Only in the minds of those too weak minded to understand the science and duped by supersticion and magic.
Idiot's arguments based on prejudice and ignorance construe about anything not known centuries ago to be myth.
Posted by glassman on :
hey Ace... why don't you go get a PhD in a serious scientific curriculum, preferably meteorology...... then read Science magazine starting back in '95.... you'll find that that global warming has more supportive evidence than most (or even all) of the worlds religions...
you'll still be calling it myth when the ocean levels rise another five feet i bet...
Posted by bdgee on :
Those guys aren't interesed in science, glaass....
And certainly not in learning anything that requires any effort.
They get their "intel" and their "info" from the Party, which not only provides them with all the answers but "talking points" and a list of "preferred words", with negative connotations to plant in the minds of the public. (Though, I seriously doubt they actually understand what connotation is.)
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
LoL, oh brother
Posted by OILDOG on :
EEeeeeCeeeLLLllleeennnttt Links Ace!!!! Debunks the Global Warming fraud.
"serious scientific curriculum"....meteorology?? lol. Global Warming IS a religion...practized by enviro/nazis. And....I happen to know David Demming, geophysicist at OU,and his problems with Dr. Snow, "GW" high priest,head of dept., a "weather guy".
Posted by bdgee on :
Hahaha
We hear from the name-dropping misinformation network.....
You don't know any such of a thing....you just preach....just like the rest of the far right wing religious extremist who think science is trumped by the myths they believe came from the bible.
Put "David Demming University of Oklahoma" into a search engine and you can learn how unimpressed the scientific world is with him.
He's a crackpot.....for sale to the highest bidder, provided it is big oil. Posted by bond006 on :
Anybody that would believe global warming is a big liberal lie is a fool
Posted by bdgee on :
Or a liar
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Wow! Even Bushy is starting to accept the truth of global warming. Are you guys even more hard headed than the Bush? Wow!
Posted by glassman on :
yep, they can't accept the fact that they just wasted 6 years on the countdown clock:
White House Calls for Threatened Listing for Polar Bears January 2, 2007 Reporting by Roddy Scheer
In what many environmentalists consider an about-face on both endangered species and global warming, the Bush administration last week announced that it would recommend listing America’s polar bears as threatened under the nation’s Endangered Species Act.
“We are making this proposal because a scientific review of the species by the Fish and Wildlife service found that populations may be threatened by receding sea ice, which polar bears use as a platform for many activities essential to their life cycle, including hunting for their main prey, Arctic seals,” said Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne at a news conference.
d'oh?
destroying our ecosystem isn't a crime, it's a SIN!
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes, a sin....and a universally deadly one.
Posted by OILDOG on :
roflmao. wow!!! You boys sure make hard-hitting, reasoned,"scientific" arguments in support of your cult/religion,don't you!!! Such as:
Only in the minds of those too weak minded to understand the science and duped by supersticion and magic.
Idiot's arguments based on prejudice and ignorance construe about anything not known centuries ago to be myth.
Anybody that would believe global warming is a big liberal lie is a fool
Or a liar
And,your using Bush now....as proof too? THE MORON? roflmao. wwwhhhhheeeeeee!!!!!!! Getting pretty desparate,hysterical aren't you? Have you watched the links Ace provided? Should make any THINKING person wonder and question. But, then, you don't NEED to question "church" doctrine, do you boys! Gaia speaks through enviro special interests priests and the WORD is TRUTH!!!! heh heh.It's ALL about....fund raising...mmmoooonnnnneeeeeyyyyy! They are money-raising frauds...like the pink stocks. The parallel is ...interesting. Unaudited,unaccountable to anyone. Say ANYTHING to get mmmooonnneeeeyyyy! A lot of them are spin-offs, drop box frauds,empty shells. Huge salaries,expensive mansions,private jets,porno lifestyles. $25 billion a year "industry".
But hey...I'm for clean air,water,oceans. Save the whales. Why do we NEED (the Japs) to kill whales. Too big to hang above the mantle,bird dogs won't point 'em. They don't covey-up and flush worth a darn. Dog can't retrieve 'em. Whats the point? Now,Global Warming is a.....FACT. Yes,thats rrriiiiigggggtttttt!!! Fact. Been going on for AT LEAST 500 million years. Probably much much longer,since its believed there is a 500 million year gap at the PreCambrian-Cambrian boundary, and another 100-250 million year gap in the geological record at the Permian-Triassic boundary. Many hundreds to a thousand or more ice ages. With "global warming" in between the ice ages. Since we are NOW in between ice ages (and overdue), BY DEFINITION, we are in a global warming period. duh. The fear-mongers of the 60's were running around,like Chicken Little, sqwacking about ICE AGE. Then they flipped 180, because ice ages dont raise money, to global warming. Even the "computer models",which can't even predict 1 or 2 years ahead,accurately, dont predict temps as high as the Medieval Warm. Which presents a serious problem for the "faithful". It was a lush,"boom" period. Then came the Little Ice Age, which really pushed people to the brink. Starvation,disease, ect. Better pray (oops,sorry boys) for global warming. Yea,I know whats comin' next. So, I despise the ultra left wing socialist Democrats who goose-step with the envirofascists, I equally depise the Republican "I didnt KNOW I was far left wing 'til.....",AND the righwing/neocons who....are nothing more than shifty-eyed liberals.....to the left of .....me! I'm NOT a liar,as you suggest, just because I dont agree with you. I've read some of the published lit, now looking through source references Michael Crichton listed in his excellent book "State of Fear". You ought to read it boys. I'm a ham radio operator. About '95 or '96,the ARRL publication,QST, published an article about some hams that went to Antartica to put up a radio tower. Back then, ham radio was an "essential" link for the researchers there,to their family, thru phone patches. Seems the 120' antenna tower,installed about mid-late 60s,was buried in ice & snow. Only 12-15',as I remember,was sticking out. They were hams,who were also communications/electronic experts, and volunteered their services. That much ice had accumulated during that period of time. hhhhmmmmmmmm. Global Warming? Antarctic melting away? hhhhhhmmmmm. Something wrong here. The "church" lost a "semibeliever". Well,this is my first and last "step" into y'alls warm cozy steaming pile of pigS you've created for yerselves here on the Off Topic whatever. No critical thinking,no debate,no view allowed but the "party line". You guys....stink.
Posted by OILDOG on :
Oh, Ace, once again. Thanks for the links.
Posted by Upside on :
Why can't this forum have reasonable debates anymore, on any topic? Global warming? I've got an opinion on it, my feeling is that we have been in a long warming tread for many years which will probably be followed by a cooling period. At the same time I believe that mankind has managed to kick the warming trend up a notch or two, it's the price we pay for our current modern society. Maybe now we're starting to realize the errors of our ways and over the course of many, many years, it'll be reversed, not in our lifetime though. Anyway, that's kind of the middle ground and I'm sure it wont be accepted here by either of the two factions. So ya'll have fun bashing each others teeth in as best you can over a computer, just realize that fighting in a chat room isn't going to accomplish anything. Later everyone.
Posted by glassman on :
oildog, peer reviewed papers in paid journals like Science don't have links... only free news articles have links...
i posted this earlier in the week in another thread... CO2 is a serious greenhouse gas... (so is methane, but that's another story)
burn ANY hydrocarbon? and you get C02.. it's pure and simple chemistry FACT...
it's a fact that CO2 levels are rising rapidly as result of us burning oil and coal...
we have done nothing to balance the equation.. in fact? we are cutting down more trees every day that would remove the C02...
people that don't believe this is a problem are simply refusing to face facts...
one volcano can produce as much detrimental gas as we do in a year.... volcanoes are one of the main causes for cooling and/or the warming trends... it depends on the type of volcano to determine which way it affects the weather.. there are others, like underwater lansdlides that dislodge the frozen methane laying all over the oceans floors...
it is a fact that never in history has our planet been subjected to kind of stress wee are putting it under right now...
all of these things TOGETHER would be an instant disaster... that's not an excuse for ignoring irresponsible behaviuor....
arctic ice and antarctic ice are melting, it's undeniable...
maybe we'll get "lucky" and a volcano will spew enough ash into the air to reflect the excess solar radiation back into space before it's too late? is that what you are hoping for?
your ham radio explanation is way too simplified... that's why i suggested that there needs to be much more understanding in the form of education... warmer areas over the ocean do evaporate more water which then gets to be rain or snow somewhere, but just because Denver is having blizzard after blizzard doesn't mean there's no global warming....
every gallon of gasoline burned produces more than 15 pounds of C02... it really is that simple... we measure gasoline consumption by the millions of gallons per day...... the C02 is going somewhere...
Posted by glassman on :
glass nice flow chart, but the flow charts of environmental issues of the 80's were much cooler; check out the acid dust, now thats scary!
Posted by OILDOG on :
Well,washed off. Hmmm. Try...one more "step". First,a quote: "We desparately need a nonpartisan,blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware whom they are working for. Those who fund research-whether a drug company,a government agency, or an environmental organization-always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering the results the funder desire. As a result, environmental organization "studies" are every bit as biased and suspect as industry "studies". Government "studies" are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. No faction should be given a free pass." Michael Crichton "State of Fear"
Peer review? By fellow travelers? Demmings problem, besides issues between himself and Snow, is he threatened the funding flow for the University. The Faculty "Board",held a kangaroo court, to censor him and try to get the ball rolling to strip tenure and fire him. They actually brought in two woman who "testified" he sexually harassed them. OUs legal counsel rushed to Prez Boren,informed him Demming had a very winnable civil rights case(bad). Only THEN did Boren tear himself away from his boy-toys and shut the academic freedom-loving profs down in their quest for political/religious purity. Peer review aint what it used to be. NASAs data shows almost no atmospheric temp rise. Certainly no sharp "hockeystick" rise like touted. So, CO2 rising? So? Extremely minor fraction of Earths atmosphere. Less than methane and argon. I remember when we started "needing" catalytic converters on cars. The nitrous dioxide, sulfur ect ect ect, was gonna throw us into an ice age. Now look what they've done. We NEEDED that stuff to prevent glowbahl wahming. I know what I'm gonna do. Remove the cat-cons from my vehicles and....SAVE THE PLANET!!!! heh I dont dispute CO2 levels have gone up,parts per million. Theres a lot of evidence to increased plant growth,crops,trees,rainforest. A good thing. But,a serious greenhouse gas? Doubtful, and NOT proven. Earth has MUCH higer concentration in the past. Far higer than we will ever see.
"it is a fact that never in history has our planet been subjected to kind of stress wee are putting it under right now... "
Really? I believe I mentioned the 500 million year gap at the PreCambrian/Cambrian boundary, the Permian/Triassic mass extinction(the biggest). Those are minor compared to what happened "way back". Volcanism on a scale we cant even imagine.
"one volcano can produce as much detrimental gas as we do in a year.... "
Agreed,sort of. When Penatubo erupted in the Philipines, scientists estimated it had producted more sulfur products and cfc's than man had produced....ever. Directly into the upper atmosphere,along with millions of tons of ash,ect. Saw an enviro on TV, redfaced,mad as H,nearly in tears: "set global warming back at least 20 years". hee And,we "seem" to going into a more active period of volcanism. That and increased solar radiation get "lost" in the "debate". No SUVs on the sun,eh?
"arctic ice and antarctic ice are melting, it's undeniable..."
Yep. Antarctic has been melting ...for the past 6000 years,and causing sea level to rise a small fraction...every year. But, data show it...cooling,the past 20 years or so. Ice accumulation increasing (anecdotal tower "proof") the southern hemi cooling too. All their GW data is NORTHERN hemi,specifically ... North America. Hey,the good ol' USA just may be saving Europes' azz... again!!! The Little Ice Age was FAR more devastating to "civilized" man. But,whatever Amerika is doing pales in comparison to what China...will soon be doing. In just a decade or so,they will be the biggest polluter. The real stuff. They are bringing a new coal fired power plant online...every WEEK! And their "stuff" goes directly to Alaska and Canadian Arctic. Add in India.
"In the thirty-five-odd years since the environmental movement came into existence, science has undergone a major revolution. This revolution has brought new understanding of nonlinear dynamics,complex systems,chaos theory, catastrophe theory. It has transformed the way we think about evolution and ecology. Yet these no-longer-new ideas have hardly penetrated the thinking of environmental activists,which seems oddly fixed in the concepts and rhetoric of the 1970s." Michael Crichton "State of Fear"
Not odd at all. Its about mmmmoooonnnneeeyyyyy. Control,social engineering,power,a global government.
Since we're NOT in an ICE AGE, by definition our globe has been....warming. duh.Scientific fraud. Trillions will be wasted on it,which SHOULD be spent on cleaning up our oceans. STOP the dumping of sewage,overfishing,ect. But,what do you do with a world population clamoring for food? Let em die?
"I conclude that most environmental "principles" (such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It is a nice way of saying "We got ours and we dont want you to get yours, because you'll cause too much pollution." Michael Crichton "State of Fear"
Bright guy. Gets right to the "heart" of envirofascists,"modern" limosine liberals,Luddites,ect. Also refers to man as "the nasty little ape". Like I said,bright guy. YOU.. seem to want to "discuss"...maybe I'll be back. And...I went to the "good" school,OSU, Geology,paleo (dont ask how I got in the 'patch),aggie,I bleed orange..Go 'Pokes! CUL
Posted by OILDOG on :
Have'nt heard anything about the '80s boogyman,acid rain,in a long time. Still around?
