of the sheer impact our activities have had on the life of the planet, then we would sadly have to conclude that global warming is our most significant accomplishment to date, albeit a negative one.

We have affected the biochemistry of the earth and we have done it in less than a century. If a qualitative climate change were to occur suddenly in the coming century - within less than 10 years - as has happened many times before in geological history, we may already have written our epitaph.

When future generations look back at this period, tens of thousands of years from now, it is possible that the only historical legacy we will have left them in the geologic record is a great change in the earth's climate and its impact on the biosphere.

· Jeremy Rifkin is the author of The Biotech Century (Gollancz) and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington DC

comment@guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0%2C3858%2C4365494%2C00.html

goofyfish

03-20-02, 09:59 AM

Now this (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/03/19/new.iceberg/) is a big damn iceberg!

Peace.

wet1

03-20-02, 12:05 PM

Reckon we could get an ice cube or two for our drinks?

Off and on you hear of studies done with the idea if we could move something like that mass of ice to someplace where we could pump it to a desert like the Sahara that we could make a green farm out of the desert. That is one heck of a mass of fresh water.

kmguru

03-20-02, 12:33 PM

The best solution is to find a way to spray a thin film to reduce the evaporation. Then tug it close to a desert land mass. Then use some big ass pump to pump the fresh water to a man made lake. It will be cheaper than desalination projects.

Banshee

03-20-02, 09:58 PM

720 billion tons is not right. It is actually 72 billion tons... Click on the link for a little movie with comment...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/726247.asp?pne=msn

Staggering end to Antarctic ice shelf

U.S., British researchers tie rapid collapse to warming trend A NASA satellite image shows the thousands of icebergs created by the Larsen B ice shelf collapse. Brownish streaks are rocks and glacial debris exposed from the former underside and interior of the shelf.

By Miguel Llanos

MSNBC

March 19 — A massive Antarctic ice shelf has collapsed into the sea, shattering into thousands of icebergs and alarming researchers by the speed with which the process unfolded. Described by one researcher as “staggering,” the rapid collapse offered fuel for the debate over whether global warming is to blame.

‘We knew what was left would collapse eventually, but the speed of it is staggering.’ — DAVID VAUGHAN

British Antarctic Survey scientist U.S. AND BRITISH government agencies confirmed the collapse of what’s known as the Larsen B ice shelf. Some 1,255 square miles of the ice shelf disintegrated between Jan. 31 and March 7, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Tuesday. “The shattered ice formed a plume of thousands of icebergs adrift in the Weddell Sea,” the center said, adding that over the past five years, Larsen B lost nearly twice that amount and is now about 40 percent the size of what it used to be.

Before it broke apart, the shelf was 650 feet thick and about the size of Rhode Island.

Scientists with the British Antarctic Survey first predicted in 1998 that it would eventually collapse, and satellite images over the years suggested as much. The process accelerated over the last month, with the single largest piece calving on March 5.

720 BILLION TONS

David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey, noted that since the 1998 prediction, “warming on the peninsula has continued and we watched as piece by piece Larsen B has retreated.”

“We knew what was left would collapse eventually,” he said in a statement, “but the speed of it is staggering.” It’s hard to believe, he said, that 720 billion tons “of ice sheet has disintegrated in less than a month.”

The U.S. center noted that 720 billion tons is enough ice for 29 trillion 5-pound bags.

The British Antarctic Survey said its scientists would be researching when such an event last happened and which ice shelves are threatened in the future. Earlier studies found four other ice shelves had been retreating in recent years.

The researchers emphasized that ice shelves themselves would not raise sea levels because they were already floating in water. However, because shelves hold back ice sheets on the continent, their collapse could allow ice on the ground to slowly move into the sea, thereby raising sea levels over time.

‘CLOSER TO THE LIMIT’

Ted Scambos, a glaciologist with the National Snow and Ice Data Center, said in a statement that the Larsen B collapse “gave us the information we need to reassess the stability of ice shelves around the rest of the Antarctic continent. They are closer to the limit than we thought.”

“Loss of ice shelves surrounding the Antarctic continent could have a major effect on the rate of ice flow off the continent,” Scambos added. The center, located at the University of Colorado, noted that the next shelf to the south, the Larsen C, “is very near the stability limit, and may start to recede in the coming decade if the warming trend continues.”

“More importantly,” it said, is what might happen with the giant Ross Ice Shelf, the main outlet for several major glaciers draining the West Antarctic Ice Sheet — which is 6,000 feet thick, covers an area the size of Mexico and contains enough water to raise global sea levels by 15 feet.

“The warmest part of the giant Ross Ice Shelf is in fact only a few degrees too cool in summer presently to undergo the same kind of retreat process,” the center said.

New cracks in Larsen B were observed in the weeks prior to the sudden collapse.

GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE

Both the U.S. and British agencies attributed the collapse and other retreating shelves to warmer temperatures over the last half century.

That would fit in nicely with arguments made by environmentalists and many scientists that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are causing global warming. Greenpeace, for one, called the collapse “a harbinger of global warming.”

The weakening of the Larsen B ice shelf was first noted in the late 1990s. This 1997 photo shows people dwarfed by one fissure. Others, including some scientists, say it’s possible that any warming is due to natural shifts, not manmade causes, and that further studies are needed before taking global action to reduce emissions.

The agencies did not enter the debate over what has caused the warming around the Antarctic Peninsula.

The British Antarctic Survey limited its observation to earlier studies that found the peninsula has warmed by 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 50 years — much faster than global warming worldwide or even in other parts of Antarctica. The peninsula is the Antarctic area closest to southern Argentina and Chile.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center said studies had estimated that Larsen B had existed for at least 400 years and probably since before the end of the last major ice age 12,000 years ago.

“This is the largest single event in a series of retreats by ice shelves in the peninsula over the last 30 years,” the center said, attributing them to “a strong climate warming in the region.”

In comments to MSNBC.com, Scambos was careful not to tie the collapse to manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, and noted that computer models actually predicted different regional effects from those gases. But he added that the collapse was so sudden in geological time that it’s not clear it was due to natural causes either. What’s needed, he said, are improved computer models, more sampling of ice cores for climate changes and continued tracking of ice shelves and sea ice.

“The tools are there,” he said, “we need to apply them.”

COOLING IN SOME AREAS?

Other studies have actually suggested some Antarctic areas might be cooling.

One study reported new measurements showed the ice in West Antarctica was thickening, reversing earlier estimates that the sheet was melting. The Antarctica Peninsula extends from West Antarctica.

Banshee

05-10-02, 04:34 PM

New Iceberg Breaks Off Shelf
Chunk of Ice Peeled From Ross Ice Shelf
The Associated Press

May 9 — An iceberg 47 miles long and 4.6 miles across has broken off the Ross Ice Shelf in the Antarctic, the National Ice Center reported today.

The giant sheet of glacial ice and snow was named C-18, meaning that it's the 18th iceberg to be tracked in that section of Antarctica since 1976, when record keeping began.
The iceberg, floating close to the ice shelf, is not considered a hazard to navigation. It was spotted on satellite images.

The discovery comes just under a month after a much larger iceberg — 40 miles by 53 miles — broke away from another part of Antarctica. That iceberg is known as B-22.

Also in March, a large floating ice shelf in Antarctica collapsed. The 1,250-square-mile section of the Larsen Ice Shelf collapsed during a five-week period that ended March 7. It splintered into a plume of drifting icebergs.

Meanwhile, however, new measurements indicate the ice in parts of Antarctica is thickening, reversing earlier estimates that the sheet was melting.

Mixed Signals

Scientists reported in January that new flow measurements for the Ross ice streams indicate that movement of some of the ice streams has slowed or halted, allowing the ice to thicken.

Researchers don't know if the thickening is merely part of some short-term fluctuation or represents a reversal of the long retreat of the ice.

That report, in the journal Science, came less than a week after a paper in Nature reported that Antarctica's harsh desert valleys — long considered a bellwether for global climate change — have grown noticeably cooler since the mid-1980s.

The National Ice Center, based in Suitland, Md., provides worldwide ice analyses and tracking to assist the military and private shippers.

It is a joint operation of the Navy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Coast Guard.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/iceberg020509.html

gotanygum

05-13-02, 11:55 PM

check out

http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html

basic science by By Harvey Augenbraun, Elaine Matthews, and David Sarma postulates of global warming evidences. Might help?

I think antarctica is being heated from underneath by sub-ice volcanos being created. link to:

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/antarctica/QA/geology/Volcanoes

i really hate to be so 'catastrophic' i just call 'em like i see 'em also.

odin

05-15-02, 05:19 PM

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200205/NAT20020514b.html

Edufer

05-18-02, 12:45 AM

quote: Check out:
http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/m...greenhouse.html

basic science by By Harvey Augenbraun, Elaine Matthews, and David Sarma postulates of global warming evidences. Might help? "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it did help to get near the truth. The NASA page is a nice example of how some "scientists" do their "science". Although they mention water vapor as the main greenhouse gas, they didn't mention the heat retention potencial of each gas (95% for water vapor) and 3,5% for CO2. If they mention these figures, it would undermine their arguments and make their agenda useless.

They also show a table with natural and anthropogenic sources of gases, but in the "natural sources for CO2", they show a blank space! Even Bert Bolin, head of the IPCC, has demonstrated in his studies that adult forests and jungles have a huge contribution of CO2, in fact, they have a negative balance of CO2, this is, forests and jungles produce more CO2 than their absorb from the air. And, what about CO2 produced by volcanoes, forest and prairies fires?

There are many other unscientific claims in the study by Augenbraun, Matthews and Sarma, but it would be too lenghty to show them here. The article is full of "half-truths", and when a scientist does not tell the WHOLE truth, he is LYING. He is avoiding data and facts that would contradict his hypothesis. One basic rule of science: "A Half-truth is a Whole-Lie".

But thanks for the link. It was really useful.

Edufer

05-18-02, 01:01 AM

Odin, yours was also a good link. It shows us that there are many well respected scientists that are skeptical (to be kind) about global warming and the "prophecies" manufactured and manipulated by the computer models. Here is the last part:

"Environmental groups were quick to dismiss the scientific skepticism on global warming. Ariana Silverman, a spokesperson for the Sierra Club's Global Warming & Energy program, disputed the panel's claim that climate science does not support the Kyoto Protocol. " ... "It is very difficult to make that claim. There is a consensus in the scientific community," Silverman said.

Well, the scientists mentioned in the first part of the article show that there is no such thing as a "consensus" in the scientific community. Or perhaps Silverman was referring to the "green community"?. Besides that, in science there have never been consensus on anything while the discussion was going on. Even Darwin's Evolution Theory is still being debated and you would find many different "consensus" according to the group of people you talk with... Cheers!
:p :D

odin

05-18-02, 09:58 AM

As I said earlier,there are a lot of people making a living out of this,I think thats why we get these half truth's.
Also there are lots of people who want to be saviors,so will jump on any band wagon!

Kay

05-18-02, 08:27 PM

There are also people who see what's actually happening. Maybe it's cause of global warming, maybe it's cause of aeral heating, maybe it's just humans that cause it. There are much to many humans walking 'round this planet anyhow. All these humans want to eat, thus want meat, which come from cows and pigs, to mention an in between street. This "walking meat factories" produce gasses, which go up in the air. Just one example of many, many more.

People want to make money, no matter how. Till that's over and that day will never come, we are getting half truth's.

Edufer

05-18-02, 09:02 PM

jumping onto the philosophical band wagon I would say that we, human beings are Half-Truths. Until someone discover the truth of our existence down here, we'll remain as half-truths.

Nothing to do with global warming, though...

I think I'm going for a nice cold beer.

Kay

05-18-02, 09:19 PM

I excist, therefor I am. No half truth, fact.

Has nothing to do with global warming. Except maybe for being one of the reasons for destroying the planet.

Warming it up I mean.

Edufer

05-18-02, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Kay
I exist, therefore I am. No half truth, fact.

Yeah! Galileo was put on trial because he disputed the "fact" that the Earth was not the center of the Universe.

So you are. What are you? Do you know what you are? Completely? Or there are some things that you don't know about yourself. There are in you things that sometimes surprises you. So what you know is a half-truth. You'll get to know yourself completely the day you die. But then it will be too late for regrets.

Has nothing to do with global warming. Except maybe for being one of the reasons for destroying the planet. Warming it up I mean.

Maybe you feel you are destroying the planet. Are you more powerful than a comet or an asteroid, or the sun becoming a nova?

How presuntuos of you to believe you can destroy the planet....

BTW: this will enrage you, but the global warming theory is a fraud. And a cheap one. Perhaps you are not a half-truth after all. Maybe you are a half-joke.

Kay

05-18-02, 10:46 PM

Maybe you feel you are destroying the planet. Are you more powerful than a comet or an asteroid, or the sun becoming a nova?

How presuntuos of you to believe you can destroy the planet....

That is not what I meant dude. I mean, I am a human being, therefor I am part of the destruction if the half-truth comes true.

Maybe I am a half-joke in your eyes but a half truth in the eyes of others. That makes me half a joke, half truth. Not bad, better than nothing at all.

Is global warming a fraud? If you say so, it must be half a joke and half truth.

kmguru

05-19-02, 12:13 PM

A Heat Wave Devastates India's South; Hundreds Die
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

HYDERABAD, India, May 17 — India baked today in a heat wave so intense that mud huts became as hot as ovens and birds in trees dropped dead, villagers said. Temperatures 7 percent above the already hot normal have killed more than 600 people nationwide this month.

Officials described the temperatures exceeding 115 degrees as "a natural calamity."

Most of the deaths have occurred in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh, where temperatures have reached a record 124 degrees, said D. C. Roshaiah, an official in charge of relief work in the state.

Many victims were elderly and so more susceptible to the extreme temperatures, said Rajshekhar Murthy, a health worker in the state's Guntur district, where 102 people died.

P. Vijaylakshmi, a farmer in Kovvuru, a village in a remote corner of Andhra Pradesh, described the hottest day, May 10, as the worst day of his life.

"There was no place to hide," he said. "Even the dirt floor of my hut felt like an oven."

Heat waves struck Andhra Pradesh in 1996 and 1998, but this year has been the worst, state weather officials said. The state is the fifth largest in India, with 76 million people.

Mr. Murthy, the health worker, said the number of dead would have been higher had local officials not issued warnings and supplied extra drinking water to the poor.

"The administration sounded a warning a week in advance," said Poonam Malkondaiah, an official in West Godavari district, where at least 50 people perished.

"People were told not to venture out of their homes, especially around noon when the heat wave reaches its peak," she said. "If there were compelling reasons to go out, they were asked to cover themselves."

The capital, New Delhi, and other parts of northern India have also been sweltering.

Sixteen people died in the desert state of Rajasthan as temperatures climbed to 117 today.

Meteorologists attributed the problem to scorching desert winds from the northwest, not the greenhouse effect or deforestation.

"Heat waves always precede the monsoon rains," said R. Rajamani, an environmental expert in Hyderabad. "They induce the moisture to come in." Monsoons normally arrive in southern India in early June, and in the rest of the country over subsequent weeks.

Pollux V

05-19-02, 12:40 PM

It snowed up where I live yesterday or the day before. I don't live far up north so we thought it was pretty wacky.

Psycho_Potato

05-26-02, 01:54 PM

Pollux, it has been in the 70's the last few days. It's more likely that you saw nuclear fallout than snow.

wet1

05-27-02, 01:09 AM

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0205/larsen03_rotts.jpg

Antarctic Ice Shelf Vista
Credit & Copyright: Helmut Rott (U. Innsbruck)

It's all gone but the mountains. Most of the sprawling landscape of ice that lies between the mountains visible above has now disintegrated. The above picture was taken in Antarctica from the top of Grey Nunatak, one of three Seal Nunatak mountains that border the Larsen B Ice-Shelf. The other two Nunataks are visible in the picture taken in 1994. Over the past several years large chunks of the 200-meter thick Larsen B Ice-Shelf have been breaking off and disintegrating. The cause is thought to be related to the local high temperatures of recent years and, possibly, global warming. Over the past few years, the area that has disintegrated is roughly the size of Luxembourg. As ice-shelves break up, they unblock other ice sheets that fall onto the ocean, raising sea levels everywhere. Scientists are watching the much-larger Ross Ice Shelf, which, if it collapses, could cause global sea levels to rise five meters.

Edufer

05-27-02, 05:10 PM

Wet1, how difficult is for you (and most other people) to understand that the Larsen shelf (and other ice barriers) have collapsed, not melted. The cooling that has being going on in Antarctica during the last 25 years produced such a gigantic ice mass that, finally, overwhelmed the resistance of the ice shelf borders and plunged the ice mass into the waters beneath. A purely mechanical reason.

Global warming has nothing to do with it, because there is nothing like "warming" going on Earth --as demonstrated by ALL satellite and radiosondes measurements since they began recording temperature measurements, decades ago. If there is something, as shown by the satellites, it is a slight trend towards "cooling".

BTW: nice picture, but it does not add a bit to the warming argument...

Banshee

05-29-02, 04:37 PM

Iceberg Breakoffs Alarm Scientists

May 14 � The Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves are cracking up and, on the face of things, it is the most serious thaw since the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago.
The break-up of the ice shelves in itself is a natural process of renewal, but the size and rate of production of icebergs � some the size of major cities � is alarming scientists, some of whom blame global warming.

The break-off last month of a 500 billion ton chunk of the Larsen Ice Shelf � 650 feet thick and with a surface area of 1,250 sq. miles � is the second big break since a giant iceberg broke away in 1995 and is well beyond normal activity, scientists say. On Monday, scientists announced that another massive iceberg had broken off the Ross Ice Shelf, reducing the Antarctic formation to about the size it was in 1911 when explorer Robert Scott's team first mapped it.

The production of vast amounts of icebergs is a threat to the world's climate and the way the ocean's function, they say. And the process, once started, cannot be reversed. The fear is that a snowball effect will lead to disintegration of the vast West Antarctic ice shelf, kilometers thick in parts.

"The (first) break-off said 'this is not theory, it's real � a rapid and dramatic collapse of an ice shelf can happen'," said Neal Young, glaciologist with the Antarctic Cooperative Research Center (CRC) in Hobart. "This is saying 'that wasn't a one-off thing."'

Significant warming in parts of the pristine Antarctic wilderness is expected to continue to send huge icebergs into the Southern Ocean, and lead to the disintegration of other sections of ice shelves that fringe Antarctica's continental ice cover. A longer-term effect would be if the disintegration led to a meltdown of the grounded West Antarctic ice sheet, which would cause the world's oceans to rise by up to five meters (17 feet).

The Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into the Southern Ocean, has warmed by 2.5 degrees Celsius over the past 50 years, while some other areas have cooled. Some parts of West Antarctica have been losing ice, while, like shifting grains of sand on a beach, ice has built up elsewhere.

Scientists are not too worried for the moment about rising sea levels. This is because floating ice shelves displace large amounts of sea water, and sea levels would effectively remain unchanged if the ice shelfs disappeared. The real problems arise if the ice built up over millions of years on parts of Antarctica's land mass melts.

"We aren't too worried about the first 100 years or so when the ice shelves go, because there's no real effect on sea level and feedback on global climate is really rather small," said Bill Budd, Professor of Meteorology at the CRC, co-operative group between Australia's Antarctic Division, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), the University of Tasmania and other bodies.

But scientists believe that the expected loss of half the Antarctic's sea ice by the end of the century will have important consequences for Earth's entire natural system. They are finding that the world's deep ocean circulation system will slow as the Antarctic produces smaller amounts of dense oxygen-rich seawater, possibly within 30 years, threatening marine life.

"We can't reverse it. Because the greenhouse gas levels are already up, we can't bring them down, they just get higher, and the (ocean) cutoff will be stronger at higher levels," Budd said.

Xev

05-29-02, 05:06 PM

Scientists are not too worried for the moment about rising sea levels. This is because floating ice shelves displace large amounts of sea water, and sea levels would effectively remain unchanged if the ice shelfs disappeared. The real problems arise if the ice built up over millions of years on parts of Antarctica's land mass melts.

Well Edufer, you were right about Archimedes' principle. My bad.

"We can't reverse it. Because the greenhouse gas levels are already up, we can't bring them down, they just get higher, and the (ocean) cutoff will be stronger at higher levels," Budd said.

Oh bah! Whatever causes high levels of greenhouse gases can be brought down - provided we have the will to do so.

For instance, CO2 could be converted to O2 at an accelerated rate by 'fertilizing' the ocean. This would cause an increase in the number of organisms that preform such conversions.

P.S: Thanks for the article, Banshee.

kmguru

05-29-02, 05:17 PM

Here is an interesting site about iceage
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercNORTHAMERICA.html

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/na.gif

kmguru

05-29-02, 05:21 PM

If CO2 is a problem, we could easily modify sea plankton to grow rapidly and produce oxygen at a higher level....just an idea...

no one seems to be working on that...does that mean, it is not a problem?

wet1

05-29-02, 06:03 PM

Given the lead-time it would take to develop, manufacture the adapted organisms and allow time for them to affect the environment, I wonder just how long from time of realization to time of equilibrium. Upon reaching equilibrium how long it would take to level the process out.

People have always been short sighted, governments even more so, as they respond to the peoples wants, needs, and fears. There will be a lot of hand wringing and debate on if this needs done before such a process would begin.

The question is, should we? Have there been enough serious studies that prove we are on a ramp up of temperatures in an endless spiral and that it has begun? Edufer argues, rather eloquently for the opposite.

kmguru

05-29-02, 06:15 PM

I do not think it will take that long to have Genetically Modified Plankton deployed. We do that with GM Corn, Salmon and a host of other plant life. We are pretty good at it. What is required is the truth (either CO2 is rising or in balance within a natural variation). If it is politically motivated like R12, PCB, DDT and other stuff then the truth is not out there.....it is in the bank....follow the money....

Edufer

05-29-02, 07:06 PM

from banshee's link: "May 14 � The Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves are cracking up and, on the face of things, it is the most serious thaw since the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. .. The break-up of the ice shelves in itself is a natural process of renewal, but the size and rate of production of icebergs � some the size of major cities is alarming scientists, some of whom blame global warming. 
Contradictions, contradictions... The Larsen shelf broke off, it did not thaw or melted. As it has been demonstrated before, Antarctica has been cooling during the last 25 years, so the huge amount of ice formed during those 25 years caused the breakoff, just for the sheer weight, not because temperatures that have been going down. At least they recognize that some scientists blame the "thaw" to global warming.
The fear is that a snowball effect will lead to disintegration of the vast West Antarctic ice shelf, kilometers thick in parts.
Fears, terror, Apocalypse, what else? Scaremongers are driven by their pockets. As kmguru points out, "If it is politically motivated like R12, PCB, DDT and other stuff then the truth is not out there.....it is in the bank....follow the money...." (and the geopolitical power that provides more money than ever before in Earth's history.

kmguru also said: "...we could easily modify sea plankton to grow rapidly and produce oxygen at a higher level....just an idea... no one seems to be working on that..."

Actually, it has been studied and proposed by a oceanologist back in the 80s. I will find the article (buried deep in my file cabinet --not in my hardisk) and tell all about it. He proposed to "seed" the polar seas with iron filings, because it has been demonstrated that iron oxide enhances the CO2 intake by phytoplanktons. But the scientific establishment dissmised the idea as "wacky". Anything that goes against the establishment seems to be wacky...

Banshee

05-31-02, 02:02 PM

SCIENTISTS BEGIN TO HEED INUIT WARNINGS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN ARCTIC
By DeNeen L. Brown
Washington Post
Tuesday, May 28, 2002; Page A01

IQALUIT, Nunavut -- And so it has come to be, the elders say, a time when icebergs are melting, tides have changed, polar bears have thinned and there is no meaning left in a ring around the moon. Scattered clouds blowing in a wind no longer speak to elders and hunters. Daily weather markers are becoming less predictable in the fragile Arctic as its climate changes.

Inuit elders and hunters who depend on the land say they are disturbed by what they are seeing swept in by the changes: deformed fish, caribou with bad livers, baby seals left by their mothers to starve. Just the other year, a robin appeared where no robin had been seen before. There is no word for robin in Inuktitut, the Inuit language.

Elders say they are afraid of the changes. "When I was a child, if there was a ring around the sun or the moon, it meant the change of weather in the next few days. Better or worse, it was nature's message for the hunter," said David Audlakiak.

He is walking on a thick layer of ice frozen over the arctic waters. The hills behind him should still be covered in snow, but are mostly bare. As this winter ends, he says that it has been warmer than winters past. The bald spots showing the tundra are disturbing.

Audlakiak, who grew up in an igloo, says there are more signs the land, sea and animals are in turmoil. "The weather pattern has changed so much from my childhood. We have more accidents because the ice conditions change. We are living in one of the most unforgiving climates in the world. It is becoming more dangerous every year."

There is increasing evidence that the Arctic, this desert of snow, ice and killing cold wind, one of the most hostile and fragile places on Earth, is thawing. Glaciers are receding. Coastlines are eroding. Lakes are disappearing. Fall freezes are coming later. The winters are not as cold.

Mosquitoes and beetles never seen before are appearing. The sky seems to be clapping as thunderstorms roll where it was once too cold for them.

"The Inuit always observed the sun and astrology for direction and for weather," Jayko Pitseolak, an Inuit elder here, said through an interpreter.

"We were taught . . . that one day the world will change, and it has."

While scientists debate the causes of climate change and politicians debate whether to ratify the Kyoto accord to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that many scientists believe cause global warming, the Inuit who live in Canada's Far North say they are watching their world melt before their eyes.

For years, the wisdom of Inuit hunters and elders about climate in the Arctic, known as "traditional knowledge," was largely disregarded. Sometimes it was called merely anecdotal and unreliable by scientists who traveled here with their recording devices, measuring sticks and theories about the North. Some of them viewed the Inuit as ignorant about a land in which they and their ancestors have lived for thousands of years.

But in the last few years, scientists have begun paying more attention to what the Inuit are documenting, and even incorporating it into their research about changes in the climate, the prevailing weather conditions of a given area. In 1997, the Canadian government mandated that government agencies incorporate traditional knowledge into land-use decisions and consult aboriginal people about the environment.

"Traditional knowledge is very useful," said George Hobson, a
geophysicist and retired director of the Polar Continental Shelf
Project, a Canadian government agency that provided logistical support to government and university scientists researching the Arctic.

"If you go back 100 years or 200 years ago, European forefathers thought they [the Inuit] were savages. 'What did they know?' they said. But there was traditional knowledge and people were not tapping it. It was just waiting to be passed down. Some people might say, 'I'm a university
prof, what does that fellow know? He doesn't have grade six.' But when they have grade six and they have lived out on the land, they had one hell of a lot of knowledge about land and animals. They may not have had the same education, but they were not stupid. You could not be stupid and survive in that kind of climate."

During the past 40 years, average temperatures in Canada's Western Arctic have risen by 1.5 degrees Celsius, to -13.5 degrees Celsius, according to Environment Canada, the government's environment ministry. Temperatures have also risen in the Central Arctic, but not in the Eastern Arctic, where some scientists suggest there may even be a modest cooling. "Global warming doesn't mean all areas will warm," said Tom Agnew, a senior meteorologist with the Meteorological Service of Canada.
"Some will warm and some will cool a bit." Some scientists predict a rise in sea levels leading to devastating floods, thinning ice and
perhaps even an ice-free Arctic within 50 years.

Terry Fenge, former research director of the Inuit Circumpolar
Conference of Canada, said that in the last decade scientists have
acknowledged the Arctic as a barometer of climate change and the effects of pollution. "This is one of those very important areas where traditional knowledge and traditional science is coming together with Western science and they are both in essence saying the same thing: Climate change is not a future event. It is happening now."

For the Inuit, climate change poses an immediate danger to a way of life. They cannot read the weather the way they used to.

"When you think in terms of the long-term negative effects of climate change, this could be the beginning of the end of the way of life for a whole people," said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, president of the circumpolar conference. "Our cultural heritage is at stake here. We are an adaptable people. We have over the millennium been able to adapt to incredible circumstances. But I think adaptability has its limits. If the ice is not forming, how else does one adapt to seasons that are not as they used to be when the whole environment is changing underneath our feet, literally?"

For thousands of years, the Inuit have lived by rules that require them to respect animals and the land. The Inuit's ancestors are believed to have arrived in the Western Arctic about 10,000 years ago, migrating from Siberia across what was then the Bering land bridge.

They adapted to the cold climate as they hunted seals, walruses and beluga whales. It was a time "when people and animals could speak together and when spirits of the sea and the land controlled the fate of both the animal and human world," according to a report by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, a nonprofit Inuit organization.

Hunters would forecast the weather by looking for signs in the way animals behaved or by looking at clouds, stars, wind, snow and water currents. Some Inuit knew to expect bad weather if a caribou or seal shook its head, according to a report on traditional knowledge by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, a research institute in Winnipeg.

"In spring, Inuit expect bad weather when northbound geese reverse direction," the report said. When an echo traveled for miles, poor weather. Cold was expected when "the woodpecker's beak moves fast."

Siloah Atagoojuk, who lives here in Iqaluit, has lines on her face, but she does not want to pretend she knows more than anyone else -- nor does she try to assign blame. She is simply worried. Her world is not as it used to be and her people may not be able to adapt to it. "There is sickness in the animals," Atagoojuk says. "The flesh doesn't look good. You have to cook it extra. Even the caribou are not healthy, as fat -- same for marine animals.

We have known all along since we were little kids there will be a time when the Earth will be destroyed and destroy itself. Seems this is happening."

The sustainable development institute produced a videotape of
observations by Inuit hunters and elders that was recently shown as evidence of climate change at a conference in The Hague. In the video, hunters and elders speak about melting permafrost, shrinking glaciers and a stronger sun. There is concern that the community of Tuktuujaqtuuq, in the Western Arctic, could slide into the sea.

"Tuktuujaqtuuq is very low and very vulnerable," said Rick Armstrong, manager of scientific support services for the Nunavut Research Institute.

He said ice acts as a buffer between land and ocean and protects coastal communities from storms and erosion. "With the warming, there is a concern they may need to move buildings in Tuktuujaqtuuq."

The Inuit, many of whom toggle between the Stone Age and the Space Age, building igloos and surfing the Web, have created a Web site on which elders and hunters post their observations. "About two years ago, when we were corralling reindeer . . . the north wind started blowing and there were dead birds and dead hair seals and dolphins. All kinds of
sea birds that were washed ashore," said Herman Toolie of the community of Savoonga. "And dog salmon that were never touched by sea gull or foxes. They were never eaten.

We were wondering why. . . . One of the elders said that these things never used to happen. It is something new to them."

Near the sea's edge, the ice floes are melting. The hunters are heading out on snowmobiles. Natsiapik Naglingniq knows they are headed into danger, unable to rely on the weather or the ice, which is opening and closing,teasing those who walk across it. Just the other day, a hunter went on the local radio to warn that the ice seems to be melting from the bottom.

Naglingniq says that when she was just a girl, living in an igloo, her job was to take out the garbage and, as she did, take notice of the world.

"When I would come back in, my parents would ask, 'So what was the weather like out there?' I would explain. By explaining the weather to my parents, I learned to be able to tell what the next day's weather would be like."

In the dark, she would watch for a ring around the moon. "That would mean that it will be a bad day tomorrow." But if she saw a clear night and the stars getting closer and farther, as if they were getting bigger and smaller at the same time, "it meant it will be windy the next day."

In the past, Naglingniq says, there were good days and bad days, but not the same as the weather today, changing so rapidly that people cannot make sense of the ring around the moon or the burning circle around the sun.

"We were told by the elders at the time there will be a change,"
Naglingniq says. Beneath her fur-trimmed parka, her eyes are turning a milky gray, but she says she can see when something is amiss. Last summer, the elders saw insects they had never seen before. "The insects are larger," she says. "It has lots of legs and it is quite big. As soon as it observes humans, it curls up in a ball. It's strange." She cannot say its name. There is no word in Inuktitut for this insect...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18506-2002May27?language=printer

Sign Of The Times? This article and a little comment on it will be posted in Parapsychology too, 'cause not everybody reads all the Forums.

Edufer

05-31-02, 06:53 PM

There is nothing that environmentalists wouldn't do for pushing their idea of global warming. It is a highly profitable business that is getting spoiled by big scientific evidence (also by small facts, as I always state at the bottom of my posts). So now they are using poetry and anecdotal stories for the purpose of keeping the fraud alive. Let us analize some of the link Banshee gently pointed us to:

quote"Daily weather markers are becoming less predictable in the fragile Arctic as its climate changes."

Actually, weather is not changing much in the Arctic. In Alaska, for instance, it is cooling. Please see: <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/thunder/index.htm"></A> But that has been taken into account by this "scientist":

quote"Global warming doesn't mean all areas will warm," said Tom Agnew, a senior meteorologist with the Meteorological Service of Canada. "Some will warm and some will cool a bit."

