Just forget my first sentence. As you're rolling on the ground laughing I'm saying to myself "valich, "open mouth, insert foot": my dumbest statement posted yet. Still the statements about DHMO. And your statement: "Looking at the billion years time scale on the average CO2 is declining. The very long parts of the carbon cycle may not be in balance for instance: CO2 -> Limestone -> Volcanic reduction to CO2. Hence the amount of limestone is steadily increasing at the expence of precious carbon for the biomass. Humanity is doing Earth and nature a great favour by recovering some carbon (from fossil fuels) that would otherwise be lost for the total Earth biomass." Why should we be interested in a billion year time scale. Your talking about when cyanobacteria started producing O2 from C02: we weren't even around. What do you mean that we are "recovering carbon?" We're changing its composition to a GHG. How would it "otherwise be lost for the total Earth biomass"? What's the logic behind this to our benefit?
Perhaps because he wanted to expose how alarmism works. It was some 16-18 years old student BTW. I'm sure we will hear more of him, a genius. Thanks for another exposure of your knowlegde: http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html I do wonder what planet are you living on. Or perhaps another dimension like DW Rabon? Right here in this universe, both ice and water are H2O.
both ice and water are H2O" - and? Why are you even posting these graphs about C02 and methane absorption? There's no argument that CO2 and methane are reabsorbed in our planet through multiple venues. This remains constant, although the amount of CO2 produced in a billion year time scale has certainly increased with bacteria and plant growth. But absorption levels tell us nothing about increases in emision of Greenhouse Gas levels. So what's your point in posting these graphs? Methane is a worse Greenhouse Gas than CO2, and? And their is some evidence that absorption of CO2 has increased in the last year or two, but what are you trying to say?
Dhmo, co2, methane it does not matter. In our little cubical (atmosphere) we can only gather so much. So, everyone is right. Greenhouse effect, natural cycle, well, what the hell are ya gonna do about it? The fact remains the same, the atmosphere is unstableunstable Let's deal with it. Give examples of options.
One reasonably well confirmed option, economically affordable, is to throw out some iron dust in parts of the ocean lacking iron. The resultant photo plankton blooms do tie up a lot of carbon (It is a nice low cost gesture to do for the next intelligent life form to occupy the Earth after humankind is extinct. - I.e. partially replace the oil capital of Earth.) Another economic alternative is to switch all mobile uses of oil (gas etc) to alcohol. All the carbon released to air by alcohol combustion was taken from the air by the growing cane, and some taken from the air is sequestered in the soil (cane roots and humus after passing thru a cow) which reduces the need for fertilizer, which is also a big user of oil and makes pollutions in its manufacture. However, it is not sure that CO2 is the problem causing global warming, which is very well established by sea level data. (Net melting of ice supported on land and thermal expansion of salt-water cause sea level to rise.) There are several studies that confirm the obvious - more CO2 in the air aids growing crops. Current levels are far below concentrations dangerous to man. (In fact, the air exhaled by man is at least a ten-fold concentration of CO2 compared to that inhaled. Therefore, I guess a few mass killings could be added to the list of economic measures for reducing CO2.) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sorry to take this post out of the first page of a long thread, but I really dont have the time to through all of the pages and see if this has already been asked, but where do you get the figure eighty metres to the sea-level rise? The ice glaciers and icecaps contain a total of 25 million cubic kilometres of water. The current area covered by water is about 360 billion square kilometres. By spreading all the water from all the ice on earth, we get a water-level rise of about 7cm. This is about 1000 times less then what you have said. Can anyone point out the flaws in my line of thought?