Glass,good reads. But, they are talking thousands of years. Worst case...hundreds to a thousand. I think the "nasty little ape" will find a way,or not. Doesnt matter to Gaia,really. Seen species come,seen 'em go. One scientist has already proposed a solution. Remember the Ice Age scare of the 50s 60s and 70s due to Sulfuric acid, I believe? Reflects sunlight back into space,causing cooling. Solar powered high altitude unmanned aircraft,Global Hawk, misting sulphuric acid droplets,reflect sunlight back, problem solved. Or,big solar umbrella,out beyond the moons orbit.Or,adjust the moons speed and orbit for cooling eclipses during daylight. Anyway,all will be moot if the Moslems get nukes. They'll use them. They don't care,with 72 virgins waiting. Where DOES Allah get all those virgins? Sure would'nt find enough in the USA to cover the martyrs we've made in Iraq! heh jk
Posted by turbokid on :
heres the bout with global warming we are experiencing out west..
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
You want to understand the environment?
Go down to Louisiana where they have lost coastal breakers the size of the state of Maryland in the last 50 years due to the removal of the swamp lands. Result? The whole area is both sinking and sliding into the Gulf of Mexico and they have lost the ability to absorb storm surge by close to 60%.
Go to Alaska and see the Polar Bears wandering into town because their ice shelves that they depend on to fish are falling into the sea.
Go to Venice, Italy and see the water table slowly rising and threatening to break over the canals and flood.
Look back in the weather records for the last 10 years and see just how many '100 year' river floods and "storms of the century" we have had.
Ask a scientist how many species of frog (who are sensitive to environmental conditions due to their amphibious physiology) have been placed on the threatened or endangered list.
Ask Jacque Custo's son how many coral reefs are beginning to die out because of rising ocean temperatures. (I can give you the website of his resort in Fiji if you want. Make it a vacation AND a learning experience.)
And for God's sake, just go and watch Al Gore's movie. You don't have to like him but he shows very plainly how we have been affecting our climate for the last couple hundred years and how our interference is growing rapidly and compounding with interest.
What is it going to take before people start to admit that allowing complacence to lead us to inaction on this issue is going to alter the state of the world in the near future?
Maybe we ARE only part of the problem and that it would happen anyway. So What!? There is a big difference between hitting a wall at 20mph and hitting it at 60mph.
If anyone wants to gamble with their own life, I really don't care. If that's what you want to do and be damned the consequences that's fine with me. But this is the whole world we are talking about and an issue that is so big and complex we can only guess at what the outcomes would be which means your gamble is not only affecting your own life but everyone else's as well.
In this stock Mother Nature is the ultimate Market Maker. You are All IN and so is your family and there is no selling out. It is only win or lose and any time you play against a Market Maker...you lose.
The Bigfoot
Posted by bond006 on :
Just remeber the is no place else to go earth is ours and we have one battle that will decide if we win the war or not.
My advice is don't take the chance that you may be wrong.
Most all of science says we are warming up and changing the worldfor the worst do something now.
Posted by bdgee on :
OILDOG,
I don't know where or when you were submitted for education (or if you were), but you better get revacinated....it didn't take.
Be aware, though, if you approach the opportunity with the abuses of reason and logic you are displaying here, it will fail again.
(A software "bot" can cut and paste voluminous verbage on a subject without any intellegence or understanding of even what it is doing, let alone what it is posting about or its intricacies and inferences.)
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by OILDOG: NASAs data shows almost no atmospheric temp rise. Certainly no sharp "hockeystick" rise like touted. So, CO2 rising? So? Extremely minor fraction of Earths atmosphere. Less than methane and argon.
i, uh, have to take issue with you on that one....
there was this liar hired by Bush that tweaked Nasa's dataflow...
and? C02 is not the most serious as i said, methane is worse.. and we've already discovered that it only takes a 2 degree change in the lowest level of waters in the ocean to release tons of it...
the truth is? the more you know about how the ecosystem works? the more you realise that we are living on knife edge and have always been.. thats not an excuse to ignore the situation. saying money has been wasted in research is to show a poor understanding of economics... today? there is more cash than there ever was just waiting to be invested in anything and everything....
A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA
Article Tools Sponsored By By ANDREW C. REVKIN Published: February 8, 2006
George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said. Skip to next paragraph Related Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him (Jan. 29, 2006)
Lawmaker Condemns NASA Over Scientist's Accusations of Censorship (Jan. 31, 2006)
NASA Chief Backs Agency Openness (Feb. 4, 2006)
Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.
Officials at NASA headquarters declined to discuss the reason for the resignation.
"Under NASA policy, it is inappropriate to discuss personnel matters," said Dean Acosta, the deputy assistant administrator for public affairs and Mr. Deutsch's boss.
just another liar hired by Bush and Cheney
i read Crichton's State of Fear when the ink was still wet.... i have NEXT sitting under two other books in line to be read right now.
i think you missed his main point...
it was NOT that global warming is a myth,.. it was about how the battle for money twists every player... even social activists have to feed clothe and educate their families...
and? they are fighting people with real money behind them....
Tolkein ALSO wrote about that, symbolically.
while i enjoy Crichton? nearly everything he writes is written by formula, and he reads Science too...
Posted by turbokid on :
i'm up in the air about global warming. it seems to me that the earth has been warming for a good long while. where i come from, Utah, there used to be a lake that spanned almost the entire state, im sure you've heard of it Lake bonneville. It existed some 16,000 years ago and due to warming in the area has evaporated down to what is now the great salt lake. http://www.bonneville-trail.org/geology.htm this was long before factories and cars were used to emit large amounts of greenhouse gasses. Also what brought us out of the last ice age? and what put us in the one before it? http://culter.colorado.edu:1030/~saelias/glacier.html everything moves in cycles and it seems like we are in a warming cycle currently. Thats not to say that human greenhouse gas emissions are not having an effect but i think on a large scale its only part of the current situation. this was a good read about past ice ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Age
nowthen on the other hand. one of the sigle most compelling arguements for the existance of human induced global warming is that last year exxon spent 15.7 million dollars trying to debunk global warming. i dont know guys i think we play a part but im not all that sure that its total human caused. I think we are lucky to have a prolonged period of rather "nice" temperatures on earth because earth has been much colder, and much hotter than it is now(several times) and 90% of the species that ever lived on this planet are dead. We're just another link in the chain.
i'll post more later gotta go to work. very interesting discussion. -turbo
Posted by bdgee on :
Lake Bonnevile did not disappear du to co2 induced warming, but to plate uplifting. The same is true of the salt flats of West Texas and New Mexico. (Even earlier, there was a great inlet of the atlantic ocean that reached through Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado into Wyoming. It did not "dry up" due to warming but due to plate shifting and lifting.)
It is a mistake to attempt to seek analogs within geologic structure and time and dismiss global warming as just another one of "those", that is, as a part of a geologic reality that is beyond human influence.
We can trace the human partiucipation and contribution to the causes of this warming cycle and we can measure (not directly, but just as accurately) the ingredients and discover the causes of those of 16000 years ago and much much earlier and have thereby proved that humans did not participate in the causes of warming cycles then.
Posted by OILDOG on :
Glass: A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA
So?? Bush replaced Clintons liars with his own,and Clinton replaced GHW Bushs with his and on and on...........!!!! It called...politics. And..that says nothing about him ALTERING data, just....access.
Bigfoot-- "And for God's sake, just go and watch Al Gore's movie."
Your kidding!!! The dumber of the Moron Twins?? Dumb at least "achieved" an MBA. Dumber....nada. I'll get around to it....someday...for laffs. A "voice-over celebrity" reading a script about a subject he can't comprehend. Just another Chicken Little,but not nearly as bright. Bush is vastly underrated by his political enemies. Gore is vastly overrated by his followers (Gore-ons). I equate AlGores "effort" with Dan Rathers "Guns of Autumn". POS Glass,Crichton made his point very clear. Read the "authors message" again. We are in a NATURAL warming trend. Sea level has been rising, NATURALLY, for 6000' years. The Little Ice Age ended about 1850, just a little over 150 years ago. Natural cycles,warming/cooling. And...that stuff has to melt and go SOMEWHERE. And,all during that time,temps fluctuated,like a sine wave. Are you interested that the Medieval Warm was a temp peak,higher than predicted by the CCMs for this GW,that was immediately followed by a minimum,the Little Ice Age? The Warm is a big big problem for the Chikin Litles!!!Interesting that they have to eliminate it, cook the books, to get a temp median going...up. The computer models are worthless. Garbage in,garbage out. Take the last Hurrican season. The weather heads started following the Canadian model,because it "seemed" to be more accurate. Guess if you have ENOUGH models, one is likely to be right. Next year it may be the American model,or the Brits, or French. Who knows? They sure dont. Think a casino will let you place a bet,and let you roll a dozen pairs of dice...til you get the result you WANT? taint likely.
But,heres my real problem. If the data is good, the theory "Man is the Cause" real, why cook the books. Why use bogus examples like Bigfoots "suggestion" about Venice? Everytime a hurrican,tornado,drought,rain,wind,no wind...occurs, its because we drive SUVs,use natural gas,"rape" the planet??? Bigfoot: Venice is sssiiiinnnkkkkinnng!! It built in a marshy lagoon.
Sinking of Venice High water in Venice. Venice and surroundings in false colour, from TERRA satellite. The picture is oriented with North at the top.The buildings of Venice are constructed on closely spaced wood piles (under water, in the absence of oxygen, wood does not decay) which penetrate alternating layers of clay and sand. Wood for piles was cut in the most western part of todays Slovenia, resulting in the barren land called Karst. Most of these piles are still intact after centuries of submersion. The foundations rest on the piles, and buildings of brick or stone sit above these footings. The buildings are often threatened by flood tides pushing in from the Adriatic between autumn and early spring.
Six hundred years ago, Venetians protected themselves from land-based attacks by diverting all the major rivers flowing into the lagoon and thus preventing sediment from filling the area around the city. This created an ever-deeper lagoon environment.
During the 20th century, when many artesian wells were sunk into the periphery of the lagoon to draw water for local industry, Venice began to subside. It was realised that extraction of the aquifer was the cause. This sinking process has slowed markedly since artesian wells were banned in the 1960s. However, the city is still threatened by more frequent low-level floods (so-called Acqua alta, "high water") that creep to a height of several centimeters over its quays, regularly following certain tides. In many old houses the former staircases used by people to unload goods are now flooded, rendering the former ground floor uninhabitable. Thus, many Venetians resorted to moving up to the upper floors and continuing with their lives.
Some recent studies have suggested that the city is no longer sinking [citation needed], but this is not yet certain; therefore, a state of alert has not been revoked. In May 2003 the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi inaugurated the MOSE project (Modulo Sperimentale Elettromeccanico), an experimental model for evaluating the performance of inflatable gates; the idea is to lay a series of 79 inflatable pontoons across the sea bed at the three entrances to the lagoon. When tides are predicted to rise above 110 centimetres, the pontoons will be filled with air and block the incoming water from the Adriatic sea. This challenging engineering work is due to be completed by 2011.
Some experts say that the best way to protect Venice is to physically lift the City to a greater height above sea level - by pumping water into the soil underneath the city. This way, some hope, it could rise above sea levels, protecting it for hundreds of years, and eventually the MOSE project may not be necessary (it will, controversially, alter the tidal patterns in the lagoon, damaging some wildlife). A further point about the "lifting" system would be that it would be permanent - the MOSE Project is, by its very nature, a temporary system: it is expected to protect Venice for "only" 100 years.
Check yer facts,Chikin..er,Big. Anyway,global warming has been ongoing since the last iceage,and will continue...until the next. Trying to equate land use problems with Global Warming Caused by Man,is bogus. Clearing coastal marshes and development along the Gulf Coast, and building New Orleans on a sinkhole has nothing to do with global warming,directly. Or building homes in flood plains. Its just stupid.
Look,we need to be frugal,and sensible with our land,water,air,all of it. But we cant do that with cooked data,cherry-picking data,scare tactics,ect. One of the "upsides" to all this is ....we may actually learn how to "control" the atmosphere...sort of. We are going to need to in the next century or two, to defeat the NATURAL cycles of the Earth. But we will NEVER be able to control the Suns heat output,unusual periods of high sunspots,the earths wobbly orbit. All are BIG factors,never discussed. No money in it. Need some sleep. CUL Posted by turbokid on :
i dont want to get into an arguement buddy but lake bonneville did not disappear due to plate uplifting. it is from warmer tempuratures and evaporation. thats why the salt flats are a dry desert now because it got hotter. taken directly from the UGS.. quote: "After the Lake Bonneville flood, the Great Basin gradually became warmer and drier. Lake Bonneville began to shrink due to increased evaporation" quoted from here. http://www.ugs.state.ut.us/online/PI-39/pi39pg03.htm heres some more good reading. there is some mention about the lake forming from increased rain and ice melting from the previous ice age after it started warming up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Bonneville
and to show that i agree with you about human co2 emissions heres a cool chart showing the increase in c02 since the industrial revolution. thats a big spike.
Posted by glassman on :
oildog? the guy falsified his DEGREE... before he even got the job...
Crichton's point was they ALL twist the data....
i've pointed you to the facts... as you say:
we need to be frugal,and sensible with our land,water,air,all of i we agree..
if you don't give people a reason to act? they WON'T.. period..
global warming is not a myth and the more we add to it? the worse it'll be.... are we the total cause? of course not.. will WE be the straw that breaks the camels back? you bet....
lemme tell you about how much freshwater fish we are NOT allowed to eat here in the Missississippi Delta.....the farmers say there's no need to worry about pesticides etc. etc. same old story...
Posted by OILDOG on :
Glass: Never said global warming is a myth. Quite the opposite. Man as THE CAUSE? Thats the problem. Our "activities" and greenhouse gases could very well have staved off a longer Little Ice Age,or THE BIG ONE. GW is NOT necessarily..bad. And for certain the "weather heads" dont know. GOT to get some sleep!!! bye
Posted by bdgee on :
turbokid,
Note the word "global" within the term "global warming. It refers to the climate of the entire world all at once, not to just the local climate in the area of Lake Bonneville.