Then, we shouldn't be talking about "Global Warming", but about "Localized Warming and Cooling". But that doesn't sound as scary as "Global". The castle of cards may collapse. So better stick to the catastrophic warming. It pays more dividends.

quote:Fall freezes are coming later. The winters are not as cold. 

Not as cold? See the weather stations temperature measurements (and satellite's too) and see how wrong this claim is:
<A HREF=http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm>"What the Stations Say"</A>

Or just remember the blizzards in the US East coast in previous years (and what about the some of the last winters in Europe?) Or the earlier migration of swallows from Argentina to California, this year? And what about the earlier and more heavy snowfalls in Patagonia?

quote;"We were taught . . . that one day the world will change, and it has." ... " We have known all along since we were little kids there will be a time when the Earth will be destroyed and destroy itself. Seems this is happening."

Inuit and eskimos have been saying that for centuries. And they were right, as in 800 AD Earth (and the Arctic too) began to warm --in a much stronger and faster way as it has been doing since 1850. The temperature reached its peak about 1100 AD, with 2°C higher than today. By the year 1250 AD, the Inuit began to say "the world is changing", and they were right. The Little Ice Age had just begun. Until 1700 they kept saying: "It is getting colder every day, dammit!", and they were right once more. Then, Earth started recovering from the Little Ice Age and they said: "Good! It is getting warmer. How nice!" And from then on, they have seen how Earth kept warming slowly but not steadily --some decades were warmer, some decades were colder. The Ups and Downs of Climate. The rule is: Earth climate has never been steady for long times. Change is the rule. Change is normal.

quote:For years, the wisdom of Inuit hunters and elders about climate in the Arctic, known as "traditional knowledge," was largely disregarded. Sometimes it was called merely anecdotal and unreliable by scientists who traveled here with their recording devices, measuring sticks and theories about the North" ... " Hunters would forecast the weather by looking for signs in the way animals behaved or by looking at clouds, stars, wind, snow and water currents."

Good!. We can save huge amounts of taxpayers money if we stopped predicting the clima with computers and expensive scientific equipment, satellites, rockets, radiosondes, etc, and let the old Inuit sages do the predicting (or prophecies). In my opinion, it wouldn't make any difference. Their predictions would be as accurate as the IPCC computers... but we could use the money saved for other more useful purposes (as taking care of poor people starving to death in "developing" countries.

quote:The Inuit's ancestors are believed to have arrived in the Western Arctic about 10,000 years ago, migrating from Siberia across what was then the Bering land bridge." ... " They adapted to the cold climate as they hunted seals,..."

10,000 years ago the Holocene had started. That means that huge ice masses were covering most parts of Europe, Asia and North America. All that ice came from the water in oceans, so they were about 25 meters lower than today. Then, how come they "got adapted to the cold climate", if they came from Siberia, a place as cold as nothing else on Earth? (Verjoyansk, Siberia, has the world record of low temperature outside the Antarctic stratopshere: -70°C).

Things like all these arguments started in the early 80s to make me suspicious about what the "greens" say: exaggerations, "anecdotal" evidence taken for "factual" or scientific evidence, distortion of facts, half truths, misinformation, misinterpretations, blattant lies and lately wild frauds. I can understand why less informed people tend to believe their claims, but I can't understand why well educated people, when presented with the scientific facts, dismiss them and keep believing in horror stories. Must be something psychological, and that should be discussed in the psychology forum. I'll follow you there. Perhaps there are people that could enlighten me on this.

Banshee

06-03-02, 06:12 PM

Response on the former post...incoming e-mail

Unfortunately I have to agree with the Inuit. The Inupiat up
here say the same thing and so do I. The weather has changed
drastically since I was young (been up here since 1954) tho most
notably the last 15 years or so.
Instead of once in a while having a mild winter, now it is once
in a while we have a 'normal' winter that we used to experience
years ago. Two years ago, the winter temp never dropped below
zero which in all my life up here Ive never seen; and it did set
a record.
The glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate. Some glaciers
that stayed ice the first 20 years of my life up here are now
virtually nothing but water lakes or such erosion back into the
mountains they are now quite inaccessible.
We have brown recluses mating with wolf spiders; cockroaches,
fleas, and even ticks; all insects that were not indigenous nor
even present to any part of Alaska when I was younger. Some were
not even present ten years ago.
According to the Inupiat, many of the fish are tainted; and
smaller. The same goes for the herds; they are smaller in size
and sicklier. We now have species of sharks up in these waters
never before seen.
The incidence of brucellosis is quite marked. Many animals even
domestics are coming down with this sickness quite easily these
days as well as humans. Even CDC reports the Arctic regions
quite high incident in this bacterium.
Where as the world reports a rise in temperatures of 1 to 1.5C
we are experiencing an average 11-12C higher in temps. Meltdown,
imho, has begun in more ways than one.

Respects,
Vanessa

=====

Edufer

06-03-02, 06:55 PM

The nice email from Vanessa is anecdotal, not scientific proof of anything. It has the same value as my "anecdotal" claim that:

1) Winter has come sooner in the last years (down in Argentina),

2) The swallows have started their migration journeys a week earlier (from Goya, Corrients to San Jose de Capistrano, California),

3) That hundreds ot trucks are stuck right now in the Andes (border Chile-Argentina) because of snowstorms and blizzards that came earlier than usual,.

4) Snowfalls in Bariloche (a winter resort) came about a month earlier.

5) And that we have freezing temperatures not usual for this time of Autum (just see records from previous years and see I am right), etc, etc, etc....

When you look at facts, temperature records in the Arctic, and Antarctic, satellite readings, sea level records, etc, etc, then you can clearly see that there is no steady warming tend. On the contrary, there seems to be a slight cooling trend, but that could also be attributed to "natural" variations of the clima. So let Inuits enjoy their warmth until they start to freeze again.

Cheers!

Banshee

06-03-02, 07:12 PM

No scientific facts this time? :) Only an anecdotal reply?

I am disappointed, you can do better than that. I posted it especially for you...;)

Edufer

06-03-02, 11:34 PM

Yes. Show me where is some scientific fact in your friend's email. Temperature measurements during a long time span, observed and recorded facts, etc. BTW, the 8.00 PM TV news just told us that 600 trucks in the Chilean side of the border, and 800 truck in the Argentinian side are stuck under one of the greatest blizzards ever known in the region. Snowfalls in Chile (and rains in Santiago provoked one of the greatest catastrophes known there in ages (besides earthquakes, of course).

Now, have fun:

<CENTER>WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE POLAR BEARS?</CENTER>
<BLOCKQUOTE><CENTER>Maybe nothing - since Arctic temperatures seem not to be warming
</CENTER>
"Polar bears will become extinct in the wild within 60 years as a result of global warming"; a new report will reveal this week. By 2060 climate experts believe Arctic pack ice will have melted to such an extent that all of the existing population of 22,000 polar bears will starve as the animals they feed on, such as seals, become harder to find.

Twenty years after that, in 2080, forecasters from the Norwegian Polar Institute believe that the last of the Arctic pack ice will disappear completely.
(From:
 <A HREF="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=1845196&thesection=news&thesubsection=world"> New Zealand Herald</A> , 14 May 2002):

OR

Research in the American Arctic has revealed that the polar bear and bowhead whale populations are booming after decades of decline, and part of the reason for that may be global warming. Although the long-term predictions suggest many Arctic species could be jeopardised by any continued rise in temperatures, scientists think that at the moment some animal populations may be benefiting from a slightly warmer climate.
FULL STORY at <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1324000/1324416.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1324000/1324416.stm</A>

OR
<CENTER>Thin Polar Bears Called Sign of Global Warming
Environmental News Service | 05/16/2002
</CENTER>
WASHINGTON, DC, May 16, 2002 (ENS) - Hungry polar bears are one of the early signs that global warming is impacting Arctic habitat, suggests a new study from World Wildlife Fund. The report reviews the threats faced by the world's 22,000 polar bears and highlights growing evidence that human induced climate change is the number-one long-term threat to the survival of the world's largest land-based carnivores.

Global warming threatens to destroy critical polar bear habitat, charges the report, "Polar Bears at Risk." The burning of coal and other fuels emits carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases that blanket the earth, trap in heat and cause global warming. Increasing CO2 emissions have caused Arctic temperatures to rise by five degrees Celsius over the past 100 years, and the extent of sea ice has decreased by six percent over the past 20 years. By around 2050, scientists now predict a 60 percent loss of summer sea ice, which would more than double the summer ice-free season from 60 to 150 days.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change in the polar region is expected to be the greatest of anywhere on Earth.

<HR WIDTH=500 HEIGHT=15 COLOR="#FF0000">

SEPP Comment: But that's not what's being observed. Anyway, the solution is simple. If you find a thin polar bear, offer it a chubby tree hugger. 

<HR WIDTH=500 HEIGHT=15 COLOR="#FF0000">
</BLOCKQUOTE>

Banshee

06-04-02, 01:20 AM

Thank you so much Edufer. :) it's always a joy to read your posts. :)

Have a beer on me. Talk to you later...:cool:

Deus

06-04-02, 09:17 AM

As much as I don't want to get back into this firefight, I'm going to contribute this and you can do with it what you will.

From all that I've read, it seems to me that there is a global warming trend caused largely by human activities. It also seems to me that we are due to go into another glacial period soon, if the normal cycles hold. That could be where the evidence of cooling is coming from. Most geologists/climatologists agree, I think, that the activities of man and global warming may hold of the glaciation for awhile, but eventually it will still happen.

Regardless of whether you think there is global warming or not, I hope everyone can agree that the polluting we do hurts the environment.

goofyfish

06-05-02, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Deus
Regardless of whether you think there is global warming or not, I hope everyone can agree that the polluting we do hurts the environment. Certainly it does. The question is one of degree.

I'm one of those who looks at the global warming issue this way: yes, the earth is warming, no, there's not a whole lot we can do about it by way of regulation or conservation. I'm with University of Virginia Environmental Science Prof. Patrick Michaels ( http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/michaels.shtml) on this, who believes:"It is entirely possible that human influence on the atmosphere is not necessarily deleterious and that it is simply another component of the dynamic planet. Tomorrow's scientific and science-policy leaders will have to recognize this verity in our attempts to maintain a productive and diverse planet."He's also quite skeptical about computer modeling as an accurate predictor of climate change.

Cleaner-burning energy sources are coming -- but they'll arrive sooner if we don't burden our economy (the very thing that drives such advancement in technologies) with a tangle of ill-conceived regulations engendered by questionable science.

Peace.

goofyfish

06-05-02, 03:03 PM

An interesting, related item.Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory are studying a simple, cost effective method for extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air — which could allow sustained use of fossil fuels while avoiding potential global climate change.http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/releases/archive/02-028.shtml

Deus

06-05-02, 03:28 PM

I think the article is a little optimistic about what this method could do.
I think if you were to put all of these devices in the desert they wouldn't be quite as efficient as if you actually put them near big cities.
Although this idea shows promise, there is another practical, inexpensive method for removing CO2 from the air: plants. :)

Edufer

06-05-02, 04:56 PM

Although this idea shows promise, there is another practical, inexpensive method for removing CO2 from the air: plants.

I am sorry to spoil your great idea, Deus, bringing you old information. Plants (all green stuff on Earth, crops, jungles, golf lawns, prairies, etc), only contribute 3,5% - 5% of the oxygen produced every year in this beautiful planet. The remaining 95 - 97% is produced by phytoplankton in the oceans, especially in the cold oceans (Antarctic and Arctic seas).

Plants (green stuff) are needed (I say: essential) for quite different reasons, easy to understand. Apart of providing us with food, trees provide shade that contributes to keeping microclimas steady, plants produce "evapoperspiration", they give humidity to the atmosphere, helping to produce the "greenhouse" effect, they provide chemicals for medicines, they are also useful as wind barriers, home of wild species, etc, etc, and thousands of etc.

I agree with the claim that states the best way to produce oxygen (sequestring CO2 from the air) is by cutting old trees and letting new ones to grow in size. Once trees reach maturity, they stop being efficient CO2 removers because they have stopped growing in size (transforming carbon into wood), thing they do when growing. The same oxygen they make during daytime, is used at night for their metabolic functions. Balance=zero.

Actually, as discovered by Bert Bolin (the head of the IPCC, not less) in studies performed back in the 70s, mature forests and jungles have a negative balance of CO2, that is, they produce more CO2 than they absorb!.

As in the US for each tree being chopped down for commercial use, six more are planted, this seems the best way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Controlled logging is the way to go.

kmguru

06-05-02, 05:21 PM

I have not done any calculations (energy to material balance) but may be we could put a few CO2 to O2 scrubber systems using solar power, nuclear power or gas power...will that help?

Edufer

06-05-02, 07:10 PM

Of course, that could be done. But we must do something POSITIVE not NEGATIVE as crippling World's economy with insane bans on energy consumption. Let's do it.

kmguru

06-05-02, 07:33 PM

insane bans on energy consumption

The reason such insanity occurs is because ordinary people have no understanding of the dynamics of business, economy or engineering. How many engineers you have seen leading a department or country? President Carter was the only engineer in whitehouse ...and the politicians and certain interest groups could not manipulate him on technology and decision, so they undercut him in so many ways that he lost credibility. While most smart journalists said that he was one of the smartest presidents they met - the media tried to find every fault they could.

So...it is human nature that let everybody starve while I am floating in my swimming pool sipping pina colada....and it shows....

daktaklakpak

06-06-02, 02:48 AM

The massive of methane release near the end of Ice Age from methane hydrates burried under sea floor is thought to help the end of Ice Age. Today, if such massive release occurs again, global temperture will raise 12 degrees in ten years. Much worse than any car or factory waste combined today.

http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
http://www.ornl.gov/reporter/no16/methane.htm

Deus

06-06-02, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Edufer
I am sorry to spoil your great idea, Deus, bringing you old information. Plants (all green stuff on Earth, crops, jungles, golf lawns, prairies, etc), only contribute 3,5% - 5% of the oxygen produced every year in this beautiful planet. The remaining 95 - 97% is produced by phytoplankton in the oceans, especially in the cold oceans (Antarctic and Arctic seas).

Aren't phytoplankton plants?

Plants (green stuff) are needed (I say: essential) for quite different reasons, easy to understand. Apart of providing us with food, trees provide shade that contributes to keeping microclimas steady, plants produce "evapoperspiration", they give humidity to the atmosphere, helping to produce the "greenhouse" effect, they provide chemicals for medicines, they are also useful as wind barriers, home of wild species, etc, etc, and thousands of etc.

Not to mention holding down the soil so it doesn't wash away/blow away.

As in the US for each tree being chopped down for commercial use, six more are planted, this seems the best way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Controlled logging is the way to go.

Really? I didn't know that 6 trees are planted for each one cut down. Is that US law?

Edufer

06-06-02, 09:16 PM

Aren't phytoplankton plants?
Absolutely. Planktons are composed of zooplanktons and phyotplanktons, microscopic "animal" and "vefetal" (algae) living forms. Both perform different duties in water, and are extremely useful in the food chain.

Phytonplanktons are, indeed, plants, but not in the way people think about about "plants" --big things with leaves. I thought you were referring to trees and "terrestrial" plants, not the acquatic kind. My mistake.

But, "au contraire" of terrestrial plants, proliferation of acquatic plants, especially big algaes, can lead to serious problems, either in salty ot freshwater. No need to explain more, as this effect is widely known.

Really? I didn't know that 6 trees are planted for each one cut down. Is that US law?
Actually, yes. You can check that with the US Forest Service.

Here are some facts from the National Hardwood Lumber Association: "The US is home to 70% of the forestland that existed in 1600, 737 million acres of forests. Fully 33.5%---247 million acres---are reserved from harvest by law or are slow-growing woodlands unsuitable for timber production. There are 490 million acres called timberlands, forests that can produce more than 20 cubic feet of wood per acre annually. They are growing more trees today than they were fifty years ago. Every year, more than 1.5 billion trees are planted in the US, more than five trees for every man, woman and child in America. That's an average of 4.1 million seedlings each day. Six trees are planted for every one that is harvested. The National Forest System (191 million acres) was established "to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States." The US Forest Service, an agency of the US Department of Agriculture, administers the System. These national forests pay 25% of the gross receipts from timber sales directly to States who use them to fund things like county roads and schools, representing millions of dollars each year." Any doubt about these figures or data, just get in touch with the US Forest Service (easy to find in the web, perhaps through the US Information Agency = http://www.usia.gov).

Deus

06-07-02, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Edufer
But, "au contraire" of terrestrial plants, proliferation of acquatic plants, especially big algaes, can lead to serious problems, either in salty ot freshwater. No need to explain more, as this effect is widely known.

Everything in moderation appears to apply again. :)

Banshee

06-16-02, 12:44 AM

Just what's going on in Antarctica?
� Barry James International Herald Tribune��
�
� Friday, June 7, 2002

Warmer and cooler at the same time
�
PARIS
�
Like the Delphic oracle, the Antarctic sends out conflicting signals about global climate change. Part of it is warming significantly, but much has been cooling for some time.
.
These signals are picked up and amplified both by those who argue that the world is headed for disaster as the climate heats up faster than at any time in recorded history, and others who argue that scientific warnings, notably by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of major sea level rises over the next century are overly pessimistic.
.
"The picture is complex rather than conflicting," says John King, principal investigator of Antarctic climate processes at the British Antarctic Survey. "There is a tendency to want to oversimplify things and to treat the whole of the Antarctic as one unit. The fact is that it is a large area geographically and it is hardly surprising that different things are happening in different places."
.
Much of the world's climate research is focused on the poles, because they are sensitive to even minor changes, and because they provide clues to changes going back tens of thousands of years.
.
Evidence of atmospheric change is clearer in the Arctic - where scientists have found that permafrost zones have melted, the extent and thickness of sea ice have decreased and glaciers have receded - than in the Antarctic.
.
The U.S. government's National Science Foundation recently announced a major five-year study of environmental changes in the Arctic. Some scientists believe that even a small amount of warming in the northern polar region could trigger an abrupt change that could alter the Gulf Stream, which conveys surface water across the Atlantic, and turn northern Europe into a much colder place in a matter of decades.
.
Warming also is clearly having an impact in the Antarctic Peninsula, jutting about 1,500 kilometers (950 miles) toward South America and surrounding waters, but scientists do not yet know whether this is a temporary, recurring phenomenon or evidence of permanent change.
.
Sir Ernest Shackleton was bedeviled by unseasonably warm temperatures and melting ice as he tried to escape entrapment in the floes during his ill-fated 1914-1916 expedition to cross the entire continent. And air temperature over much of the peninsula region has warmed an average of one degree centigrade (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the past 40 years. In Signy Island, about 700 kilometers northeast of the peninsula, however, British researchers have found that lake waters have warmed by a degree in as little as 15 years, indicating that the change may be speeding up.
.
Earlier this year, satellites observed the rapid collapse of much of the enormous floating Larsen ice shelf that had existed on the peninsula since the last Ice Age, 12,000 years ago. The likeliest cause of that, geologists said, is that surface ice melted and penetrated through the shelf, weakening it to the point where it broke up catastrophically. With summer temperatures in the peninsula substantially above freezing, "it is almost certain that warming precipitated the collapse," King said.
.
"What is well established is that most of the Antarctic Peninsula has been warming significantly over the past 50 years or so for which we have records," he said. "Over the rest of the continent, the signals are a lot less clear - at some stations you will see a slight warming, and at others you will see a cooling trend, but none of the observations would pass the test that we would use for statistical significance. Indeed, for the vast majority of the continent we don't have the observations that would enable us to say whether it is warming or cooling."
.
Scientists have been keeping an eye on the Larsen shelf since 1995, when a large chunk broke away. The recent collapse of a section of ice 200 meters thick and 3,240 square kilometers in surface area - equivalent to 650 feet thick by 1,250 square miles - has left the shelf with only about 40 percent of its original size, and what remains is losing stability. David Vaughan, a glacier expert at the British Antarctic Survey, has called the speed of the collapse "staggering." Other ice shelves are closer to breaking up than scientists previously thought. Although these events are dramatic, they do not affect ocean levels, because the shelves jut out from the continental land mass and in effect float on the water. It would be a different matter if the vast ice sheets actually on the continent also started to melt. Containing most of the world's fresh water, the sheets are up to 5 kilometers thick.
.
Many questions have been raised about the stability of the West Antarctic sheet, containing about 13 percent of the continent's ice, which is anchored to rock that is below sea level. If this ice were to melt precipitously, it could raise the world's average ocean level by about 5 meters. Using engineering risk-analysis methods, British and Norwegian scientists concluded last year, however, that there was only a 5 percent chance of major sea-level rise due to disintegration over a period of a few hundred years of the ice covering West Antarctica.
.
Satellite and other evidence shows that the ice sheets are actually getting thicker, and that the Antarctic Dry Valleys, the continent's largest ice-free area, have cooled somewhat. The National Science Foundation says records show a decline in seasonally averaged surface air temperatures of 0.7 degrees centigrade per decade, but has no explanation for this fall. Antarctica is the only continent where such cooling has been observed. The Antarctic ice cap contains an estimated 30 million cubic kilometers of glacial ice, and if all this were to melt, the average sea level around the world would rise by 60 meters. This is not going to happen any century soon, but Antarctica was once part of a temperate zone attached to Australia and South America, over which dinosaurs roamed 65 million years ago.
.
To put together a picture of climate changes in the past, a European scientific team backed by 10 nations recently drilled more nearly 3 kilometers on the Dome Concordia, high on the East Antarctic plateau, to reach layers of ice that fell from snow that fell more than 500,000 years ago. Ice core samples now being studied at European laboratories cover four glacial and interglacial periods, supporting evidence of several cycles of climate change.
.
"The climate 10,000 years ago was typified by rapid variations," King said. "It was nonglacial for a few decades and then it went back to glacial."
.
He said the collapse of the Larsen ice shelf may herald an end to a period of stability that has prevailed throughout recordable history.
.
"It is important to explain this stability as well as the changes," he said. "And we have a long way to go in explaining why things are changing rapidly in the Antarctic Peninsula but not so much in the rest of the continent. What we will be trying to do is to improve the way in which Antarctic processes fit into the global climate model."�
�
Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune

�
�http://www.iht.com/articles/60470.html

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

Edufer

06-16-02, 11:20 PM

A very interesting article. Although it pretends to appear impartial by reporting both sides of the story, after a quick reading one can find how the media writes the reports using a carefully devised technique of misinformation. As usual, the reporting is geared towards uninformed people (the vast majority of the population), but it cannot pass the scrutiny of better informed persons. So let me show some contradictions and lack of science in the article:
Earlier this year, satellites observed the rapid collapse of much of the enormous floating Larsen ice shelf that had existed on the peninsula since the last Ice Age, 12,000 years ago. The likeliest cause of that, geologists said, is that surface ice melted and penetrated through the shelf, weakening it to the point where it broke up catastrophically.
I have emphasized "likeliest" and "surface ice melted...". "Likeliest" means they are not sure at all, and the use of this kind of vague terminology gives them the chance to say. "Well, we didn't say that was the reason, but we thought it could be". Then comes the absence of physics when they say the "surface ice melted, and penetrated through the shelf". For ice to melt, the conditio sine qua non is that temperatures be above the freezing point (0°C) or more. As temperature records in the Larsen ice shelf show, are well under the freezing point: (they are about -25°C below zero, or freezing point). It is unlikely (I say impossible) that ice can melt at say -10°C. But, even if somebody had melted the ice with a blowtorch, when the water starts to "penetrate" the ice creaks and crevices, it would freeze again. Altough the ice temperature there is 0°C, the air is still well below freezing point. I remember trying to ski in upstate New York when there was -20°C, but had forgotten to take along my ski goggles. When I started down the slope, the tears in my eyes froze, provoking a terrible pain. The same applies to the water "penetrating" the shelf.
"It is important to explain this stability as well as the changes," he said. "And we have a long way to go in explaining why things are changing rapidly in the Antarctic Peninsula but not so much in the rest of the continent. What we will be trying to do is to improve the way in which Antarctic processes fit into the global climate model."The "not so much in the rest of the continent" actually is "a lot of cooling". They have assumed that their climate modeling is "perfect", so instead of trying to modify their models to fit them to the observed physical facts, they are trying to "improve" the way they can distort "real world observations" to fit their models --that have a preconceived conclusion, of course: warming."What is well established is that most of the Antarctic Peninsula has been warming significantly over the past 50 years or so for which we have records," he said. "Over the rest of the continent, the signals are a lot less clear - at some stations you will see a slight warming, and at others you will see a cooling trend, but none of the observations would pass the test that we would use for statistical significance. Indeed, for the vast majority of the continent we don't have the observations that would enable us to say whether it is warming or cooling."What a nonsense! Waht kind of data they have, then? They say there is no observations on which we can say it is cooling or warming --nevertheless, they insist it is warming! They vast majority of the continent is cooling, but a small portion (as the Peninsula) is warming. As a result, the mean Antarctic temperatures are cooling significantly, but they cannot aknowledge this fact, so they have to say they don't have the observations that can prove a warming or a cooling. As the "real world observations" don't count, we must rely only in climate modeling. Its like throwing away our Physics books and trying to determine warming or cooling by means of Christian Andersen's fairytales.Satellite and other evidence shows that the ice sheets are actually getting thicker, and that the Antarctic Dry Valleys, the continent's largest ice-free area, have cooled somewhat. The National Science Foundation says records show a decline in seasonally averaged surface air temperatures of 0.7 degrees centigrade per decade, but has no explanation for this fall.So, because they have no explanation of this significant cooling (0,7°C per decade is severe), then it doesn't exists. So let's stick to climate modeling fairytales."The climate 10,000 years ago was typified by rapid variations," King said. "It was nonglacial for a few decades and then it went back to glacial."What caused those warmings and coolings? Nature, of course, because man's activities were non-existant then. So, we must reasonably assume that nature changes the clima anytime it has the chance to do it. As ALL climatologists know (but "warmers" would refrain to mention) is that the Golden Rule in climatology is Constant Change. Climate has never been steady for extended periods of time. A quick glance at any graph showing geological cycles will show you this. See Milantkovitch studies, please.

Do you want to know how trustworthy climate models are? Take a look at this Stanford University page and be prepared for some surprises.

<A href="http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html">Global Warming: Does it Exist? </A>

or here: <A HREF=http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex12.htm>http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex12.htm</A>

So much for the alleged "consensus" among scientists. LOL !

Edufer

06-18-02, 12:36 AM

Excerpts and comments from:

BBC News.
Sunday, 16 June, 2002, 21:50 GMT 22:50 UK
<A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_2047000/2047827.stm">Antarctic rescue mission begins</A> (click for the BBC link)

"The ship is trapped in frozen seas. A South African ship has set out for the Antarctic to rescue more than 100 crew and passengers, including 79 Russian scientists, on board a German ship trapped in pack-ice."

"The rescue ship has a Russian expert specialising on polar navigation - known as an "ice-pilot" - and will be aided by an Argentine ice-breaker, the Almirante Irizar, which is set to depart from Buenos Aires soon. "

"The conditions are terrible. This time of year it's dark for 24 hours, the temperatures is -50C, and there are very high winds with lots of ice flying around," said South African Defence Force spokesman Colonel Piet Paxton."

"The Magdalena Oldendorff was making its way up to Cape Town after spending more than 12 months in Antarctica at the two Russian research stations. They encountered thick ice and had to turn back. They are now sheltering in a fjord waiting for the chance to try and break through around 1,000 kilometres of ice. "

Well, it looks these people trusted too much the fairytale about "melting ice" in Antarctica. As the icebreaker Almirante Irizar (the only icebreaker in the Southern Hemisphere) going to rescue them, don't count on it. The costs for just fueling the ship is about 1,000,000 dollars. Argentina is broke, and I think the government will rather spend that kind of money in feeding our own starving people.

A sad and unfortunate event. It should serve to show that the cooling and freezing is a real and hard fact. It is a pitty that climate modellers trusted too much their computer models. There is going to be innocent people paying the consequences for this foolhardy behavior.

Edufer

06-18-02, 09:29 PM

Sun’s Magnetic Cycles Influence Earth’s Climate

A study published in the June 10 issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters, shows a clear link between changes in solar magnetism and the Earth’s 100,000 year climate cycles. The author, Mukul Sharma of the Department of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College, used data of changes in the production rates of beryllium 10 to map variations in the sun’s magnetic activity. “Beryllium 10 in the Earth’s atmosphere depends on the galactic cosmic ray influx that, in turn, is affected by the solar magnetic activity and the geomagnetic field activity [earth’s magnetic field intensity].”

When the sun is magnetically more active, it blocks incoming cosmic rays, which are charged particles that contribute to cloud formation, causing the earth to warm. When the sun is less active, more cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, increasing cloud cover, and cooling the earth.

Sharma found that changes in solar variation match changes in earth’s climate. “Surprisingly, it looks like solar activity is varying in longer time spans than we realized,” said Sharma. “We knew about the shorter cycles of solar activity, so maybe these are just little cycles within a larger cycle. Even more surprising is the fact that the glacial and interglacial periods on earth during the last 200,000 years appear to be strongly linked to solar activity” (<A HREF="http://www.eurekalert.org">http://www.eurekalert.org, June 6, 2002).

Human induced warming? Every day less likely.

Gifted

06-25-02, 06:43 AM

Seven pages of posts on the end of an ice age:eek:

kmguru

06-25-02, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Gifted
Seven pages of posts on the end of an ice age:eek:

And I thought there was a revelation...

Edufer

06-26-02, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Gifted
Seven pages of posts on the end of an ice age:eek: I hope the information provided by both sides was compared and somehow we got closer to the truth --if there is such thing called "truth"-

Gifted

06-26-02, 03:28 PM

Amen.

Though I still think my side is truth.:p A big problem is that only a few people know enough to say yay or nay. How many people have acess to the equipment to make the observations, and the knowledge to interpret the data? dAnd for those that use secondary data, they are faced with the viewpoint given by the original observers. Frequently the two interpretations conflict, and the original viewpoint is so ingrained that there is trouble introduceing something contrary.

kmguru

06-26-02, 03:43 PM

In that case...follow the money...

If a company patents a product and gets rich for 20 years and when the patent runs out - somehow the product becomes dangerous (not before), then there is something fishy about it - that is common sense.

In US forest fires destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres (846,000) and has destroyed 2.6 million acres over 10 years. Whose fault is that. Think about it.

Edufer

06-27-02, 02:46 PM

And for those that use secondary data, they are faced with the viewpoint given by the original observers. Frequently the two interpretations conflict, and the original viewpoint is so ingrained that there is trouble introduceing something contrary.This is true when it comes to "conclusions" or "opinions". But when you are dealing with facts, raw data, and observed phenomena, then you can easily spot something that contradicts the basic of science. In the case of ozone depletion, for instance, the fact that the observed and measured UV radiation over the US during the period of 1974-1985, as recorded by the huge network of Robertson-Berger spectrometers (J. Scotto et all, "Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation, Surface Measurements in the US, 1974-1985", Science, Feb. 12, 1988), shoed a decrase in UV radiation of about 7%. After Scotto published his study, ALL stations were closed down and now the UV radiation is "measured" by means of computer simulations!!! The real world has been replaced by virtual videogames...

Also, measurements by all recording stations in the world, have not shown any decrease in ozone levels. Decrease in ozone levels occurr naturally during the day, from one day to another, from week to week, and month to month. But there is not a trend in any direction --either increasing or decreasing.

The same applies to all fields of science, and Global Warming is one of the most polluted fields in science. Contradictory data is suppresed from "green" and "scaremonger" studies. If there is a dubious aspect on one subject, they apply the nefarious "precautionary principle" and promote policies that shouldn't have been applied if we really must apply the "principle": the policies they push, are worse than the problem they claim is threatening mankind.

And, of course, I agree completely with Kmguru in his wiewpoint on money. Money talks --and talks loud and clear.

Gifted

06-27-02, 05:53 PM

Dependence on computer simulations is a problem, especially when the simulations don't include all the factors(in fact, they can't, so they rig it to show what they want it to show).

kmguru

06-27-02, 06:35 PM

I agree. There are a lot of fudge factors one has to use. And the designer has the option of choosing the right one (wink wink...)

Banshee

06-29-02, 02:10 PM

Here are two articles about the impact global warming is having on new diseases and genetic alterations of life biologies.�
�
Warming Spreads Disease
Global warming is being blamed for the spread of diseases that affect both animals and humans, according to a report published in the journal Science. The report stated that pathogens are thriving in places where they previously could not live as the climate warms and winters become milder. Researchers warned that bacteria, bugs, parasites, viruses and fungi, formerly restricted by seasonal temperatures, may be able to invade new territories and find new victims. Co-author Andrew Dobson of Princeton University said, “Climate change is disrupting natural ecosystems in a way that is making life better for infectious diseases.”�� (Earthweek 6-28-02)

�

Global warming 'altering genes'
The latter half of the 20th Century saw a rapid warming
By BBC News Online's Helen Briggs

Global warming is leading to changes in the genetic make-up of animals, say scientists.� They have found that mosquitoes have altered their genes in response to climate change.� According to biologists at the University of Oregon, US, many plants and animals are adapting to a warming environment by taking advantage of the longer seasons.