Yes. I can. Area of a sphere 4 pi r^2 Surface area of the Earth = 4 x 3.14 x 6400^2 = 515,000,000 square kilometres Area of sea (approx) = 360 million square kilometres You are out by a factor of 1000. 1000 x 7cm = 70m ~ 80m
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "The satellite image on the left shows the minimum concentration of Arctic sea ice in 1979, while the image on the right shows the concentration of sea ice recorded on Sept. 21, 2005. New satellite observations show that sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster while air temperatures in the region are rising sharply. The observations showed 2.06 million square miles of sea ice as late as Sept. 19. That’s the lowest measurement of Arctic sea ice cover ever recorded, the researchers said. It’s also 20 percent less than the average of end-of-summer ice pack cover measurements recorded since 1978. At the same time, average air temperatures across most of the Arctic region from January to August 2005 were as much as 5.4 degrees warmer than average temperature over the last 50 years, said the team of researchers from two universities and NASA." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9527485/
Yes it's aggravating all that melting ice. The other day, there was a letter about it. So, what else is new? Happens all the time. edit: added independent source: http://www.whitby-uk.com/cgi-bin/site.nav/whitby.pl?page=williamscoresby(2)
I don't know about you guys but I think this is really serious The Global Warming has affekted even the somons of alaska who are being eaten by bears more then ever because the earth is heating and the bears aren't hibernating that longer any more and they eat more fish . :m: This is only an example This problem is affecting every part of the nature. I think there is going to be another Ice Age if no one takes imediatly action. :m: Even more I live in Romania and this year had rained more then ever. The biggest faktor of poluation is CO2, the one without we can live. I'M NOT TRYING TO SOUND PATHETIC.......I'M JUST BEING REALISTIC Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You didn't want to sound pathetic but you succeded nontheless. Can you provide the proofs (some peer reviewed scientific study) proving your assertion? As far as I know (as I mentioned earlier) bear population has been increasing from 9000 to 27,000 in the last decade, so no wonder they eat more salmon. Another fact: salmon is not an important part of white bear's diet. The most important prey are seals and beluga whales. Salmon are prey for Kodiak and brown or grizzly bears only when salmons go upstream. Besides, temperature increase has not been so big has to shorten the length of the hibernating period of bears. Well, not here where I live, and many places where I have been traveling through. They look the same as always (some places even better than 20 years ago). Ever than when? Do you have historical records from Romania? Or simply you are a 17-year-old boy that can only remember 10 years back? Droughts and rainy seasons are cyclic, didn't you know that? You could read you country's history back to Vlad Drakul and see floodings and droughts alternating cyclically. This is the real pathetic part of your post. Ask vegetation (trees, plants, vegetables, grass, phytoplankton, etc) how will they produce oxygen for humans and other animals to breath? CO2 no only IS NOT POLLUTION but it is a gas indispensable for all living beings to survive. And as CO2 concentrations have increased we have sen a proportional increase in crop yields. CO2 is LIFE. To be realistic you should inform yourself first. And from the right sources. A really hard task, I acknowledge, as seeing by the level of information in some members of this forum.
No doubt true at some level, but I note that the air I exhale has at least 10 times more CO2 "pollution" than the air I inhale. Thus, I think that one can argue that we are a long way from the point that the air is too polluted for people to breath with safety. CO2 may be making a contribution to "global warming" (Probably is, IMHO) but any increase is helping produce food stuffs for a planet with rapidly growing population as plants require CO2 and the current low concentration is not easy on them. If global warming is real (IMHO it is) it will cause changes, but change is always occurring. Some nations will benefit (especially Russia, for one) and some will be hurt (probably the US - most of GWB’s decisions hurt the US in the long run, why should “anti Kyoto“ be an exception?). Some island ones will cease to exist. I suspect the net benefit for humanity, in the long view, is a benefit. - For example, China will be able to import liquid gas from the vast Russian fields via a shorter Artic route; Russia's North will develop more when there are few great floods (Now caused by the still frozen Artic ends of their North flowing rivers when their southern ends have great "spring run-offs" etc.) Perhaps there will be large grazing animals up in North Russia again? "Siberian Beef" will hurt Brazil's exports, but by that time all of Brazil's pasture land will be producing cane for alcohol, so not important. - As I said: Only thing sure is that there will be change, not that it is for the worse.
Facial, a short one: experiments have shown that for becoming toxic for mammals, birds and other breathing creatures, the CO2 concentration must go well beyond 6000 ppm. Those concentrations existed during the Cretaceous when they varied from 6000 to 2600 ppm, while global temperatures were about 2º C higher than today --if you believe in proxies, that is. But if you don't believe in proxies then you cannot take seriously Mann et al's Hockey Stick and the entire IPCC, whose science is based on proxies and models (not high fashion though). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ok, I'm not sure if this has been discussed, but I really don't feel like reading through 14 pages.. In regards to rising sea levels, this is unrelated to the melting of floating ice... If floating ice melts, sea levels will not rise. Only when ice on land melts is there a relationship with increased sea levels. See this previous discussion for elaboration and evidence: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35824
You don't need any links to prove it, just leave a glass of icewater out and see if the level of water goes up or down as the ice melts. It will actually go down since water expands when it freezes. This is why ice floats.
when I posted this BBC news link was 2 hours old: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm It has seven meter forcast for sea rise if ice on Greenland melts and nice polar view of ice coverage graph you can step 2 years at a step begining in 1980.
Another nice example of distorting the truth also known as lying. The warming is concerning the troposphere and the extreme western part of the peninsula. The ground stations temperature in winter do not show a significant trend: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just another tick for sensationalism.