The reason that lake dried up WAS NOT because there was a warmer global climate, but because its location withing the existing climate was in a warmer "local" environment
Global warming IS NOT the condition of some isolated local lake or snow field or woodland, but a global situation. Indeed, in a globally heated climate, there will certainly be localized areas (some quite large) that will be far colder than those same locations were in the climate before. The same can be said of wet or dry local areas.
In matters such as global climates, one can point to a localized exception to the rule does not say the rule is false, much as finding a single atom of pure carbon in the exaust of an automobile does not discount the fact that the engine "burned the carbon in the gasoline and exausted carbon dioxide and carbon monoxicde".
What did or did not cause Lake Bonneville to dry up has nothing to do with global warming, just like the 0.2 - 0.3 percent of pure unburned hydrocarbon in your cars exaust does not demonstrate that the gasoline that was injected into the cylinders of your car did not generate a combustion condition.
Posted by glassman on :
oildog: another point about Crichton, as i sadi? i read (almost) all of his books, (i skipped his biographical one) BUT?
he's a very very "commercial" writer. he always has been. is that bad? no, but i think it does say something about his integrity.
i think he is for sale, and i disagree with many of his premises. the fact that he popularizes Science (caps intended) is a good thing. However? His basic formula for examining the ethics and the human morality of the problems is not even up to Tolkeins level. I put him on a level with Edgar Rice Burroughs. Was Tarzan an animal with a knife?
It's funny how he portrayed the "promoter" in Jurassic Park as brilliant capitalist and morally bankrupt. ( inside joke? the T Rex and the Raptors (very late)are from the Cretaceous, not the Jurassic, i often wonder why Crichton does these misidentifications. it's almost as if he is laughing at the readers IMO)
Then he turns around critisizes the whole scientific community in State of Fear. Sadly? The scientific community is reduced to begging in the current granting system we have. Just trying to finding funding can mean having all of your ideas stolen by thieves thru the peer review process. Good scientists with fresh concepts are forced to hide them behind smoke and mirrors. Otherwise, they are stolen along with the funding.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Scientists say 2007 may be warmest yet
By RAPHAEL G. SATTER Associated Press Writer
Appearing in the Orange County Register
LONDON (AP) -- Deepening drought in Australia. Stronger typhoons in Asia. Floods in Latin America. British climate scientists predict that a resurgent El Nino climate trend combined with higher levels of greenhouse gases could touch off a fresh round of ecological disasters - and make 2007 the world's hottest year on record.
"Even a moderate (El Nino) warming event is enough to push the global temperatures over the top," said Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research unit at the University of East Anglia.
The warmest year on record is 1998, when the average global temperature was 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the long-term average of 57 degrees. Though such a change appears small, incremental differences can, for example, add to the ferocity of storms by evaporating more steam off the ocean.
There is a 60 percent chance that the average global temperature for 2007 will match or break the record, Britain's Meteorological Office said Thursday. The consequences of the high temperatures could be felt worldwide.
El Nino, which is now under way in the Pacific Ocean and is expected to last until May, occurs irregularly. But when it does, winters in Southeast Asia tend to become milder, summers in Australia get drier, and Pacific storms can be more intense. The U.N.'s Food Aid Organization has warned that rising temperatures could wreak agricultural havoc.
In Australia, which is struggling through its worst drought on record, the impact on farmers could be devastating. The country has already registered its smallest wheat harvest in a decade, food prices are rising, and severe water restrictions have put thousands of farmers at risk of bankruptcy.
In other cases, El Nino's effects are more ambiguous. Rains linked to the phenomenon led to bumper crops in Argentina in 1998, but floods elsewhere in Latin America devastated subsistence farmers.
El Nino also can do some good. It tends to take the punch out of the Atlantic hurricane season by generating crosswinds that can rip the storms apart - good news for Florida's orange growers, for example.
"The short-term effects of global warming on crop production are very uneven," said Daniel Hillel, a researcher at Columbia University's Center for Climate Systems Research. "I warn against making definitive predictions regarding any one season's weather."
What is clear is that the cumulative effect of El Nino and global warming are taking the Earth's temperatures to record heights.
"El Nino is an independent variable," Jones said. "But the underlying trends in the warming of the Earth is almost certainly a result of the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."
Another more immediate effect of the rising temperatures may be political.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard is already under fire for refusing to link his country's drought to global warming. In Britain, Friends of the Earth campaign director Mike Childs said the weather service's 2007 prediction "underlined the gap between the government's rhetoric and action."
Other environmental groups said the new report added weight to the movement to control greenhouse gases.
It came a day after the weather service reported that 2006 had been Britain's warmest year since 1659, and three months after Sir Nicholas Stern, a senior government economist, estimated that the effects of climate change could eventually cost nations 5 percent to 20 percent of global gross domestic product each year.
Figures for 2006 are not yet complete, but the weather service said temperatures were high enough to rank among the top 10 hottest years on record.
"The evidence that we're doing something very dangerous with the climate is now amassing," said Campaign against Climate Change coordinator Philip Thornhill.
"We need to put the energy and priority (into climate change) that is being put into a war effort," he said. "It's a political struggle to get action done - and these reports help." _________________________________________________
Scientists say oil company misinforms public on global warming The Associated Press WASHINGTON - ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in an effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.
The report by the advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."
Many scientists say carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice and alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.
ExxonMobil called the scientists' report Wednesday "yet another attempt to smear our name and confuse the discussion of the serious issue of CO2 emissions and global climate change."
ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed any link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or emphasizing only selected facts.
Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming.
The company said its financial support doesn't mean control over any group's views.
"We find some of them persuasive and enlightening, and some not," ExxonMobil spokesman Dave Gardner said. "But there is value in the debate they prompt if it can lead to better informed and more optimal public policy decisions."
He said the company believes that despite many scientific uncertainties, the risk that greenhouse gas emissions may have serious environmental effects justifies taking action to limit them _________________________________________________
Just reading every one's opinion on this thread, some good views from both sides. The big thing is how we make a change if we believe it is affecting our environment? It sounds easy and in a sense it is, but Hugh masses of people are involved so that's the hard part. I think it has to be made easy for the majority and hopefully cheaper at the pump this would make the transition much simpler, changing peoples habits and rituals is not an easy task.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
OilDog, I know my facts.
You have correctly stated that Venice is sinking. However, you are incorrect in taking that as evidence that it means the surrounding waters are not rising. Here is an excerpt from a Science News article if you would like to learn.
quote: Ammerman and his colleagues have spent the past decade trying to uncover the early archaeological levels in the lagoon. At three sites in Venice, and on two nearby islands, they used carbon-14 techniques to date buried structures. By measuring the position of these objects relative to current water levels, the researchers could estimate how quickly the city has sunk since its founding.
In a related effort, Charles E. McClennen, a marine geologist at Colgate, has traced the history of the lagoon itself by using sonar to penetrate its sedimentary layers. The lagoon started to form 6,000 years ago, and the water has risen 5 m since then , he determined. In the June ANTIQUITY, the researchers combine their evidence to estimate how rates of sea level rise have changed over time. For the first 4,000 years after the birth of the lagoon, the water surface at the site of Venice rose relatively slowly, at a rate of 7 centimeters per century. Around 400 A.D., people moved into the lagoon and settled on marginal marshgrass islands, which flooded during the highest tides. To stay above water, these pioneers built up the islands with boatloads of sand. Later, Venetians started driving innumerable wooden piles down into the sediment, forming level foundations on which to build the growing city. One existing church, according to records, Rests on 1.1 million of these timbers. Such efforts sparked a never-ending war with the water. As a result of the added weight on the islands, they began to sink and local water levels started increasing faster than before. From 400 A.D. until the end of the 1800s, the sea rose at about 13 cm per century, report the scientists. This century, the rate jumped even further. Tide-gauge records indicate that sea level at Venice has risen 25 cm, driven in part by the water extraction and the global sea level rise spurred by increasing worldwide temperatures. As the archaeological data show, early residents fought back by continually building up the ground surface, covering over earlier levels of the city, says Ammerman. Daniel J. Stanley, a coastal geologist with the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., compares Venice to a man standing in a swimming pool. "His feet are embedded in lead and the water level in the pool is rising and it's already to his nose. He better not make any waves," says Stanley.
Conservative estimates of greenhouse warming suggest that global sea levels will climb between 38 and 55 cm by the end of the next century. "That doesn't augur well for the city of Venice," says Stanley.
Science News, July 24, 1999 by Richard Monastersky
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Oh, two other things...
I actually agree with you on one point. It is stupid to build in flood planes and areas that are unstable at this point in time. I think insurance companies are going to lead the way for reform on that issue as they are the ones who have to pay when something happens. I do think historic cities such as Venice and New Orleans are worth attempting to save if we can but they should be the exception, not the norm.
On another note, look at the dates of Gore's books on the subject. He has been writing and working with researchers regarding the environment since before he became the V.P.
Agreed he isn't the best poster-child for the subject but he does know what he is talking about.
Posted by BooDog on :
in the 70's here today in virginia. should be snow. hardly even had 1 good frost yet - now that is unusual. a trend that hasn't been seen since the 1800's. I like winter - go natural so my ethenol stocks can start making some freekin money!
Posted by a surfer on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Oh, two other things...
I actually agree with you on one point. It is stupid to build in flood planes and areas that are unstable at this point in time. I think insurance companies are going to lead the way for reform on that issue as they are the ones who have to pay when something happens. I do think historic cities such as Venice and New Orleans are worth attempting to save if we can but they should be the exception, not the norm.
On another note, look at the dates of Gore's books on the subject. He has been writing and working with researchers regarding the environment since before he became the V.P.
Agreed he isn't the best poster-child for the subject but he does know what he is talking about.
My insurance doubled this past year to over 9 grand!!!! Naples Fl.
I just watched a show on Easter island. very interesting how as the population grew they used up all their resources. wood etc. Then internal combustion thereafter. War etc.
They compared the island to our earth.
My favorite class in college was ecology of man. LOL
Posted by OILDOG on :
Glass said:"if you don't give people a reason to act? they WON'T.. period.." So,its ok to lie,deceive,cherry-pick your data and your greenhouse gas,create "the sky is falling" alarm,because that's the only way the "little people" (Hillarys "affectionate" term for us) wont fall for envirochurch dogma (or contribute billions of loot),otherwise. The "ends justify the means"??? Exactly what you claim...Bush did!!!! How Clintonesqe!!!lmao
Glass said:"will WE be the straw that breaks the camels back? you bet...." NOT. Gaia....is crapping in our cornflakes. We'll get to that in a bit.
Crichton a "commercial writer"? ALL writers are commercial,in the end. "For sale". Hard to swallow Glass. The man's a mega-millionaire. Movies,books,TV series (ER). Bought by the boogey man..BIG OIL? Nnnaaaa. Same reason. He's rich. "State of Fear" was about his thoughts,and probably frustration with pre-paid "scientists". Read the Authors Message...again. T-Rex and Raptors? Yea, I laughed too. "Cretaceous Park" sings...for me. "State of Fear" probably wont be a movie,unless Crichton does it himself. Not politically correct. Hollyweird would change it..completely.. to fit dogma.
Glass said: "Just trying to finding funding can mean having all of your ideas stolen by thieves thru the peer review process. Good scientists with fresh concepts are forced to hide them behind smoke and mirrors. Otherwise, they are stolen along with the funding."
So, Crichton is..right. "Good" scientists "have" to lie,decieve...and produce paid-for results. And the bad ones...even worse. "the ends justify the means" principle....again. The "Universities" want politically correct profs that wont endanger funding and donations. Hence Demmings problems at OU with Snow. It got personal...rumored .. "your just a meteorologist(Snow) without the integrity or capacity to comprehend.......". Poor judgement..probably. Blunt...definitely. I like him. But, seems out of character. He's very professional. Same cant be said of Snow..from what I hear,and his actions.
Some questions: 1)Why pick CO2,the least significant gas at .04% A tiny fraction behind methane and water vapor. Water vapor,at 1-4%,and cloud cover blankets are far more significant. Methane takes around 17 years to oxidize in the atmosphere,and the worlds largest producer,next to the oceans,are termites. CO2 takes 8 years to be COMPLETELY scrubbed. If all life,including plants which give it off at night,would hold their breath for 8 years...it would be completely...gone. Why CO2? Care to guess? 3)Why are all the fears,data,models only about the....Northern Hemi? 4)Why are they trying to "get rid of" the Medieval Warm? Article headline "DID THE MEDIEVAL WARM REALLY HAPPEN?" (Been reading the IPCC reports,check the links) 5)Why dont they ever SAY we've been in global warming for 6000 years, sea levels rising, glaciers and ice melting? Global Warming is by NATURAL causes. 6)Why wont they SAY (see IPCC report)that it will be MANY hundreds of years to thousands,at the higher rates predicted. 99% of the worlds ice is in the Greenland Ice Cap and Antarctica. The vast bulk is in Antartica,more than GIC and glaciers...combined. IPCC says it will take at least 1500 years to melt the Greenland Ice Cap at the higher temps,Antarctica MUCH longer.(And the Southern Hemi is...cooling. ) 7)Why do they act like,or filter out,variations in the insolation from the Sun,sunspot activity,and heat output from "Gaia" itself,as if it doesnt matter? hhhhmmmm?
wwwwhhhhheeeewwwww!!! Barely scratched the surface.Need a break. More later.Big,sorry,too much to tackle at once. Later. wwwoooooofff!
Posted by bdgee on :
99% of the world's coral reefs are already dying.
When they are gone, most of the sea life that isn't deep stuff goes with them.