Evolution is happening and it is happening very fast - Dr William Bradshaw, University of Oregon

British birds now lay their eggs more than a week earlier than they did in the 1970s. And frogs are spawning about 10 days earlier. But the Oregon study is the first clear evidence that the genes of animals are changing. In northern latitudes, warming has led to earlier springs, longer summers and milder winters. The shift in the seasons is linked to increasing global temperatures experienced in the second half of the 20th Century. This has affected the life cycle of a tiny species of mosquito found on the eastern seaboard of North America, from the Gulf of Mexico to northern Canada.

Delayed dormancy

Dr William Bradshaw and Dr Christina Holzapfel studied populations of the mosquito, Wyeomyia smithii, in the laboratory.� They found that the insects are now entering their pupae 8-10 days later than they did in the 1970s.

Because the insects' life cycle is controlled by a genetic switch linked to the length of day, or photoperiod, it must be due to genes, the scientists say.

Dr Bradshaw told BBC News Online: "There is a genetic change in their response to daylight. We can detect this change over as short a time period as five years.� "Evolution is happening and it is happening very fast." �Complicated life cycle The mosquitoes, the size of a grain of rice, occasionally bite people but prefer plants. They lay their eggs in a select environment: the foot of carnivorous plants called the purple pitcher.

The larvae swim and feed in water at the base of the plant, where they go through a complicated life cycle. To survive the winter, the mosquito must enter its dormant phase as a pupa.� To know when winter is coming, it takes its cues from the environment, in� this case the length of the day.� The shift towards longer summers has meant that mosquitoes that enter their pupal stage later have an advantage. Thus, global warming is selecting for a certain genetic trait that, over the course of time, will be passed to the rest of the population.

�The implication, says Dr Bradshaw, is that there may be a genetic basis for seasonal changes seen in other animals.� Birds that lay their eggs slightly earlier in the year, along with the premature arrival of spring, may have a genetic advantage that they pass on to their offspring.� And, because of the complex interaction between predators and prey, the consequences are likely to be widespread.� "The broader implication is that the make-up of future communities in nature may depend critically on the ability of these species to adapt or evolve in their response to global warming," Dr Bradshaw told BBC News Online.

One species of British bird, the great tit, is already feeling the effects, he says. Some of the birds are running out of insects to feed to their chicks because they are nesting after caterpillars have developed into butterflies.

Tuesday, 6 November, 2001, 11:11 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1639000/1639284.stm

Edufer

06-29-02, 08:58 PM

The report seems to be written by Homer Simpson under a beer overdose.

The report stated that pathogens are thriving in places where they previously could not live as the climate warms and winters become milder.
As anyone can see by taking a swift look at the records from about 1500 weather stations all over the world, <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm">"What the Stations Say"</A>, winters have not become milder. But this is something everybody knows, as the last three winters have been increasingly colder. Down here, in Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, the winter is terrible. We had not such cold temperatures for the last 30 years, and snowfalls and blizzards in the Andes made the headlines and TV news when about 2,400 trucks were trapped in the Argentina-Chilean border. We would really love it if the weather warmed a little.
British birds now lay their eggs more than a week earlier than they did in the 1970s. And frogs are spawning about 10 days earlier.How amazing! On the contrary, swallows in the South Hemisphere started they journey from the city of Goya, Corrientes, to San Juan de Capistrano, California one week earlier than usual. This was due to the cool summer we had and the early arrival of Fall.

This was an email sent to our foundation's website,(<A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html">Ecology: Myths and Frauds)</A> from Canada:
---------------------------------------------
`Coldest March on record' 

CALGARY - It may be the first day of spring, but it's the coldest one many can remember. Alberta is well on its way to setting a weather record. The average temperature so far this month has been close to minus 16 degrees. "The month of March record is minus 13.0," says Brian Steffora, meteorologist with Environment Canada. "That record was set back in 1899, so its quite an old record, 103 years ago. And like I say, we're at minus 15.6; we're about two and a half degrees below that record yet."

"I live and work in Calgary, Alberta and the month of March has been brutally cold."

"I wanted to let you know that the month of March 2002 has seen many record low temperatures set in the western provinces of British Columbia (BC), Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The cold has lasted longer and was deeper than I have seen in my 30 years in the central part of BC. Many temperatures were in the range of -15°C to -32°C in the interior (continental influence), and Vancouver (west coast) had snow and below freezing temperatures. Highly unusual! We normally refer to the month of March as "break-up", as this is the time of year that the warm weather returns, ice breaks up in the rivers and the ground starts to thaw. Until today, we have been in winter. Today we got to about +8C, which is about normal; spring might finally be close!"
--------------------------------
Dr William Bradshaw and Dr Christina Holzapfel studied populations of the mosquito, Wyeomyia smithii, in the laboratory.� They found that the insects are now entering their pupae 8-10 days later than they did in the 1970s. Because the insects' life cycle is controlled by a genetic switch linked to the length of day, or photoperiod, it must be due to genes, the scientists say. Dr Bradshaw told BBC News Online: "There is a genetic change in <b<their response to daylight. We can detect this change over as short a time period as five years.� "Evolution is happening and it is happening very fast."
However fast evolution is going on, it has nothing to do with any warming. For heavens sake! Just read the quote again, and note the changes are linked to light not temperature! This is one of the worst cases I have seen of misunderstanding and twisting of facts geared towards misinformation. It is outreageous!
To know when winter is coming, it takes its cues from the environment, in this case the length of the day.� The shift towards longer summers has meant that mosquitoes that enter their pupal stage later have an advantage. Thus, global warming is selecting for a certain genetic trait that, over the course of time, will be passed to the rest of the population.
Again: what has global warming to do with LIGHT?!!! Jesus! Please, be serious, we are talking science here (at least some of us are trying to do it). The lenght of the day (the cue for the alleged genetic trait) is no related in any way to warming or cooling!

Banshee, sometimes you post quite hilarious articles! Please, give us more...

Edufer

06-29-02, 09:12 PM

Nation's Temperature Down in May 
Thu Jun 20, 5:21 PM ET
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's temperature fell below normal in May, although worldwide readings remained above long-term averages. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Thursday that the average temperature across the United States in May was 60.6 degrees Fahrenheit, a half-degree below the long-term average.

That makes May the 42nd coldest since records began being kept in 1895 and the first below-normal May since 1997. During the month, cool conditions edged south from Canada into the northern tier of states and into the Mississippi Valley in the center of the country, lowering temperatures below normal for all of that region.

Only five states recorded <b<even slightly above normal readings for the month — Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Florida. Worldwide, the average land and ocean temperature during May was 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1880-2001 monthly mean of 58.0 F, ranking it as the third warmest May on record, the agency said.

The 12-month period from June 2001 through May 2002 was warmer than normal for the contiguous United States. The average temperature was 54.4 degrees F. That's 1.6 F greater than the long-term mean, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. These temperatures would make this past 12-month period the fourth warmest on record. That coincided with drier-than-average conditions in much of the West and along the eastern seaboard, conditions that are continuing in some areas, notably the Southwest.

The agency said rain and snowfall totals in Colorado and Arizona were the lowest on record during the June 2001 through May 2002 period. New Mexico and Utah also had much below average precipitation totals. In New Mexico, water is flowing at less than 10 percent of average on the Upper Rio Grande and Upper Pecos, the lowest levels in more than 75 years, the data center said.

Numerous wildfires have already occurred. The report said 29 percent of the United States is listed in severe drought with the potential for worsening conditions as the summer continues. In the Northeast, drought conditions intensified in late fall and winter due to five consecutive months of below normal rain and snowfall but now are improving following three months of above normal precipitation.

___

On the Net:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: htp:// www.noaa.gov

See the article at: <A HREF="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020620/ap_on_re_us/mild_may_1">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020620/ap_on_re_us/mild_may_1</A>

Gifted

07-01-02, 06:31 AM

Those genetic aterations, what about all those dangerous chemicals we've been spewing? What happens when a mesquito lays its eggs in polluted water, eh? Has this been ruled out?

Edufer

07-01-02, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Gifted
Those genetic aterations, what about all those dangerous chemicals we've been spewing?Go here and you'll find a scientific study that will clear your doubts.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/AmesSynth.html

and then complete your tour with the tables on carcinogenicity of chemicals here:

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/AmesTable.html

I hope it will clear your fears.
What happens when a mosquito lays its eggs in polluted water, eh? Has this been ruled out?
Who knows? Depends of the pollution. If it is higly polluted, perhaps the larvae will die. Don't believe all you see in "The Simpsons".

If DDT hadn't been banned, there would be much less mosquitoes laying eggs in water, polluted or not.

Gifted

07-02-02, 07:37 AM

It was a semi-humorous reply to this:

"Dr William Bradshaw and Dr Christina Holzapfel studied populations of the mosquito, Wyeomyia smithii, in the laboratory.� They found that the insects are now entering their pupae 8-10 days later than they did in the 1970s.

Because the insects' life cycle is controlled by a genetic switch linked to the length of day, or photoperiod, it must be due to genes, the scientists say. "

I'm NOT scared that we will have giant turtles beating up thugs in New York.

Edufer

07-02-02, 12:03 PM

"Dr William Bradshaw and Dr Christina Holzapfel studied populations of the mosquito, Wyeomyia smithii, in the laboratory.� They found that the insects are now entering their pupae 8-10 days later than they did in the 1970s.

Because the insects' life cycle is controlled by a genetic switch linked to the length of day, or photoperiod, it must be due to genes, the scientists say. "
These guys said quite clear: the link to genetic changes is with "lenght of day or photoperiod", not changes in temperature or pollution.

Leave Leonardo, and his brothers in peace. and you must also have peace of mind about this matter.

odin

07-02-02, 03:09 PM

I'm NOT scared that we will have giant turtles beating up thugs in New York.

Don't forget Spider Men!
& Harry Potter's

:D :D

Gifted

07-02-02, 05:44 PM

Harry Potter wasn't a mutant.

Edufer

07-05-02, 11:26 AM

Free translation from a news clip in the Bolivian journal: El Nuevo Día, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 5 Julio, 2002) :

The worst cold has not arrived yet, and there are consequences already

According to meteorologists low temperatures will stay for about six more days. The "surazo" (cold southern wind) provoked absenteeism in schools. Sudden changes in temperature must be avoided. Rescue of damaged people has been already initiated in the province of Sur Lipez, in Potosí.

If cold weather is a hindrance to carry on with daily activities, you must take into account forecasts by the National Meteorological and Hydrological Service (Senamhi), because they are not encouraging at all. The report indicates the cold weather will stay for six more days in Santa Cruz, the lowest temperatures will reach 6°C and the highest 20°C.

The worst cold has not yet arrived, according to experts at Senamhi, and they recommend people to take precautions. The low temperatures are felt all over the country. The Sud Lipez province in Potosi, is the most affected, where the snowstorm not only cut the road to Chile, but families in 20 communities are damaged and is believed there have been deaths.

Presidential minister Alberto Leytón said that they are in full process of preparing the rescue task force in order to help damaged people. "More than 20 communities are isolated by the snow that measured more than 1 meter in the roads, stopping all vehicular traffic. For that reason airborne rescue operations are in progress". He also said that they will count with the help of a helicopter from the Peruvian Police and a specialized rescue team arriving in the next hours.

In Santa Cruz, the "surazo" caused a marked absenteeism in schools and left thousand of persons working outdoors in trouble.

Surazo until the end of July

Low temperatures will continue during the whole month but the lowest ones will be here after the second half of July: "Low temperatures must not be discarded this month, but they will start to rise during August", said Hubert Gallardo, division chief at Senamhi. He also said that in the entire Bolivian territory the cold fronts will be damp and very cloudy. It is estimated that temperatures will stay between zero and 4 degrees centigrades below zero, with some cases of 7 degrees centigrades below zero.

The article in Spanish at: http://www.el-nuevodia.com/Ciudad/Julio/ciu020705a.html

From El Deber, Santa Cruz de la Sierra: 5 July, 2002

El frío provoca estragos en Potosí y Cochabamba

This way looks Confital, a small village at km 137 in the road to Cochabamba-La Paz. The snow leaves people sick and stops agricultural labors. There are two deads and more than 100 disappeared in the village of Sud Lípez, in Potosí. Among them, five members of the Electoral Court. Ther is another dead in a small village in Cochabamba.

Story at: http://eldebercom.bo.readyhosting.com/20020705/nacional_6.html

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

Comments:

"Average" low and high temperatures in the central and eastern part of Bolivia (Santa Cruz, Trinidad) normally are between 20°C and 30°C in this time of year. They go up to 24°C and 42°C during the summer. I was living in Santa Cruz when on June 25th, 1997, temperature went down to 6°C, making people "go bananas" over it. This year is going below zero.

Here in Argentina, we are breaking all records in low temperatures, snowstorms and blizzards in the Andes. In the northern province of Salta (right below the Tropic of Capricorn!) an historic snowfall happened yesterday making children happy, as they had never seen snow!

News come in the TV news from Spain telling they had an unusual cool spring and the weather remains abnormally cold.

This is the real world. No computer simulations here. Could this be blamed on Global Warming? Thank God for the warming! I wonder what would happen if the planet where actually cooling... ;)

Banshee

07-19-02, 07:40 PM

STUDY FINDS STATE’S MELTING GLACIERS PUSH SEA LEVEL UP -- SCIENTISTS CITE LINK TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN ALASKA

By Paul Recer

AP Science Writer

(Published: July 18, 2002)

Washington -- An estimated 24 cubic miles of ice are disappearing annually from Alaskan glaciers, turning some imposing ice mountains into minor hills and adding to the steady rise in global sea level, a study shows.

Researchers at the University of Alaska surveyed 67 major glaciers using an airborne laser system and found that the rate of melting in the last five years is rapidly growing.

"From the mid-1950s to the mid-1990s, the glaciers lost about 52 cubic kilometers (13 cubic miles) a year," said Anthony A. Arendt, first author of the study appearing in the journal Science. "In the last five years, that rate has almost doubled."

Over almost a half century, he said, the glaciers have lost some 500 cubic miles of ice.

The new measurements show that the glaciers of Alaska are contributing about half of the water worldwide flowing into the oceans from shrinking mountain glaciers, said Arendt.

Studies have suggested that the global sea level has risen about 7.8 inches over the last 100 years, and some experts say the rate is increasing. Arendt said that would be consistent with what he and his co-authors have found in their study of the Alaskan glaciers. "The next question is what has been causing this glacier thinning. Is it because there is less snowfall in the winter or are the summers warmer?" said Arendt. "Glacier changes are linked to the climate, so this indicates that something has changed about the Alaskan climate."

Alaska's glaciers grow if they receive more snow in the winter than is melted in the summer. Since the glaciers are shrinking, then one end of ice equation has changed and Arendt said that more study is needed to find out the causes.

Mark F. Meier, a glacier expert at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said that the study by Arendt and his co-authors is an important advance in the efforts of science to understand the global climate.

"For the first time we have some hard data from these glaciers which we have suspected, but didn't know for sure, are major contributors to the sea level change caused by glacier melt," Meier said.

The contribution from Alaska's glaciers to the worldwide sea level rise "is even more that what we had expected," said Meier. Although Alaska contains 13 percent of the world's glacier-bound ice, the melt from its glaciers is greater than all the other glacier fields put together, excluding the ice fields in Greenland and Antarctica.

"Greenland is actually contributing less runoff than are these Alaskan glaciers," said Meier. "Greenland is much bigger, but it is much colder." Experts have attributed sea level rise to two primary effects: run off from the melting of ancient ice fields, such as the Alaskan glaciers, and an ocean expansion due to warming. Some have attributed the warming of the ocean to a general global trend caused by human action.

Many believe that the burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, triggering what is called the greenhouse effect. A higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would trap more of the sun's heat, possibly causing the Earth to warm.

*Link* (http://www.adn.com/front/alerts/story/1437385p-1555717c.html)

:)

Banshee

07-20-02, 04:55 AM

See also:

*CNN* (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/18/glacier.melt/index.html)

(excerpt)
"Glaciers in Alaska seem to be thinning from the mid-1950s to
the mid-1990s," said Arendt, adding that the thinning rate has
about doubled between the mid-1990s and 2001. (end excerpt)

:)

Edufer

07-20-02, 08:54 PM

<CENTER>"Greenhouse Lobby, Read the Paper"
from <A HREF="http://www.junkscience.com">WWW.junkscience.com</A> </CENTER>
"Those following the climate debate should read, (between the lines), the features by Simon Grose, and by Peter Szental in today's CT. The first item , shows just how hard it is to say exactly what the temperature of the planet is doing, with some findings now showing that average temperatures in Antarctica may be dropping. The second castigates 'strong and vocal self-interested groups that still argue against' the greenhouse effect. Its author happens to be, by the way, 'chief executive officer of the Sustainable Energy Industry Association.' Der. (Pot calling Kettle, come in Kettle…)" (Larry Mounser, Canberra Times)

<CENTER>"Guess what? Antarctica's getting colder, not warmer"</CENTER>
"The Earth's polar regions long have been considered canaries in the coal mine on climate change - the first places to look, many scientists said, to learn whether the planet's temperature is, in fact, rising. Indeed, climate models generally predict that the heating of the atmosphere - precipitated by global warming - will cause the vast layer of ice that covers Antarctica to melt, raising sea levels and changing regional climate patterns by altering ocean currents.

This week, that widely held presumption is being challenged.

Two studies of temperatures and ice-cap movements in Antarctica suggest that the Southern Hemisphere's "canary" isn't going down without a fight - key sections of the ice cap appear to be growing thicker, not thinner, as previously believed. And the continent's average temperature appears to have cooled slightly during the past 35 years, not warmed." (Christian Science Monitor) | West Antarctic Ice Getting Thicker (AP) | Antarctic May Have Stopped Shrinking, Study Finds (Reuters) | Ice 'thickens' in West Antarctica (BBC Online) | West Antarctic ice sheet is thickening (New Scientist)

<HR color=red>

Also, see report on Alaska climate, ice thinning, etc: <a href="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Alaska.html">Alaska is Not Heating Up:</A> Thermometer readings from various locations around Alaska indicate that a warming occurred during the last five decades. But can this Alaska warming be connected to the air's increased carbon dioxide concentration from human activities like fossil fuel consumption? The short answer is, no. And that is at odds with the analysis from the United States National Assessment (USNA).

<A HREF="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm ">Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years</A>, Says Ohio State University Researcher. Dare to read it?

More links to sea levels.

<A HREF=http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/rlr.plotlist.html>PSMSL RLR Stations with Time Series Plots</A>

<A HREF=http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/>TOPEX/Poseidon Main Screen</A>

<A HREF=http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_home.html>NASA/MSFC- Global Hydrology and Climate Center</A>

<A HREF=http://www.ccar.colorado.edu/leben.gmsl>CCAR Recent Research Results - Mean Sea Level</A>

<A HREF=http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/sea_level.html>Tide Gauge Sea Level Data Sets</A>

<HR color= red>

But go here to find a huge list of links to <A HREF=http://www.john-daly.com/links.htm>"Global Climate Web Sites"</A>, government sites, universities, scientific journals, skeptics and believers, dissenters and scaremongers, you name it... it may be useful in the future.

Banshee

07-22-02, 06:06 PM

Melting Alaskan Glaciers Raise Sea Level
Fri Jul 19, 3:25 PM ET
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Alaska's glaciers are melting so badly that they are raising the world's overall sea level more than any other single source, scientists said on Friday.

The melting glaciers are responsible for at least 9 percent of the rise in the world's sea level over the past century -- adding more than one-tenth of a millimeter (.04 inch) each year to overall sea level, the researchers said.

That is far more than anyone thought, and more than what was produced by what was until now believed to be the biggest single known source -- the melting Greenland ice sheet.

"Most glaciers have thinned several hundred feet at low elevations in the last 40 years and about 60 feet at higher elevations," Keith Echelmeyer, a glaciologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute who led the study, said in a statement.

"Data from our study indicates that Alaska glaciers are contributing the most to the sea level rise that has been measured," said Anthony Arendt, a graduate student listed as first author on the study.

The team of researchers used a laser altimetry system rigged up to a small airplane, which Echelmeyer flew over 67 of Alaska's mountain glaciers. They compared their readings to measurements taken by the U.S. Geological Survey ( news - web sites) in the 1950s.

Writing in the journal Science, they said the glaciers had lost, on average, more than half a meter a year in height, or more than a foot and a half.

ENOUGH WATER TO RAISE SEA LEVEL

This added up to a lot of water -- enough to raise the overall level of the world's oceans measurably.

"(One-tenth of a millimeter) seems like small amount but that can cause a fair amount of transgression of water onto an area where people live near coastal regions," Arendt said -- especially if the shoreline is flat.

Many people in countries such as Bangladesh and some island nations live along flat coastlines and estuaries that can be severely affected by small changes in sea level.

In 2001 Echelmeyer's team flew over the same glaciers they had measured in the early 1990s, and to their amazement found that the glaciers were thinning at double the rates of 40 years before.

Echelmeyer, Arendt and colleagues said they could not go so far as to blame the melting on global warming ( news - web sites).

"We can't really make that link," Arendt said. "It's not really our job. But (global warming) is consistent with other things going on, with increasing rates of warming in other parts of the world," he added.

"Certainly the fact that the thinning rate of the glaciers has doubled in the past 10 years indicates that something is going on in Alaska -- warmer summers or less precipitation in winter."

There is, however, plenty more water locked up in these glaciers, the researchers noted. "Glaciers in Alaska and neighboring Canada cover 90,000 square kilometers, or about 13 percent of the mountain glacier area on Earth, and include some of the largest ice masses outside of Greenland and Antarctica," they wrote.

Some Antarctic glaciers are also melting, as are some ice sheets, but parts of the continent are adding ice, so the picture there is complicated.

odin

07-22-02, 06:27 PM

They will be believing in the tooth fairy!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_2143000/2143615.stm

:(

Edufer

07-23-02, 06:11 PM

Banshee, your activity in the forums seems to be dedicated to a "copy and paste" job, posting Apocalyptic scaremongeries that would, presumably, awake dormant people to the imminent destruction of the Earth. The report by the World Wide Fraud --oops, the Wordwide Fund for Nature follows the old Malthusian strategy: "Scare them to death --and then you can stick your hands in their pockets." That policy is universally used by robbers and muggers, when they put a knife to their victim's throat, or a gun into their skulls, while saying: "Gimme your money!" It works only on people unable to defend themselves, but it does not work with self-defense experts or Karate, Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, and other blackbelts.

The green tactics of "scaring and asking for money" works -unfortunately- on gullible and/or ignorant people, who sincerely donate money for "saving something" that will only make the checkbooks of the green leaders grow fatter and fatter.

But for those who know about science and the environment, the Living Planet by the WWF does not fool us for a single microsecond. The report is just a clumsy artifact based solely in computer projections and "managed" statistics that use selective, biased and mostly forged data for reaching results that had been previously designed and established by a geopolitical agenda.

I must point something to you: had you ever visited and read any of the links I suggested, you would have stopped posting your "The Sky is Falling" messages. You choose to believe in whatever you want, and that's OK with me. But, as a longtime teacher, much in the way I feel sad when I see a pupil that refuses to learn, I feel sad when I see a grownup adult refusing to use the basic mechanisms of reasoning for harnessing the full potential of his/her brain.

It seems you have lots of faith in our Prophets of Doom.

overdoze

07-23-02, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Bambi
Would the greenhouse effect deniers explain the following (and please note the exponential nature of the ongoing increase):

http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/~plh2/group/glblwarm/CO2TEMP.GIF

Note that no 10,000 year old ice age can possibly even begin to explain the exponential rise that occurred in the last couple of centuries. Also note the correlation between C02 and average global temperature over the past 160 thousand years. Notice the graph above ends with C02 ppm concentration of under 250 [sic. -- actually, 280]. Notice the graph below shows current C02 ppm concentration of ~350 and rising exponentially. Finally, note that in the graph above the total range of variation of C02 concentration is about 100 ppm, corresponding to a temperature range of about 12.5 degrees.

Now, would someone please deny all of the above so that we can breathe a collective sigh of relief and go about our normal daily business of screwing our children over?

Uhm, I sorta find this hard to argue against. BTW those graphs come from the following web site:

http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/~plh2/group/glblwarm

(as seen from the post).

Any takers?

overdoze

07-23-02, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Edufer
Banshee, your activity in the forums seems to be dedicated to a "copy and paste" job, posting Apocalyptic scaremongeries that would, presumably, awake dormant people to the imminent destruction of the Earth.

I apologize for presuming to answer in Banshee's stead, but isn't your activity in the forums dedicated to a "copy and paste" job, posting industry lobby group propaganda that would, presumably, pacify the over-anxious people with respect to our bright technological future?

I can easily imagine a few years ago a similar thread on the topic of whether tobacco smoke is harmful and addictive. You'd be square on the industry apologists' side.

The report by the World Wide Fraud --oops, the Wordwide Fund for Nature follows the old Malthusian strategy: "Scare them to death --and then you can stick your hands in their pockets."That policy is universally used by robbers and muggers, when they put a knife to their victim's throat, or a gun into their skulls, while saying: "Gimme your money!"

Name a single person who is getting richer from this issue as opposed to in absense of this issue. Just one name will do. And, name-calling?

One thing I just don't get: why the heck are the car companies complaining??? They get to put more technology on their vehicles, which drives up the price, which improves their profit margins. Isn't it actually good for business? Won't it actually create entire new industries around the CO2 and other emission control? With all the associated new jobs? On the continental U.S.? Politically, won't it reduce our dependence on Arab oil? Oh wait, isn't the oil lobby the staunchest opponents of global warming mitigation? Duh, that would explain the Bush/Cheney travesty, won't it?

Or perhaps their strategy consists of playing catch-up to the Japanese? We all know how well that one works, don't we? Are you aware that the Japs already have several hybrid models in the U.S. market, and have had them here for a year already? While they perfect their designs and marketing, the U.S. car manufacturers are spending millions bitching and whining. :rolleyes:

The green tactics of "scaring and asking for money" works -unfortunately- on gullible and/or ignorant people, who sincerely donate money for "saving something" that will only make the checkbooks of the green leaders grow fatter and fatter.

You are hilarious. What "green leaders" are you talking about?? Whose checkbooks are the fattest, again? LOL

On the other hand, one has to admire your bravery and fortitude for betting your entire future and your children's future on a vague hope that global warming isn't real. Way to go, daddy-o. But then again, you don't sound like you have children.

But for those who know about science and the environment, the Living Planet by the WWF does not fool us for a single microsecond. The report is just a clumsy artifact based solely in computer projections and "managed" statistics that use selective, biased and mostly forged data for reaching results that had been previously designed and established by a geopolitical agenda.

Listen to yourself. You poor paranoid conspiracy theorist, you. :p

I must point something to you: had you ever visited and read any of the links I suggested, you would have stopped posting your "The Sky is Falling" messages.

Well, I've read many of your links (not all) and I'm not convinced in the least.

Much of what you've posted are local climatic aberrations which are actually predicted to increase in magnitude with global warming. That means that some places will experience dramatic, record-breaking temperature extremes -- both at high and low end. BTW Moskow is having a record-breaking heat wave right now. Does that prove global warming? NO. You have to look at average global temperatures.

Many of your other links are on various "dissenter" theorists who claim that their models are better. However, none of them have actually bothered to run their models computationally and observe the results. And if they have, I haven't seen any of their output. BTW, when I speak of output I'm talking about correlation between known climate history and what their models "predict" would have happened. In case you're unaware, the current "consensus" models are in pretty good agreement with the climate record and therefore there is good reason to expect their predictions to be at least somewhat reliable.

But, as a longtime teacher, much in the way I feel sad when I see a pupil that refuses to learn, I feel sad when I see a grownup adult refusing to use the basic mechanisms of reasoning for harnessing the full potential of his/her brain.

I pity your students. They are not learning to think critically. At least not from you.

[edit: oops, I didn't notice you're hailing from Argentine. There I go, typical "American", assuming the whole internet population lives in U.S. Sorry for that, tho' my arguments still stand (just replace "U.S." with Argentine, etc.)]

Banshee

07-24-02, 04:58 AM

Thank you Overdoze, for an excellent reply. :)

Edufer, given the fact that you have posted the same reply to me in two threads in this Forum, I will not bother to reply again to you. It's just no use.

Good luck Edufer...

Gifted

07-24-02, 07:30 AM

I might point out, Overdoze, that you first graph shows that co2 levels have been rising for twenty thousand years. I suppose we have been going back in time and building caol power plants in the past.

Edufer

07-24-02, 04:26 PM

Now, would someone please deny all of the above so that we can breathe a collective sigh of relief and go about our normal daily business of screwing our children over?
The graphs usually present surface temperatures from 1860 to present days, relative to the 1951-1980 average, as stated by the Cornell Univ. webpage. This is arbitrary, because it assumes that the 1951-1980 average is "normal", so any deviation from it looks catastrophic. If you take as "normal" the average temperatures of the Climatic Optimum of 1100 AD, then the trends disappear and everything looks fine. This kind of graphs convince people who likes to see great swings in the curves, but do not read the whole story. A look at the graph will give you a different picture:

<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com./images/Graph-8.gif">"Divergence of Temperture Trends in Lower Troposphere in IPCC Global Warming Forecast"</A> (by S.B. Robinson, S.A. Baliunas, W. Soon and Z.W. Robinson, 1998.

Another point never mentioned by the media is that CO2 increase lags behind temperature increase by some few hundred years, so it is not CO2 what increases temperature but increased temperatures produce the conditions for more CO2 emissions from biomass.

A visit to the Cornel University page "A Global Warming Primer" shows that 5339 visitors read the page since 1996, and average of 74.1 visitors a month, or 2 visitors a day. It does not speak well of the scientific confidence and trustability obtained by the page. As a comparison, the webpage of the Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology, <A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html>"Ecology: Myths and Frauds"</A> (Spanish and English versions), gets an average of 277 unique visitors a day (not bad for a $10 a month website in Freeservers...) The industry and oil lobbies don't pay us enough as to have a $25 website...

BTW Moskow is having a record-breaking heat wave right now. Does that prove global warming? NO. You have to look at average global temperatures.
Of course. BTW, while Spain is having a record cool spring and summer, South America is going through the worst blizzards and cold (freezing) temperatures in recent history (Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru). In Bolivia and Peru it has been labeled as a "National Tragedy" because the death toll it took in human and animal lives. As you say, we must see average temperatures (global or local) and here comes handy this temperature graph from Newkirk, Oklahoma, from 1930, to 1990, a time lapse wide enough to set a trend.

<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/newkirkok.jpg">

It looks that there was not warming in Oklahoma until 1990. Are you curious about temperature trends in the world? You can check them, one by one, from a set of some hundreds at this webpage: <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm">What the Stations Say.</A> Don't be afraid, see them with your own eyes.
Overdoze: "but isn't your activity in the forums dedicated to a "copy and paste" job,..." My "copy and paste" is limited to links. The wording is all mine. When I quote somebody I make that clear and provide the source. Sometimes I translate news in Spanish into English, because a link to a language most of you don't understand would be stupid. But lengthy pasting of full articles is not my habit. It is boring.

Overdoze: "Name a single person who is getting richer from this issue as opposed to in absense of this issue. Just one name will do. And, name-calling? You are hilarious. What "green leaders" are you talking about?? Whose checkbooks are the fattest, again? LOL.
Green leaders who profit from the activities of the WWF and daughter (and subordinate organizations) as : Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, World Resources Institute, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Survival International, Earth First!, Sea Shepherd, Lynx, Rainforest Action Network, Worldwatch Institute, National Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, etc.

1) Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, Baron Greenwich, Earl of Merioneth, Duke of Edinburgh, royal consort to Queen Elizabeth II, and owner of the WWF;

2) his cousin and former president of the WWF, Prince Bernhard von Lippe of the Netherlands (BTW, former member of the NSDAP (Nazi Party) with affiliation card #2583009, date: May, 1st, 1933, former SS member, worked in IG Farbenindustrie --makers of the Zyklon-B gas--), was caught receiving a $1.1 million bribe from Lockheed Corp. in 1976.