That's a significat portion of the worldwide human diet gone forever.
And that isn't something that will take another hundred or thousand years to happen. IT ALREADY IS!
Posted by OILDOG on :
99%??? You sure?? Sounds like a stretch to me! I've never read a number that high! Got a link?
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes!
Go look it up yourself. But be warned, you won't find it in that slanted grab bag of misquotes and faulty reasoning you have been fostering on us.
Read "Science". It's in there several times in the alst few years.
Try some respectable references. Appropriate references for science are not internet links and are NOT found outside of refereed schollarly scientific journals.
Posted by OILDOG on :
Well,gee beedg. Some of the stuff Ive been finding ARE abstracts and articles from Science,and others. So,if those same articles are on the web,their not repectable? Tainted,bogus? Saaaay, thats good to know. tnx
Posted by bdgee on :
"Well,gee beedg. Some of the stuff Ive been finding ARE abstracts and articles from Science,and others."
Yes. And generally taken out of context and misquoted and altered.
You may, among those you find on the net, find some supposedly written by me. There are papers I never authorized to be there, did not participate in putting there, and, I point out, that some have been altered, without my permission, from the original papers I did write and publised in appropriate journals.
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
Bush kills more than Terrorists...
Posted by bdgee on :
Agreed, Ace.....many many more....
Posted by OILDOG on :
Agreed. The more terrorists killed,the better. IF we infidels survive the Moslem Abomb,GWCBM and dying reefs and CO2 will be.....moot!
Posted by bdgee on :
I'd sort of like to have a solid and unquestionable definition of what is meant by "terrorist" myself, before being forced to answer any question as to whether or not they are better dead.
Posted by bdgee on :
Like, think about it man......
Supposed we discovered that Catherine Zeta-Jones was a raging bomb making Jew hater.
I might prefer to hold her prisoner and not kill her.
Darn right, "hold" that chick....heh heh heh....
Posted by OILDOG on :
Anyone that disagrees with you? Or can think for themselves?
Seriously tho, what discipline/journals did you pub?
Posted by glassman on :
OK, oil-dog.. i re-read the authors note, i find nothing in there to change my former opinions.. he even ends it with a sarcastic remark: "Everybody has an agenda except me"
he clearly states that (in his opinion) nobody knows if man is causing any global warming or not... however? this book is copyrighted in '04, so theres about as much new data available from when he was putting this book together as there was available when he wrote it.. knowledge is like that, it's exponential...
he also says clearly that we desperately need a non-partisan blinded impartial science funding mechanism... i think that is what i was pointing out too... and i think that really is the point of the book..he says we have a serious problem we need to study...
i gave you some links to data about the methane hydrates on the ocean floor... that's where (IMO) our salvation, or our doom lies... on the dark, cold floor of the ocean in the form of methane ice crystals...
i suggest that we have much less than 50 years to "get it right"... and i also dug up an old paper on CO2 from the ice core samples at Vostok... Trends There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 - 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.
essentially? CO2 is a serious greenhouse gas and we are most definitely producing over 19 pounds of CO2 for every gallon of gasoline burned...
the US avg is 464 gallons per year.. thats uh 4 tons of CO2 per US citizen per year.... or lessee? thats 2,400,000,000,000 pounds of CO2 we produce from just gasoline that would NOT be there if we were not using gasoline... BTW? i don't think we need to stop using gasoline completely... just cut it by 50 to 60%... and real soon... that would also put the mid-east oil people in a world of hurt too...
and? your plant thingy?you referred to release of C02 at night by plants? about them rereleasing their C02 at night? that's more disengenuousnous:
plants get almost all of their carbon from C02 in the air..in other words? what you see? came from CO2..
that re-relaese is insignificant to say the least....it is very inefficient, and it in no way comes close to re-releasing all or even most of the CO2 it takes in under photosynthesis...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
That's true Glass.
Vegetation fixes more CO2 then it ever lets off unless it is burned. Then it releases what it had fixed as it grew.
That's why folks want to find ways to produce fuels from cellulose like switchgrass. It would basicaly be greenhouse gas neutral.
Global Warming Deniers: Can't live with 'em; can't live with 'em!
Posted by bond006 on :
It is just amazing in our world how profit comes before the well being of billions of people.
By now our vehicles should be running on 50% less fuel than they are. Our homes should be heated and cooled with 50% less fuel and most of our electrcity should be nuclear energy.
Big oil has been the constant obstruction to this just from the main function of lobbist and proaganda.
It started with Regan killing the Carter energy bill.
I am not really suprised when profits can be as high as 10billion plus per quater think of that if you were at the top of the food chain and the rabble wanted you to give up a good chunck of that or all . What would most businessmen do.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I think nuclear energy stall out on its own due to its own undesirable waste product.
We STILL don't have a secure place to dispose of these materials.
I do agree though that the top of the mountain is very stubborn on accepting anything that could potentially shake their place on the ladder of wealth.
Posted by bond006 on :
Things will have to change or we will not exsits anymore the world is moving foward and we cannot stop that movement it is human nature. We all can't live on the earth if the 3rd world starts to consume like we do with the same methods. And no matter how we try we can't hold the world back nobody can.
We have chose for our selves the role of economic leader we should be changing and setting examples sellig the world new technologies in energy production. But that is not the way the world works business exist for massive consumption and wants to duplicate that economic modle all over it makes them wealthy even if at this point it is self destructive. And most likly won't change until all the easy to get fossil fules are havested then it will slowly change. Until then we will see more destruction of the ecology of the planet and war.
Posted by bond006 on :
If you are not giving the native of the Amozon away to cook and keep warm he or she have no alternative but to burn the rain forest and use it to build shelter.
Most people just say they should not do that
Isn't that nice, how do they just stop,We get mad if any body suggest that we just curb over indulgence let alone give up shelter and cooking but we are quick to all point fingers at the less fortunate it is not as profitable as just selling a barrel of oil, and telling anybody who thinks and has an opinion,that if you don't like pollution I will sell you a shovel and you can get off your lazy ass and clean it up,whinner.
Posted by bond006 on :
Just think where we would have been today had we kept all the tax advantages that Carter had set in place for solar and wind power alone i remember all the new businesses that were starting to blossom and all the research that was coming out of thoes policies.
I remember that overnite it all stopped and to a large degree so did lots of the small busenesses that were springing up.With the stroke of a penn we went back to almost pure fossil fuels.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Natives do cause damage to the ecological systems of the topical climates but they aren't usually the ones who cut down the forest. They do often use dynamite in the streams to get an easy diner though.
Cutting of the forests generally happens two ways.
Either a company that sells specialty woods for export comes in with chainsaws
OR
more often, and much more tragically, it is the poor from the surrounding towns that cause the most damage.
Those with nothing who move to the edge of the forest to cut out a little place to farm. They are ignored when only a few of them are there but once enough families move in and have cut a significant portion they are reported to the government. You see, these folks don't own the land they are farming. They are squatters.
The local authority comes and chases them off the land. By this point many of the minerals have already been leached out of the soil due to poor farming techniques, erosion of the soil, and because the soil really isn't that rich anyway.
That's one thing many folks don't know about the rainforests. In most area's the active soil is only a couple inches deep. Without the protection of the forest and the constant cycle of renewal it quickly becomes barren.
Anyway, the soil is depleted and no knowledgeable farmer wants it. So the cattle barons of the area buy these great area's of land literally 'dirt cheap' and use them as grazing lands for their cattle. Eventually the land loses the ability to even support the grasses necessary to feed the cattle and the baron sends out people to look for a new squatter colony.
Seen it firsthand. It's the same cycle we see everywhere. Those that have taking from those that have not all in the name of self interest without a care for the consequences.
Posted by bond006 on :
Thank you big for that clarification.
Still out of the same ilk greed to some necessity for others.
In our system we have for the most part let the profit of capitol go and run pretty much free there are some restraints but not many if you look at it from the peoples view.
Maybe phase 2 of our system will be a curtailed and very regulated form of capitalism.
Profit yes it is a good thing but not profit before the earth that we live in and peoples well being. another words profit with a social theem the same would go for Government and taxes and working together. Think of Goverment organizations like job corps but working for ecology.
Posted by turbokid on :
so is there an agreed upon reason why we came out of the last ice age? thats the main thing i take issue with. The earth was freezing and major parts of the north and south hemisphere were covered in ice. and ice reflects sunlight so you would think this process would continue. but there was a sudden increase in c02 and the earth warmed. in fact it looks like this has happend at least 5 distinct times in the last 400,000 years. What causes the c02 to have such a marked increase without human intervention?
also looking at the graph it seems that once the c02 increase starts it moves up fast, then suddenly bam "something" changes and it rights itself. (could this be the shutdown of the gulf stream?)
Posted by dinner42 on :
quote:Originally posted by turbokid: so is there an agreed upon reason why we came out of the last ice age? thats the main thing i take issue with. The earth was freezing and major parts of the north and south hemisphere were covered in ice. and ice reflects sunlight so you would think this process would continue.
there is no one answer yet that i am aware of:
that's why i gave the samrtass answer to get a Phd in meteorolgy... you know? "a butterfly flaps it's wings?" people want simple answers where they don't exist... each volcano can produce it's own unique "blend" of noxious BS... heck, simply producing black ash that is carried onto a large glacier could begin a warming trend... it could have started right in the great lakes from Mt St Helens..(i am simply pulling names out of air; i've seen no evidence to even suggest that)
an earthquake sets off a Tsunami, and a huge methane hydrate field is warmed up 4 degrees F. that would be like opening a soda bottle... the methane gas would effervesce into the atmosphere very rapidly.. see Storregga slide in google (most of the papers are PDF)...
And if your bucket is already lip filled, and you open that coke bottle over it, the bucket over flows......
You can drive down the highway, with tires over inflated to twice their designed pressure when cold, and then claim it was the abnormal heat of the day warming the pavement that caused the blowout, not human activity, and, in turn, that humans aren't responsible for what caused the wreck that killed and maimed....
YEAH!
It was just nature in one of its unpredictable cycles that killed little Janie and her dad and left her brother Bob, Jr. without a leg and burned over 60% of the remaing parts of his little body....
Global warming via human activity is a myth?
Hardly, it is a trigger.
Posted by glassman on :
agreed bdgee..
people don't really want to know how fragile our ecosystem is for the same reasons they want guarantees that they are gonna be safe from terrorists, and all other sorts of "boogie men".
it's even in the Bible: Genesis 1:26
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
dominion is a responsibility, it doesn't mean "here, do whatever you want with it" it means "this yours, take good care of it"...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I DO NOT have a PhD in meteorology so this is likely complete BS but:
Heat rises, cold sinks. Could it be that once the earth reaches a certain average temp certain gasses like CO2 sink causing a plentiful environment for vegetation which then fixes it into the soil?
Just speculation. No facts to back that up at all.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
I do not think that people do not care about global warming, i feel that so many people are having to live for today and cannot worry much about tomorrow. This might be an excuse for some, but it is not easy for younger people today and some older people. I have read a little on the subject but i am no expert, but it makes sense to me. But the bottom line is that alternative energy makes sense from and environmental standpoint and an economic one to the US and many other nations. It is about time the oil monopolies of the world get theirs. We are lucky that some major money has come to the backing of alternative fuels, because we know there is a lot more behind oil. This will get good over the next ten years hopefully much sooner, but it will be a fight. I am wondering what kind of costs are going to be involved in getting these fuels to market? We know that the oil companies have Hugh margins and can and will drop their prices to drive these fuels out. The problem with alternative fuels will be to compete with oil, because so many people will buy the cheapest fuel they can find. Easy access will also be important. But the end factor will be that it hopefully will become a competitors market and we as consumers will benefit environmentally, economically and worldly.
Posted by turbokid on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Global warming via human activity is a myth?
Hardly, it is a trigger.
this time maybe. but what about the last 4 times? thats what im saying.
Posted by bdgee on :
Turbo, you are grasping at straws and really, there aren't any straws at which to grasp.
Posted by turbokid on :
bdgee :so that graph i posted which shows us currently in a warm cycle that has happened 5 times in succession is a straw? listen man im not ignoring the fact that humans have increased c02 quantities in the air, but judging from scientific studies what we are experiencing has in fact happened before. all im doing is questioning the possibility that whats going on is part of a larger cycle of earth in which we have just accelerated in the last 100 years. Im aware that we are a wasteful,polluting,forest cutting, natural resource depleting species but the last increase of c02 that we currently are in started 15000 years ago (graph) still not trying to argue, i agree with most of you points, on this and other topics. im just merely asking the question. "What about the other times?" thats it.
great topic guys, you keep making me read more and more each day.
-turbo
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Here are a couple links to the Environmental Sciences Division of Oak Ridge Nation Laboratory regarding ice ages.
Oak Ridge is the Department of Energy's largest science and energy lab in the US.
It doesn't answer your questions directly Turbo and it is probably more info than you ever really wanted to know but I thought it may be worth linking.
Here is some background about the last 130,000 years.
"so that graph i posted which shows us currently in a warm cycle that has happened 5 times in succession is a straw?"
That graph has nothing to do with the current conditions for global warming and offers only indications of the mechanisms of global warming, not the causes of the increases of CO* and dust.
Moreover,
1. if you extrapolate the scale of years at the bottom, you will see that the latest time of that graph stops about 200,000 years ago (and CO2 and dust even earlier) and does not include the present
and
2. if you note the blue temperature graph, at about 300,000 years back, the trend went negative and extrapolating to the present clearly shows (according to that graph) that we are not in a warming cycle but in a cooling cycle.
That graph traces the conditions thorugh several cycles in the past when there was no possiblilty of human participation of either causes or deterants to those CO2 cycles.
What brought about the increases in CO2 then and what are the causes now are not the same as we have proof that humans are the principle source now and humans didn't exist then.
"What about the other times?"
The other times, as you can plainly see, when the CO2 gets too high, so does the temperature.
This time, the reason the CO2 level is growing too rapidly and too much is us.
Posted by T e x on :
I don't like that graph...
for one thing, where's it from?
then...I'd like it to be more clear: if the makers caint put like with like...?
Not saying "they" are wrong--simply asking for better graphics, I guess...
Posted by turbokid on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: I don't like that graph...
for one thing, where's it from?
then...I'd like it to be more clear: if the makers caint put like with like...?
Not saying "they" are wrong--simply asking for better graphics, I guess...
there are several others there too. like this one.. Posted by turbokid on :
[quote]bdgeeThat graph has nothing to do with the current conditions for global warming and offers only indications of the mechanisms of global warming, not the causes of the increases of CO* and dust. of coarse it doesnt show the causes. what it does show is that there are several periods of very rapid increases in c02 and subsequent falls, like a cycle.
[quote]bdgee1. if you extrapolate the scale of years at the bottom, you will see that the latest time of that graph stops about 200,000 years ago (and CO2 and dust even earlier) and does not include the present perhaps one of us is reading the graph wrong but i see it going from 400,000 years ago to 0 (present) [quote]bdgee2. if you note the blue temperature graph, at about 300,000 years back, the trend went negative and extrapolating to the present clearly shows (according to that graph) that we are not in a warming cycle but in a cooling cycle again maybe one of us is reading the graph wrong, but i see 325,000 years back a fall in tempurature and c02 from a high point. And then a bottom in both tempurature and c02 around 275,000 years ago. And according to the graph just came off a low point around 15,000 years ago in both temps and c02 and in a current warming trend. [quote]bdgeeThe other times, as you can plainly see, when the CO2 gets too high, so does the temperature. agreed, but 3 times previous the temps and c02 have been higher than they are currently, with no human interaction.
[quote]bdgeeThis time, the reason the CO2 level is growing too rapidly and too much is us. i see the current rapid ascent of temps and c02 is just as fast as the previous 3.
heres the chart again to keep it down here with the conversation.
Posted by bdgee on :
Perhaps we don't read that graph the same, as you suggest.
But looking at that graph and the scale of time along the bottom, I see no time past about 200,000 years ago and it clearly shows that the trend of the temperature, after around 300,000 years ago, is in decline.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
2006 warmest year ever in USFrom correspondents in Salt Lake City
January 10, 2007 12:51pm Article from: ReutersFont size: + -
THE year 2006 was the warmest in the US since recordsbegan 112 years ago, government weather forecasters said today.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) preliminary forecast released in mid-December forecast 2006 as the third warmest year on record.
NOAA said no state was colder than average last month and five states had their warmest December on record - Minnesota, New York, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire.
The average temperature in the US in 2006 was about 1.2C above the average temperature recorded from 1901 to the end of 2000.
The warm start to the winter was tied partly to the "rarity" of Arctic outbreaks across the country because of El Nino, NOAA said.
El Nino, which is Spanish for "the little boy," is an abnormal warming of water in the Pacific Ocean every three or so years that can wreak havoc with global weather patterns. It usually brings warmer weather to much of the United States.
Weather forecasters said another factor in the record warmth was a long term warming trend some have linked to increases in greenhouse gases.
"This has made warmer-than-average conditions more common in the US and other parts of the world," NOAA said.
"It is unclear how much of the recent anomalous warmth was due to greenhouse-gas-induced warming and how much was due to the El Nino-related circulation pattern."
NOAA began keeping records in 1895.
Posted by OILDOG on :
wwwhhhheeeee!!!misconception mania!!! Good to see a few (turbokid) questioning the orthodoxy.
Glass said: essentially? CO2 is a serious greenhouse gas and we are most definitely producing over 19 pounds of CO2 for every gallon of gasoline burned...
Not. Check wikipedia and EPA site,others. "May" produce 5-6 pounds per gallon. Wrong by a factor of 3. Deliberate? Or quoting slanted,biased sources?
Glass said:and? your plant thingy?you referred to release of C02 at night by plants? about them rereleasing their C02 at night? that's more disengenuousnous:
plants get almost all of their carbon from C02 in the air..in other words? what you see? came from CO2..
that re-relaese is insignificant to say the least....it is very inefficient, and it in no way comes close to re-releasing all or even most of the CO2 it takes in under photosynthesis...
Dont know how much is released at night. But, it does happen! And,the efficiency of water use and CO2 sequestration INCREASES with temp increase. Seems self-mitigating to me. Plants produce all kinds of particulates that help form nuclei for cloud formation(rain). Increased CO2= increased plant growth and efficiency. Reagan was right...forests are...polluters!!
GB said:Global Warming Deniers: Can't live with 'em; can't live with 'em! Get your facts straight GB, global warming has been a "fact of life" on earth for a least 1.5-2 billion years. AGW or Global Warming Caused By Man is a...theory. And a poor one at that. CO2 is increasing. NOT necessarily bad, and behind methane and particularly...water vapor. Why "pick" CO2? The oceans and plants scrub it out in 8 years. Shut off the source,what happens to ocean algae and land plants? We NEED it!!! Why the Chicken Little scare? We will be on hydrogen and other sources long before its a problem. JMHO
bond006 said:It is just amazing in our world how profit comes before the well being of billions of people. Yea,bond, in Europe,they are...trading Carbon Credits in the market. VERY LUCRATIVE. The title ends with "Scheme". heh Some over here are pizzed the U.S. has not signed Kyoto BECAUSE... they want IN on the lucrative SCHEME. Just like the Fraud...er Stock Market..eh?
bond006 said:Things will have to change or we will not exsits anymore the world is moving foward and we cannot stop that movement it is human nature. We all can't live on the earth if the 3rd world starts to consume like we do with the same methods. And no matter how we try we can't hold the world back nobody can.
"not exist anymore"? Yea,End of Days, Apocalypse NOW, The Sky is Falling. Eugenics,Population Bomb, Bird Flu.Nuclear War. Do you spend all your time in a little hole,surrounded by bottles of water and meals-ready-to-eat?Doom-sayers have been saying stuff like that for thousnds of years. Running out of oil by 2000! Remember that one? And yet,new areas are being explored,yearly, and more found. The Orinco Basin is believed to have more oil than Saudia Arabia and Kuwait....combined. No wonder comrade Chavez is smiling and so full of himself!!! And pals with China. The Appalachians have been neglected over the last 100 years,and the Marathon Uplift in Texas is just beginning to be seriously drilled. Many more can be added to that list. Carters solar and wind tax credits. Probably the ONLY thing he ever did worth a crap. And...the Dems were in charge of Congress when it ended. Ask THEM...why!!!!
Enough of that. Glass? You have a phd in meteorology? A "weather-guy"? cool!!
Posted by dinner42 on :
Oildog, nice analysis...lol
that was a good read. It would seem that the clarification of information is the key to understanding and that is a start.
Beginning to understand is forward thinking and possiblity thinking that uses portions of the brain that are constantly in development. An orderly thought process minus a dooms day fear factor will pave the way to new ideas, new concepts and new solutions...
and who knew, some of it was explored right here on Allstocks..
May your stocks rise and make you money throughout the year.
Best Wishes
dinner
Posted by glassman on :
sorry Oil:
How can 6 pounds of gasoline create 19 pounds of Carbon dioxide?
It seems impossible that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about 6.3 pounds, could produce 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned. However, most of the weight of the CO2 doesn't come from the gasoline itself, but the oxygen in the air.
When gasoline burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), and carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2).
CO2 molecule with one carbon atom (atomic weight 12) and two oxygen atoms (atomic weight of 16 each)A carbon atom has a weight of 12, and each oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of CO2 an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon and 32 from oxygen).
Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by 44/12 or 3.7.
Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the carbon in a gallon of gasoline weighs 5.5 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .87).
We can then multiply the weight of the carbon (5.5 pounds) by 3.7, which equals 20 pounds of CO2!
that's from your own US Dept of Energy Bush/Cheney government...
(and BTW) i looked up the plant thingy before i posted too... CO2 re-release by plants is very insignificant... did i mention that i am married to a genetic engineer? (that's a MOLECULAR biology degree phd)
you would be fascinated to know how much the DOE is involved in genetic engineering... they are even working on making "super yeast" to get alcohol from cellulose... which is two polymerised sugars (linked side by side instead of end to end..)
The Chart: beeg,what's hard to understand about the chart? It stops,200 thousand years ago? What on earth are you talking about? The present is on the LEFT..and 400,000 years ago,on the right. The chart is clearly showing the temp cycles along with CO2 and dust. Consider: As the iceage glaciers advance,all the way into Kansas, ALL of Canada's forests and plants and the norther tier of states in the U.S. are....DEAD...bulldozed!!! During retreat,all that stuff will..decompose, generating CO2,but,most of the CO2 scrubbers are...gone.Cooler oceans...less activity there too.As the ice retreats and temps increase, plants & forests come back...to work. The dust spikes? As more and more moisture is sucked out of the atmosphere to make snow, vast areas of desert form,windblown loess covers huge areas of the northwest,Texas/Okla panhandles and eastern Colorado,western Kansas,Nebraska,ect., to name just a few. Cold desert. Rich farmland. The Great Plains was pretty much desert. As temps rise, plants come back and cover those areas, ergo,less dust. I see two temp spikes HIGHER than present..or predicted.
bdgee said:"2. if you note the blue temperature graph, at about 300,000 years back, the trend went negative and extrapolating to the present clearly shows (according to that graph) that we are not in a warming cycle but in a cooling cycle."
Yyeeessss!!! Clearly!! You got THAT right!(hung by yer own petard?) bdgee said:"What brought about the increases in CO2 then and what are the causes now are not the same as we have proof that humans are the principle source now and humans didn't exist then." No. We've added to it,but NOT the principle source. And,humans DID exist then.Neandertal I believe. And,two of the temp spikes are HIGHER. Who's fault...then?
This chart,with Vostok ice core info, shows much higher warming temps than present..or predicted. Should have been mass extinction according to "consenus of opinion" AGW "theory". Right? Almost 6 deg C higher. All the dire predictions are based on computer climate models (CCM). The weather-guys cant predict the weather much beyond the Weekend Forecast, why believe them? 5 or 10 years down the road? No way. A century or two? roflmao. And the CCMs ignore or minimise the Suns input, or the Earth itself...crustal heat input. And the "hockeystick" data has lots of problems,as the originator..Mann...admits to. Why did he use proxy data clear up to 1980? And only a single data set of tree ring derived temps from western North America. Comparing apples to oranges.
Seems they've found the "smoking gun" for El Nino. Triple-junction "hotspot" in the ocean floor,near Indonesia,north of Darwin,Australia. Thermal coupling of crust to ocean. Who'd of thunk it. Thermal expansion of sea water, long-period gravity waves. Second hottest spot is near Iceland. duh! At the northern terminus of the "Atlantic conveyor". doooohh!!!! Tectonics. Surge theory. Something else the CCMs dont factor. Sun's radiation cycles,sunspots,coincide with droughts, Maunder Minimum with Little Ice Age. Sea floor spreading? You'll never guess! And the weather guys and envirochurch.....just ignore.lmao.
Posted by bdgee on :
Glass, don't I remember doing essentually that calculation about a year back for another confused business major and isn't it true that I have seen you do it before too?
These guys need to learn some arithmatic and science.
That formula you give is useful in other was too. Think about the weight of the entire mass of the dried leaves a healthy oak tree sheds every year. That weight, like gasoline, is mostly from carbon. Now multiply that total weight of carbon by that 3.7 and you have just a small portion (we aren't considering the carbon locked into the trunk and limbs and roots, etc.) of the carbon that particular tree "fixes" (in just that one year), so that it remains out of the carbon cycle, for the most part, until some fool (or innocent but ignorant soul) burns it to make a new corn field.
Posted by OILDOG on :
Glass: nice try? Check the sites. But,5.5# seems to be accurate...for carbon. That is the scare isnt it..carbon? Or,is the oxygen pollution too? I'll check the DOE site. But,no problemo. beeg,confused? Naaa. Just surfin' around and finding some VERY interesting stuff. Another name-drop: Dr.A.A.Meyerhoff,visiting professor at OSU,1976. I took his Tectonics class. Brilliant,gifted. I was pleased to learn Surge Theory was his contribution. He always had problems with "Continental Drift" and "Plate Tectonics". Or,mainly the junk science surrounding it. He was still swinging to the end.
Posted by bdgee on :
There is nothing difficult about reading that graph, yet you continue to misread it and you continue to misstate facts about global warming.
And over and over you can't figure out what the term "global warming" refers to.
You need some education beyond the blather of big oil house organs, which are not there to make the case of science and reality, but of self centered economic interest.
Did you know that most "graphs" are totally discontinuous and totally disconnected? That there are connected ones that are nowhere continuous. One of the most fundamental discoveries of all mankind was Wierstrass' description of a continuous graph with no derivative. I might not be able to show you, but I can show a person with sufficient mathematical background, that there is a graph that intersects the interior of every circle of any size and any position in the plane. Oh, and by the way, there are graphs with integrals that have no derivative anywhere. The study of graphs and their properties and interpretation is a fascinating and engrossing pastime.
Posted by OILDOG on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: There is nothing difficult about reading that graph, yet you continue to misread it and you continue to misstate facts about global warming.
And over and over you can't figure out what the term "global warming" refers to.
You need some education beyond the blather of big oil house organs, which are not there to make the case of science and reality, but of self centered economic interest.