3) All members of the 1001 Club, founded by Prince Bernhard in 1971, amongst them: Conrad Black, Chairman and CEO of the Hollinger Corp., a media conglomerate, with newspapers in England, Australia, USA, Canada, Israel, etc. ---Peter Cadbury, Chairman, Preston Publications Ltd., chairman of George Cadbury Trust, family's chocolate interests dominates the economies of West Africa. ---Alexander King, Co-founder of the Club of Rome; co author of Limits to Growth; ---Maurice Strong, vice president of the WWF until 1973, first executive director of the U.N. Environmental Program, responsible of the Earth Summit Rio 92, currently chairman of Ontario Hydro; ---Jonkheer John H. Loudon, Succesor of Bernhard in the WWF presidency in 1977, former CEO of the Royal Dutch Shell Group; chairman of Shell Oil Co. until 1976; ---Gustavo Cisneros, Venezuelan billionaire, charged with bank frauds in 1994 in Venezuela; ran BIOMA, a leading Venezuelan "environmentalist group" shut down after being caught faking dolphin killings for a campaign against the tuna fishing industry; ---Fred >Meuser, the bagman for the $1.1 million bribe to Prince Bernhard from Lockheed Corp. in 1976; ---Tibor Rosenbaum, first Mossad logistic chief. His bank, the Banque du Crédit International was identified by LIFE magazine in 1967 as a money laundry for Meyer Lansky (hope you know who this guy was); ---Robert Vesco, a capomaffia still a fugitive, the American Connection to the Medellín Cartel, initially sponsored by the Swiss branch of the Rothschild family to take over the Lansky-affiliated Investors Overseas Service (IOS). Last known address: Havana, Cuba. Smoking excellent cigars with Fidel...

I could give you a list of many thousand names, but you asked for just ONE. To the names provided of people who profit from their "environmental activities" we must add a huge list of "scientists" working by sucking carloads of money from government funds to make "environmental research". The Chicken of the Golden Eggs!.

More names that profit from "environmental scaremongering": ---Paul Ehrlich (and wife), ---Lester Brown, Worldwatch Institute, ---Stephen Schneider, "climatologist" that in the 70s predicted an imminent global cooling, but found that the "ice age" was not profitable; ---F. Sherwood Rowland, inventor of the gigantic farse of the Ozone Hole; ---David McTaggart, owner (and former president) of Greenpeace International, and blah, blah, blah, .... the list of "clever people" is too long to publish here.

It looks as you are a newcomer to this subject. You have a long way to go before trying to engage in a serious discussion.

On the other hand, one has to admire your bravery and fortitude for betting your entire future and your children's future on a vague hope that global warming isn't real. Way to go, daddy-o. But then again, you don't sound like you have children.If I don't sound to you as something, maybe is due to your lack of trained ears... Thank God, I have three sons, and one grandson. And my hope is not vague: it is based on scientific proofs and undeniable evidences.
Listen to yourself. You poor paranoid conspiracy theorist, you.Coming from you, this is a compliment. Thanks!Many of your other links are on various "dissenter" theorists who claim that their models are better. However, none of them have actually bothered to run their models computationally and observe the results.None of my links sent you to any modeler. Some of my links usually refer people to the articles and scientific studies (not models) of Dr. Patrick Michaels, a distinguished atmospheric scientist, or to <A REF=http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-040202A>Dr. Sallie Baliunas</A> ( ), or Dr. Willie Soon, from The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, or simply to <A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/RichardLindzen.html>Dr. Richard Lindzen</A> who is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University).

You should read what Dr. Lindzen told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on May, 2nd, 2001, by going to the link provided above, or go to the source in the US Senate: http://www.senate.gov/~epw/lin_0502.htm . If you choose to keep disbelieving, then, nothing can be done. As Dr. Lindzen said when addressing the Committee:
<Blockquote>
Indeed, the identification of some scientists as 'skeptics' permits others to appear 'mainstream' while denying views held by the so-called 'skeptics' even when these views represent the predominant views of the field.
</blockquote>
I guess Dr. Lindzen also suffers from a severe syndrome of dissenting and skepticism that makes him a poor paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Cheers, and don't feel upset. You're just starting to climb the stairs in search for the Truth. I hope you have chosen the right staircase.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Edited because the link to Richard Lindzen was faulty.

overdoze

07-29-02, 08:34 PM

Old man, I may be younger than you are but that gives you no grounds for the arrogance and presumption you exude. You may discover this toddler has fangs in the context of finding your arse in shreds.

Originally posted by Edufer
The graphs usually present surface temperatures from 1860 to present days, relative to the 1951-1980 average, as stated by the Cornell Univ. webpage. This is arbitrary, because it assumes that the 1951-1980 average is "normal", so any deviation from it looks catastrophic. If you take as "normal" the average temperatures of the Climatic Optimum of 1100 AD, then the trends disappear and everything looks fine.

It doesn't matter what you calibrate as your 0 point. The trend merely gets translated up or down on the graph. The curve stays the same. Exponential.

This kind of graphs convince people who likes to see great swings in the curves, but do not read the whole story.

Take another look, and tell me the graph is not exponential.

"Divergence of Temperture Trends in Lower Troposphere in IPCC Global Warming Forecast"</A> (by S.B. Robinson, S.A. Baliunas, W. Soon and Z.W. Robinson, 1998.

I don't suppose the surface temperatures actually mean anything, then. It's not like the glaciers are located on the surface, after all.

Another point never mentioned by the media is that CO2 increase lags behind temperature increase by some few hundred years, so it is not CO2 what increases temperature but increased temperatures produce the conditions for more CO2 emissions from biomass.

Excuse me??? How the heck is warmer temperature supposed to increase CO2?? Warmer oceans absorb more CO2. Warmer climates encourage greater vegetation which sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere. Biomass scrubs carbon from the atmosphere. Burning previously scrubbed carbon in the form of coal, oil, natural gas or biomass releases it back into the atmosphere as CO2. Did you flunk biology, Mr. teacher?

Take another look at the second graph below, and help me find that lag of "some few hundred years":

http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/~plh2/group/glblwarm/CO2TEMP.GIF

Granted, CO2 doesn't always correlate perfectly with global temperature (as seen from the first graph above), which means other factors are also at play. However, the correlation is still there and is very strong.

Are you aware that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That's not propaganda; it's mere physics. CO2 efficiently absorbs infra-red (heat) emissions from the ground, thereby making it more difficult for heat to escape into space.

A visit to the Cornel University page "A Global Warming Primer" shows that 5339 visitors read the page since 1996, and average of 74.1 visitors a month, or 2 visitors a day. It does not speak well of the scientific confidence and trustability obtained by the page. As a comparison, the webpage of the Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology, <A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html>"Ecology: Myths and Frauds"</A> (Spanish and English versions), gets an average of 277 unique visitors a day (not bad for a $10 a month website in Freeservers...) The industry and oil lobbies don't pay us enough as to have a $25 website...

ROFLMAO

By your standard, Sciforums is a far more reputable source of information than either of the above. So you better trust what I say, granpa.

FYI, most scientists read journals instead of websites. If you read those journals, you'd not be arguing such a braindead cause. Also FYI, Cornell University is a globally recognized and highly acclaimed academic institution.

And in case you're imagining that "the industry and oil lobbies" pay greens, you're in need of medical attention. As a matter of fact, industry and oil lobbies spend millions and billions on "research" to deflate unfavorable facts in the public's eye. Just like the tobacco industry used to do versus anti-smoking campaigns.

BTW, while Spain is having a record cool spring and summer, South America is going through the worst blizzards and cold (freezing) temperatures in recent history (Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru). In Bolivia and Peru it has been labeled as a "National Tragedy" because the death toll it took in human and animal lives.

More local temperature swings. You must not comprehend the notions of "global", "average", and "trend".

As you say, we must see average temperatures (global or local) and here comes handy this temperature graph from Newkirk, Oklahoma, from 1930, to 1990, a time lapse wide enough to set a trend. It looks that there was not warming in Oklahoma until 1990.

Newkirk, Oklahoma = global. Ok, point conceded. You got me there. :rolleyes:

But let's take a look at Oklahoma as a state. Here's official NOAA data for you:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr_display3.pl

[edit: link doesn't work as it's a dynamically generated page. To reproduce it, follow these instructions:

<ol>
<li>go to http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/OK.html</li>
<li>select Period -> Annual (scroll down the list)</li>
<li>click the "Submit" button</li>
</ol>

Generally, it's a rather nifty website for all your weather-related questions within confines of US.]

As you can see, mean temperature in that state has gone up 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century. Not that big, but magnitude does vary by location. Global averages take a few more points in addition to Newkirk, Oklahoma or even Oklahoma in its entirety.

Green leaders who profit from the activities of the WWF and daughter (and subordinate organizations) as : Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, World Resources Institute, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Survival International, Earth First!, Sea Shepherd, Lynx, Rainforest Action Network, Worldwatch Institute, National Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, etc.

Profit from the activities? We'll see...

1) Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, Baron Greenwich, Earl of Merioneth, Duke of Edinburgh, royal consort to Queen Elizabeth II, and owner of the WWF;

These people are rich to begin with. Show me how they actually profit from the green movement.

2) his cousin and former president of the WWF, Prince Bernhard von Lippe of the Netherlands (BTW, former member of the NSDAP (Nazi Party) with affiliation card #2583009, date: May, 1st, 1933, former SS member, worked in IG Farbenindustrie --makers of the Zyklon-B gas--), was caught receiving a $1.1 million bribe from Lockheed Corp. in 1976.

Either you're implying that Zyklon-B is connected to the green movement, or you're implying that Lockheed Corp. wants to curb CO2 emissions. You must be out of your mind.

3) All members of the 1001 Club, founded by Prince Bernhard in 1971, amongst them: Conrad Black, Chairman and CEO of the Hollinger Corp., a media conglomerate, with newspapers in England, Australia, USA, Canada, Israel, etc. ---Peter Cadbury, Chairman, Preston Publications Ltd., chairman of George Cadbury Trust, family's chocolate interests dominates the economies of West Africa. ---Alexander King, Co-founder of the Club of Rome; co author of Limits to Growth; ---Maurice Strong, vice president of the WWF until 1973, first executive director of the U.N. Environmental Program, responsible of the Earth Summit Rio 92, currently chairman of Ontario Hydro; ---Jonkheer John H. Loudon, Succesor of Bernhard in the WWF presidency in 1977, former CEO of the Royal Dutch Shell Group; chairman of Shell Oil Co. until 1976; ---Gustavo Cisneros, Venezuelan billionaire, charged with bank frauds in 1994 in Venezuela; ran BIOMA, a leading Venezuelan "environmentalist group" shut down after being caught faking dolphin killings for a campaign against the tuna fishing industry; ---Fred >Meuser, the bagman for the $1.1 million bribe to Prince Bernhard from Lockheed Corp. in 1976; ---Tibor Rosenbaum, first Mossad logistic chief. His bank, the Banque du Crédit International was identified by LIFE magazine in 1967 as a money laundry for Meyer Lansky (hope you know who this guy was); ---Robert Vesco, a capomaffia still a fugitive, the American Connection to the Medellín Cartel, initially sponsored by the Swiss branch of the Rothschild family to take over the Lansky-affiliated Investors Overseas Service (IOS). Last known address: Havana, Cuba. Smoking excellent cigars with Fidel...

How do any of these people actually profit from the green movement? You name many unsavoury individuals, and you don't think they would support good causes at their own expense to try and whitewash their more nefarious activities? You have to be a political moron not to see the grandstanding for what it is. If it is indeed working for them, then indeed they are profiting. But not in a fiscal sense. And at any rate, what bearing does their opportunism have on the real environmental issues?

I could give you a list of many thousand names, but you asked for just ONE. To the names provided of people who profit from their "environmental activities" we must add a huge list of "scientists" working by sucking carloads of money from government funds to make "environmental research". The Chicken of the Golden Eggs!.

Oh yes, those "scientists" are really getting fat off that government money. :rolleyes: Not like we would actually need or want a good climate model.

More names that profit from "environmental scaremongering": ---Paul Ehrlich (and wife), ---Lester Brown, Worldwatch Institute, ---Stephen Schneider, "climatologist" that in the 70s predicted an imminent global cooling, but found that the "ice age" was not profitable

You have a rather cynical view of climate modeling. Perversely cynical. But please, do explain how Paul Ehrlich is profiting from CO2 emissions control. And maybe he even is, if he's a smart businessman. The retards moan and whine, the adept adapt.

; ---F. Sherwood Rowland, inventor of the gigantic farse of the Ozone Hole;

If we did not curb CFC emissions, the "gigantic farse" would be beaming ultraviolet all over the planet even as we speak. The holes over the arctic and antarctic are just now beginning to stabilize and shrink. Maybe you like sunburns and skin cancers. I, personally, prefer to have them not.

And my hope is not vague: it is based on scientific proofs and undeniable evidences.

Proofs?? Undeniable evidences?? Where are they? Physics says CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You have proof against that? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been dramatically boosted in the last couple of centuries and continue to increase exponentially! You have proof against that? Man is unbalancing the natural carbon budget by releasing previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in massive amounts growing exponentially. You have proof against that? CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a long time. You have proof against that? Venus is 900 degrees Fahrenheit at the surface due to a runaway greenhouse effect. You have proof against that? How about "undeniable evidences"?

So we don't currently observe the large effect that was predicted. Does that mean there is no effect? Does that mean that whatever is buffering against the effect will continue to buffer equally well in the future? The planet may be getting greener for now, but how much greener will it get before the flora is saturated? Before annual fires begin to release as much CO2 back into the atmosphere as is sequestered by additional greenery every year? Before rotting biomass begins to release enough methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) to progressively make things worse?

Until we have an impeccable model of climate indicating that CO2 explosion will not lead to climate catastrophe and detailing the exact reasons why not, the only prudent course of action is that of caution and prevention. This is not alarmism, it is not inventing new problems out of thin air. There is good reason to suspect that increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases could unbalance the climate. Unless and until we have a compelling reason to strongly believe otherwise, caution is the only prudent option.

Some of my links usually refer people to the articles and scientific studies (not models) of Dr. Patrick Michaels, a distinguished atmospheric scientist,

He likes to complain a lot about how we don't have a perfect model for climate. Whoopty doo. Perhaps we should wait a few more decades to develop a perfect model, before we actually act on the underlying problem? Throw caution to the wind, burn it all!

Michaels is more than just a scientist. He has a clear libertarian (anti-regulation, anti-establishment, pro-freemarket) agenda. As are pretty much all of the scientists you've mentioned in addition to him.

You should read what Dr. Lindzen told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on May, 2nd, 2001, by going to the link provided above, or go to the source in the US Senate: http://www.senate.gov/~epw/lin_0502.htm .

No, fair enough, really. However, he never explained (even though he promised to) why he thinks the "precautionary principle" is a bad idea. IMHO, it's the only sane idea on the table. The best alternative consists of crossing fingers and hoping for the best. He did mention, in passing, that assuming an unstable Earth would indicate "bad design" -- the guy is apparently a creationist, to boot. No wonder he believes everything's going to work out; the Almighty will do something to save us. :rolleyes:

An interesting thing I find is that all the anti-regulation exponents admit that warming is indeed occurring in the arctic, predominantly with respect to nights and winters. Perhaps they are not aware, but cold temperatures at night and during winter contribute to growth or maintenance of glaciers and permafrost. Warm it up, and you've got global flooding on one hand and endless arctic swamps on the other (with all the attendent mosquitoes -- gotta love'em.) Melting of ice and permafrost in the arctic would flush extra freshwater into the arctic ocean, creating a lightweight top layer and threatening to inhibit or even shut down the Gulf Stream. But never mind that, we'll all take a collective gamble I guess.

Something I find amusing. The libertarian proponents as a rule deny CO2-driven radiative forcing, decry alleged economic costs and then, in the same breath, denounce the Kyoto treaty for not doing enough. By golly, they have it all figured out. :rolleyes:

I just don't understand the "freemarket" hysteria over emission control. "Hidden taxes", they say. But new jobs, new industries, they neglect to mention. "Let the market evolve the clean technologies", they say. Yet without federal regulations we still wouldn't have catalytic converters on our cars. If you think that's a good thing, take a trip to Moskow and take a deep breath. We'd still be driving on leaded gazoline. We'd still be driving without crumple zones, seat belts, air bags or reinforced cages. Without federal research and infrastructure development, we still wouldn't have access to space. Free market my foot. Without federal money, we wouldn't have our highway system. The "American" affair with the automobile would never have happened; I'm sure the freemarket zealots of Detroit would have loved that scenario. Without taxpayer support, we wouldn't have our airports and airlines. But at least the taxpayers would've kept a little more of their money. :rolleyes: Newsflash: free markets do not and cannot exist, are not a panacea, and they are not the optimum anyway. Sanity ought to be the first priority.

Invariably, gory visions of horrendous alternatives are floated in opposition to fossil fuel mitigation. Nuclear plants and solar/wind generation are apparently the only solutions to the problem. Whatever happened to tidal and wave generators, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, solar concentrators, temperature differential and other already developed, viable commercial alternatives? Not to mention gee-whiz schemes with potentially huge payoffs like fusion or space-based power plants? Whatever happened to all the taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear and fossil fuel industries? We're about to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on the ridiculous Yacca Mountain project after having already spent billions on related research as well as cleanup of toxic waste dumps. We've spent billions subsidizing coal mines and gas/oil pipelines, cleaning up their leaks and disasters, fighting in the Middle East for domination and making an enemy of the Arab world, and I'm sure you could go on with respect to the Americas, Africa, Asia and the various islands. Is that free market, or is it a load of bullshit?

Green policies, while sometimes misguided, are the sane alternative. The bad policies are eventually revealed for what they are and scrubbed. The good ones we keep and blissfully forget about, in our zeal toward bashing the greens.

BatM

08-03-02, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by overdoze

Old man, I may be younger than you are but that gives you no grounds for the arrogance and presumption you exude. You may discover this toddler has fangs in the context of finding your arse in shreds.

:eek: The tiger comes out of the forest with his teeth bared and claws unsheathed!

I've been waiting for someone to do that. Edufer's messages, although full of good technical references and such, have sounded skewed by an underlying political agenda (at least to me). Except on minor points, though, I don't have the technical depth to really dispute his claims.

Out of curiousity, I wanted to get your opinion on the Marshall Institute. Two people that Edufer seems to rely upon with respect to Global Warming issues are Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Sallie Baliunas who are both integral members of the Marshall Institute (which Edufer has failed to mention). The Marshall Institute has a reputation (although it tries to live it down) of being pro-business and, thus, more likely to develop reports that discredit global warming.

Hmmm. Some things I've just found from a Yahoo search:

http://www.marshall.org/funding.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/environment/gw.skeptorgs.html
http://www.globalchange.org/gcc-digest/1990/d90jan19.htm

What do you think?

kmguru

08-03-02, 10:49 PM

BatM:

I left this thread for a while. Before I go back to the previous pages, I would like to comment about "Technical depth".

Both pro and con group use technical knowledge as the basis to argue their points but they intentionally leave out stuff that does not favor them. Both are guilty of that. To know, where truth lies and what item is really important and what is not is a difficult task. One needs to have a very strong depth in those subject matters plus understanding of how and where both sides skew the truth.

Edufer

08-04-02, 01:19 AM

Wow! You have been doing your homework, overdoze, but have not made the grade. Your answers are too extense to answer in one session (it would be too boring for other members of the board). So I’ll try to shed some light on the subject.

Overdoze: Excuse me??? How the heck is warmer temperature supposed to increase CO2?? Warmer oceans absorb more CO2. Warmer climates encourage greater vegetation which sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere. Biomass scrubs carbon from the atmosphere. Burning previously scrubbed carbon in the form of coal, oil, natural gas or biomass releases it back into the atmosphere as CO2. Did you flunk biology, Mr. teacher?
No, Mr. Teacher didn’t flunk biology. But it seems you ignore the fundamentals of the physics that govern the subject, so I don’t know if you’ll fully understand the following explanation:
1) Warmer temperatures increase CO2 production as your beloved “biomass” (all green stuff on Earth) have a negative oxygen balance, that is, the green cover produces more CO2 than it absorbs. Don’t you believe it? Ask Bert Bolin, head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the people pushing for the Kyoto Treaty). He made the discovery back in the 80s, when trying to figure out where all the CO2 in the air was going, as calculations could not explain an excess in CO2 that should have been sequestered by forests, jungles and all plants. Forest do contribute to global warming, like it or not.

2) Warmer oceans DO NOT absorb more CO2. On the contrary, cold oceans absorbs more CO2 than warmer ones. Firstly, the infrared (I.R.) absorption band of CO2 lie in the 12-16 micron wavelength band. The wavelength of strongest I.R. emission from polar ice lies in or near this band. This means that CO2 has its greatest absorption of I.R. radiation at near sub-zero temperatures. At warmer temperatures, the typical wavelength of strongest I.R. transmission is less than 12 microns, and therefore much less affected by CO2. At temperatures around 15°C (the average surface temperature of the Earth), the strongest emission wavelength is around 10 microns, a wavelength which is largely unaffected by greenhouse gases, the so-called “radiation window” of the atmosphere where I.R. radiation from the surface can escape freely to space.

3) The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor representing over 90% of the natural greenhouse effect. Water vapor shares many overlapping absorption bands with CO2 and therefore an increase or decrease in CO2 has little effect on the overall rate of IR absorption in those overlapping regions. However, in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, the air is very dry due to the extreme cold, allowing CO2 to exert a much greater leverage in the dry atmosphere than would possible in warmer moister climates at lower latitudes.However, the correlation is still there and is very strong.Come on, overdoze, if you know about science you know correlation does not equals causality. All people that eat</b< tomatoes will die, so there is a strong correlation between eating tomatoes and dying –but there is no causality there: eating tomatoes will not kill you (even if they are GM tomatoes). Please try to stay at a scientific level in a scientific discussion.
Are you aware that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That's not propaganda; it's mere physics. CO2 efficiently absorbs infra-red (heat) emissions from the ground, thereby making it more difficult for heat to escape into space. The answer was given above, in point (3)By your standard, Sciforums is a far more reputable source of information than either of the above. So you better trust what I say, granpa. Sciforums is not a science database or a source of scientific data (as for your posts, at least). Also FYI, Cornell University is a globally recognized and highly acclaimed academic institution.
The mentioned “Cornell University” website is not officially supported by Cornell University, but by a program by some students and professor there –a personal website. It is in the same spirit of the page by a Stanford University professor, .John McCarthy</A>, that supports a totally opposed view from their fellow buddies at Cornell. And in case you're imagining that "the industry and oil lobbies" pay greens, you're in need of medical attention.Read the news? What about Enron?. It supported the Kyoto Treaty. What about Atlantic Richfield Corp? What about DuPont? What about Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI)? I can mention a long list of industries and oil companies that finance the greens. And many (hundreds) Foundations too. Just ask me.More local temperature swings. You must not comprehend the notions of "global", "average", and "trend"… Newkirk, Oklahoma = global. Ok, point conceded. You got me there. Global means “everywhere”, as a result of the sum of temperatures all over the world. Looking at temperatures taken by satellites and radio sondes all over the world you’ll see that the present trend seems to be towards cooling, not warming. Take a look for yourself: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm These people are rich to begin with. Show me how they actually profit from the green movement. They were rich, and they are getting richer every day. Platinum mining was not faring too well before they launched the Clean Air Act scare, forcing all cars in the world to use platinum mesh for the catalytic converters. Rio Tinto Zinc (RTZ) Corp. belongs to the British Crown, and is run by Prince Charles and his brother Prince Andrew.2) his cousin and former president of the WWF, Prince Bernhard von Lippe of the Netherlands (BTW, former member of the NSDAP (Nazi Party) with affiliation card #2583009, date: May, 1st, 1933, former SS member, worked in IG Farbenindustrie --makers of the Zyklon-B gas--), was caught receiving a $1.1 million bribe from Lockheed Corp. in 1976.
------------------------------------------
Either you're implying that Zyklon-B is connected to the green movement, or you're implying that Lockheed Corp. wants to curb CO2 emissions. You must be out of your mind.
It goes backwards: the green movement have its roots in the philosophy that made possible the Zyklon-B gas madness. Lockheed Corp. just bribed Prince Bernhard –a Great Green- for selling F-104 jet fighters to the Dutch Air Force. That shoes you the moral integrity of a Great Green, an integrity shared by most Green Leaders.Oh yes, those "scientists" are really getting fat off that government money. Sure. On the other hand, Dr. Joseph Scotto, from the American Cancer Society got his grants revoked because he dared to publish a study in Science (1985) showing that UV radiation in the US had decreased by 7% between 1975-1984 –contrary to all prophecies that UV radiation would increase due to the Ozone layer destruction.(J. Scotto et al., “Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation: Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974-1985”, Science, Feb. 12, 1988). Read and weep…
If we did not curb CFC emissions, the "gigantic farse" would be beaming ultraviolet all over the planet even as we speak. The holes over the arctic and antarctic are just now beginning to stabilize and shrink. Maybe you like sunburns and skin cancers. I, personally, prefer to have them not. Scotto proved UV radiation was decreasing. Measurements of ozone all over the world have failed to show a decrease in global ozone. Again, learn and weep…
Proofs?? Undeniable evidences?? Where are they? Physics says CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You have proof against that? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been dramatically boosted in the last couple of centuries and continue to increase exponentially! You have proof against that? Man is unbalancing the natural carbon budget by releasing previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in massive amounts growing exponentially. You have proof against that? CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a long time. You have proof against that? Venus is 900 degrees Fahrenheit at the surface due to a runaway greenhouse effect. You have proof against that? How about "undeniable evidences"?
Where are the proofs? If you keep reading the misinformation provided by the Green Network you will never have the chance to learn the scientific facts. You must separate politics from science. They can never walk the same path.
The planet may be getting greener for now, but how much greener will it get before the flora is saturated? Before annual fires begin to release as much CO2 back into the atmosphere as is sequestered by additional greenery every year?
What would happen if the air was filled with 2,600 to 6,000 parts per million of CO2? How much would the temperature rise? Can you give an estimate? Scientists have the answer: they determined that during the Creataceus period (about 60-90 million years ago) COO2 concentrations went down from 6,000 ppm to 2,600 ppm. During that period temperatures were just 1,5°C higher than today. Draw your own conclusions.
There is good reason to suspect that increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases could unbalance the climate. Unless and until we have a compelling reason to strongly believe otherwise, caution is the only prudent option.
As 6.000 ppm of CO2 did not unbalance the climate in the Cretaceus, there is no compelling reason to believe that an increase from 370 ppm to 700 ppm will unbalance the climate at all. So caution has no reasonable place here.
Michaels is more than just a scientist. He has a clear libertarian (anti-regulation, anti-establishment, pro-freemarket) agenda. As are pretty much all of the scientists you've mentioned in addition to him.
For your information, I am not libertarian at all, and I am quite anti-freemarket, as free-market has shown to play havoc on the economies of all developing (or underdeveloping?) countries. Do you remember that the Club of Rome’s president, Dr. Alexander King wrote a book called “Limits to Growth”? From there was born the theory of the “controlled destruction of the economies of the developing countries” being carried since 1974 by the heads of the US Federal Reserve Bank.
Yet without federal regulations we still wouldn't have catalytic converters on our cars. If you think that's a good thing, take a trip to Moskow and take a deep breath. We'd still be driving on leaded gazoline. Catalytic converters have nothing to do with leaded fuels, as they do nothing to eliminate lead. If you want to know the truth about leaded gasoline and catalytic converters (and why they do not convert anything into nothing) read: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Chap4-LEAD.htmlLeaded Gasoline</A>, where you will find down the page a short essay by me called “Catalytic Converters”.

We've spent billions subsidizing coal mines and gas/oil pipelines, cleaning up their leaks and disasters, fighting in the Middle East for domination and making an enemy of the Arab world, and I'm sure you could go on with respect to the Americas, Africa, Asia and the various islands. Is that free market, or is it a load of bullshit? Sure its all on the free market philosophy, something I am strongly against. But, what has this do do with global warming and other scientific frauds?

Here are some interesting reading, regarding the warming issue, retreating(?) glaciers, and lots more:

<A HREF=”http://msnbc.com/local/pencilnews/393218.asp”>Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier advances rapidly, turning Russell Fiord into Russell Lake</A> - By Jon E. Miller, special to PencilNews - YAKUTAT, Alaska, July 15- “The advancing Hubbard Glacier in Alaska has nearly cut off Russell Fiord from salt water, endangering the small fishing village of Yakutat as well as local wildlife.”
-------------------------------
<A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm">The Top of the World: Is the North Pole Turning to Water?</A> - (2 Feb 2001) Water at the North Pole was big news in August 2000. Was it just another media scare story, or is the Arctic sea ice really disappearing? This report details the whole issue of Arctic sea ice. –

Also: See this BBC report on Arctic Sea Ice - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1311007.stm

<A HREF="http://www.john-daly/hockey/hockey.htm">“The `Hockey Stick”</A>:- A New Low in Climate Science (12 Nov 2000) The new dogma by both the IPCC and US National Assessment is that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age during the last millennium never happened. Their claim is politically inspired.

Enough for tonight.

BatM

08-04-02, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by kmguru
Both pro and con group use technical knowledge as the basis to argue their points but they intentionally leave out stuff that does not favor them. Both are guilty of that. To know, where truth lies and what item is really important and what is not is a difficult task. One needs to have a very strong depth in those subject matters plus understanding of how and where both sides skew the truth.

Agreed. It is very hard to dig into these issues to a depth that would satisfy everyone. Global warming is still a hotly contested issue amongst scientists who have many years in the field, but average people like me have to rely on our own feelings about what we hear (I won't presume to suggest that you are merely average ;) ). I came to this forum hoping that there were a lot of very knowledgeable (and well connected) people discussing the big issues in science (like Global Warming) so that I might get a sense of how the wind was blowing and might find more information on interesting subjects.

The first few messages I read from Edufer seemed (to me) to be balanced and had some interesting, if not totally believable, conclusions. He actually shook my belief in Global Warming to a large degree. However, as I read more of his messages, I got the feeling that there was a political agenda there. He was beginning to sound more and more like the stereotypical "big business, anti-green" lobbyist. His mistake was in attacking the "greens" rather than merely sticking to scientific debate. I'm now beginning to realize the dividing lines in the scientific community on Global Warming and I'm also beginning to realize what side of the line most of Edufer's information comes from. I'm not yet suggesting that he's wrong, just that I'm now more leary of what he's saying (I hope he'll understand that).

Edufer

08-04-02, 04:19 PM

Proofs?? Undeniable evidences?? Where are they? Physics says CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You have proof against that?
Nobody has. However, CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas. As you must surely know, water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. Without it, Earth temperature would be about –172°C during the night and +98°C during the day. The average global temperature would be –34°C. As mean temperature is +15°C, the “greenhouse effect” is about +34°C. Which gas is the most important? Water vapor accounts for more than 90% - 93% of the “heat retention” capability of the atmosphere. CO2 accounts for about 3,5% – 5.0% of the “greenhouse effect”. Water vapor is present in the air in concentrations varying between 5% to 99%, while CO2 concentrations are 0,003%.

An easy way to visualize the effects of both gases is this: Take a world map and go the Sahara desert. Temperatures at the weather station in Hoggar (right in the Tropic of Cancer) show an amplitude between –5°C at sunrise, and +50°C after noon. The amplitude is 55°C. This means that the heat escaped to outer space during the night.

Then go to the same latitude to the Caribbean, where temperatures range between 32°C at 2:00 PM and 24°C at 7:00 AM (during rainy season). The amplitude is 8°C. This means that the heat has been retained during the night. Why this difference with Hoggar in the Sahara? “Relative humidity” is the answer. In Hoggar the humidity is barely 5% – 10%, while in the Caribbean is about 80 – 99%. The CO2 concentrations are the same at both places: 370 ppm. So who is responsible for keeping the air warm? Water vapor.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been dramatically boosted in the last couple of centuries and continue to increase exponentially! You have proof against that?
Perhaps. Accurate measurement of temperature only began in the 19th century, patchily at first, becoming more global in the 20th century. These temperature measurements were intended for immediate meteorological purposes, such as forecasting tomorrow's weather, providing storm warnings etc., and were usually taken by non-scientists using instruments which were unsuitable for later climatological analysis. (<A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/surftemp.htm">Click here</A> for a full account of how unreliable these records are) Once finished reading, go to my next post for the second chapter of this discussion.

Edufer

08-04-02, 04:21 PM

Second Post of a Long Series:

Let us talk about the way scientists know about temperatures in ancient times. Prior to actual temperature measurements, we have no direct means of determining temperature prior to the 19th century, so some researchers have resorted to `proxy' means. This means that indirect indicators such as tree rings, oxygen isotopes in trapped ice, pollens, plant species have all been used at various times to give an indication of past temperatures and climates.

Proxy studies by their very nature can only give a very rough indication of past climates, but the greenhouse industry has found them an inexhaustible source of data with which to stir up public alarm. Researchers in this field do not merely publish their results discreetly in scientific journals, but promptly rush to the public media to make a public circus of their `findings'. Invariably such studies employ esoteric statistical techniques to confuse and confound any potential critics on the "blind them with numbers" principle. Several shoddy studies of recent years <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/shame.htm">have been exposed</A>, but the greenhouse industry continues to peddle them regardless, each one keeping to the familiar theme of Armageddon tomorrow.

The primary purpose of such studies is to demonstrate that the Earth is now warmer than at any time in the recent or distant past, caused of course by man's emissions of CO2. In some cases, this aim even leads to the re-writing of climate history, such as the latest claims that the Medieval Warm Epoch never really happened.

So let’s see how critical thinkers can detect shoddy science: One does not need to be a scientist to detect bad science, any more than one needs to be a qualified pilot to know that a plane is being flown badly. It is not even necessary to know anything about the esoteric statistics with which the researchers torture their data. It is a well-known feature of modern statistics that the result of any analysis can be pre-determined by the particular statistical technique chosen. Since there are hundreds of different techniques to choose from, each one processing the same data in a different way, it is now possible to `prove' anything you want to.

For example, selective use of `record-breaking' data, such as the warmest temperature here, the coldest there, the wettest somewhere else etc., it is possible to claim that either the world is heating up, or that an ice age is on the way, simply by being selective in how one chooses and processes the data. Virtually all the proxy studies currently being produced exhibit selectivity about which data set is used, and in what manner it is used. Any scientific paper (or one which purports to be scientific), can be divided into essentially three parts.

1. The Inputs - These comprise the raw data which the study uses, the criteria for selecting that data, and the underlying assumptions upon which the study is based.
 2. The Processing - This stage involves the processing of the data into some kind of ordered pattern, possibly highly statistical or mathematical, a stage which many non-specialists may have difficulty in following.
3. The Outputs - These are the results of the processing, and the conclusions which are drawn.

For a non-specialist, the processing stage provides the greatest deterrent to critical thinking about the paper, since if the processing is not understood, how can any rational critique be made? In this situation, most will simply defer to the authority of the authors and accept the findings of the study. But such resigned acceptance is not necessary. Many studies are clearly flawed at the inputs stage. Perhaps the criteria used in selecting the data is open to question. Perhaps the data itself is flawed. Perhaps the underlying assumptions are weak, invalid, or questionable. If the inputs are in any way flawed, no amount of mathematics or statistical processing can turn bad data into good, or make sound conclusions from bad input data. "Garbage in, garbage out", (or GIGO), is not just an over-used cliche, but is a very sound principle upon which all good science is based. Unfortunately, neglect of this principle has become a common practice in greenhouse science. Then, it is time to see some recent examples (sorry if I have to get somewhat technical). Because the explanation is somewhat long, keep reading in my next post:

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

Edufer

08-04-02, 04:26 PM

Third of series of Posts on Evidences.

Some Recent Examples of Faulty Atmospheric Science:

Example 1: A paper by Tom Wigley and Benjamin Santer ("Anthropogenic Influence on the Autocorrelation Structure of Hemispheric-Mean Temperatures", Science, 282, 27-Nov-98,pp.1676-1679) made a statistical analysis of the surface temperatures of the northern (NH) and southern (SH) hemispheres, concluding that CO2 really was warming the atmosphere. Their paper implicitly assumed that the 115-year hemispheric temperature series they used in the study is actually suitable for this kind of statistical processing.
The US National Research Council (the research arm of the US National Academy of Sciences), recently said in respect of surface temperature records (from which the hemispheric series are derived), quote -
<DIR>
"Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality and continuity of the records ... place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research results." </DIR>

What often may seem like `climate change' at weather stations may only be the result of instrument errors, instrument changes, and procedural changes. The NRC found the basic problem was that the major systems used to collect climate data were never really designed for that purpose. While disputes do exist about the presence of heat island distortions in the hemispheric data (only the USA and western Europe part of the series can be considered reliable at present), it is nonetheless possible, in theory, to develop a generally acceptable temperature series for the NH, even back to the mid-19th century.

But not for the Southern Hemisphere! Comprehensive station data from the SH only really dates from the 1950s, particularly beginning with the 1957 International Geophysical Year. Prior to that, data collection was fragmentary, with vast ocean areas not covered at all. Oceans cover some 83% of the SH, and ice a further 5%. The only reasonable source of pre-1950s data for the SH comes from Australasia and South Africa, but even in these cases, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been quite emphatic that anything prior to 1910 is useless for historical comparison purposes. Indeed, many Australian stations do show quite inconsistent and erratic records pre-1910, and virtually impossible to correct accurately.

The oceans have been poorly covered throughout the 1865-1994 period, especially the southeast Pacific, while many records from South America and Africa are erratic even up to the present day. In other words, SH surface data is essentially worthless from 1865 to 1910, highly suspect from 1910 to 1957, and probably flawed even since 1957. Wigley and Santer even conceded this very point in an earlier paper (Journal of Geophysical Research, Dec 27, 1997), in which they acknowledged that their global surface temperature estimates (also used by the IPCC) were affected by a lack of surface coverage in some regions of the world, particularly in the middle to high latitude areas of the Southern Oceans. That admission throws further doubt upon the reliability of the surface record which they used in the later study.

Applying the GIGO principle again, the flawed inputs used by Wigley and Santer render their subsequent statistical analysis quite meaningless and hardly deserving of the <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/press-99.htm#Sycophancy">"excellent and exciting" assessment </A>by the paper's referees. In other words, even if a non-specialist has only limited understanding of how their statistical processing worked, it is a straightforward matter to see the flaws in the inputs and thus discard the conclusions of the paper as being equally flawed.

Example 2:This example is a media report by William Cook of US News, featuring a proxy study by Annette Menzel and Peter Fabian of the University of Munich. <DIR>
"Evidence of global warming may be as close as the back yard. In the United States, robins are appearing in the North earlier than usual this year. And in Europe, flowers are blooming earlier and leaves are falling later, making the growing season just a little bit longer each year. Compared with four decades ago, spring in Europe is now arriving six days earlier, and fall is coming nearly five days later." </DIR>

Can you see the inherent input flaw? = "Compared with four decades ago ..." That's it right there in that key assumption hidden discreetly away in an otherwise alarmist text. "Four decades ago" takes us back to the late 1950s, right in the middle of the post-war cooling. It is self-evident that any study, whether using proxy indicators or simple temperature measurements, would find that a warming had occurred between a known cool period and a known warm period. But why "four decades"? Surely the researchers could have gone back further? A longer time frame for comparison would surely make the conclusions more compelling.

If the study was taken back six decades, we would be comparing today with the pre-war warm period of the 1930s, giving a fairly uninteresting and neutral result. All the critical thinker has to do is to find those assumptions and check them out. In this instance, the choice of four decades for comparison instead of using a longer period profoundly affected the outcome of the study.

In my next post I will show the third, fourth and fifth examples. Stay tuned!

Edufer

08-04-02, 04:36 PM

More examples of Faulty Science:

Example 3: A common feature of some greenhouse papers, is that of comparing selected points in a climate cycle. Since arbitrary dates in a climate cycle can occur at atypical points in the cycle (such as during minima or maxima in the series), it can lead to conclusions which are unsupportable when a longer period of analysis is chosen. An example of this was another paper by Benjamin Santer and Tom Wigley ("A Search For Human Influences On The Thermal Structure Of The Atmosphere", Nature 382, 4 July 1996, p.39-46) which inspired the notorious "discernible human influence ..." phrase in the last IPCC report. In it, they presented upper atmosphere temperatures as measured by balloons, but instead of using the full range of dates available (1958-1995), they instead used 1963-1987 as the basis for their comparison. As can been seen below, the effect was quite dramatic.
<IMG SRC="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/stats1.gif" WIDTH=536 HEIGHT=220>
 
<IMG SRC="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/stats2.gif" WIDTH=537 HEIGHT=222>

Example 4: Another variation on this idea is to compare temperatures today with those of 600 years ago, the obvious conclusion being that today is much warmer. Here is the abstract of one such example (Pollack, H.N., Huang, S. and Shen, P. "Climate change record in subsurface temperatures: a global perspective", Science 282, p. 279-281, 1998)<DIR>

"Analyses of underground temperature measurements from 358 boreholes in eastern North America, central Europe, southern Africa, and Australia indicate that, in the 20th century, the average surface temperature of the Earth has increased by about 0.5 C and that the 20th century has been the warmest of the past five centuries. The subsurface temperatures also indicate that Earth's mean temperature has increased by about 1.0 C over the past five centuries. The geothermal data offer an independent confirmation of the unusual character of 20th century climate that has emerged from recent multiproxy studies."</DIR>

Can you see the flaw? = "... over the past five centuries ..." That takes us back to the Little Ice Age!Of course things are warmer today! The Little Ice Age was caused by a low point in solar activity. Since the proxies used were boreholes, it would have been a straightforward matter to extend the comparison to a full millennium. But this would have taken us back to the Medieval Warm Epoch, giving an overall cooling instead of warming.

The conclusions of any proxy study provide a revealing insight into the real motives of the researchers. It is here that they press home whatever point they wished to demonstrate in the rest of the paper, just in case you did not get it first time. Watch for words like `might', `could', `may', `possibly', a sure sign the researchers have not proved anything, but want to get you worried anyway. In other words, they are guessing.

Another favourite theme in the conclusions is that of correlations. It not difficult to establish a pattern, or correlation, between two variables, especially when complex statistical programs are employed. However, when any two variables correlate, this does not automatically establish which variable causes which, or even if there is a third unknown causal variable. For example, airborne CO2 and global temperature is well correlated over the last 160,000 years, based on ice core analysis. But which causes which? It's a crucial question for the greenhouse warming theory. Not surprisingly, papers produced by the greenhouse industry convey the misleading impression to the public that changes in CO2 `cause' the associated changes in temperature, thus enhancing the idea that CO2 is a potent driver of climate. But any objective analysis of the relationship indicates that the changes in CO2 lag the changes in temperature by several centuries! This makes it impossible for CO2 to be the cause. Rather, it is temperature which has been changing the CO2 level, a point confirmed in a recent paper in `Science' (12 March 1999). Another favourite conclusion is the concept of `consistency'.

Conclusions often end with words like these - "Our proxy results are not inconsistent with the growth of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, particularly CO2." Apart from the misleading use of the double negative (`not inconsistent with..'), the fact that the claimed results may `not be inconsistent with' a dozen other variables as well, is deliberately left unsaid. To select out greenhouse gases as the only `consistency' variable, to the exclusion of all others, is not only unscientific, but also tells us a lot about the agenda of the author(s) and possibly their funding source.

1998 was a very warm year globally, as confirmed by the satellites, being about +0.46°C warmer than the 1979-1998 average. The anomalous character of 1998 clearly stands out on the chart.

<IMG SRC="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/msu-mean.gif" WIDTH=588 HEIGHT=260>

The reason for this warmth is clearly linked to the major 1997-98 El Nino, itself an oceanic phenomenon unrelated to global warming. Just why 1998 should be so much warmer than 1983 when a similar severe El Nino occurred becomes clear when it is realized that the 1982-83 event coincided with the El Chichon volcano (Mexico) which prevented global temperature from soaring in the same way.

So, we know 1998 was warm. We also know why it was warm, and the factors which allowed global temperature to rise, unfettered by volcanic dampening. But this creates both an opportunity and a problem for the greenhouse industry. The opportunity is that 1998 can be used in a host of proxy studies as a basis for comparison with some previous period, and even to highlight events in 1998 associated with the anomalous warmth of that year, such as increased glacier ice melt, sea ice shrinkage, early spring, and any other proxy which would be affected by such a warm year. Such studies are already being promoted widely in the media.

But 1998 also presents a serious problem for the future. Since it was such an extraordinarily warm year, unique among all the previous years, it is clearly a one-off event, induced by El Nino, but unlikely to be equalled in a very long time. The industry certainly revelled in the glory of announcing one broken warm record after another. Clearly, 1998 has seen a wild feeding frenzy for the industry. But as the years go by, as the sun becomes less active <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/cycle-23.gif"> (as shown by the latest solar cycle being the weakest in many decades)</A>, the record-breaking euphoria of 1998 is unlikely to be repeated, and once the millenium turns, will become an increasingly remote memory. Record-breaking temperatures will become increasingly hard to come by and instead we may see an increasing number of cold records being broken (as indeed has already happened all across the northern and southern hemisphere this winter). The warmth of 1998 has already ended as the satellites now show global temperature has returned to the long-term average.

Sorry for this lengthy post, but you asked for some proofs. 

Venus is 900 degrees Fahrenheit at the surface due to a runaway greenhouse effect. You have proof against that? How about "undeniable evidences"?
Easily deniable. If you know the basic facts about astronomy and planet formation, you surely know that the “runaway greenhouse effect” in Venus is not due to CO2, but to the extreme atmospheric pressure in Venus (about 90 times higher than Earth’s), an atmosphere full of sulfuric acid clouds. On the same grounds that an “excess” of CO2 would trigger a “runaway greenhouse”, then Mars should be much warmer than Earth. Why Mars is much cooler than Earth, and Venus much warmer? Their respective distance from the sun is the answer, you toddler! Venus is at 108 million km from the sun, Earth is at 150 million km, and Mars at 228 million km. We are just lucky that Earth formed at the present distance from the sun: a mere 5% variation would have meant a quite different climate: either too hot or too cold for our present life forms.

If you knew that, then you were being dishonest. If you didn’t know it, you were trying to make a point based on a misconception (or ignorance?). Now you have learnt something new. A step forward to knowledge.

Edufer

08-04-02, 07:52 PM

However, as I read more of his messages, I got the feeling that there was a political agenda there. He was beginning to sound more and more like the stereotypical "big business, anti-green" lobbyist.
Of course, there is a political agenda behind my messages: self preservation. I got interested in environmental issues back in 1983, while I was the head of the Technical Translations Dept. at Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (AECL), during the erection of our nuclear station in Embalse, Córdoba. I read a section in our newspaper “La Voz del Interior”, section sponsored by FUNAM, an “Environmental Protection Foundation” run by a biologist I knew. Mr. Montenegro (he graduated in biology at the same time my sister did –they had conducted studies on the “golden dove” in Córdoba, a well known crop pest). The article was titled: “Embalse nuclear station: Questions without answers”, where he launched an irrational attack on the reactor being built. I didn’t know then this man was vice-president of Greenpeace Argentina. At that time, I saw Greenpeace as a bunch of idealistic lunatics fighting bravely against pollution and trying to save the whales. I thought they were harming nobody and thought they were doing a fine job. Most people believed the same thing.

But the reasons given by Mr. Montenegro were flawed, at least seen from the technical and scientific viewpoint. He didn’t get his doctorate degree because his thesis was rejected by the examining board on the grounds: “Lack of scientific methodology”. The president of the board in our University (Dr. Ricardo Talesnik) was also the director of the “Mercedes and Martín Ferreyra Medical Research Institue”, an institution built and donated by my family in 1948. (BTW, in those laboratories was conducted the research that led to the discovery of the world famous Papanicolao Test, the test for determining the “uterus collar cancer” in its early stage). The research was made by Dra. Inés de Allende (a woman) and his aide Dr. Papanicolao. The credit went to the male, as women were then not allowed in science. Discrimination?

My elder brother, a neurosurgeon, professor in Applied Psychology in the university, was also doing research in Neurophysiology, with grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. He was also an invited researcher at Columbia University, New York, for more than 20 years. I helped him in his work with my knowledge of electronics, photography, and computing. I converted his numerous papers into the final version for sending to scientific magazines in the USA, Argentina and Europe. Whether I liked it or not, I had to learn many things about physiology, chemistry, physics, electronics, medicine, etc. It has served me well because that gave me a wide knowledge –although not too deep-- on scientific matters. So it is difficult that somebody can give me “cat for rabbit”, as we say here, at least on science.

So when Mr. Montenegro overwhelmed me with his “information” of the horrible health effects that the nuclear station was going to impose to the population, I could easily see that what he was saying was pure garbage, either on the technical side of the nuclear station, or the biological aspect of the probable consequences. Of course, I wrote him a letter (with a copy to our newspaper in Córdoba) dissecting every one of his claims, that put him in shame –and enraged him. At that time, I didn’t know that the environment movement was being used as a geopolitical tool for quite obscure reasons, what we know today as “an agenda”. He was also in a campaign to ban in Argentina the herbicide 2,4,5-T, an herbicide that was used in the US for spraying the illegal marihuana crops in Humboldt County, California. (The crops were run by the Maffia)

Through my cousin living in Washington (the head of the Latin American Section of the Library of Congress –she is still working there) managed to get all the scientific evidence (from the EPA and other sources) that proved that the danger of dioxin was a minor one. And from dioxin I jumped onto the task of researching the DDT issue, and soon after, came the ozone hole issue, the leaded gasoline, deforestation of the rain forests (I knew something about this as I had been doing trips and expeditions to several areas of the Amazon since 1970). Of course, Mr. Montenegro was pushing all these scares as vice president of Greenpeace, (with lots of funding) and I was discovering that these scares were based on quite flimsy evidence (when not totally faked), so I did what I believed to be a public service: <b<debunk all the garbage he was printing in his newspaper section.

We were invited to debate publicly on a TV program about “nuclear waste”, and “radioactivity from Nuclear stations”. In that show, he did mount a real “show”: he took along a Geiger counter and some samples of natural uranium (from the mines in our hills in Córdoba), and fuel pellets from the nuclear station. The Geiger counter probe made horrible sounds when placed near the samples, of course, but remained silent when it was placed near a glass of water. He ended saying: “This is the radiation that will give you leukemia and cancers.” The audience cheered. When my turn came, I asked him how long had he been wearing his Rolex Seamaster watch. He said about 20 years. Then I asked him if had ever developed leukemia or cancer. He said no. I took the Geiger probe and placed on top of his Rolex, and the meter went wild with that “chirp-chirp”. The luminous paint of the needles and dial did the trick. I told him: “Those uranium samples are as dangerous as your wrist watch. Everybody in the audience, please take your watches off, or you’ll die tomorrow”. Phone calls to the TV station clogged the lines. After that TV session, Montenegro refused to be in the same TV show with me.

So, little by little, I started to discover that the environmental field was full of misinformation, scientific frauds, (killing all the romantic view I had about “saving the Planet”) and that was being used for stopping the development of Third World countries, in a clear neo-colonialistic fashion. When internet came to Argentina, things became easier. The rest is history.

Sure I have a political agenda: the agenda of helping my country to develop, to help bring back DDT and other chemicals irrationally banned, to show the fraud and criminal actions the green paranoids were using for their economic interests. So I became an expert in Myths, Frauds, and Hoaxes in Ecology. Nobody has paid me a cent in my 20 years of activism. On the contrary, has cost me a lot of money. That’s why I am dangerous: I am an idealistic nut trying to pass scientific information to people.

His mistake was in attacking the "greens" rather than merely sticking to scientific debate. I'm now beginning to realize the dividing lines in the scientific community on Global Warming and I'm also beginning to realize what side of the line most of Edufer's information comes from.
My mistake was not trying to cheat you and the rest. As experience showed me, when talking to laymen or people without a solid scientific base, there is no use in trying to counteract political misinformation with scientific facts. Environmentalism is a religion, and science and religion do not fare well. Emotions are stronger than reasoning.

I feel sorry if you dismiss information or data just because its source are “suspicious”. I take all information coming from the “greens”, dissect and analyze it, until I find the “hidden cat”. In the meantime I get informed. When I finally say “Look, here is the cat”, people like you seem to be prone to dismiss the message because it looks “suspicious of being funded by the industry or the lobbies”.

But you don’t seem to act in the same way when the green lobby send its message. You take their words at face value. Take a closer look at the main institutions in the Green Field: they are all politically motivated. But you take their word as the Holy Gospel. Where is your capacity of putting the information you receive in a “provisory drawer” until you can “find the cat in the trunk”?. I fully understand your position, and don’t feel sore or offended in the least. I just feel disappointed. Perhaps cheating and hiding my “political agenda” would make me a more “neutral” messenger.

But my main concern with the green movement is that the “owners” of the movement are using sincere and honest people for their purposes. These people have committed too many crimes in the Third World, and are imposing higher and higher costs to the economies of the industrialized countries, taxpayers money that could easily go to better and more humane purposes. Overdoze has accused me of being Libertarian and pro-free market. A neo-liberal. For your information, I read and admire the thinking of Noam Chomsky, and still enjoy reading Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., although I don’t share his environmental views. I am a human being, love my neighbor and mankind, and feel that people embarked in the reduction of world population are inhuman and genocidal. What’s worse, using the most tender feelings of people towards animals and trees for killing poor people in the Third World countries is the most hideous thing to do. And I will never go along with their intentions.

This is a subject too long to discuss in a short post. Perhaps in the future we could keep talking about it. If you get to know all the facts, you will be shattered.

BatM

08-04-02, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Edufer

This is a subject too long to discuss in a short post. Perhaps in the future we could keep talking about it. If you get to know all the facts, you will be shattered.

You'll note that I didn't say that you were wrong. You've councilled (indirectly) in your messages to beware of the political agendas behind what is actually being said. I'm merely applying that (more and more) to your messages.

There is no way I can possibly keep up with your 20+ years of looking into this. Therefore, I have to go on my basic knowledge of the subject(s) and my feelings about "right" and "wrong". From your own statement, it does appear that your definition of "self preservation" is something with a business bent to it (namely the economic future of Argentina). I am not yet ready to believe that all "green" work is bad while all "business" work is good, but I'm more than willing to believe that individuals (and the groups they lead) on both sides have made mistakes. Determining where those mistakes are and how best to fix them is the challenge of the next century.

Do you personally continue to debate these issues anywhere else other than SciForums?

Edufer

08-04-02, 10:27 PM

BatM, it seems you keep thinking I am in this subject because of "business" - well, it is a selfish business: the well being of my children and grandsons, in the first place. And as we are in a country full of Argentinians --with whom I have been disagreeing for most part of my life-- I would like to help my country, not so much for my countrymen, but for my family. If I had the chance to leave the country I would do it immediately. I am sick of demagogy, sick of cheap politics, sick of the sheer stupidity of our politicians. I am sick of the cowardice of my own people that fear to stand up against the IMF impositions that will eventually disintegrate my country. I am ashamed of what we have converted our country into. I have decided to throw the towel in.

Of course, not all the green work has been bad, but most of it is. In future posts I will introduce you to some unknown facts about the WWF and Greenpeace. You won't believe it, of course, but it is the ugly truth.

I was posting about the environmental issue in John Stossel's board (at ABC webpage) during the last year (2001), but it was full of Libertarians that got me sick. Although they have some good points, they seem to be too fixed and rigid. Their "initiation of force" thing bored me to death.

And, of course, you are right: never believe in somebody just because his credentials or authority in some field. Always ask him for proofs, evidences that support his views. Analize them and then you can apply your common sense and reach to your own conclusions: that's the basic principle of science.

kmguru

08-05-02, 01:37 AM

BatM, now you know where Edufer stands. Because I have similar experience, I can understand what he is saying. Except a few points in the past, i have agreed most of the stuff he posts.

What he has failed to do is to keep a balance such that while pointing environmental nonsense, we still can keep other stuff green or healthy. Therefore it looks biased in one direction.

For example, use of herbicides and pesticides inside home is not a good prospect. Creating giant artificial dams for hydro power when one can create a lot of smaller units may be more desirable. I thought, we should preserve our forests as ecosystems (I still think thatway) - but we found out that if one does not manage properly, the forest burns down. Preserving crocs is a noble idea until the ecological balance gets skewed.

For a while, I was part of a engineering design team (I did chemical process, mechanical and automation) to design large hazardous waste disposal systems, municipal waste water treatment facilities and power plants (coal, gas, nuclear), paper mills, Gold refining plants and Military bilogical agent test and handling systems. I had my share of really nasty stuff - from chemical pollution to high voltage, high current pollutions. I was offered to work in a pesticide plant but turned it down.

There is no right absolute answer. Some of the stuff are really nasty where as others are mild to moderate toxic. We have to weigh against risk/benefits. But there is too much misinformation and paranoia out there just like imagined political conspiracies - that can cause more damage to a society than the truth.

And paranoia can shutdown a good program that can otherwise benefit the society. I have seen this has happen in many places in USA - and the people are the losers. It almost happened in my backyard where we needed a small powerplant to take the peaks (we lose power in summer) , but the locals objected to it saying it will pollute the air as if our freeways dont...(we got OKed after 3 old people died from heat and no power).

Gifted

08-05-02, 07:23 AM

The environment is one of those fields where politics has gotten too involved to talk objectively. It is the nature of the topic. If scientists find a problem, they need to fix it. The politicains get involved(you need them for some problems) and then they get cheers for being concerned. Then everything goes downhill. I doubt that there are many fields where politics is not involved.

BatM

08-05-02, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Gifted
The environment is one of those fields where politics has gotten too involved to talk objectively. It is the nature of the topic. If scientists find a problem, they need to fix it. The politicains get involved(you need them for some problems) and then they get cheers for being concerned. Then everything goes downhill. I doubt that there are many fields where politics is not involved.

That is often true even when politicians are not involved. For instance, in this case, many scientists see a problem and have a need to fix it, while other scientists do not see a problem and council against doing anything precipitous. It's hard for the little guy (including the politicians) to know what's the right thing to do.

kmguru

08-05-02, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by BatM

It's hard for the little guy (including the politicians) to know what's the right thing to do.

While some mistakes can be undone, others can undo the civilization as we know it over a long time period.

BatM

08-05-02, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by kmguru
While some mistakes can be undone, others can undo the civilization as we know it over a long time period.

Hmmm. A very "green" way of looking at things... :D

(For example, some don't want to wait for "total proof" of global warming for fear it might be too late by then and "civilization will be undone".)

Edufer

08-05-02, 02:35 PM

What he has failed to do is to keep a balance such that while pointing environmental nonsense, we still can keep other stuff green or healthy. Therefore it looks biased in one direction.
That’s true, although my bias is towards “survival”, not “getting filthy rich”. If fighting back for basic survival, for preserving our traditional cultural values and moral standards is a sin, then I declare myself guilty. Believe it or not, I go along with most of the practices recommended by environmentalists (I had acquired such practices long before they came into de main media –my father taught us to be sensible but reasonable at the same time. He used to tell us “Before putting you tongue in motion, set your brain in action”. He was a “free-thinker”, something that was Anatema in the old days). I was amazed by how he used to fight stupid city regulations by suing them constantly –and getting away with it. He had a two-year suit because he refused to cut a tree in the sidewalk, on the ground that the shadow gave shelter to people waiting for the bus, something unbearable during summers. He won.

So we learned that fighting back is useful. That the worse action against the imposition of injustice is resignation. And my small contribution to public service is showing people how they are being cheated and used for ignoble purposes- not only in the environmental field, but in general politics. If there could be something called a “Constitutional Anarchist”, that would be me.

For example, use of herbicides and pesticides inside home is not a good prospect. Creating giant artificial dams for hydro power when one can create a lot of smaller units may be more desirable. I thought, we should preserve our forests as ecosystems (I still think that way) - but we found out that if one does not manage properly, the forest burns down. Preserving crocs is a noble idea until the ecological balance gets skewed.
Agreed. Dams are most useful when used for irrigation purposes. The power generation could be (and should be) replaced by nuclear energy. You all know that big dams cause shifts in the ecosystems (as happened in Assuan, Egypt, where the Nile river floods were the basis of their agriculture along the lower part of the river), but in other regions they have shown to be of great value. We’ll have to see how comes out the Three Gorge Dams presently under construction in China. At least they will serve to control the catastrophic floods so common in the Yangtse basin.
I was offered to work in a pesticide plant but turned it down.
If you had worked for 30 years in the Montrose factory in California (making DDT) you’d be among the 1300 man/year statistic that showed not a single case of cancer. Did you know that that is the largest epidemiological study ever conducted? I wonder why the studies conducted by Dr. Charles Silinskas (from the USDA) were stopped and never resumed.

By the way, kmguru, were you serious about your idea mentioned weeks ago for using in my website some material that had to be translated into Spanish? I waited for more news, but perhaps you forgot about it.

kmguru

08-05-02, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Edufer
By the way, kmguru, were you serious about your idea mentioned weeks ago for using in my website some material that had to be translated into Spanish? I waited for more news, but perhaps you forgot about it.

No, I have not forgotten, my multitasking system has its own multitasking (like they say I am so tired that the bags under my eyes have bags....)

I took up another challenge to help an Indian group (the real Indians) to set up a structure to improve the political and economic structure in India. I got drafted to the effort where there are Indians and non-Indians from all over the world joining in a virtual corporation. I think, the idea we generate for India will be equally applicable to Argentine.

I need to write a paper on CEO cockpit to solve our (US) business issues, then that same paper can be slightly modified to apply country leadership too. I will get there....

Don H

08-07-02, 10:49 AM

meanwhile it is growing warmer.

Edufer

08-07-02, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Don H
meanwhile it is growing warmer. What's going warmer? Perhaps your imagination? If you really want to know about temperature trends during the last 30 years or more, see the temperature records from more than 100 weather stations all over the world that show a slight trend towards cooling:

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

overdoze

08-08-02, 10:00 PM

BatM,

The Marshall Institute has a reputation (although it tries to live it down) of being pro-business and, thus, more likely to develop reports that discredit global warming.
...
What do you think?

As I've already mentioned, I concur. They are clearly a libertarian organization, and as much is clearly visible in their speeches/papers alone.

kmguru,

Both pro and con group use technical knowledge as the basis to argue their points but they intentionally leave out stuff that does not favor them.

Bring it on. Personally, I accept limitations and uncertaintines of current knowledge. That does not prevent me from arguing for caution on a credible basis.

edufer,

Warmer temperatures increase CO2 production as your beloved "biomass" (all green stuff on Earth) have a negative oxygen balance, that is, the green cover produces more CO2 than it absorbs.

Negative oxygen balance means it emits oxygen. Well, DUH! If it didn't, we wouldn't have any to breathe. It absorbs CO2 and uses it in combination with water to synthesize hydrocarbons (sugars), emitting O2. Where did you think the carbon in hydrocarbons comes from? How did you think carbon dating works?

Don’t you believe it? Ask Bert Bolin, head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the people pushing for the Kyoto Treaty). He made the discovery back in the 80s... Forest do contribute to global warming, like it or not.

I only tend to believe in things which I don't know for certain are false.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the results you mentioned. Carbon sequestered through photosynthesis is subsequently consumed by plants and animals, and quite a bit of it returns back to the atmosphere as: animals inhale oxygen and exhale CO2 containing carbon they've previously ingested from food, decaying biomatter tends to release CO2 and methane (CH4) which is itself a potent greenhouse gas (though it doesn't last very long in the atmosphere), fires release CO and CO2 into the atmosphere as part of the combustion process. The sequestration of carbon from atmosphere through photosynthesis and subsequent return of carbon to atmosphere through respiration constitutes what is known as "carbon cycle". As such, forests could never sustain a net output of CO2, as eventually there would be nothing left to burn. There can be spikes of net CO2 output from forests, as they reach a point of saturation where they can't absorb any more CO2 than they already do and the built-up biomatter in the forests decays en masse.

So generally I think that using forests as "carbon sinks" is a ridiculous and mostly political portion of the Kyoto treaty that accomplishes little. What small effect it could have would consist of re-forestation of deforested areas, but this would be peanuts compared to the annual production of extra CO2 from fossil fuels.

However, this does not detract from the fact that extra CO2 in the atmosphere serves as a fertilizer to stimulate an overall "greening" of the planet. Note that vegetation tends to stabilize and on average increase atmospheric moisture. You have yourself noted that water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. So there you have it: a greener planet might eventually lead to even faster warming, even despite massive deforestation in some countries. Deforestation, however, has its own massively negative effects. From local climate instability and possibly local droughts, to loss of biodiversity, to soil erosion and dust bowls, to poor water and air quality. So if you think that third-world countries are being served well by getting stripped of their forests then you are on the side of degeneration and exploitation, not progress.

Warmer oceans DO NOT absorb more CO2. On the contrary, cold oceans absorbs more CO2 than warmer ones.

On further reflection, I retract that point as I'm not sure what the net effect would be. You are right, colder water absorbs and retains more CO2 (e.g. heating up a carbonated beverage will cause an accelerated release of CO2) and I neglected that effect. However, the layer of water actually warmed up is very thin and located at the ocean surface. Plus, warmer oceans encourage algal growth and algae sequester CO2. I was also thinking of temperature-driven oceanic circulation. As surface temperatures increase this circulation must accelerate. Summing it all up, I'm not sure what the net effect on CO2 would be from warmer oceans. Perhaps you're right and warmer oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere. If so, then this compounds the problem and accelerates the warming even more!

Firstly, the infrared (I.R.) absorption band of CO2 lie in the 12-16 micron wavelength band. The wavelength of strongest I.R. emission from polar ice lies in or near this band. This means that CO2 has its greatest absorption of I.R. radiation at near sub-zero temperatures.

This is some breathtaking bunk.