Did you know that most "graphs" are totally discontinuous and totally disconnected? That there are connected ones that are nowhere continuous. One of the most fundamental discoveries of all mankind was Wierstrass' description of a continuous graph with no derivative. I might not be able to show you, but I can show a person with sufficient mathematical background, that there is a graph that intersects the interior of every circle of any size and any position in the plane. Oh, and by the way, there are graphs with integrals that have no derivative anywhere. The study of graphs and their properties and interpretation is a fascinating and engrossing pastime.
Well,beeg,YOU didnt seem to understand it. And, your right,we ARE in a COOLING trend.NOT Global Warming Caused by Man. So,by what you said,the "hockeystick" graph and CO2 graphs are...bogus? hmmmm
Posted by dinner42 on :
I think the planet and our solar system are in a natural cycle and we have little or no control over it. It was established long ago and like George Carlin says: "maybe we are here just so the planet could have plastic" This planet could grind us up and spit us out in a moment of time like a blender. This is a living breathing planet and we don't know squat! The sooner we understand that the quicker we can get on with taking care of our world and keep it clean and enjoy the ride...
lol.....
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by OILDOG: Glass: nice try? Check the sites. But,5.5# seems to be accurate...for carbon. That is the scare isnt it..carbon? Or,is the oxygen pollution too?
CO2 is not pollution... it is a serious (but not as serious as methane) greenhouse gas....
CO2 is produced by hydrocarbon combustion.. the most efficient hyrdocarbon consumption produces only CO2 and H2O... sadly none of our current systems are very efficient, and pollution is ALSO produced from the poor combustion...
we are producing CO2 at a faster rate than our planet can "scrub" it.. that's known fact...
trying to say carbon and oxygen are both OK would be correct if they were separate... together as CO2 they have different physical properties...
CO2 wouldn't be a problem if we could find a way to utilise it FAST ENOUGH... all animals produce it too...it's what we breathe out... (squids and octopuses might not produce CO2..they have copper (instead of iron) based blood and i don't know if they produce CO2 or what maybe they exhale cyanide )
Posted by dinner42 on :
GAS/CO2/O2/H20/EVAPORATION/ABSORBTION RATIO
GCOHEAR, Just made up a new acronym...lol
Posted by OILDOG on :
copper based blood? I DIDNT KNOW THAT!! So,their related to Spock,or Spock related to them?
Cooked up a pot of ham and beans today. Cornbread. I'm a methane-producing global warming mosheeeeen!! Sometimes rather...energetically!! Maybe I should...flare it off....NOT! Posted by glassman on :
i don't like Al Gore either... nor Clinton.. never did... the thing is? he's correct about the C02 thingy... if somebody i don't like very much is "pumping" a good stock? i still do my DD and check it out.... i might not give them credit for being right tho
cattle are causing alot of global warming too... but i still eat meat...
one time when i used to drink? my neighbor had some kerosene in a crown royal bottle.... ( he had it in there to start his woodstove ) i took a really big slug before i realised it wasn't ambrosia... talk about producing methane? sheesh its like pure gas... LOL seriously? i called poison control? and they said don't worry about it... i had already barfed most of it back up tho... Posted by dinner42 on :
OT"
Remember:
"The angle of the dangle is directly in proportion to the heat of the meat times the number of beats divided by the mass of the ass."
Posted by OILDOG on :
Well,I visited the Goreons site, under The Science. lmao. Some of the references were Time magazine,Washington Post. "Peer-reviewed",no doubt.
Interesting thing I've noticed lately. A few days ago was watching ABC Evening News. The Talking Head was "noticing" the "unusual" weather in New England. His guest(for a 10 sec sound bite) was from NOAA, 37 years, phd weather guy. He started asking phd about El Nino and "global warming". Before he could finish, the weather-guy said "NO! El Nino has nothing to do with global warming." I almost fell out of my chair. Was he trying to,now,retain a little professional integrity? House of cards coming down? When it does, weather-guys may find themselves lumped into the same bag with politicians and other criminals. Liars. The people and the "science". Stick to weekend forecasts. Most of the time,like the other night, their actually talking about the weather, NOT climate. Big difference.
Posted by OILDOG on :
Buffalo did a lot of "gassin'" too. Course,they are "natural", and cows are...not?
Did you read the stuff about the Indonesian "hotspot"? VERY interesting. And,thermal expansion over the heat source,raises the oceans level. Raise the ocean level,compress the atmosphere....high pressure area. Some of that was noted in 1932,by Walker. And..sea level is sea level,depending on WHERE you are in the world. One side of the Pacific is 68 cm higher than the other. And...sea-floor spreading is raising sea level. Between 1-2 mm per year. Half or more of what is observed in sea level increases. And...sunspot cycles. 11,22 and 90 years. Correlate to droughts,at least in NA. Maunder Minimum (few to NO sunspots) correlates to Little Ice Age. And,we are currently in a 70 year period of higher than normal sunspots. Cycles still occur,11 & 22 years, but at a higher level. Do any of the computer models input any of that? NO! "If the data doent fit the computer model, then the data is bad" seems to be todays "science".The excitement in geophysics with the Indonesian hot spot,is...that NOW they may actually be able to model the climate with SOME accuracy. The more I drill the more I find. Interesting. But why the hoax? Jacques Chireac(sp?) said that Kyoto does next to nothing for global warming, but is a good first step towards a global government. European..natch Socialist/communist...ditto.. soon totalitarian..a "natural progression". The French are the only "enlightened" people who could run such a world government....of course. And keep a boot on the 3rd world chitholes. Thats my opinion. Just look closer at the so-called "environmental activist" groups, their philosophy and who funds them. The Royal Academy firing off letters to newpapers,tv,corporations, demanding they dont publish or air anyone questioning AGW. Censorship,but,not for...them.
Posted by bdgee on :
"So,by what you said,the "hockeystick" graph and CO2 graphs are...bogus? hmmmm"
No, just your choice to misread them and your inability (or unwillingness) to understand that the term "global warming" as it is currently being used, IS NOT A PART OF NATURAL UNINFLUENCED BY HUMANS CLIMATE CYCLES.
Indeed, the Earth's climate does cycle (more or less, but you have to be a bit loose with the meaning of cycle in that usage) and indeed it appears to be predicted by CO2 concentrations. But what we are speaking of is the extreme amount of CO2 in the athmosphere due to human activity. The levels are high enough to trigger a serious catastrophic change in the "naturally occuring" climate cycles. (Be careful about that term catastrophic and avoid misusing it ....I do not apply it loosely, but in a purely mathematical and specific form. Like "global warming", the term "catastreophic", as I use it, is not subject to the loose twisting you want to apply to it politically.)
Posted by Upside on :
I say screw it all. I watched the Al Gore movie. Come on guys, lets break out the aerosol cans! If I can't move to Florida, I'm going to bring Florida to me.
Posted by glassman on :
And...sunspot cycles. 11,22 and 90 years. Correlate to droughts,at least in NA. Maunder Minimum (few to NO sunspots) correlates to Little Ice Age. And,we are currently in a 70 year period of higher than normal sunspots. Cycles still occur,11 & 22 years, but at a higher level.
this is good stuff...
i haven't read much on the sunspots...
i have a vague idea what they are, and how they increase radiation, but i've never seen any charted data on them...
they must have some impact too..
whether the higher levels of radiation are reflected or absorbed into the atmosphere would be important tho wouldn't they? that's all a green house does, determine reflection or absorption..
in tectonics? i was mostly curious about the polarity changes recorded in the mid-atlaintic rift that indicate the north and south pole flip... how does/is that gonna work? that could be a real mess... especially if we have to flip and reverse direction... that could mean a lot "sloshing"
hey Up. last summer here in central MS? nobody wanted to go outside... in my garden? i grew sun-dried tomatoes... Posted by OILDOG on :
"as it is CURRENTLY being used" lmao. So,next month,what will it "currently" be used for. Seems a lot of the lit uses AGW:anthropogenic global warming. I like GW caused by Man. More clear what they're getting at. Seems to me you use the term "catastrophic" pretty loose indeed. Fear-mongering. And your quotes around "naturally occuring" climate cycles, implying....they are NOT? Space aliens in control? C'mon beeg, I havent "twisted" the term. YOU have, spinning like whirling dervish.lmao The hockeystick chart and CO2 chart are THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT for Global Warming Caused by Man. The temp chart compares proxy data to instrument data...apples and oranges. Mann ADMITS the whole thing hinges on a single tree ring data set from Western US.,and falls apart WITHOUT IT! And,it only applies to North America. "Extreme amount of CO2 in the atmosphere"?????? Says who? Higher levels,but "extreme"? There have been much much higher levels in the past. Makes for some pretty large plants! Yea,could be catastrophic. Dang,might have to mow my lawn... everyday!!! Oh no!! Besides,a few years,even a few decades of "unusual" WEATHER (think droughts for example) does NOT a climate change make. You boys are talking weather and trying to spin it into a Climate Change. Ive only just "drilled into" some other stuff, that I havent figured out yet. Like the 18.6 yr sea level cycle in the South Pacific, and Metonic cycle (don't know what it is..but I WANT one). More to learn. Posted by glassman on :
the Mann data is not the sole source...
there is a multiple proxy data set... see NOAA
your own government says we are screwing up too oild.
it's the stuffed shirts that are squeezing the last bit of profit out of their antiquated machine that won't face the truth...
as China and India become heavy consumers? the problem will only escalate...
it's time to find another source of energy to drive our economy (past time to have begun a full scale re-allocation of resources)
oil is valuable and will probably always be used for certain applications like heavy freight hauling etc... but? it is already unnecessary for most Americans day to day living....
Posted by OILDOG on :
Glass,hams are VERY interested in sunspot cycles. CQ mag usually has the latest cycle charts, but occasionally one for a longer period. If I cant find one elsewhere,I'll try to scan and post, but,my success here is...mixed!
Not sure if magnetic reversals are "catastrophic" or not. It has happened MANY times. But, not since airplanes,navigation,power grids,ect. Probably wont be...good.
Posted by OILDOG on :
"full scale reallocation of resources" What...does that mean?
"oil unnecessary for most Americans" ???? Thanks to the enviro-cons and the nuclear protests, nuclear power was killed in this country. Would have made a huge difference,but,they wouldnt have the CO2 scare...now. And,when they "kill oil" and SUVs, they'll have another scare. Windpower? Drop in the bucket. Mainly a bird "slice and dice" machine. "unnecessary"?? EPA says the LARGEST source of CO2, 38%, is from commercial & residential power generation. Thanks,enviros.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by OILDOG: "as it is CURRENTLY being used" lmao. So,next month,what will it "currently" be used for. Seems a lot of the lit uses AGW:anthropogenic global warming. I like GW caused by Man. More clear what they're getting at. Seems to me you use the term "catastrophic" pretty loose indeed. Fear-mongering. And your quotes around "naturally occuring" climate cycles, implying....they are NOT? Space aliens in control? C'mon beeg, I havent "twisted" the term. YOU have, spinning like whirling dervish.lmao The hockeystick chart and CO2 chart are THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT for Global Warming Caused by Man. The temp chart compares proxy data to instrument data...apples and oranges. Mann ADMITS the whole thing hinges on a single tree ring data set from Western US.,and falls apart WITHOUT IT! And,it only applies to North America. "Extreme amount of CO2 in the atmosphere"?????? Says who? Higher levels,but "extreme"? There have been much much higher levels in the past. Makes for some pretty large plants! Yea,could be catastrophic. Dang,might have to mow my lawn... everyday!!! Oh no!! Besides,a few years,even a few decades of "unusual" WEATHER (think droughts for example) does NOT a climate change make. You boys are talking weather and trying to spin it into a Climate Change. Ive only just "drilled into" some other stuff, that I havent figured out yet. Like the 18.6 yr sea level cycle in the South Pacific, and Metonic cycle (don't know what it is..but I WANT one). More to learn. :D
Apparantly you can't read.
These quotes you give from from BillO and Fat Rush the Doper and the rest of that bunch of technical illiterates (by choice) are just restatements baseless political BS and nonsense.
You have not just a long way to go to reaching some understanding of the scientific process, you must first discard that far right wing bigotry.
The scientific process accepts no preconceived assumptions and you are full of them.
Posted by OILDOG on :
"The scientific process accepts no preconceived assumptions and you are full of them."
beeg..NOWHERE is preconceived assumptions and "full of it" than with...you. Discard YOUR ultra leftwing bigotry and Al Frankin/AlGore understanding of science.
"Apparently you can't read". Seems to be your main "argument".
Posted by glassman on :
a long time ago i read a really "cool" book called "Fingerprints of the Gods" by Graham Hancock.. it's pseudo science.. but what makes it interesting is that he is just a curious philosopher and not a scientist... scientists tend to push their own data and reject things that don't agree with their lifes work (big theory) you can't blame them since their livelihood usually depends on being right...
anyway? in Fingerprints? he goes from Egyptology to the reverse polarity to the Zodiac clock or more precisely? the precession of the equinoxes...
like i said? you have to take the book with a well uh a uh Martini but it is fun..
the FACT that we have understood the precession since before Jesus' time would seem to suggest our human history is missing some BIG chunks... the precession is a 26ooo year cycle...
he tries to make a case for the earth physically flipping over.. but the antarctic ice cores would seem to negate the possibility that humans have observed this... they seem to show that Antarcic ice is about 750,000 yrs old.. The core goes back 740,000 years and reveals 8 previous glacial cycles. Drilling was completed at this site in December 2004, reaching a drilling depth of 3270.2 m, 5 m above bedrock. Present-day annual average air temperature is -54.5°C and snow accumulation 25 mm/y. Information about the core was first published in Nature on 2004/June/10 [1]. The core went back 720,000 years and revealed 8 previous glacial cycles.
he drew/copied from older maps that showed Antarctica without ice... IMO? you can chuck all the data we collect all the time... if you want to
how did that map get made if the ice is really 750K years old?