First of all, when it comes to infrared emission from liquid water or other sundry chemicals of the oceans or from the various chemical compounds of dry land (vegetation-covered or not), we are clearly not talking about IR emission from (mostly pure-water) ice! Different chemical compounds in different states (solid/liquid/gas/plasma) have different emission/absorption spectra. In fact, that's how astronomers can remotely determine chemical compositions and even states of matter via spectroscopy millions of lightyears away from the source.

Secondly, you ought to know that blackbody radiation (which is what heat is) has a characteristic unimodal spectrum that is in shape reminiscent of a skewed bell curve. e.g. see here:

http://www.astronomynotes.com/light/s4.htm

The curve has a long tail toward longer wavelengths, so shifting the peak slightly toward shorter wavelength does not eliminate emission at longer wavelengths. On the contrary, by increasing temperature emission at all wavelengths (including all longer ones) is boosted!

At temperatures around 15°C (the average surface temperature of the Earth), the strongest emission wavelength is around 10 microns

The 10 micron peak is derived from a blackbody spectrum for a temperature of 288°K (15°C) (see above.) Conveniently, there's a simple equation (Wien's law) that gives the relationship between peak emission wavelength and temperature of a blackbody. Simply, it's approximately 2898(micron-kelvins)/T(kelvins).

The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor representing over 90% of the natural greenhouse effect.

You bet. Now tell me please: what would happen to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor if surface temperatures were to increase? Might that, by any chance, have a feedback effect with surface temperatures?

Water vapor shares many overlapping absorption bands with CO2 and therefore an increase or decrease in CO2 has little effect on the overall rate of IR absorption in those overlapping regions.

Last time I checked, we were not artificially raising or lowering atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. So, you can assume those to be globally constant on average. We are, however, artificially raising CO2 concentrations. Effects are cumulative, so if you add a constant and a variable you still get a variable.

Come on, overdoze, if you know about science you know correlation does not equals causality. All people that eatwill die, so there is a strong correlation between eating tomatoes and dying -but there is no causality there: eating tomatoes will not kill you (even if they are GM tomatoes). Please try to stay at a scientific level in a scientific discussion.

This is demagoguery. While correlation is not a sufficient condition for causality, it is certainly a necessary one. Regardless, there is quite a difference between your tomato example and a graph spanning hundreds of millennia at high resolution showing a close match between two curves. In the latter case, you can't help but conclude the two are causally related. You may try and debate as to which causes which, but there is no question that there is a causal link. And even aside from all that, if you were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion then no experiment could ever provide any useful information.

The mentioned "Cornell University" website is not officially supported by Cornell University, but by a program by some students and professor there -a personal website.

http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/~plh2/group/glblwarm/

It is a website for a course being taught at Cornell. Far from being a "personal website", it is course materiel for Cornell students. If this was not scientifically sound, I doubt it would be contained in an official course. The particular source of the graphs is referenced as:

"Managing Planet Earth, Scientific American, Freeman 1990, ISBN 0-7167-2108-2"

If you do a search with the above string in Google, you'll see that many other university courses require and/or reference this material as well.

Read the news? What about Enron?. It supported the Kyoto Treaty. What about Atlantic Richfield Corp? What about DuPont? What about Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI)? I can mention a long list of industries and oil companies that finance the greens. And many (hundreds) Foundations too. Just ask me.

More garbage.

First of all and FYI, Kyoto Treaty does not equal "the greens". Let's just get that one straight at least. It may be a start in the right direction, but most greens would agree it is ineffectual on too many levels and heavily watered down due to industry lobbying as well as aggressive US rejection of the treaty with Australia following suit and Canada/Japan/Russia seizing the window of opportunity to press a better deal for themselves. It is an extremely flawed treaty and in a large part it's flawed due to the reactionary US reversal.

Enron might support the Kyoto Treaty because it was an energy and commodity trading company. It was not actually involved in generation or exploration. Nor was it an industrial outfit.

ARCO is a fossil fuel juggernaut. It would be one of the hardest hit if the world switched away from fossil fuels.

DuPont is pushing renewable fuels (for example, ethanol) and I compliment them for that. I can see how they might give indirect support to the greens in this narrow area due to their own corporate agenda. However, most of their products and industries are negatively impacted by environmental regulations and the green movement. They are constantly fighting off or settling environmental lawsuits.

Ditto for ICI.

The greens hate these companies, and wouldn't take any money from them under any circumstances. You must be wearing some seriously warped eyeglasses to see the world in such a twisted way as to allege an alliance between these companies and the green movement. For just one example, see this page from Greenpeace and tell me which fossil fuel company might have paid for it:

http://archive.greenpeace.org/~climate/climatecountdown/subsidy_scandal.htm

Global means "everywhere", as a result of the sum of temperatures all over the world. Looking at temperatures taken by satellites and radio sondes all over the world you’ll see that the present trend seems to be towards cooling, not warming. Take a look for yourself: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

Astonishingly, you manage to contradict yourself within a single paragraph. I've already given you a link to NOAA data where you can see the trends for yourself. I'm sure there are plenty of objective sources on the Internet in addition to NOAA (which only covers US.) The website you linked to selects choice outliers as "proof" there is no global warming. Excuse me while I laugh...

Platinum mining was not faring too well before they launched the Clean Air Act scare, forcing all cars in the world to use platinum mesh for the catalytic converters. Rio Tinto Zinc (RTZ) Corp. belongs to the British Crown, and is run by Prince Charles and his brother Prince Andrew.

FYI, platinum was always more precious than gold even as jewelry material. Regardless of catalytic converters. So I seriously doubt platinum mining would have been in trouble without them or saved because of them.

Besides that, I can't believe you're going to argue against catalytic converters. This is one case where you can actually see and smell the difference. Of course, for all I know you inhale car exhaust daily to get high or something. Would explain a bit of your posting here...

Greenpeace explicitly rejects all funding from governments or corporations; it is entirely member-supported and relies heavily on volunteers.

Friends of the Earth International (largest environmental NGO in existence) is mainly supported through membership fees and donations, with a total budget in 2000: US$724,000

It goes backwards: the green movement have its roots in the philosophy that made possible the Zyklon-B gas madness.

Good grief. :rolleyes: Which philosophy are you talking about? Naturalists were around way before fascism was a twinkle in Mussolini's eye. They were around way before Nietzsche.

Lockheed Corp. just bribed Prince Bernhard -a Great Green- for selling F-104 jet fighters to the Dutch Air Force. That shoes you the moral integrity of a Great Green, an integrity shared by most Green Leaders.

I can't believe how naive you are. Do you really think that only green politicians lack moral integrity? Do you even imagine green politicians have less moral integrity than other politicians? What do corrupt politicians have to do with grassroots movements?

On the other hand, Dr. Joseph Scotto, from the American Cancer Society got his grants revoked because he dared to publish a study in Science (1985) showing that UV radiation in the US had decreased by 7% between 1975-1984 -contrary to all prophecies that UV radiation would increase due to the Ozone layer destruction.(J. Scotto et al., "Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation: Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974-1985", Science, Feb. 12, 1988). Read and weep...

Weep indeed. This study used data from heavily industrial cities which (during the relevant time period) had heavy and growing air pollution and smog, and high concentrations of ground-level ozone (all of which tend to block UV.) Scotto is an epidemiologist, not climate scientist; it was never his goal to objectively monitor global ozone levels -- the measurements he performed related to his investigation of skin cancer rates in 8 "representative" US cities.

Ozone depletion is a global phenomenon, but manifests itself most heavily at high latitudes. Hence the Antarctic & Arctic ozone holes. But the fear is/was that these events could either spread out to or eventually start to occur at lower latitudes. Both fears have basis in fact:

http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/ESAHFRQQSTC_index_0.html
http://i115srv.vu-wien.ac.at/UV/uv_o3_hole99.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/O/Ozone.html

Overall, growing ozone holes at high latitudes were indicative of general ozone depletion throughout the atmosphere. For more information, see the website of the original ozone hole discoverers:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/The_Ozone_Hole/index.html

This is another pretty good (and often quoted) Cambridge University site:

http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/index.html

You must separate politics from science. They can never walk the same path.

You should take your own advice.

Scientists have the answer: they determined that during the Creataceus period (about 60-90 million years ago) COO2 concentrations went down from 6,000 ppm to 2,600 ppm. During that period temperatures were just 1,5°C higher than today. Draw your own conclusions.

My own conclusions: what the hell are you talking about?? If CO2 concentrations went down and temperature was actually higher, then what conclusion am I supposed to draw again? That the temperature was higher due to some factor other than CO2? Ok, granted. *shrugs*

On the other hand, I'd like to see some sources for your figures. Because according to all the sources I was able to find, CO2 concentrations during the Cretacious were indeed extraordinarily high (I never saw estimates as high as 6000 ppm though.) But guess what, sea levels were hundreds of feet higher than today, and surface temperatures were considerably more than 1.5°C higher than today (ranges from 5 to 20 degrees, depending on the point in time; plus generally much greater effects at higher latitudes) -- which go hand-in-hand.

http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~engelder/geosc20/lect17.html
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol111/globalchange.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/~kingdat/chap10.htm

As 6.000 ppm of CO2 did not unbalance the climate in the Cretaceus, there is no compelling reason to believe that an increase from 370 ppm to 700 ppm will unbalance the climate at all. So caution has no reasonable place here.

Again, sources? And, Cretaceous climate was unbalanced. It was much warmer and much wetter all over the planet, and ocean levels were a hundred meters (at least!) higher than today. If they were to rise even 10 meters right now, huge areas of valuable coastal and low-lying real estate such as coastal plains, wetlands and river deltas would be ocean floor. Not to mention that certain nations and most atolls would altogether disappear under water.

From there was born the theory of the "controlled destruction of the economies of the developing countries" being carried since 1974 by the heads of the US Federal Reserve Bank.

Even if this were so, what bearing does that have on climate change? Though let me tell you that I don't buy your genocidal conspiracy bit at all. Even though it's obvious that the western world has had no vested interest in helping the developing countries along. Perhaps with the emergence of global terrorism and international crime, global corporate concerns, as well as a growing global green lobby, the western world will finally have an incentive.

Catalytic converters have nothing to do with leaded fuels...

You completely missed the point. I was not trying to somehow link catalytic converters to lead. I was merely listing some of the benefits of environmental regulation. Unleaded gasoline is one of those benefits.

http://msnbc.com/local/pencilnews/393218.asp Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier advances rapidly, turning Russell Fiord into Russell Lake - By Jon E. Miller, special to PencilNews - YAKUTAT, Alaska, July 15- "The advancing Hubbard Glacier in Alaska has nearly cut off Russell Fiord from salt water, endangering the small fishing village of Yakutat as well as local wildlife."

"Not the first time
Hubbard Glacier last blocked Russell Fiord in 1986. ..." -- from that same story.

This one seems to be periodic. Your point?

<a href="http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm">The Top of the World: Is the North Pole Turning to Water?</a> - (2 Feb 2001) Water at the North Pole was big news in August 2000. Was it just another media scare story, or is the Arctic sea ice really disappearing? This report details the whole issue of Arctic sea ice.

Well, if it isn't the very page where you've gratuitously plagiarized from in this post.

Also: See this BBC report on Arctic Sea Ice - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1311007.stm

I see it appears to cast doubt on some news stories from two years prior. Frankly, I wonder why you bother. I thought you wanted to discuss things on a scientific level, yet there you go analyzing the sensationalist press. But if you wish to go there, note that this "BBC report" is basically inconclusive; its only real message goes along the lines of, "let's wait for some fresh satellite data."

Personally, I wouldn't expect the ice packs to melt right now since global warming is just picking up. These effects take time to develop.

"The `Hockey Stick":- A New Low in Climate Science (12 Nov 2000)

More John Daly. But this time, he seems to actually make some sense. I'll grant him as much. For now, I'll agree with him that the "hockey stick" is flawed. I'll even grant him that the sun influences average surface temperatures on Earth.

What I don't understand, though, is how any of that could be used to dismiss the additional contribution of atmospheric CO2. If CO2 by itself causes a warming, and then we compound that with a sun whose activity is probably going to increase then we've exacerbated the problem. Tell me where I'm wrong.

me:
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been dramatically boosted in the last couple of centuries and continue to increase exponentially! You have proof against that?

you:
Perhaps. Accurate measurement of temperature only began in the 19th century, patchily at first, becoming more global in the 20th century. ...

??? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been dramatically boosted in the last couple of centuries and continue to increase exponentially! You have proof against that?

Examples of faulty science, blah blah blah

In the future, URL links to John Daly's pages will suffice. You don't need to plagiarize his material and fill the thread with it. TIA

As for faulty science, I accuse him of the same crime. You have yourself presented graphs (doubtless quoted from his website) previously in this thread that were limited in scope and/or time as if they were representative of global or even regional trends. I've pointed you to official data sources that are "high quality" even by your standards. Apparently instead of investigating them, you posted gobs of Daly in "response". Well, at least one of us is reading the other's references.

me:
Venus is 900 degrees Fahrenheit at the surface due to a runaway greenhouse effect. You have proof against that? How about "undeniable evidences"?

you:
If you know the basic facts about astronomy and planet formation, you surely know that the "runaway greenhouse effect" in Venus is not due to CO2...

If you knew that, then you were being dishonest. If you didn’t know it, you were trying to make a point based on a misconception (or ignorance?). Now you have learnt something new. A step forward to knowledge.

Did I say the greenhouse effect on Venus was due entirely or even mostly to CO2? Once again, you completely missed the point. Which was, of course, that there is indeed such a thing as a runaway greenhouse effect and also such a thing as greenhouse gases.

Edufer

08-09-02, 10:02 PM

Overdoze:

Negative oxygen balance means it emits oxygen. Well, DUH! If it didn't, we wouldn't have any to breathe. It absorbs CO2 and uses it in combination with water to synthesize hydrocarbons (sugars), emitting O2. Where did you think the carbon in hydrocarbons comes from? How did you think carbon dating works?
NEGATIVE oxygen balance means less oxygen produced Most oxygen in Earth is produced by pytoplankonts in the cold oceans (about 95% of it), while all green stuff produces about 3 – 5 % (during the growing stage of the plant) Once the forests and trees reach their “adult” age, they have a negative oxygen balance (they produce more CO2 than they absorb). Carbons in hydrocarbons come from CO2 and other sources, of course. Carbon dating works measuring the half life of Carbon-14 isotope contained in ancient organic stuff, of course. Happy now?
What small effect it could have would consist of re-forestation of deforested areas, but this would be peanuts compared to the annual production of extra CO2 from fossil fuels.
You are absolutely right here (the reforestation thing, I mean) but you are just guessing at the amounts of CO2 produced by man and nature: if it serves of anything, here are a brief sample of data (available from IPCC and other sources):

Annual Fluxes of CO2 to the Atmosphere

Natural Sources:
         Oceans: 106 gigatons
         Land: - - 63 gigatons

Human Sources

         Fossil fuels and agriculture: 6 gigatons

(1 gigaton = 1,000 million tons)

So if you think that third-world countries are being served well by getting stripped of their forests then you are on the side of degeneration and exploitation, not progress.
No, I am not suggesting stripping forests away. I am suggesting a “sustainable logging” of forests: cut old trees (not oxygen producers) and plant new trees (oxygen producers). Forests must be preserved for other ecological reasons, as you correctly mentioned.
Perhaps you're right and warmer oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere. If so, then this compounds the problem and accelerates the warming even more!
You keep forgetting that CO2 is a lousy greenhouse gas. Remember that pleoclimatic studies showed that when CO2 levels were about 6,000 ppm during the Ordovician period, temperatures were only 1,5°C higher than today. Forget CO2 please! And while methane was increasing in the early 70s, it has leveled now, so methane is not a problem any more.
This is some breathtaking bunk.
You think so? I don’t (as thousand of other informed people do).
You bet. Now tell me please: what would happen to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor if surface temperatures were to increase? Might that, by any chance, have a feedback effect with surface temperatures?
-----------------
Although this subject deserves a much longer explanation, I’ll try to give the basis of this matter: Dr. Sherwood Idso, a well known climatologist, when working in the Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona, back in the seventies, elaborated a theory about the effect of increasing CO2, water vapor and increasing temperatures. He calculated a “response function” of about 0,113°C that would tell us how temperature will answer to an increase of CO2. Making a long story short, Idso found that the mean answer function could no be higher than 0,113°C by watt by square meter. (0,113°C w/m2). Suppose that CO2 concentrations increase from 300 to 600 ppm, then Idso multiplied 2,28 w/m2 by the response function of 0,113 and obtained an increase of 0,25°C as the global increase.

Answering some objections from other scientists (Stepehen Schneider, Kellog, and Ramanathan) about a “feedback” mechanisms, Idso refuted their objections by showing that for a 15°C temperature the increase in the water vapor pressure caused by an 0,25°C increase is of 0.2 hectopascal. This in time produces an additional “greenhouse effect” enough to cause another temperature increase of only 0,07°C –and this increase, sending more water vapor to the atmosphere, causes a further increase of only 0,01°C in global temperatures. We have rapidly reached the point where the positive feedbacks become smaller and smaller, that even accounting for this extra effect, the increase of temperatures for a doubling of CO2 concentrations would only render a 0.3°C.

With a temperature increase, there will be increased water vapor in the atmosphere, of course, but water vapor has the habit of becoming clouds that block sunlight, cooling the Earth. Water is Nature’s built-in thermostat. But, as explained by Dr. Idso, there is a point where feedback become negligible.
We are, however, artificially raising CO2 concentrations. Effects are cumulative, so if you add a constant and a variable you still get a variable.
Compare the amounts: human = 6 gigatons . Mother Nature = 169 gigatons.
Blame Mother Nature for the alleged mild (and natural) warming, not man
While correlation is not a sufficient condition for causality, it is certainly a necessary one. Regardless, there is quite a difference between your tomato example and a graph spanning hundreds of millennia at high resolution showing a close match between two curves.
Got you there. If you look at graphs of CO2 levels an temperatures during the las milenium, you can see there is the strongest correlation possible between temperatures and CO2. But a closer look will show that CO2 levels LAG BEHIND TEMPERATURES by some CENTURIES proving that Temperatures caused an increase in CO2 and not the opposite. I'll find the corresponding graph and will post it here for your analysis.
“Astonishingly, you manage to contradict yourself within a single paragraph” … “The website you linked to selects choice outliers as "proof" there is no global warming. Excuse me while I laugh...
I can’t see the contradiction, though. And you linked me to Greenpeace. We are both laughing --and unfortunately, environmentalism is not a laughing matter, it kills people.
And you call outliers respected scientists as Dr. Richard Lindzen, (Ntnl. Acad. Of Sciences) Dr. Fred Singer, Dr. Dr. Frederick Seitz (Ntnl. Acad. Of Sciences), Dr. Theodor Landscheidt , etc. Well, you surely have strong and well based proofs of your accusation. I would like to hear about them (and not just “they are in the Oil industry payroll”). Let’s be serious.
Besides that, I can't believe you're going to argue against catalytic converters. This is one case where you can actually see and smell the difference. Of course, for all I know you inhale car exhaust daily to get high or something. Would explain a bit of your posting here...
Just read the next post. I will post an excerpt of Chapter 4: “Leaded Fuels”, from my book “Ecology: Myths and Frauds”, If you want to read the full chapter (adapted with special permission from an article by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworoski, former head of the UNSCEAR (the UN Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiations) go to this link:
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INDICE/Chap4-LEAD.htm
Greenpeace explicitly rejects all funding from governments or corporations; it is entirely member-supported and relies heavily on volunteers... Friends of the Earth International (largest environmental NGO in existence) is mainly supported through membership fees and donations, with a total budget in 2000: US$724,000
Have you seen their books? How could you do it, if they refuse to show their incomes to nobody, even they “donors”. Ask Franz Kotte, former Greenpeace Inernational accountant in chief about the Swiss banks accounts the “leaders” of Greenpeace have. He already gave the numbers to the press back in the early 90s. Ask Why former Greenpeace Norway president Björn Oekern, when canceling his membership in May 1992, and walking away (along with some 15.000 other Norwegian adherents) said: “None of the money collected by Greenpeace was used for taking care of the environment … Greenpeace is a fascists organization”.

A total yearly budget of $720.000? Who you think you are kidding??
I can't believe how naive you are. Do you really think that only green politicians lack moral integrity? Do you even imagine green politicians have less moral integrity than other politicians? What do corrupt politicians have to do with grassroots movements?
No. No. Grassroots movements are prone to demagogy –the best place for corruption and fast bucks.
Weep indeed. This study used data from heavily industrial cities which (during the relevant time period) had heavy and growing air pollution and smog, and high concentrations of ground-level ozone (all of which tend to block UV.) Scotto is an epidemiologist, not climate scientist; it was never his goal to objectively monitor global ozone levels -- the measurements he performed related to his investigation of skin cancer rates in 8 "representative" US cities.
So you call “heavily industrial cities” El Paso, Tx, Albuquerque, N.Mex., Tallahase, Fla. Forth Worth, Tx., Bismark, N.Dakota, Minneapolis, Minn, and Oakland, Cal.? What do you call then Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc.?

I would agree that Philadelphia has more industries than the others, but curiously, this “heavily industrialized” city is the one with less UV radiation decrease in Scotto’s study, contradicting your ‘hint’ that smog would reduce UV radiation. But the study by Scotto was finished when the Clean Air Act was in action and the sulphur oxides and particulate emissions had been reduced by more than 60% since its inception. Weep again.
Ozone depletion is a global phenomenon, but manifests itself most heavily at high latitudes. Hence the Antarctic & Arctic ozone holes. But the fear is/was that these events could either spread out to or eventually start to occur at lower latitudes. Both fears have basis in fact:
Ozone depletion is a localized effect recorded in the Antarctic during springtime, and caused but natural causes. There is no ozone depletion trend in any place in the world (other than natural and seasonal variations). BTW, your links “suck”.
Overall, growing ozone holes at high latitudes were indicative of general ozone depletion throughout the atmosphere. For more information, see the website of the original ozone hole discoverers:
I am sorry, but the original discoverer of the “ozone hole”, George Dobson, died many years before the internet was created, so there is no “original discoverers website”. They are impostors. BTW, did you know that the infamous “hole” was first recorded by George Dobson back in 1956, during the International Geophysical Year? And that the French scientists at the French station of Dumont D’Urville made the same “discovery” during the same year of 1956?. The British guys of 1985 are just phonies.
My own conclusions: what the hell are you talking about?? If CO2 concentrations went down and temperature was actually higher, then what conclusion am I supposed to draw again? That the temperature was higher due to some factor other than CO2? Ok, granted. *shrugs*
You seem to have trouble with reading. Read again (slowly this time):
<blockquote>“ Scientists have the answer: they determined that during the Creataceus period (about 60-90 million years ago) CO2 concentrations went down from 6,000 ppm to 2,600 ppm. During that period temperatures were just 1,5°C higher than today. Draw your own conclusions.
</blockquote>
Your conclusions should have been (in case your three neurons managed to make contact): That although CO2 levels were in the range of 2,6000 to 6,000 parts per million (while today they in the range of 370 ppm), nevertheless temperatures were barely 1,5°C higher than today, demonstrating there is no a cause-effect in CO2 and temperature increase.
Not the first time – “Hubbard Glacier last blocked Russell Fiord in 1986. ..." -- from that same story. This one seems to be periodic. Your point?
My point: glaciers are not “melting”. Most of them are advancing, in spite of all web links you could obtain from Greenpeace.
What I don't understand, though, is how any of that could be used to dismiss the additional contribution of atmospheric CO2. If CO2 by itself causes a warming, and then we compound that with a sun whose activity is probably going to increase then we've exacerbated the problem. Tell me where I'm wrong.
In insisting to believe that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas. It is not. Just that.
Did I say the greenhouse effect on Venus was due entirely or even mostly to CO2? Once again, you completely missed the point. Which was, of course, that there is indeed such a thing as a runaway greenhouse effect and also such a thing as greenhouse gasesYes, you implied it. As the subject was CO2, the mention of CO2 in Venus along with the “runaway greenhouse” was implying CO2 was the culprit.

And there is no "runaway greenhopuse effect" going on in Venus. The fact is Venus is so close to the Sun that it receives more heat than the planet could ever posibble radiate back into space. Basic physics, you toddler!

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

And John Daly and I are friends that work together in this “global warming” stupidity. I translate some of his articles into Spanish for publishing them into our website, and constantly interchange useful information, “plagiarizing” ourselves at will.

I just sent him the chronicles of the foundation of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia in 1591 (a quite tropical region: 17°South) where the chronicler states something unbelievable to us: “Summers are mild and pleasant, but winters are harsh, when tree trunks split in half because the deep frosts in July.” This historically demonstrates the existence of the Little Ice Age, something that the IPCC has been trying to deny lately, in a frantic effort to keep Kyoto alive. Forget it, Kyoto is already a stiff mummy.
Frankly, I wonder why you bother.
You are absolutely right. There is no use in trying to give eyeglasses to somebody who insists on staying blind.

Bye!

Edufer

08-09-02, 11:20 PM

Overdoze: While correlation is not a sufficient condition for causality, it is certainly a necessary one. Regardless, there is quite a difference between your tomato example and a graph spanning hundreds of millennia at high resolution showing a close match between two curves ….
Edufer: Got you there. If you look at the following graph, you can see there is the strongest correlation possible between temperatures and CO2. But a closer look will show that CO2 levels LAG BEHIND TEMPERATURES by some CENTURIES proving that Temperatures caused an increase in CO2 and not the opposite.
<center>
<img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-2/co2-temp.jpg width=400 height=450>
</center>
Here is one of hundreds of similar graphs that you can easily find in the web. At first glance you’ll think that CO2 increase was first, and then came the temperature increase. If you have a mouse with a “roller middle button” (as I do) you can place the cursor arrow in any temperature peak and roll the button up until you cross the CO2 line. Horror! It comes a couple of hundred years later! (This must be a dirty trick Edufer is playing on me).

Now, will you forget about the stupid global warming issue, once and for all?

BatM

08-09-02, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Edufer

Here is one of hundreds of similar graphs that you can easily find in the web. At first glance you’ll think that CO2 increase was first, and then came the temperature increase. If you have a mouse with a “roller middle button” (as I do) you can place the cursor arrow in any temperature peak and roll the button up until you cross the CO2 line. Horror! It comes a couple of hundred years later! (This must be a dirty trick Edufer is playing on me).

Looks like a dirty trick to me! :bugeye:

I have a mouse with a roller ball and doing as you say does not show that big a difference between the lines (certainly not a clear difference). Plus, due to other things going on in the atmosphere at the time, you would not expect the lines to be exact mirrors of each other, but just "highly similar". Also, the X coordinates of the image is based in "thousands of years", so a difference of a couple hundred years could be attributed simply to graphing error.

In other words, where's the data upon which the graph is based? :confused:

overdoze

08-10-02, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by Edufer
Once the forests and trees reach their “adult” age, they have a negative oxygen balance (they produce more CO2 than they absorb).

Where does the extra carbon released as CO2 come from. Balance the books, por favor.

No, I am not suggesting stripping forests away. I am suggesting a “sustainable logging” of forests: cut old trees (not oxygen producers) and plant new trees (oxygen producers). Forests must be preserved for other ecological reasons, as you correctly mentioned.

This is a pretty "green" statement. Good management of forests (including clearing of deadwood and fire preparedness) is sound policy. However, it might be hard to sustainably log forests without criss-crossing them with roads and severely damaging the forests in the process. New machinery is needed for this; several companies have already developed forest-friendly logging prototypes but in practice logging is still a thoroughly destructive enterprise. That needs to change.

You keep forgetting that CO2 is a lousy greenhouse gas.

Lousy or not, it's a greenhouse gas.

Remember that pleoclimatic studies showed that when CO2 levels were about 6,000 ppm during the Ordovician period, temperatures were only 1,5°C higher than today. Forget CO2 please!

http://www.marshall.org/Warming.html#Evidence

There is an explanation for this (see link) in terms of a specific distribution of landmass (with most of it ending up at polar latitudes.) Interesting that you switched from Cretaceous to Ordovician. What's the matter, Cretaceous doesn't fit your propaganda?

Although this subject deserves a much longer explanation, I’ll try to give the basis of this matter: Dr. Sherwood Idso, a well known climatologist...

We have rapidly reached the point where the positive feedbacks become smaller and smaller, that even accounting for this extra effect, the increase of temperatures for a doubling of CO2 concentrations would only render a 0.3°C.

Material quoted below obtained from the following URL: http://www.ucsusa.org/environment/gw.skeptorgs.html

Greening Earth Society [ http://greeningearthsociety.org ]

The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.

Spin: CO2 emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have.

Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, David Wojick, Sallie Baliunas, Sylvan Wittwer, John Daley, Sherwood Idso

Funding: The Greening Earth Society receives its funding from the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and utility company members.

Further search for "Sherwood Idso" on the web reveals that he is active in multiple fossil industry interest groups, advocates that CO2 and fossil fuels are the best thing since apple pie, most if not all of his research funded by fossil fuel industries. Given his background, I have problems trusting his "science". And I certainly won't trust it until I see his experiments replicated by independent researchers. Also, I thought you disapproved of computational climate models?

With a temperature increase, there will be increased water vapor in the atmosphere, of course, but water vapor has the habit of becoming clouds that block sunlight, cooling the Earth. Water is Nature’s built-in thermostat.

Low-altitude clouds increase the greenhouse effect. Only high-altitude clouds serve to block sunlight. You'll have to convince me that high-altitude clouds must dominate.

Compare the amounts: human = 6 gigatons . Mother Nature = 169 gigatons.
Blame Mother Nature for the alleged mild (and natural) warming, not man

Mother Nature: 169 gigatons, constant.
Human: 6 gigatons, additional per year.

10 years: 60 additional gigatons (assuming current rates of output, which is extraordinarily conservative.)
30 years: 180 additional gigatons.

As you can see, it only takes a couple of decades for anthropogenic CO2 to completely dominate any natural emissions in the atmosphere. So, what was your point again?

But a closer look will show that CO2 levels LAG BEHIND TEMPERATURES by some CENTURIES proving that Temperatures caused an increase in CO2 and not the opposite. I'll find the corresponding graph and will post it here for your analysis.

I'm still waiting for the graph, as well as hopefully some references or descriptions of how the data was obtained. Note that of the two graphs Bambi originally quoted from Cornell, the one on top is the same one as you've posted. Except slightly better as it doesn't stylize its graphics as much and sports higher resolution. Here they are again for the fourth time (I wonder how many more times it'll take before you actually bother to look at them):

http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/~plh2/group/glblwarm/CO2TEMP.GIF

Once again, I ask: take a look at the lower graph (where the time scale actually lends itself to your claim), and point out the lag of a few centuries for me because I don't seem to be able to discern it.

I can’t see the contradiction, though. And you linked me to Greenpeace.

I gave you a sample of their literature. Since you're so convinced they are driven by industry, I thought you might enjoy perusing their written material so as to confirm your conspiracy theory.

And you call outliers respected scientists as Dr. Richard Lindzen, (Ntnl. Acad. Of Sciences) Dr. Fred Singer, Dr. Dr. Frederick Seitz (Ntnl. Acad. Of Sciences), Dr. Theodor Landscheidt , etc.

Pardon me, but none of the selective graphs on Daly's website had any of the above names on them.

Just read the next post. I will post an excerpt of Chapter 4: "Leaded Fuels", from my book "Ecology: Myths and Frauds"...

You must be going senile. What do catalytic converters have to do with unleaded fuels, again? When I was mentioning these two items, it was not in a context of cause and effect but in the context of both being a result of environmental regulation. Get it through your thick skull: I never tried to and am not intending to claim that catalytic converters reduce lead exhaust from leaded gasoline. It's a ridiculous notion anyhow; that's not the reason for catalytic converters' existence. Catalytic converters dramatically reduce emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and various complex hydrocarbons. Note: zero relationship to lead.

Have you seen their books? ... "None of the money collected by Greenpeace was used for taking care of the environment ... Greenpeace is a fascists organization".

No, I haven't seen their books. I'm not a member either. However, they do not accept donations from governments or corporations. That was the main point, in case you missed it.

A total yearly budget of $720.000? Who you think you are kidding??

That was for Friends of the Earth, not Greenpeace. It's published by them. If you have figures that disprove it, go right ahead and cite them.

No. No. Grassroots movements are prone to demagogy -the best place for corruption and fast bucks.

You must have never heard of industry interest groups. Oh wait, what am I saying. A good chunk of your information comes straight out of their mouths. :rolleyes:

So you call "heavily industrial cities" El Paso, Tx, Albuquerque, N.Mex., Tallahase, Fla. Forth Worth, Tx., Bismark, N.Dakota, Minneapolis, Minn, and Oakland, Cal.?

Yes, indeedy.

What do you call then Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc.?

More of the same.

I would agree that Philadelphia has more industries than the others, but curiously, this "heavily industrialized" city is the one with less UV radiation decrease in Scotto’s study, contradicting your ‘hint’ that smog would reduce UV radiation.

Smog does reduce UV radiation. It isn't a 'hint'; it's a fact. So does cloud cover and a number of other climate factors.

But the study by Scotto was finished when the Clean Air Act was in action and the sulphur oxides and particulate emissions had been reduced by more than 60% since its inception. Weep again.

Which one of the many Clean Air Acts are you referring to? Moreover, while emissions per unit have been decreased the number of units had grown due to expansion of economy. There are more cars on the roads even though each car is ecologically cleaner. Same thing for industrial exhausts.

Ozone depletion is a localized effect recorded in the Antarctic during springtime, and caused but natural causes. There is no ozone depletion trend in any place in the world (other than natural and seasonal variations). BTW, your links "suck".

Ozone depletion due to CFCs in the stratosphere is not a natural phenomenon, and had been quite well documented. NASA has an extensive portfolio of space-based studies of the whole process. CFCs have been outlawed for quite a while now. If they hadn't been, who knows what sort of trends we'd be seeing today.

As for sucking, sometimes reality tends to do that. Deal with it.

BTW, did you know that the infamous "hole" was first recorded by George Dobson back in 1956, during the International Geophysical Year? And that the French scientists at the French station of Dumont D’Urville made the same "discovery" during the same year of 1956?. The British guys of 1985 are just phonies.

References and graphs of antarctic ozone concentration, please. It's true that measurements in Antarctica started in 1956. Until early 1970s they hovered almost level, then began a steady decline. They are still declining:

http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/tour_images/total_ozone.gif

BTW, if Cambridge University sucks too much for your tastes, I can't really help you. But just in case:

http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/science/glob_dep.html
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/en/research/chemie/tpeter/totozon.html#measurements
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast02oct_1.htm

You seem to have trouble with reading. Read again (slowly this time):
<blockquote> Scientists have the answer: they determined that during the Creataceus period (about 60-90 million years ago) CO2 concentrations went down from 6,000 ppm to 2,600 ppm. During that period temperatures were just 1,5°C higher than today. Draw your own conclusions.
</blockquote>

I think you've been confusing Cretaceous with Ordovician. Cretaceous period: 146-64 MYA. Ordovician: 505-440 MYA. Get it straight, granpa.

Your conclusions should have been (in case your three neurons managed to make contact): That although CO2 levels were in the range of 2,6000 to 6,000 parts per million (while today they in the range of 370 ppm), nevertheless temperatures were barely 1,5°C higher than today, demonstrating there is no a cause-effect in CO2 and temperature increase.

You should do more careful research. Most of the Ordovician was hot and moist, as is to be expected for such extraordinarily high CO2 levels. In late Ordovician, Gondwana settled on the South Pole and as a result global temperatures plunged and there was an "icebox" period.

So unless you are proposing that to compensate against our massive CO2 pollution we move all of our land masses to the arctic regions, you ought to be worried about climate implications of anthropogenic CO2.

My point: glaciers are not "melting".

That may be true. Probably. For now.

Most of them are advancing, in spite of all web links you could obtain from Greenpeace.

That's horseshit. And by the way, I'm not obtaining any information whatsoever from Greenpeace.

Yes, you implied it. As the subject was CO2, the mention of CO2 in Venus along with the "runaway greenhouse" was implying CO2 was the culprit.

Quote me mentioning CO2 in Venus. I dare you. However, now that I went and refreshed my memory it is true that Venutian atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 0.003% water vapor...

And there is no "runaway greenhopuse effect" going on in Venus. The fact is Venus is so close to the Sun that it receives more heat than the planet could ever posibble radiate back into space. Basic physics, you toddler!

Solar radiation intensity falls off as square of distance from the sun. If it weren't for a greenhouse effect, Venus ought to be 4 times cooler than Mercury as it's twice the distance from the Sun (approximately.) Average daytime surface temperature on Mercury: 350°C. Average surface temperature on Mercury (day/night): 179°C. Average surface temperature on Venus: 480°C. What it would be without atmospheric greenhouse effect (dividing absolute average temperature of Mercury by 4): -160°C. Total contribution of greenhouse effect: 640°C.

Basic physics, granpa. It seems there is no level of idiocy at which you would stop. Just as I suspected, all you care about is winning. You don't care whether you're right or wrong.

Edufer

08-11-02, 07:00 PM

Overdoze, your data is improving, Your visit to the web has been fruitful. But this is not about wining or losing a discussion. Grandpa is beyond that (my grandson calls me that, so it is nice from you to remind me of my grandson). The issue here is “debate”. An exchange of opinions, some of them supported by facts, other just intuitive assumptions, many twisted arguments and lots of misconceptions and misinformation.

The important thing is acquiring new knowledge, because as we acquire knowledge we become aware of how ignorant we are becoming. How can this be? We can compare us with a pilot ready to board his plane (the learning process). The pilot’s horizon (his knowledge) is just what he can see, limited by the horizon at 16 km away. Once he’s on the air, the horizon becomes broader and he can see now up to 50 km. When reaching 10,000 meters, he can see up to 300 km, his horizon (knowledge) has extended to new limits … the astronauts have an horizon the size of the Earth. So, as we go up in the ladder to knowledge, we become aware that what we ignore it’s getting bigger and bigger, that there are infinite things that we ignored and probably will never learn.

Can infinite knowledge fit into finite neuronal connections? Is there a limit to knowledge? Just a practical one. The information enough to keep us and the rest of our fellow men alive in the best possible conditions. That includes the arts, and all spiritual stuff. Nice topic to discuss, don’t you think so? So, after this digression we can resume our business of debating a amusing subject: global warming and man-made CO2 as the culprit

The original topic was: Is Global Warming Really Happening? The scientific answer is: Yes, there is a mild warming trend since the beginning of the 20th century, (resulting from a rebound from the cooling of the Little Ice Age), that reversed severely by the 1940s, giving concern about an impending Global Cooling and, as late as July 9th, 1971, made Stephen Schneider, and Rasool S. publish a paper in Science magazine about:

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.

where they state: (and I quote):
<blockquote>
Abstract. Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
</blockquote>
Then, further on, Schneider said:
<blockquote>“How have these changes in the composition of the atmosphere affected the climate of the globe? More importantly, is it possible that a continued increase in the CO2 and dust content of the atmosphere at the present rate will produce such large-scale effects on the global temperature that the process may run away, with the planet Earth eventually becoming as hot as Venus (700 deg. K.) or as cold as Mars (230 deg. K.)?</blockquote>

So they didn’t know anything. Then, improving on their ignorance, they continued:
<blockquote>
“We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
</blockquote>
Few years later, when the warming scare was full steam ahead, they were claiming that temperatures would rise from 5 to 10°Centigrades, not Kelvin. And finally, they repeat themselves stating an apocalyptic prediction:
<blockquote>
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!
</blockquote>
Since then, Schneider et al. changed horses amidst the river, and finally jumped on the warming bandwagon. He appeared in many TV talk shows saying what he said in an interview for “Discover” magazine, Oct, 1989:
<blockquote>
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."
</blockquote>

which was an excellent sample of “Green Ethics”.

And, quoting from John Daly’s page (so you’ll not accuse me of plagiarizing), he kept going:
<blockquote>
For example, in a TV interview in 1990 to Britain's Channel 4, he remarked: 

"The rate of change is so fast that I don't hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for ecosystems."

Such a comment was quite wrong, climatically speaking, and blatantly alarmist.”

“Firstly, Schneider was not always promoting the idea of Global warming. Up to about 1978, Schneider was warning the world of an impending Global Cooling, leading to the next Ice Age !” … “Before Global Warming became the politically correct scientific fashion of the 1990s, the reverse situation existed in the 1970s, where it had become a scientific article of faith that the Ice Age was about to happen. Even the US National Academy of Sciences adopted this view.”
<center>

"There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years."</center>
”Prof Patrick Michaels, now a prominent critic of the Greenhouse scare, was justifiably sceptical then, just as he is now:<center>

"When I was going to graduate school, it was gospel that the Ice Age was about to start.
I had trouble warming up to that one too. This (greenhouse) is not the first climate apocalypse, but it's certainly the loudest”</center>

“Just as with Global Warming, we find Schneider in the vanguard of the Global Cooling doomsayers during the 1970s. It was only when global temperatures took an upward turn around 1980 that Schneider and others quickly made a career change and became passionate advocates of impending catastrophe, only this time from warming, not cooling. But then, opportunism is a trait of politicians rather than scientists.”</blockquote>

End of quoting Daly’s page.

But then, you’ll say that Fred Singer and John Daly are being paid by the oil industry, the Marshall Institute, and other demonic groups. If a serial murderer agrees with me that 2 + 2 is equivalent to 4, that does not make a dent in the fact that 2 + 2 really equals 4. The moral traits of a person have nothing to do with the truth he’s saying. For avoiding “at hominem” attacks, you should concentrate on their opinions and scientific proofs they are providing, not in the man himself. Even in the remote case that the “warming skeptics” are paid by the callous industry, that does not make the slightest dent into the scientific facts they are showing to the public. Facts are facts, even if a moron is presenting them.

But you seem to be using a peculiar reasoning here: “Industry is bad, then scientists being paid by it are also bad, so what they say must be a lie.” On the other hand, you make a backward somersault and say: “Saving the planet is a good mean, so people trying to save the planet are good, then lobbies paying scientists to save the planet must be good”. You seem to forget that the transitive condition does not always apply in this kind of reasoning. That the road to hell is paved with “good intentions”. According to Hitler, eugenics and ethnic cleansing were something “good” and desirable things.

It is my opinion that most of things proposed by the “greens” are good and desirable, but I strongly disagree in the way they propose to achieve those desires, and strongly believe that the use they make of science is biased, when not blatantly fraudulent. Examples abound in this field, so there is not much sense in trying to give you the full list of them.

And what brought us here, “global warming”, you have not told us anything new (apart from a well know graph comparing CO2 and temperatures trends, that show correlation but not causality whatsoever), have not given us any scientific proof that a CO2 increase would cause a catastrophic rise in temperature – temperatures that otherwise were reached during the Medieval Warm Period of 800 – 1250 AD, period that was labeled by climatologists all over the world (before the warming scare racket was initiated) as the Climatic Optimum. The best temperatures possible for all living matter.

Your mention of Venus runaway greenhouse effect is irrelevant, because you did not take into account that Venus’ atmosphere is 90 times denser than Earth’s, making the pressure at the surface in the order of 119.70 kg/cm2, (Earth’s is 1.33 kg/m2). Pressure increases temperature, so it is no wonder that Mars temperature are so low, because its atmosphere is extremely thin, although it is also mostly composed of CO2.

So I see no reason to keep informing you about scientific facts that disproves the threat of a catastrophic warming due to a doubling –or tripling- of CO2 in our atmosphere, because you dismiss them as coming from “paid liars” –as if warming “scientists” were not paid for their job in pushing a political agenda for something that could be labeled as “world governance”.

I know you’ll say “Here comes the ‘conspiracy’ theory again!”. Consider then that a “conspiracy” is when some people gather somehow discreetly in order to elaborate a plan that will give them more power or make them richer. Well, that’s what has been going in Earth’s history since the first “intelligent” man discovered he could convince others to work or do things in his behalf (give him more power or make him richer). He called some friends and said: “Let’s do It, let’s get richer”. And governments have been “conspiring” against other countries’ governments –and their people- for being more powerful or getting richer during the whole historical record. A quite human trait, though.

So conspiracies don’t exist, in your opinion. Forget known European 13th to 19th century history (full of conspiracies), but let’s stick to more recent events. What did the CIA do for overthrowing Salvador Allende in Chile, back in 1973? What would you call that? A poker game? What JFK did in 1962 for overthrowing Castro? A beach party? What has Osama bin Laden been doing lately? What most board directors do to oust their CEOs or overtake another company? What many wives did for killing their husbands and cashing their life insurance? This is getting funnier and funnier.

I would like to hear some opinions on this subject from other members of sciforums.

This topic has gotten a new twist.:D :p

overdoze

08-13-02, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Edufer
The original topic was: Is Global Warming Really Happening? The scientific answer is: Yes, there is a mild warming trend since the beginning of the 20th century, (resulting from a rebound from the cooling of the Little Ice Age),

The notion of a "mild warming trend" is inconsistent with the apparently exponential trend we are observing. Now, this exponent might be a fluke of the random fluctuations in the climate. Just as the cooling trend of the 1940s appear to be such a fluke (see the lower one of the pair of Cornell graphs.) However, plotted against the exponentially escalating CO2 concentration the overall trend doesn't look very random. And the ultimate question is: do we really have to take the chance? I'm all for recreational gambling, but gambling on the future of my children (or, as may be in your case, grandchildren) is not my idea of responsible behavior.

<blockquote>
It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
</blockquote>

That might be true, but the temperature still increases does it not? Where's the assymptotical limit? Is it close to modern levels/temperatures, or will it take us to a state where the ocean levels are 10 meters higher than today? 50 meters? 100 meters?

<blockquote>
For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth.
</blockquote>

That's well known. However, you should note that aerosol emissions are always the first to be cut when cleaning up industry. Today's most significant aerosols probably come from massive burning of tropical forests as a method of "liberating" exceedingly poor agricultural real estate as well as other forest fires around the world. These must be, and will be, curtailed -- and probably much faster than the world's CO2 emissions.

So they didn’t know anything.

A lot of research has gone on since 1970s. And today, far from a few alarmists, there is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. And this is not just on the part of UN or IPCC. A survey of scientific journals would show as much.

<blockquote>
It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
</blockquote>

Did you really have to go all the way back to the 1970s to dig out such a finding? What, more modern and accurate models don't produce results that suit your agenda?

Besides, "highly unlikely"? "In the next several thousand years"?? Based on what argument? Granted, a factor of 8 would clearly be catastrophic (just check out the climate history of the Cretaceous, which you confused with late Ordovician and sidestepped ever since.) Will a factor of 2 have no massive financial impact? How about a factor of 3? Do we take the chance just because we like our fossil fuel buddies more than the green "conspirators"?

Few years later, when the warming scare was full steam ahead, they were claiming that temperatures would rise from 5 to 10°Centigrades, not Kelvin.

FYI, a degree Centigrade (or Celcius) is exactly the same as a degree of Kelvin. The only difference between these two scales is the point designated as 0 degrees (Celcius 0 is distilled water at 1 atmosphere in equilibrium between solid and liquid forms; Kelvin 0 is the absolute lowest temperature in the universe, and unattainable in practice.)

And finally, they repeat themselves stating an apocalyptic prediction:
<blockquote>
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!
</blockquote>

As you may have guessed, there is little if any ground for suspecting that there would be a factor of 4 increase in the equilibrium dust concentration of the atmosphere. In stark contrast, the situation with escalating CO2 content is clearly obvious for all to see.

Since then, Schneider et al. changed horses amidst the river, and finally jumped on the warming bandwagon.

They might have scientific reasons for doing that. Would you blame former Newton proponents for jumping on the Einstein "bandwagon"?

<blockquote>
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest."
</blockquote>

which was an excellent sample of “Green Ethics”.

This is an excellent sample of politics as usual. Nothing ever gets done if the public is presented with objective truth. While a few thinking members of the public might understand a need for action, the rest of the moronic mob (which tends to be woefully science-illiterate -- especially in US! -- as well as incapable of critical thought when it doesn't have something to do with evolution or taxes) will collectively shrug and proceed to focus upon the latest sex scandal.

Now, if you purport to be a thinking individual, you should be capable of separating the wheat of scientific truth from the chaff of the political rhetoric. But quite on the contrary, all I see you doing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

<blockquote>
“Before Global Warming became the politically correct scientific fashion of the 1990s, the reverse situation existed in the 1970s, where it had become a scientific article of faith that the Ice Age was about to happen. Even the US National Academy of Sciences adopted this view.”
<center>

"There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years."</center>
</blockquote>

First of all, you might realise that much of this global cooling "scare" occurred in the context of a real need to reduce particulate emissions. A scare would have been a great political tool to achieve this. Granted, admirable though the ends were, the means in this case might have been unethical. Welcome to politics. On the other hand, you might agree that if clean-air standards were never raised above those of nineteenth century, we'd all be walking around with respiratory disease from soot and air pollution and skin conditions from acid rain (among other ailments.) And under such conditions, even a global cooling might not have been out of the question. You should also keep in mind that the majority of the world's air pollution must eventually come from the developing world as it catches up with the industrialized nations. As a rule, third-world technologies tend to be a few levels dirtier -- which in itself evidences a need for pro-active western subsidies in an effort to help the third world quantum-leap the inefficient stages of development straight toward more environmentally friendly technologies and practices. This does not always work out well as we live and learn, and you might paint such failed efforts as genocidal and/or conspiratorial on behalf of the west against the third world. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but the western meddling in the developing world's affairs is for the most part well-intentioned.

Secondly, I have little doubt that given certain input parameters, even the NAS might have concluded there was a "finite possibility". One would have to question the underlying plausibility of those parameters in the first place, however. Note that this problem does not exist with CO2, as the parameters are hardly speculative but on the contrary readily observable.

<blockquote>
Just as with Global Warming, we find Schneider in the vanguard of the Global Cooling doomsayers during the 1970s. It was only when global temperatures took an upward turn around 1980 that Schneider and others quickly made a career change and became passionate advocates of impending catastrophe, only this time from warming, not cooling.
</blockquote>

Departures from the trend within narrow windows spanning a decade are a trite matter to begin with. Consider the trend itself (lower one of the 2 Cornell graphs I've been repeatedly referencing.)

Further note the CO2 trend. Recall our calculations of human input. Take a look at the upper Cornell graph and note that, at best, it's not clear whether CO2 drives temperature or the other way around. Even though logically speaking (CO2 being a greenhouse gas), the danger of climate warming due to anthropogenic CO2 is real.

But then, you’ll say that Fred Singer and John Daly are being paid by the oil industry, the Marshall Institute, and other demonic groups. If a serial murderer agrees with me that 2 + 2 is equivalent to 4, that does not make a dent in the fact that 2 + 2 really equals 4.

Question is: agrees with whom? So far the only one making the claim is the serial murderer. When the serial murderer tells you it's OK to kill people, how do you respond?

The moral traits of a person have nothing to do with the truth he’s saying.

Unless truth is what we are judging to begin with. Do you prefer to trust someone who has a demonstrable vested interest in seeing the "truth" come out a particular way, as opposed to a disinterested party? Do you trust a habitual liar to tell the truth? Remember the tobacco wars.

For avoiding “at hominem” attacks, you should concentrate on their opinions and scientific proofs they are providing, not in the man himself.

Opinion matters little. As for scientific proof... The way empirical science works, is that multiple and independent groups using different methodologies must converge on the same result. If that doesn't happen, then the result (or at least the interpretation of it) is not to be trusted. And especially if the ones with a controversial result are also clearly the ones who are not disinterested (i.e. funded by the very industrial sector which is to be severely impacted unless it defends itself) -- then there's all the more reason not to trust them.

Even in the remote case that the “warming skeptics” are paid by the callous industry, that does not make the slightest dent into the scientific facts they are showing to the public.

Remote case?? Please! The information is all over the web (yes, even the web!) You'd have to be blind (or lazy, or worse: disingenuous) not to notice it.

Scientific facts are not scientific until replicated and accepted through consensus. Even then there's always room for doubt, reasonable or otherwise. However, policy decisions are rarely ever based on 100% indisputable facts. In an uncertain atmosphere, one has to aim for the lesser of potential evils.

Facts are facts, even if a moron is presenting them.

Far more dangerous than a moron is a clever liar with self-interest at stake. Facts are nothing; they can be lies, fabrications, illusions, misinterpretations, partial, selective, misstated, misquoted, unreproducible. Facts must be grounded in science before they have any value whatsoever.

But you seem to be using a peculiar reasoning here: “Industry is bad, then scientists being paid by it are also bad, so what they say must be a lie.” On the other hand, you make a backward somersault and say: “Saving the planet is a good mean, so people trying to save the planet are good, then lobbies paying scientists to save the planet must be good”.

This might have been a good counterpoint, if not for one shaky assumption. Namely, you rely on a presumption that all scientists are either paid by the industry or by the green lobbies. If there indeed were such a dichotomy, then you'd be right.

However, there is a middle ground of scientists who are not paid by either interested party. I would actually expect these to be the majority. And they are not on the side of the industry. In fact, the only ones on the side of the industry in the case of global warming are those organized and directly funded by the industry. This is the proverbial nail in your argument's coffin.

That the road to hell is paved with “good intentions”. According to Hitler, eugenics and ethnic cleansing were something “good” and desirable things.

And according to some, fossil fuels are the best thing ever. :rolleyes: I'm not saying that the green movement never made mistakes and never hurt or even killed anyone. But neither can you say something like that about the various global industries. And while the former is at least driven by good intentions and perhaps willing to learn from past mistakes, the latter is short-sighted, myopic, and driven by nothing but greed and will stop at nothing to attain its goals of total domination and maximum exploitation. The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but in their absense there is no road: you're in hell to begin with. Besides, the road to hell is not a one-way street; good intentions can lead you out at least as soon as in.

It is my opinion that most of things proposed by the “greens” are good and desirable, but I strongly disagree in the way they propose to achieve those desires, and strongly believe that the use they make of science is biased, when not blatantly fraudulent.

That's a whole different issue. And in fact, I largely agree. Nevertheless, I tend to take the global warming threat seriously, as according to the information I've seen the threat is at least credible if not altogether actual.

And what brought us here, “global warming”, you ... have not given us any scientific proof that a CO2 increase would cause a catastrophic rise in temperature

And you have not given us any scientific proof that a CO2 increase would not cause a rise in temperature, catastrophic or not. Now, "catastrophic" is a loaded word. Nobody is claiming that Earth would turn into a Venus. However, a rise of a few degrees Celcius, while on the surface ho-hum, could have a literally catastrophic effect on the world's economy and societies. Most of the richest and highest-productive land in the world lies along ocean shores, which would be flooded. Nobody knows the effect on atmospheric and ocean currents; it might be beneficial, but then again what if it were detrimental? How about further disruption of the ecosphere, which is groaning under the human ravages as it is?

– temperatures that otherwise were reached during the Medieval Warm Period of 800 – 1250 AD, period that was labeled by climatologists all over the world (before the warming scare racket was initiated) as the Climatic Optimum. The best temperatures possible for all living matter.

Hardly. I won't dispute the medieval warming. I won't dispute long-term climate variations. What we are discussing, however, is not natural: it's man-made. And it's not long-term: it's contemporary, and it's exponential. And as for "best temperatures possible", the reptiles would disagree. The jungles of Jurassic would have put modern rainforests to shame. In the geological long term, life would survive, adapt and thrive regardless of global climate. Question is, what sort of damage to the current human civilization in existence would occur in the geological short term.

Your mention of Venus runaway greenhouse effect is irrelevant, because you did not take into account that Venus’ atmosphere is 90 times denser than Earth’s, making the pressure at the surface in the order of 119.70 kg/cm2, (Earth’s is 1.33 kg/m2). Pressure increases temperature, so it is no wonder that Mars temperature are so low, because its atmosphere is extremely thin, although it is also mostly composed of CO2.

But neither is anyone expecting the Earth to warm up by 640 degrees. Divide that by 90, and you get roughly 7. Plus, you alleged (admittedly referencing a somewhat ancient study) that additional CO2 has exponentially less effect, so you can probably take that 7 and multiply it by a few. Of course, nobody is expecting Earth's atmosphere to become 97% CO2, either. So you can reduce that warming estimate. But then again, Venus doesn't have much water vapor or methane or...

Venus is a poster child for greenhouse effect. The only reason I mentioned that planet, is for illustration that the effect is real and that it does lead to global warming and that CO2 can indeed cause it.

Point is, the greenhouse effect on Earth wouldn't be of the same "runaway" variety that is Venus. However, nobody is certain just how the effect will scale. And if it indeed should turn out to have a runaway (or self-amplifying) quality to it, then global warming could come faster and steeper than many expect. Clearly it will level off at some point, as paleoclimatic history indicates. But where is that point? Are we absolutely confident it will not impact us too much? There's plenty of cause for concern.

And governments have been “conspiring” against other countries’ governments –and their people- for being more powerful or getting richer during the whole historical record. A quite human trait, though.

That is indisputable. However, you will note that there has never in the world been a united front. There are always factions, and the factions are always at odds with each other. If a certain block of countries conspired to limit growth of some other countries by witholding resources, then a competing block would funnel their resources to those other countries to take advantage of such an obvious market opportunity. If the dynamics of the world were driven exclusively by self-interest and greed, then the sort of conspiracy you allege would actually be impossible in practice.

What did the CIA do for overthrowing Salvador Allende in Chile, back in 1973? What would you call that? A poker game? What JFK did in 1962 for overthrowing Castro? A beach party? What has Osama bin Laden been doing lately? What most board directors do to oust their CEOs or overtake another company? What many wives did for killing their husbands and cashing their life insurance?

Even these relatively tiny conspiracies are ultimately revealed. What are the odds that first, a global conspiracy would form (against all the frictions and rivalries); second, it would remain in force for decades at a stretch; and finally it would be successfully kept a secret for that long with no whistleblowers with pangs of conscience and/or damning evidence surfacing? Remember that until quite recently, the world was in the grip of a Cold War, with two major camps duking it out on the international arena. If the Western powers worked to degrade the third world, don't you think that would be a prime opportunity for the Communist side to infiltrate and breed revolution? In this sense, any Western conspiracy (at least prior to 1990s) to keep the third world down would have been suicidal.

odin

08-21-02, 08:23 PM

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/17/wglac17.xml

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/08/19/pluto.warming/index.html

BatM

09-04-02, 06:45 PM

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00078FDB-D9ED-1D29-97CA809EC588EEDF&catID=2

Banshee

09-05-02, 07:06 PM

U.N.: Freak Weather, Warming Linked
AFP

Aug. 30 — Evidence is growing of a link between global warming and the floods and droughts that devastated parts of Asia and Europe this year, the head of the United Nations' body on climate change said at the Earth Summit Friday.
Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told journalists there was undeniable proof that the Earth was warming.

Scientists, he said, were striving to determine whether these higher temperatures had already wreaked climate change, including extreme weather events. It was impossible to give a "scientifically robust answer" at the moment, he said.

But, he said, "I think the evidence is becoming stronger that a lot of these extreme events are part of the overall process of climate change."

"(...) There is a fair amount of statistical evidence and there is certainly anecdotal evidence that with the events that you see around the world which are extreme in nature, there is obviously a growing frequency, a growing severity, and I think the indications are that there is a link there."

Ramon Pichs Madruga, a member of the panel that specializes in mitigating the effects of climate change, told AFP that the cyclones hitting the Caribbean were become more frequent and more intense, and there was "evidence and associations" that this was caused by global warming.

In a lengthy report last year that had resounding political repercussions, the IPCC predicted the Earth's mean surface temperature would increase by between 1.4 and 5.8 Celsius (2.5 to 10.4 Fahrenheit) by 2100, compared with 1990 levels.

Sea levels would rise from 8 to 88 centimeters (3.6 to 35 inches), a potential threat to small island states and low-lying areas, it said.

Action to tackle global warming was launched 10 years ago at the first Earth Summit in Rio, which led last year to the Kyoto Protocol, a deal that commits rich industrialized signatories to cutting emissions of fossil-fuel gases.

President George W. Bush walked away from the treaty last year, leaving the ambitious pact almost crippled. American opposition to Kyoto was a key factor in ensuring that global warming and climate change are only minor items at this summit, delegates said.

Attempts to include a brief reference of support for Kyoto in the summit's blueprint for action have triggered fierce rows between the United States and the European Union, the protocol's main backer.

On Thursday, an Austrian research paper released on the sidelines of the summit warned that more than three dozen of the world's poorest countries might lose up to a fifth of their grain-growing capacity by 2080 because of water scarcity caused by warming.

Ironically, the rich world, which has most to blame for the climate change threat, would benefit. Farmers in cold regions in North America and northern Europe would be able to open up lands for crop-growing, according to the study, conducted by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Pachauri said that it was vital to start work now to help combat the effects of climate change in poor, vulnerable countries.

Global warming is a complex interplay of the world's seas, atmosphere and land, and it is only in the past decade that scientific tools have emerged that give an accurate idea of the phenomenon. Oil, gas and coal release carbon dioxide when they are burned. The gas acts like an invisible shroud, trapping the sun's heat instead of letting it radiate safely back into space.

Popcorn8636

09-05-02, 09:40 PM

Well, there's been more than one ice age in the past few million years, could this just be something that happenes every few thousand years? :)

BatM

09-06-02, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Popcorn8636
Well, there's been more than one ice age in the past few million years, could this just be something that happenes every few thousand years? :)

How often it happens is not really the issue (I think I remember someone saying that ice ages average about once every 20000 years). The issues are:

How soon will the next catastrophe be?
How severe will the next catastrophe be?
Can the human race survive the next catastrophe in "good shape"?

The last question is the interesting one. Sure, some of the human race will survive pretty much any global catastrophe (short of global blowup or meltdown) even if it knocks us back to "caveman days". However, wouldn't you rather avoid any coming catastrophe if possible so that your children or grandchildren have a better place to live?

Clockwood

10-20-02, 01:36 AM

that date has to be wrong (at least for big ice ages)

i think its more like 100,000 years

BatM

10-20-02, 09:44 PM

Well, maybe so. According to here (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/), there have been 20 ice ages in the last 2 million years. That would average to one every 100000 years.

boppa

01-03-03, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Bambi
Would the greenhouse effect deniers explain the following (and please note the exponential nature of the ongoing increase):

http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/~plh2/group/glblwarm/CO2TEMP.GIF

Note that no 10,000 year old ice age can possibly even begin to explain the exponential rise that occurred in the last couple of centuries. Also note the correlation between C02 and average global temperature over the past 160 thousand years. Notice the graph above ends with C02 ppm concentration of under 250. Notice the graph below shows current C02 ppm concentration of ~350 and rising exponentially. Finally, note that in the graph above the total range of variation of C02 concentration is about 100 ppm, corresponding to a temperature range of about 12.5 degrees.

Now, would someone please deny all of the above so that we can breathe a collective sigh of relief and go about our normal daily business of screwing our children over?

what i can see from bambis graphs is-a steep rise at the end of the graph(first graph)yes
but also an equally steep rise at the BEGINNING of that graph(in fact almost identical)

which is 140 to 120 thousand years ago

and unless im badly mistaken at that time world population wasnt as at present,polution wasnt at present etc etc

could the current global warming be-shock,horror- a NATURAL cycle??

kmguru

01-03-03, 01:40 PM

May be 140,000 years ago the people engaged in too much methane production and caused the global warming and ice age....

Then we started all over....from the caves....

BatM

01-03-03, 05:52 PM

Or maybe there was some natural factor at that time that caused it. What was happening at that time in the world?

However, note that the peaks in the first graph for CO2 are around 290ppm and that the peak in the second graph (the more precise one of the current situation) is trending toward 360ppm. Also, note how temperature and CO2 seem related in the two graphs. Could we use this to predict the future? Who knows, but it is a bit worrying to some people.

:eek:

kmguru

01-03-03, 11:42 PM

CO2 release from automobiles can be controlled better than from power plants unless we want to go 80% nuclear which creates its own set of problems.

First, the developed countries should give tax breaks/credits to people who drive electric or hydrogen based cars. Tax breaks and credits also should go to companies who set up remote working /home working for their employees.

In developing countries, the problem is deforestation for fuel and other purposes.

Slacker47

01-04-03, 12:11 AM

I dont have time to read all the other posts, I just got back in town.. but here is what i believe:

I was flying back into town today, and I was on an evening flight. Mid flight, I saw the most beautiful sunset that i have ever seen. I was going to take a picture, but I realized that photographs are just another human creation. I continued pondering about the growing pollution problems. As night fell upon the skies, I looked down and saw the glimmering lights of what I thought was my city, Houston, but it was a much smaller city more northern. At that moment, I was struck by complete awe and sadness because of the vast amount of pollution that eminated from that small city. It was then that i recalled one night that I stood on a balcony with my freind and he asked me if I ever thought about how many people were on the earth and how I would never know 99.99% of them. I gazed upon the desolate city once more before crying.

Whether or not global warming occurs because of fossil fuel output or by some other factor, why do we as the most powerful living force destroy everything? This question burned in my temples as my teary eyes looked past the small town below me and out into the black sky. The sky was black because the pollutants absorbed the light from the stars. Its not just the fact that humans pollute and crush the earth, the fact that people deny thier effect on nature hurts more. If everyone admitted that we have a pollution problem, atleast we would have a common ground to build a solution on, but even the US government denies global warming as a threat..

AND THEY ARE FIGHTING A FUCKING WAR FOR OIL!!!

Humanity is a disease that plagues nature and all of its inhabitants. We are highly contagious and incurable.