Reis's maps were studied by the US Navy and compared with surveys the USN conducted (i think it was) in the 1950's to determine the actual land mass under the ice...
until then? nobody knew what Antarctica looked like under the ice...
Antarctica wasn't even dicsovered by modern man until 1820....
my guess? we have alot of undiscovered human civilization sites under a few hundred feet of water due to the last ice age melting...
Posted by OILDOG on :
Maybe Von Danakin (sp?) and Chariots of the Gods was....right? Posted by glassman on :
global warming? it gets better... according to GEOLOGISTS that have studied the Sphynx? they say there is no question that the Sphynx has suffered erosion from RAIN... of course? Egypologists and Archeologists HATE this.. cuz it changes the age to at least 4000 older than the Egyptologists want... sometime BEFORE 7500 BC...
talk about ego and pride? the guy that runs the site at Giza, Zahi Hawass, starts visibly foaming at the mouth if anybody suggests his precious "big dig" is anything other than what he says it is...
of course? there's all these "new-age" nuts that have their own pet theories too
the geologists have a much stronger EMPIRICAL case... the Archeologists have assumption built upon assumption and so on...
Von Daniken? i think he just underestimates the power of the human mind in antiquity...
when Picasso was allowed into the caves at Lascaux to see the paintings? he said, and i can't quote word for word, something like "we have learned absolutely nothing"
Posted by glassman on :
here: When Pablo Picasso visited the newly-discovered Lascaux caves, in the Dordogne, in 1940, he emerged from them saying of modern art, "We have discovered nothing".
Reconsider theories'
It found the Chauvet drawings to be between 29,700 and 32,400 years old. This is about 10,000 years older than comparable cave art found in the Lascaux caves that are around 17,000 years old.
According to Helene Valladas the research shows that ancient man was just as skilled at art as the humans who followed 13,000 years later.
"Apparently you can't read". Seems to be your main "argument".
You maybe need to look up usages of that word "argument" too. That three is bigger than two is a fact, not an argument. An argumant to establish that fact is that, in order to consider the sizes of two and three it is necessary only to note that adding one to two yields three and adding to a number grants a bigger number, by definition.
No, it isn't an argument, but it is a fact, demonstrated as such by your repeated misrepresentations (particularly of written things) of what others have said and done......maybe even one worhty of being named a postulate.
Posted by glassman on :
reading? hmmm... i suspect reading and writing started with animal tracks....
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Nuclear power. Now THERE'S a good idea. Can we bury the waste in your backyard, OIL DOG?
quote:Originally posted by OILDOG: Thanks to the enviro-cons and the nuclear protests, nuclear power was killed in this country.
Posted by OILDOG on :
The Europeans,and just about everybody else is already nuclear in a big way. What are THEY doing with their waste? We are almost a non-nuclear...uh power? Whats left? Coal oil and natural gas fired power plants. Rrreeeaaalllll smart! Solar? How many thousands of square miles covered in solar panels do you want? Of course, it'll be MY back yard,fly-over-country,wont it. NIMBY. Best place for wind is near/offshore. Again, NIMBY. Lets just dump the nuke waste into a subduction zone off the California coast. It'll be gone in oh a few million years. heh Problem solved.
Posted by OILDOG on :
Good chart,and:"According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago." Beginning of the end of THAT Ice Age?
Abstract: From http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.
1-3-2007 ABSTRACT: The "solar constant" is, in fact, not constant. Recent satellite observations have found that the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), the amount of solar radiation received at the top of the Earth's atmosphere, does vary - see the graph for the results from six satellites (ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE/IRRAD97.PDF). "The variations on solar rotational and active region time scales are clearly seen. The large, short-term decreases are caused by the TSI blocking effect of sunspots in magnetically active regions as they rotate through our view from Earth. The peaks of TSI preceding and following these sunpot "dips" are caused by the faculae of solar active regions whose larger areal extent causes them to be seen first as the region rotates onto our side of the sun and last as they rotate over the opposite solar limb." [Excerpted from the UARS descriptive text] The TSI provides the energy that determines the Earth's climate. Variations of the total solar irradiance (solar constant) have become an important new tool for studying the sun since the deployment of a new generation of precise solar flight instrumentation, such as the ACRIM I satellite experiment on the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) in 1980. The study of variations of the spectral irradiance observed in the EUV also has developed rapidly. The largest variations of the total irradiance occur on time scales of a day to several weeks and are caused by solar active regions. Efforts to model the radiative effects of active regions are proceeding and the first round of results from these have appeared in literature. Disagreements have quickly surfaced in this new field and a topical workshop was convened at the California Institute of Technology in June 1983, to provide both formal and informal opportunities for dialog between those actively working in this area. The papers resulting from this workshop are collected in the report by LaBonte et al. (1984). NGDC Boulder holds the SMM satellite irradiance data for February 1980 to May 1989 and the Nimbus data for November 1978 to the present. Also available are the Hoyt and Eddy model data for the period 1974 to 1981. Early data by Abbott, Smithsonian Institution, from many locations worldwide covering the period 1902 to 1962 are available also. PURPOSE: To provide long-term scientific data stewardship for the Nation's geophysical data, ensuring quality, integrity, and accessibility. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: This archive contains data from: Composite Total Solar Irradiance database 1978-present, compiled by C. Frohlich and J. Lean ACRIM Composite TSI Time Series 1978-present, compiled by R. Willson SORCE (Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment) 2003 - present, compiled by G. Rottman Total Solar Irradiance Goddard Space Flight Center:
. Hypothesized Climate Forcing Time Series for the Last 500 Years [NOAA_NGDC_PALEO_CLIMATEFORCING]
Volcanic and Solar Forcing of the Tropical Pacific over the Past 1000 Years [NOAA_NCDC_PALEO_2005-035]
Seems El Nino is influenced by volcanic and solar forcing, hence the "Climate". Much more available at NOAA and Goddard.
Posted by OILDOG on :
Hmmm. Thought it would have "displayed" the chart. How did you do that turbokid? Do I need to go thru an image storage site?
Well,look for yerself. Kinda looks like the "hockeystick" chart.
Posted by glassman on :
you have to pull the location of th echart from the web page, and post it between [img] [/img]
i use mozzilla to get the location of the pix by right clicking...
Posted by glassman on :
i see a possible problem here: increased solar activity ALONG with our increasing output of CO2 may in fact be double jeopardy?
that highlighted area? seem to correspond to a situation called the Storegga slide...
which may have caused a large amount of methane hydrate to be released as methane gas and methane is even worse than CO2...
it also seems to correspond with when the geologist THINK the rain damage to the Sphynx occurred...
Posted by OILDOG on :
Good stuff. Ive never heard of the Storegga Slide. It does seem to correlate pretty close.
Double jeopardy? Maybe triple? Several sources seem to think volcanic & solar forcing most important. We are in an "unusual" Solar Max, and increasing volcanism in the Pacific basin. Warming the ocean,from below, could be at least as important as atmospheric. And happen faster. Do you heat a pan of water on the kitchen stove, or... raise the temp of the kitchen?
Appreciate posting the chart. Better than a "link"
Posted by OILDOG on :
Posted by OILDOG on :
hmmmm. What did I do wrong?
Posted by glassman on :
no spaces allowed between the URL and the commands..
Posted by OILDOG on :
ddaaaannnnggg! Finicky little bugger isn't it? Edited it 3 times. heh. Thought it needed caps. tnx Glass.
Posted by OILDOG on :
Metonic cycle From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The Metonic cycle or Enneadecaeteris in astronomy and calendar studies is a particular approximate common multiple of the year (specifically, the seasonal i.e. tropical year) and the synodic month. Nineteen tropical years differ from 235 synodic months by about 2 hours. The Metonic cycle's error is one full day every 219 years, or 12.4 parts per million.
19 tropical years = 6939.602 days 235 synodic months = 6939.688 days It is helpful to recognize that this is an approximation of reality. The period of the Moon's orbit around the Earth and the Earth's orbit around the Sun (ignoring also exact definition of the year) are independent and have no known physical resonance. Examples of a real harmonic lock would be Mercury, with its 3:2 spin-orbit resonance or other orbital resonance.
I'm banging into stuff I've never heard of. So, it has to do with the Moon, and 19 tropical years is purty close to the 18.6 yr high sea level cycle that "gets" some of the South Pacific islands like Vanuatu(sp/). Also read that most of the volcanic islands are sinking do to cooling of the volcanic material that formed them,after they move off the "hotspot" that formed them. And,kinetic waves,from the El Nino source near Indonesia,take 12-18 months to travel across the Pacific,cross South America, into the Atlantic to influence the Hurricane "womb". Gets curiouser and curiouser. Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by OILDOG: ddaaaannnnggg! Finicky little bugger isn't it? Edited it 3 times. heh. Thought it needed caps. tnx Glass.
that's why i never really got into programming... took ENES101 and had to write simple fortran programs and went crazy trying to debug all my typos.. of course i was already pretty crazy anyway, so i maybe just needed to be a litle more patience.. ( i learned a little more patience ten years later )
this was back when you still entered data with a punchcard... windws made editing a lot easier.. but as you probably noticed? i don't try very hard to correct my typos even now... i figger what the hey, you usually know what i'm trying to say anyway ...
Posted by turbokid on :
Last Year in Europe: Records shatter as arctic weather grips Europe Scores reported dead due to killer cold; utilities stretched to limit http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10994127
This year: North India continues to shiver under severe cold Amritsar, Jan 10 (ANI): Cold wave continues to grip northern India with the temperature dipping further. http://www.dailyindia.com/show/10182...er-severe-cold
'Global climate change' is a better term than 'global warming,' as some places are actually becoming colder than normal, (see above for examples).
Those that don't cherry-pick the data to suit their own agenda, however, will find ample proof of a dangerous average warming trend.
(Of course, this is already known by anyone who bothers to do the two minutes of research necessary.)
Posted by turbokid on :
i found a pretty interesting website that tells of a very large amount of volcanic activity in the oceans leading to warming oceans and increased precipitation.. like the record snowfalls in the west this year and the east last year. heres some quotes from it.. " June 8, 2004 – For the first time ever, scientists using a camera-equipped submarine have been able to witness an undersea volcano during an eruptive episode.
Exploring the ocean floor in an area known as the Mariana Trench, the researchers “found bubbles of liquid carbon dioxide being released into the sea, enlarging up to a thousand times and turning to gas as they drifted upward.” ----- "March 14, 2005 - Hundreds of underwater volcanoes are erupting all over the world, especially around the Ring of Fire, reports the India Daily.
Underwater volcanoes are erupting in Australia, Greece, New Zealand and many other countries including the American Northwest, which is experiencing an unprecedented level of underwater volcanism. Andaman Nicobar Island is experiencing underwater volcanism in both the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal .
Tectonic movements have gone up by several folds in the last nine months, say geologists, so much so that they don’t have enough monitoring mechanisms to keep track" ------ 20 April 2005 - New evidence confirms that sea levels have risen and fallen much more quickly and frequently than previously believed. A new method of dating dead corals reveals a long record of repeated rises and drops in sea level of 6 to 30 meters over just thousands of years.
That's too fast to be explained by regular shifts in the Earth's orbit that are usually considered responsible for the ice ages, as well as the loss or gain of water from the oceans" -----
12 Dec 05 - An enormous hydrothermal "megaplume" found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth's ocean systems, scientists report.
The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale.
"This thing is at least 10 times—or possibly 20 times—bigger than anything of its kind that's been seen before," said Bramley Murton of the British National Oceanography Centre.
Scientists reported the finding last week at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco . Researchers also announced newly discovered deep-sea hydrothermal fields in the Arctic Ocean and the south Atlantic .
The appearance of hydrothermal vents around the world suggests that they are a far more common part of the ocean system than once believed and could be a major influence on circulation patterns and ocean chemistry. (read: gulf stream)
"I'd be surprised if in the next five years we didn't experience a mini-revolution in terms of finding these [fields] in places where they are not supposed to exist," said geophysicist Robert Reves-Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Hydrothermal vents are volcanic hotspots that emit gasses(c02 and mineral-enriched water as hot as 760°F (400°C).
Megaplumes like the one found in the Indian Ocean are probably caused by undersea volcanic eruptions, though scientists aren't yet certain.
"Once formed they can possibly hang around for years," Murton said. The heat from such events could have a dramatic effect on ocean circulation, which plays a role in determining Earth's climate.
"The energy content is an order of magnitude greater [than ordinary plumes], and the thermal power may be many orders of magnitude greater," Murton said.
"A normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts, while this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there.” --------
Hydrothermal vents pumping 500-degree water into Arctic Ocean – Aug 20, 2005 - Researchers have discovered the northernmost hydrothermal vents in the world along the Mohns Ridge in the Arctic Ocean . "I've seen a lot of hydrothermal systems all over the world's oceans," said Adam Schultz, a geophysicist from Oregon State University ’s College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences," and these Arctic fields are spectacular."
"We found two large high-temperature fields and as we explored them, we would come upon a large mound of chimneys with superheated water jetting out of them," Schultz said. "Then in the distance, we'd see another mound and then beyond that, another one, and so on." Temperatures in one field reached as high as 260 degrees C (500F). Temperatures may have approached 300C (572F) in the second field. "
The chimneys were so dense that it was difficult in some areas to get the ROV (remotely operated vehicle) in there," Pedersen said. "In fact, we got the ROV cable stuck on one of them. It almost melted." In fact, the thermometer did melt.