BatM

01-04-03, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Slacker47

Humanity is a disease that plagues nature and all of its inhabitants. We are highly contagious and incurable.

Maybe someday will learn how to give that particular disease to other worlds and, thus, take the pressure off ole' Mother Earth.

;)

odin

01-04-03, 03:21 PM

Antarctica's ice sheet melting naturally
New info.
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) has been melting naturally and releasing water to the ocean for the last 10,000 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2624603.stm

BatM

01-04-03, 03:35 PM

Yes, and it could continue melting for another 7000 years or it could dramatically speed up depending upon the effects of global warming. The scientists don't know if there will be any effect from global warming.

Clockwood

01-04-03, 09:51 PM

There are allready several big effects. Longer growing seasons, higher treelines, and all habatats are moving polewards.

BatM

01-05-03, 12:31 PM

Effects of the current melting of the West Antartic Ice Sheet?? Do you have any references to this?

Edufer

01-08-03, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Clockwood
There are allready several big effects. Longer growing seasons, higher treelines, and all habatats are moving polewards.
Then, why all frost lines (as reported by the US. Dept. of Agriculture) have been moving SOUTH in Florida?. Planters used to grow oranges (citrus) as north as Jackonsville. The frost lines have moved 100 miles south to Orlando.

How do you explain the tremendous colds being experienced in the northern Hemisphere right now? China is currently breaking cold and snow records, but this is not being reported by the western press. Had it been the other way around - warm events - the media would have been salivating about global warming.

Take a look at these links (press news from China, Vietnam, etc): Here is how the Chinese People's Daily is reporting it
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200301/03/eng20030103_109468.shtml "Yellow River Frozen along 1,211 Kilometers" “China's 5,400-km Yellow River has frozen along a course of about 1,211 kilometers so far this winter, according to sources with the Yellow River Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters”.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200212/29/eng20021229_109243.shtml “Snow Hits Northern Guangdong” Snow has been falling in the northern mountain areas of south China's Guangdong Province over the past few days, a rare sight in these areas.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200212/24/eng20021224_109001.shtml “Heavy Snow in Beijing Spells Joy And Trouble"” As streams of pedestrians and vehicles inched along Beijing's streets Monday, China's capital city has been blanketed by falling snow for six days in a row -- its longest consecutive snowfall for the last 128 years.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200212/27/eng20021227_109141.shtml “Taklimakan Covered with Thick Snow"” Taklimakan, the largest desert in China and one of the largest moving ones in the world, has got a 14-cm deposit of snow due to consecutive snowing since December 18.

<CENTER>Asia Freezes</CENTER>

The freezing weather in China reported above has also spread far beyond China. Anomalous cold weather is also being reported in http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030102/ap_wo_en_po/as_wea_south_asia_cold_snap_1 India, where upwards of 250 people are reported to have died from weather related causes.”

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030101/wl_nm/weather_bangladesh_cold_dc_1 Bangladesh has seen 119 such deaths. Japan has seen disruptions to transport services including up to 2,000 people being stranded on trains.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2002/12/29/188987 Taiwan has seen wintry weather sufficient to threaten native wild life.

Even tropical http://www.vov.org.vn/2002_12_30/english/xahoi.htm#Snowfall%20hits%20northern%20mountain%20 Vietnam has not been spared where a cold spell has hit northern Vietnam with average temperatures dropping sharply from 13 to 4 degrees Celsius.

<CENTER>Power Crisis in Northern Europe (7 Jan 03) </CENTER>

It seems the whole Northern Hemisphere is being swept up in a deep freeze stretching all the way from the USA to Japan to China, India, Bangladesh, Russia, eastern Europe, and now northern Europe. Those countries which were wise enough not to degrade their regular power sources for the new `green' sources are well placed to ride through this period. However, some countries have been foolish enough not to maintain their traditional sources and these are now paying the penalty with insufficient power to meet consumer needs for heating and the prospect of massive electricity bills for consumers.

http://www.helsinki-hs.net/news.asp?id=20030103IE12 Finland finds itself with a shortfall of about 10% on power, making up the difference with imported power from Sweden and Russia. Pity about all those windmills with blades hanging limp just when you need them most.

Norway is similarly hit. No new national power plant has been built for 10 years or so because of environmental politics. Plans for two new natural gas plants were also ditched a few years ago. Production is now to low to keep up with demand in a normal year.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=466191 Two elderly Oslo residents died after they were found in unheated apartments.

Also in Norway, http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=464802 electricity prices have risen three-fold in only a few months as demand-driven consumption is forcing up prices in a recently deregulated market.

What makes this problem all the more serious is that these countries have very long nights at this time of year, making the freezing cold virtually permanent with little relief from higher daytime temperatures.

A word of advice to our Nordic friends. Forget Kyoto. Forget the green delusions. Forget the UN doomsayers and their `consensus'. Go build a few coal or gas power plants and put this nightmare behind you. If `global warming' were that real, this would not be happening.

Edufer

01-08-03, 08:42 PM

Excerpts from the links provided above:

In Finland: By contrast, the icebreakers are hard at work, since the seas around Finland have frozen over at a brisk rate, roughly a month ahead of schedule. Harbour icebreakers barely have time to turn around after clearing a fairway for incoming and outgoing vessels before it has frozen up again.

http://www.helsinki-hs.net/news.asp?id=20030102IE4

Cold, cold, cold: New Year comes in with record low temperatures

Finland is known in the wider world as a country of extreme cold, but we tend to shrug these matters off, knowing that the nation's infrastructure is built to withstand climatic extremes, and that it takes more than a dip in the mercury to stop the trains or prevent the snowploughs from keeping the roads clear.

All this being said, the last few days have tested Finnish resolve, as record winter lows were reached in many places and district heating systems hiccupped, leaving several thousand people without warmth when they would sorely have needed it.
The winter's unofficial record low temperature now stands at -40.3°C, posted on New Year's Eve in Toholampi, in Central Ostrobothnia. This narrowly defeated a reading in the Lapland ski resort of Salla on Monday night. We are nevertheless a good 10 degrees short of the all-time record of -51.5°C set in 1999.

Things are unlikely to get much better very fast. An area of very cold air is going to remain over central and northern districts of the country until the other side of the coming weekend. Things will thaw out a little in the south of Finland, but conditions even down here will remain decidedly Arctic, according to the Finnish Meteorological Institute.

Curiously enough, the very far north of the country has not had it quite so bad. In Utsjoki (about as far as you can go without hitting Norway and the Arctic Ocean) on New Year's Day it was only -10°C, while Helsinki shivered around 15 degrees below this. The cold was compounded by a light northerly wind that reduced the real temperature by a further several degrees.

Electricity consumption has naturally peaked with the cold spell. On New Year's Eve at around 6pm, the all-time Finnish record for consumption was reached, at 13,650 MW. There were no problems despite the large drain on the system, as power was imported from Russia and also from the joint-Nordic electricity market via Sweden and Norway.

However, pipe breakages and faults in the district heating network led to thousands going without warm radiators and hot water in Kerava (just outside Helsinki), Oulu, and Rovaniemi. In Kerava the indoor temperature in several homes dipped to around 10°C on Tuesday evening. By Wednesday the problem at the local heating plant had been fixed and people could take off their fur coats once more.

This morning, local train services in the Greater Helsinki area were also badly hit as people returned to work after the New Year's break. A number of trains were taken out of service in the early morning as the extreme cold interfered with hydraulic braking systems, and this caused widespread cancellations and gave commuters a chilly wait on platforms. By around 9 am, schedules were returning to normal.

The unusually early arrival of severe winter conditions has also caused the icebreaker fleet to move fast. On Thursday a sixth icebreaker, the Botnica, will head out from Helsinki's Katajanokka for the Gulf of Finland, where it will join the Voima in keeping sea-lanes open. The ice in the northern part of the Gulf of Bothnia is already around 50cm thick, and Kontio has been up there shepherding merchant shipping since mid-November. She was joined recently by Otso, Urho, and Fennica.

Late News: This winter's minimum temperature figure has been rewritten, with the town of Kuhmo (famed for its Chamber Music Festival) moving into the lead on Wednesday night with an impressive score of -41.3°C. This is of course still well short of our all-time low, and positively balmy when set alongside the world record of -89.2°C set at the Vostok Research Station in Antarctica one July day in 1983.

Just to give some balance, Finland's record high dates from July 1914, when Turku enjoyed 35.9°C, and the January maximum belongs to Mariehamn in the Åland Islands, where the temperature crept up to +10.9°C in January 1973.
--------------------------------
Look up there: highest temp in 1973,
coldest: 1914

Where is global warming?

BatM

01-08-03, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Edufer

Where is global warming?

Now, now. If you're going to scan the news reports, you can also find a lot of news reports talking about record high temperatures in the last year (as recently as in the last month).

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=record+high+temperature+2002

You haven't proven anything.

Edufer

01-09-03, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by BatM

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=record+high+temperature+2002

You haven't proven anything. [/B]

Come on, BatM! The link you prvided shows temperatures taken at urban stations, suffering from the "urban heat island effect".

Try again, this time with rural areas.

See rural stations ALL OVER the world:

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

BatM

01-09-03, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Edufer

Come on, BatM! The link you prvided shows temperatures taken at urban stations, suffering from the "urban heat island effect".

Point was that anomalies fall in both directions. Just as record highs don't necessarily prove global warming, neither does record lows necessarily disprove it.

The overall trend still appears to be up:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/

(and this data has been adjusted for UHI)

Edufer

01-09-03, 09:39 PM

The overall trend still appears to be up:
This is the IPCC temperature chart, as shown in its 2000 Report on climate change.
<center>
<img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-2/giss2000.gif>
</center>
Nice upward trend! Now take a look at the US record (1880-1999):
<center>
The U.S. Record

<img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-2/usa-1999.gif>
</center>
This is the composite record from hundreds of weather stations in the 48 states of the contiguous USA., the early 1930s being the hottest years of the 20th century. This is completely at variance with the GISS global record shown above.

Is the US record a better reflection of the global picture? Urbanisation has been more successfully corrected for in the US than in the rest of the world.

The US has the best maintained network of weather stations in the world, and this must surely be a better representation of the global picture too. The US record also agrees with the satellites

Judge yourself. Show me any warming trend.

Then I'll show you a down trend from 1932 to 1999. Can you see it?

BatM

01-09-03, 11:41 PM

I'm going to disappoint you a little here in that I am not going to disagree with you. :D

I'll note that both graphs were in the URL (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/) I posted. You should note that your second graph is (I think) a little out of date in that the data has been adjusted for homogeneity (Hansen, et.al., describe why here (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/gpol/abstracts/2001/HansenRuedyS.html) -- so much for your point on US data being a better reflection of the world ;) ). However, while the new data does show a slight warming trend since the 1970s, I don't think the difference is all that great and Hansen (et.al.) point to the need for further analysis (but you should probably look at their PDF paper (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/gpol/papers/2001/2001_HansenRuedyS.pdf)). Both graphs now show a strong warming from 1880 to 1940, a cooling from 1940 to 1970, and a warming from 1970 to now (stronger globally than in the US).

One note of disagreement. The US represents 2% of the world's surface, so local weather anomalies could be accounting for the differences and, thus, make it less of an indicator of what is going on worldwide. So, until we have more study, your second graph doesn't necessarily discount your first.

Do you have a regional graph for Asia over the same time period?

pumpkinsaren'torange

01-11-03, 12:49 PM

well, either that or El Nino is up to no good again...

here in Iowa a typical january day is around 10-20 degrees. this past week we broke a record with a 65 degree high.

BatM

01-11-03, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Andre

Some weather stations around the world, I found here (bottom page) (http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/surface1.htm). please be so kind to indicate where global warming is happening. :)

Of course, I am not a climatologist to analyze this data and determine how significant each is. The problem with looking at individual items is that you can miss the forest through all the trees (;)). The Goddard Institute for Space Studies, though, produced the data and have analyzed the data. The results of their analysis is shown in this URL (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/) (note appendix 1 and 2). You can also click on the GIS map link on that page (under appendix 2) and try your own analysis.

:p

hotsexyangelprincess

01-12-03, 01:08 PM

I do believe that Global warming will happen, no matter how we try to stop it. I believe the solution is to find a way off this planet, and terraform Mars or some place like that. Change is Inevitable.:m:

odin

01-12-03, 02:22 PM

and terraform Mars or some place like that

Don't think you could that unless you could move Mars closer to the Sun.
:(

BatM

01-13-03, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by odin

Don't think you could that unless you could move Mars closer to the Sun.
:(

Or move (the equivalent of) the Sun closer to Mars. :bugeye:

:D

BatM

01-13-03, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Andre
So there is some warming up and some cooling down. The balance was on warming the last decade but on cooling in the years before. This is hardly antropogenic global warming.

Why? As you're about to point out, solar radiation may been a part of the rise and fall in temperature over the last century. However, would the fall have been greater had there not been anthropogenic influences keeping it somewhat inflated? :bugeye:

The roots of the greenhous gasses hype were based on the correlation between alleged temperature and the carbon containing gasses during the pleistocene. And this would have amounted to a global warming in the order of magnitide of some 10 degrees celcius while -I say again- we now also have a new formal scientific estimate of one degree Celsius for doubling the amount of carbon dioxide.

You'll note that the changes in the Pleistocene occurred over thousands of years. You'll also note that the CO2 concentration levels are quite a bit higher than they were during the Pleistocene (and the change occurred in a century). How quickly does the environment respond to the changes?

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

So perhaps some composite and tuned graphs may need a second opinion. Perhaps climate is even more related with solar activity. Perhaps this also has some relevance:

Perhaps, but how much?

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/causes.htm#solarcause

BatM

01-14-03, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Andre
There are a lot of unusual terms here. Anybody let me know if some more elaboration is required.

Yeah, you went too deep ( :bugeye: ) here for me. Can you break it down better? :confused:

odin

01-14-03, 06:16 PM

Or move (the equivalent of) the Sun closer to Mars.

& which do you think would be easer?

:)

BatM

01-14-03, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by odin
Or move (the equivalent of) the Sun closer to Mars.

& which do you think would be easer?

:)

Moving the equivalent of the Sun to Mars, of course. ;)

Remember, for the terraforming project, we'd only be talking about providing enough candle power to light up (a portion of) Mars -- not the whole solar system. :rolleyes:

fireguy_31

01-14-03, 08:28 PM

Okay, I tried to read most of the posts on the last thread titled,"Global Warming, is it really Happening?" but I lost interest after a while.
Whats important to remember is what the consequences are if we(as a society)are accelerating the "anthropocentric belief" of a natural global warming and cooling trend. There is not enough evidence to prove one way or the other.
But, all you have to do is look at our dwindling agricultural land, expanding deserts, shrinking polar caps, extreme weather phenomenons, accellerated species exterpation and ultimate extinction rates, birth defects, increasing diseases, lack of clean drinking water supplies, increased air pollution, shrinking natural resource base, etc etc etc.....And they can all be linked to global warming. Now, what do you think is important? Whether or not it's happening, or whether or not we should take steps to reverse it?

Maxine

01-20-03, 05:08 AM

I can say with a LOUD DEFINANT voice that the environment is changing for the worst. The weather is really becoming unusual and the storms are getting more catastrophic. Scientists said that within the next 200 years, our weather will change. Then they said, within the next 100 years, then 70 years, and finally, whats it going to be? They changed their minds within a 2 year period. Ice is melting faster than anyone can gather information and I think we are headed for an environmental catastrophy. Our world leaders have been forewarned by the likes of David Suzuki and other environmental scientists about the dangers of pollution, and how we need to convert to electric motors to save the planet. This was many years ago, and what has been done to date? Nothing!:( Its a shame that greed comes before the people.

Zeaper

01-30-03, 11:59 AM

Being loud and defiant does not make you right or credible!

Weather is always changing it is a matter of personal preference if it changes for the good or the bad.

Rick

01-31-03, 04:25 AM

Just to illustrate to you what i am talking about couple of years back i saw on Discovery some nerdy reporter talking about a Volcanic Erruption in U.S in Yellow Stone Park and said it was due this year,it was in 1999 i think.They said the Yellow stone park got its erruption about 600,000 years back and that was all and after that it was lull.

This prediction was B.S as we can see by time itself...

bye!

Edufer

02-04-03, 12:50 PM

Maxine:

…the environment is changing for the worst. The weather is really becoming unusual and the storms are getting more catastrophic. Scientists said that within the next 200 years, our weather will change. Then they said, within the next 100 years, then 70 years, and finally, what’s it going to be? They changed their minds within a 2 year period. Ice is melting faster than anyone can gather information and I think we are headed for an environmental catastrophe. Our world leaders have been forewarned by the likes of David Suzuki and other environmental scientists about the dangers of pollution, and how we need to convert to electric motors to save the planet. This was many years ago, and what has been done to date? Nothing! Its a shame that greed comes before the people.
I agree with the last phrase in your post. The rest is the eternal Green Litany that does see only bad things going on, while hiding the head in the sand for the real good ones that are making us live better every day.

The changing mind of the warming scientists (200 years to 70 years for Apocalypse) just show how clumsy their predictions were –and still are. The shoddy science they use is entirely based on “computer modeling”, something that has not been able to predict even next week weather. The shun and ignore all real world observations –on any subject. Species extinctions, ozone hole, overpopulation, deforestation.. –you name it- all these things are based on “modeling” and “projections” that ignore scientific evidence.

So the planet is warming catastrophically? There are not many records on weather as cold as the one going on in the northern Hemisphere, with winter arriving to Finland and Sweden a FULL MONTH earlier than ever. Perhaps the global warming is to blame for the cold weather.

Perhaps the warming provoked the huge and never seen before snowstorm in the Andes last week, in the Mt. Aconcagua area, forcing Army helicopters to go rescuing many mountain climbers that were attempting to climb the Aconcagua (highest peak in the Americas) because this is the station (full summer) that allows the climbing. We had such a cool spring and summer down here in Argentina, that when the normal temperatures returned (briefly) to 37-38°C the TV stations were filled with news bulletins shouting “Heat wave!”. They forget the good old days when “normal” used to be in the range of 40-42°C…

Perhaps October was the coldest month in 50 years in the Northern Hemisphere (as stated by the WMO in November) because the planet is warming. They corrected that cold record with December and now with January. Perhaps millions of gullible people will keep believing the Earth is warming. Geez!

The planet does not need to be saved from no one. At least there is no spotted comet or asteroid going down on us, for the time being. Earth has existed for eons without man on its surface, and will keep doing it after we are wiped out by the next big asteroid or comet –but even in that case, I guess Hollywood and NASA will have the spaceships needed to mine their surfaces and blow the thing to smithereens with H-bombs (no need to sacrifice the crew, though!).

BatM

02-04-03, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Edufer

So the planet is warming catastrophically? There are not many records on weather as cold as the one going on in the northern Hemisphere, with winter arriving to Finland and Sweden a FULL MONTH earlier than ever. Perhaps the global warming is to blame for the cold weather.

Still using the "one contrary example disproves the trend" approach, huh? :rolleyes:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/observe/surftemp/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/gpol/abstracts/2003/RootPrice.html
http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2003/2003-02-04-06.asp
http://www.iht.com/articles/81978.html

spuriousmonkey

02-05-03, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Edufer

So the planet is warming catastrophically? There are not many records on weather as cold as the one going on in the northern Hemisphere, with winter arriving to Finland and Sweden a FULL MONTH earlier than ever. Perhaps the global warming is to blame for the cold weather.

i don't think that the winter arrived a month too early in finland. It was just that is was exceptionally cold in the beginning of the winter. May I also remember you that last year there was an extremely moderate winter in finland.

one swallow doesn't make it spring

BatM

02-05-03, 05:42 PM

And now for the flip-side:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_580961.html
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/fall98/ozone.html

:p

Slacker47

02-05-03, 06:55 PM

During November - Febuary, is this the coldest or warmest months in the Antartic?

Andre, all of your articles about the Antartic re-growing were published in January. Think about that. If it is the warmest months, then great, I am glad to know this. The problem is that biased sources sometimes push information.

Edufer

02-08-03, 01:02 PM

i don't think that the winter arrived a month too early in finland. It was just that is was exceptionally cold in the beginning of the winter. May I also remember you that last year there was an extremely moderate winter in finland.

one swallow doesn't make it spring
Excerpts from a Finnish newspaper (the link below)

"Exceptionally cold weather is trying the Finns. So far this winter has been 4-5 degrees colder than average. The autumn that preceded it was exceptionally short, and the summer unusually warm and dry. In a short time the record books have been largely rewritten."

"The beginning of January continues the same trend. In Helsinki the mean temperature of the month's first eight days was -7.1°C in Jyväskylä, -11.5°C in Oulu -12.3°C, and in Sodankylä it was -16.5°C. The long-term average temperatures at all these locations for this time of year are some four degrees higher, namely -2.9°C, -7.2°C, -8.2°C, and -13.1°C.

"Statistics reveal that this year winter arrived earlier than usual and "overnight". The autumn was here today and gone tomorrow. Usually autumn lingers around for eight to nine weeks. This time the season lasted a measly four weeks. The trees hadn't undressed before winter arrived, and we had the tragicomic spectacle of birch trees in full leaf covered in snow."

http://www.helsinki-hs.net/picpage.asp?IsoID=4LWnI8bgM

"The mean temperatures for September-November were among the coldest in over a hundred years. In Jyväskylä the period's mean temperature of +0.2°C equalled that of the record cold autumn of 1993. Both in Helsinki (+3.7°C) and in Oulu (+0.1°C) this was the fifth coldest autumn, and in Sodankylä (-3.1°C) the ninth coldest autumn in a century of measurements."

This seems to be quite a big swallow...

Dwayne D.L.Rabon

02-08-03, 01:31 PM

Global warming is caused by a increase in gravity, the earth gets about 3 feet closer to the sun every year, this rate of approach towards the sun increase not only because of the gravity of the sun which attracts the earth at a constant, but the earth gets closer to the sun at a accelreated rate because the sun is moving away from the star group ALPHA CENTAURI a three star system, as are solar syatem gets furthur away from the star group ALPHA it changes our orbit to a less elliptic orbit, currently the earth bounces back and forth about 2 million miles in orbit, as well get farthe away from ALPHA the earths orbit is stays closer to the sun, this causes the earth to warm. this action of our sun to get farther from ALPHA also effects are rotation, and causes are magnetic pole to switch which occurs ever 5,000 years or so, the farther we get the sooner the pole switches, when the poles switch it destroys just about every thing on earth, the next one is due in 10 to 39 years, when the poles are about to switch gravity begins to pick up and cause the earth to warm and the upper atmopshere to to collaspe, and sure enough that happens right about the ozone level, the pole switch is the number one cause of the ozone hole, and if you check you will see that the ozone hole is right where ALPHA sets on 67 degrees? and moves across the sky with the earths tilt to the south pole 80 degress lat? the ozone hole starts where ever the ALPHA is at at that time or where it is not at i should say.

The warming of earth is caused by a gravity increase.

The world should pay attention because it is soon in for a ride it will never forget, world civilization is in a struggle for its very existance. i mean it when i say it, it is hard rolling on humankind. without preplanning the human race is likly to go exstinct. and thats no joke. i just don't know how to make it ring in your ears so that the bell wakes up!

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

BatM

02-08-03, 02:12 PM

Not that I don't believe you, but where did you get that the Earth's magnetic poles switch every 5000 years (or so)? Do you have any historical references to what happened during the last shift (5000 years ago would be about the time of the Egyptian pharoahs)?

BatM

02-08-03, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Edufer

This seems to be quite a big swallow...

That's okay, there's a big pond out there to find warmer water to drink... :D

From the last paragraph of the GISS 2002 Summation on Global Temperature Trends (which only ran up to November):

The temperature anomalies for November 2002 (Figure 3) show that the monthly fluctuations of temperature in any given region are generally larger than the magnitude of global warming. Thus November was much cooler than normal in the eastern two-thirds of the United States, in northern Europe, and in China and Japan. These short-term fluctuations are natural variations of climate.

However, the first sentence of the Summation says:

The 2002 meteorological year is the second warmest year in the period of accurate instrumental data (since the late 1800s).

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/observe/surftemp/

:p

Dwayne D.L.Rabon

02-08-03, 02:42 PM

Dwayne D.L.Rabon

02-08-03, 03:16 PM

Boy you sure got hold of the wrong information. you had better check again,
the aggreed fequency of the pole switch has been 5,000 years for more that 30 years.

the poles switch when the magentic pole is inducted by the rotational axis of the earth which causes the poles to collaspe, currently the magentic pole is less than 10 degrees from the earths axis, a recored of the magentic fields motion gives a time frame of about 10 to 39 years, 10 years as the suns magentic poles switch that occures in 2011/2012 might trigger the earths pole reversal.

take time to learn about it and learn how to survive it.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

Fraggle Rocker

02-08-03, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Boy you sure got hold of the wrong information. you had better check again, the aggreed fequency of the pole switch has been 5,000 years for more that 30 years.Most of us are not scientists and have trouble wading through scholarly papers. But we are familiar with the scientific method and the principle that extraordinary assertions require extraordinary substantiation. Are any others of you familiar with what Dwayne is talking about? Some of you ARE scientists and understand this stuff. As for myself, I'm understandably very skeptical of a person passing himself off as a scientist who makes three bonehead spelling errors in three lines.

BatM

02-08-03, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon

take time to learn about it and learn how to survive it.

How about helping us by telling us where to find the information to learn about this?

:confused:

Persol

02-08-03, 03:54 PM

I think you can find it up his ass...

Right to the left of my foot.

Edufer

02-08-03, 10:20 PM

Let me analize two lines in the GISS 2002 Summary:

Originally posted by BatM
"Thus November was much cooler than normal in the eastern two-thirds of the United States, in northern Europe, and in China and Japan. These short-term fluctuations are natural variations of climate.

"The 2002 meteorological year is the second warmest year in the period of accurate instrumental data (since the late 1800s).
According to GISS, when weather goes cooler, fluctuations are "natural", but when they get warmer, then they are "man-made". >What a laugh!

But, contrary to GISS assertion, temperature readings became accurate just after 1979, when wheather satellites were launched (the TIROS series). And those readings contradict GISS claims that 2002 has been "the second warmest year" since the 1800s. "warmers" dismiss accurate satellite readings and rely on flawed readings from earth stations suffering from the "heat island effect". You know that, BatM, and it seems you are stubbornly looking away from real world observations and measurements.

For anyone interested in readings from hundresds of stations all over the world -that show no overal warming trend- go to:

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm and check for yourself the data. Official data, for that matter...

What GISS is not mentioning is the unsually cold summer we are having in the Southern Hemisphere. We had at home (36°S, 64°W) just ten days with "normal" temperatures of about 35 - 38°C, while the other 100 days (spring and 40 days of summer) had the highest temperatures in the 20°C to 27°C range. About 7 -10°C lower than normal!

And speaking of swallows: remember the swallows that arrived at San Jose de Capistrano, Calif., around beggining of April 2002?. They had started their journey from the city of Goya, Corrientes, Argentina, on mid February, a full 14 days earlier than ever, due to the extremely cool summer we had last year (from Dec to March, here). That should tell you something is getting cool down here (and up there too, as shown in Finalnd, the US, and Northern Europe.) :D ;)

Dwayne D.L.Rabon

02-09-03, 10:56 AM

Well it would seem that some have quite a imagination, ect.... regardless it is as usual people fail to understand that a magnetic reversal is a real event, i in general think that it is because so many of you do not want to face the change it is just to big of a change for you to take in all at once and relate that to a near future event that will involve you or your children. belivie me it is understandable! you will have to grow into it. as i exsplain it.
let me say this don't get strirred brained and panic, keep a cool head and think about waht you can do to prepare for such a event.

Frist of lets start with a obvious demonstration of a magentic pole reversal.
The Sun at the center of the solar system, the one that you see in the sky every day has a magnetic pole reversal every 11 years.
the effects of that magnetic reversal are seen on the sun, and as well it effects earths magnetic feild. a study of this event on the sun is the study of magnetic reversal that occur in planetary bodies. by this example of the magentic filed reversal we can see that magnetic reversal is a real event.
So then waht happens in the sun to causes its magnetic field reversal. well what can be said directly from observation is that the magnetic pole of the sun approaches the axis of the sun from a distance about 7 degrees once it gains on the axis it collaspes, or for those that question it just reverses, switches poles. under any event this takes about 11 years and has a consistance timing of every 11 years, this means that a magnetic reversal is a constant, and being a constant it is driven by a constant force.
Now looking at the earth we see that it has a magnetic field, so does it reverse, a investigation reveals that yes it does reverse. this investigation of the earths magnetic poles began with the use of the compass in sea fareing, navigators relized that the magnetic pole seem to be moving, this lead to all kind of theroys about the magnetic pole. about 100 years ago the source of the magnetic force was soughtout, and it was marked. since that day it has been continously monitored. this monitoring has established that the magnetic pole is moving, and it moves in the opposite direction of the earths rotation.
http://geomag.usgs.gov/MagCharts/wmm-gif/N_magpl.gif

The above is at the curtosey of the USA goverment

it demonstrates the motion of the poles over 100 years, this motion of the pole is north north east, in this action its motion is towards the rotational axis of the earth.
in understanding this motion it is known that from its speed of motion that the magentic poles do not travel from north to south, where if this was the case the earth would have already exsperinced a reversal and there would be a record of it.
this defines that the motion of the poles is traveling around the earth and slowly sprialing upward to the north pole, this motion is directly consitant with the rotational induction of the earth, call it centrifical force. the fact that the magentic pole is inducted by the earths axis rotation and the magnetic poles motion is counter to the rotation exsplains simply that when they meet one or the other will collapse, as the rotation is the attracting power, it is clear that magnetic pole will collaspe, meaning it will disappear. this is exactly what happens on the sun.
understanding that the sun and the earths magnetic field operate the same in actions, establishes that effects will be simular. and from here we can take the speed of the motion of the magnetic field and determine how long it will take for it to reach the earths axis, here we know that the time it would take for the poles to travel from the north to the south pole would take about 2,500 years and we know that does not happen, but when we see that the poles actually travel around the earth we see that it would take a minium of 5,000 years to travel the circumfrence of the earth as it move progressivly north, well then to be more accurate how can we locate the starting point such as on the sun where the magnetic pole of the sun reapears about 7.5 degrees from the suns axis, well looking at the earth the equatorial bulge is to thick for a magnetic field to penetrate in the begining stages or a formation of a magentic field, and as well the rotation of the earth would force the direction or such developing bodie to point toward the north or south, that gives a minium range of about 30 degrees from the equator when we consider the buldge, in general we can safly say that it occurrs somewhere aroung the 45 degree lat, a look at the geoid shows us that we have a very strong remaint field in the country of mongolia, suffcient enough to act as starting point of the last new magnetic pole, we can also see that a calculation from such a distance gives a time frame of about 5,000 years to 7,000years given the variable motion that may occurr with the motion of the magnetic pole. this only means that at the start that it moved slower than it does today, and was stronger than to day.
the magnetic pole currently moves toward the earths axis at about 18km a year, prior to this it was 15km yr and prior to that 12km yr, here we see the effect of the proximity of the magnetic pole to the axis where the closer the magnetic pole gets to the axis the motion of the pole increases, in combination with this is the daily fluxuation of the poles where it is seen that the diameter of the poles changes daily, this fluxuation as been increasing as the pole gets cloaser to the axis, this fluxuation or defraction is a measure of the dispalcement of the concentration of the magnetic field strength by the sun.
well know we know that the time frame is about 5,000yrs to 7,000 years, knowing this we can deduct a forumula from the magnetic reversal cycle of the sun, as wee know that such events are not irregular for the sun and wont be for the earth, to do this we laern the time it takes for the sun to complete a magnetic reverasl and become stable, that takes about 9 mounths to a 1year, if we divide that time of 9 mounths by the the period of cycle of magnetic reversal which is a constant we get 14.6 or we couls use 1/11th, 14.6 know becomes the formula 5,000 divided by 14.6/ or 11 equals 346 or 454 years, this means that the time it will take for the entire process of the magentic reversal to return to normal and stable will take 346 years to 454 years.
to figure how much longer we have before the actual start of that time or the action of reversal we can see that the poles move about 18km a year if you divide that into the distance to the physical north pole you get your awnser, however the physical north pole is not nessacarly the rotation axis of the earth. it has been recorded as being as abotu 86 to 87 degrees north, and currently the magentic pole rest at about 82.5 degrees north. looking at this either way 90 deg. or 86 deg. (some might say it is 5 degto 10 degress past the phsical north pole.) the time is kind of short, with some luck curviture might buy us some time maybe 5 years,possible a few more. in general if you look at it in constant acclleration teoward the axis a 2km a year the time get very short very quickly, given the variables i would giv it about 10 to 39 years.

There are a lot more facts about the magnetic reversal, some of them very disheartening. what i writ hear is just the basics

DWAYNE D.L.RABON