The vents had been superheated sufficiently to have boiled - even at the enormous pressures of the deep seafloor. "This is typical of seawater that has encountered hot magma at depth beneath the seafloor, then vents out through smoker chimneys," Schultz pointed out. The vent fields were discovered at depths of 500 to 700 meters.
this is a relativily interesting theory, and seems to coincide with some other aspects of ice ages previously discussed like ocean tempuratures and ocean levels rising at the same points in time as c02 and air temps increase. by looking at this graph.. and comparing it to this one..
seems reasonable.. and would certainly explain the previous fluctuations in temps in both the air and seas before the industrial revolution..
Good site, Turbo. Interesting stuff.
Posted by OILDOG on :
A must read: SOLAR DATABASES FOR GLOBAL CHANGE MODELS by H.E. Coffey, E.H. Erwin and C.D. Hanchett Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division NOAA NESDIS National Geophysical Data Center 325 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80305
The National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) is compiling a comprehensive solar database for use in global change models. Solar radiation drives the weather machine. Variations in the Sun's radiative output impact the Earth's climate. The NOAA Climate Analysis Center currently uses solar cycle data in their U.S. seasonal winter forecasts. Spacecraft observations show the Sun's output varied by 0.1% during the past 11-year solar activity cycle, producing a climate forcing of 0.24 W/m2. Climate forcing by increasing greenhouse gases from 1980 to 1986 was about 0.25 W/m2. Global change models need to discern between variations caused by anthropogenic and natural occurrences to provide a sound scientific basis for policy making on global change issues. The NGDC archives are part of a cross-disciplinary effort within NOAA to link observed changes on the Sun with terrestrial climate. To contact the NGDC on-line services, use the following addresses on the Geophysical On-Line Data (GOLD) system: FTP access: ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov; Gopher: -- no longer available>; World Wide Web: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov, and to reach the bulletin board (no longer available).
"Solar radiation drives the weather machine. Variations in the Sun's radiative output impact the Earth's climate." Sho nuff!!!
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004.
Smithsonians site on volcanism says there may be as many as 1 million volcanoes in the Earths oceans. Imagine that! And "recent" discoveries under the Arctic are "spectacular". They were surprised to find them that far North! Why? Antarctica has volcanoes,on and off shore.
Posted by bdgee on :
Excelent data there to prove that we can seriously decrease our needs to use petroleum and coal for energy production if we will just get over the myth thaat fossil fuel is necessary.
Indeed, with similar data that is available for wind energy, it can be shown we can completely convert our use of petroleum to the far more emportant uses of making plastics and composits.
Posted by glassman on :
thermal vents are also "microclimates" for unusual life forms... When it comes to deep-sea worms, some like it hot Last Updated: Thursday, April 13, 2006 | 2:44 PM ET CBC News
Biologists have found deep-sea worms that prefer to live in water at 50 C, the highest temperature preference ever recorded in an animal. A thermal vent chimney, about 35 centimetres tall, at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean is surrounded by white bacterial mats and the worms feeding on them. The worms' orange, star-shaped gills can be seen. (Photo courtesy of W. Chadwick/National Undersea Research Program and Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute) http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/04/13/hot-water-worm-20060413.html
the microclimates created around them offer evolutionary biologists interesting concepts to ponder ... there are many that believe hydrothermal vents more closely resemble the environment that life on earth would have encountered/endured when it first appeared here.
Researchers find photosynthesis deep within ocean
Discovery of green sulfur bacteria living near hydrothermal vents has major implications for where photosynthesis happens and where life may reside
A team of researchers, including a photosynthesis expert from ASU, has found evidence of photosynthesis taking place deep within the Pacific Ocean. The team found a bacterium that is the first photosynthetic organism that doesn’t live off sunlight but from the dim light coming from hydrothermal vents nearly 2,400 meters (7,875 feet) deep in the ocean. http://www.asu.edu/feature/includes/summer05/readmore/photosyn.html Posted by OILDOG on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Excelent data there to prove that we can seriously decrease our needs to use petroleum and coal for energy production if we will just get over the myth thaat fossil fuel is necessary.
Indeed, with similar data that is available for wind energy, it can be shown we can completely convert our use of petroleum to the far more emportant uses of making plastics and composits.
Yip,we'll jist replace it with the myth that solar and wind can "get er done". Can't dam rivers for hydroelectric or build nuclear plants. oh oh,I know,I know. CCCOOOAAAAALLLL! (Oh,fergot,cold fusion. Yea,thats the ticket!)
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Don't need hydroelectric dams, though that could be used in the mix if built responsibly. (Wouldn't want to build em irresponsibly anyway as siltation has been proven to kill profitability on poorly built dams.)
Don't need the nuk either. Amazing discovery and should be experimented on for use on the space station and proposed lunar site. Don't need it or want it terrestrially meself.
Personally I wish my country would do what every financial advisor on earth would tell you to do. Diversify!
Solar can't get er done (yet) Wind can't get er done. Biomass can't get er done. (yet) Fuel Cells can't get er done. Ethanol and Bio diesel can't get er done.
Add em all together though and... it gets done.
P.S. I don't know enough yet to really have an opinion but I am as of yet not convinced clean coal tech. is really as good as they say it is.
P.P.S. Good DD on finding all the volcanism stuff Turbo.
Posted by glassman on :
diversification might lead to real free market competition. the oil co's don't want that, neither does Cheney or Bush Posted by bond006 on :
Of course diversification would lead to market competion and more jobs and a healthier country.
But the oil companies would fight it why do you think Regan took the solar panels off the White House oil companies gave him his orders
Posted by turbokid on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
P.P.S. Good DD on finding all the volcanism stuff Turbo.
Thanks buddy. i was actually surprised by what i found about the underwater stuff. interestingly, on that website i posted above it shows an arial view of a volcano spewing up through a glacier!
Solar panels cost about 1/3 what they did 20 years ago and for the same area, produce more usable power.
Wind generated power is already competing with fossil fuel produced power in many locations and. like solar power, gets cheaper and cheaper and more efficient with time and experience.
I see no reason not to tap the thermal energies that lie just under the surgace around Yellowstone and that is not the only location on the continent that has such potential not far below the surface. (Iceland has already just about perfected this technique.)
The Dutch have done wonders by capturing tidal energies and we have many many more locations on our shores that would be suitable for the technology they have designed.
Why stop with just constructing houses to best reflect or ward off the sun's rays. Use solar panels in place of shingles. Why not power night lights and such with wind turbines? Aircondition by circulating ground water through pipes in the floor, with electric motores powered by solar panels. Require feed lots and dairies to generate gas to power generatore with manure (that'll serve a pollution goal as well). And thousands of other things, no one of which is in itself a lot, but multiplied by millions would make huge contributions.
Like Big says, a little here, a little there.....diversify.
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
Global warming is joke...Ha ha ha ha ha...Yeah the planet is warming....It's not man made.
Posted by bdgee on :
Bull
Listen to the Administration and the rightwing hacks and you have about as much chance of understanding global warming as finding the WMDs in Iraq. They are full of s--t and so is anyone spreeading their BS.
It goes without saying, if you actually believe those rightwing hacks, you started out worse than enlightened, you can only get worse, and clearly have nothing credible to offer on the subject.
Following along with the rightwing hacks on anything that isn't already biased is like taking driving lessons from a blind quadraplegic. You have to have both knowledge and capability to teach or learn and you need to work within reality rather than on hype.
Global warming is real and it is no joke. Those claiming so are.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Anybody else think it was weird how Bushy went to Latin America to promote alternative fuels and energy?
Posted by bdgee on :
Weird?
No, he was looking for someplace to go to try and change the topic.
I think he latched onto the idea, not out of concern or interest (and certainly not out of any concern for the welfare of the U.S.), but simply to try and ignore and distract from the total failue that he is as a president.
Posted by bond006 on :
Golbal warming a myth? More kool Aide please.
Posted by urnso77 on :
I believe it exists. I just don't believe its man made. There are scientists on both sides of the aisle on this one. Although the way the media portrays global warming is kinda sad.
Posted by bdgee on :
There are a handfull of people that "call themselves" scientist that question global warming. To claim any basis of reality based on those excuses for intellects is like relying on NFL linebackers to learn what is or isn't good opera.
You should be ashamed of yourself to even suggest that those bought and paid for hypocrits and fools represent an opinion worhty of consideration.
That is sick.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
There are "scientists" who find no link between smoking and disease as well.
quote:Originally posted by urnso77: I believe it exists. I just don't believe its man made. There are scientists on both sides of the aisle on this one. Although the way the media portrays global warming is kinda sad.
quote:Originally posted by urnso77: I believe it exists. I just don't believe its man made. There are scientists on both sides of the aisle on this one. Although the way the media portrays global warming is kinda sad.
thats not the sad part...
so you dont think that man is having any effect ,negativly, on this planet,,,right?
science is all hoooey...is that about it?
i bet you dont believe in evolution either..
all that new-fangled book-larnin is fer tha birds!!!
Posted by urnso77 on :
There's no changing your mind so I won't even bother with this. I think Global Warming is a joke and a fear tactic of the left to try to get votes.
Posted by bdgee on :
And you are trapped in far rightwing talking points.
Provide some sort of basis for that belief or get over parroting the crap.
Maybe you are simply to ignorant to know what the sience is? No, make that probably.
It is nothing to be proud of.
Posted by urnso77 on :
typical elitest attitude bdgee. I'm not referring to an all mightly right wing handbook over here when I respond to these posts. I'm just stating what I feel. Global warming cannot be proven one way or another. Lets just say I'm not rushing inland to avoid a tidal wave of incoming doom.
Posted by ruthie on :
Got some real NASTIES on this site.. If one feels so strongly in their convictions on any matter, then why get so vehemently angry at ones who dissagree with them? If you know that you know you are right, then why can you not feel secure enough in that to not lash out at others who do not share your same views??
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
I think the War on Terror is a joke and a fear tactic of the Right to try to get votes.
quote:Originally posted by urnso77: I think Global Warming is a joke and a fear tactic of the left to try to get votes.
Posted by urnso77 on :
fair enough gordon. You're entitled to your opinion just like everyone else.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by urnso77: typical elitest attitude bdgee. I'm not referring to an all mightly right wing handbook over here when I respond to these posts. I'm just stating what I feel. Global warming cannot be proven one way or another. Lets just say I'm not rushing inland to avoid a tidal wave of incoming doom.
urnso77,
Maybe you think otherwise, but your post are essentially word for word from the RNC talking points and your so called countering of other ideas is all bash and trash, i.e., no substance, just insult and demeaning.
I accept your admissions and I have no doubt that, to you, global warming is beyond proof, either way, as that would require some knowledge and education beyond listening to far rightwing radio and Fox news(?) and certainly would require some thinking. Even so, can you explain why, since you claim to have no proof either way, you are so adamantly and arrogantly backing a "belief" that it is false.
Hypocracy?
Yes, I think so.
ruthie,
I see you agree with my point. While you are at it, in addition to "not getting so angry", why not toss "not being so insulting and arrogant" into the soup? Be a good Idea, I think.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
But I'm not entitled to discuss yours, correct?
quote:Originally posted by urnso77: fair enough gordon. You're entitled to your opinion just like everyone else.
Posted by bdgee on :
Gord...,
With, "But I'm not entitled to discuss yours, correct?", I think you have put your finger on one of the primary precepts of far rightwing thought and idiology.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
I agree.
Here's an object lesson that was sent to me by a friend:
Progressive: The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: No, it doesn’t.
Progressive: Yes, it does. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: What about Guam? What about that Guam, huh? Or the Virgin Islands?
Progressive: Those are territories, not states. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: Oh, so you’re saying those don’t count?
Progressive: Yes.
Conservative: Oh, so the people there don’t count? They’re not good enough, huh? I thought you liberals wanted everybody to be counted.
Progressive: No, I said the territories don’t count as states. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: You’re really something, you know that? You liberals are always going on about how all of us conservatives are racists, how we don’t care about anybody but people who look like us. But you don’t even want to count the blacks who live in Guam as Americans.
Progressive: First of all, I never said all conservatives are racists.
Conservative: Yes, you did.
Progressive: No, I didn’t.
Conservative: Michael Moore says it.
Progressive: I’ve never heard him say that.
Conservative: Yes, he does! He most definitely does!
Progressive: Look, I don’t know what he says. That’s beside the point. And the people in Guam “count,” whatever that means. I don’t even know who lives in Guam; I don’t know the first thing about Guam. I’m just saying Guam isn’t a state it’s a territory. The USA has fifty states.
Conservative: What about Puerto Rico?
Progressive: What?
Conservative: What about Puerto Rico, huh? You love all those Mexicans coming across the border stealing our jobs you must LOVE Puerto Rico, right?
Progressive: I’ve never been to Puerto Rico.
Conservative: Well, I have, and those kind of people would be pretty offended to hear liberals like you saying they aren’t real Americans!
Progressive: I didn’t say that!
Conservative: You said they didn’t count!
Progressive: I didn’t say that either! No, wait, just wait… (takes deep breath). I only said the USA has fifty states. Puerto Rico isn’t a state it’s a commonwealth.
Conservative: And they don’t speak English!
Progressive: Well, many Puerto Ricans do.
Conservative: How do you know that? I’ve been there you haven’t!
Progressive: All right, OK, fine, whatever. But the USA has fifty states.
Conservative: Well, I say Puerto Rico counts.
Progressive: Fine, but not as a state.
Conservative: Well, that’s YOUR opinion.
Progressive: It’s not my opinion it’s a fact.
Conservative: Says you!
Progressive: No, not just “says me.” It’s a fact. Look it up.
Conservative: I don’t have time.
Progressive: You don’t have time to find out if the USA has fifty states?
Conservative: Listen, you may have time to sit around all day surfing on your liberal websites, downloading Michael Moore, but I’ve got things to do.
Progressive: Like reading about blacks in Guam and Mexicans in Puerto Rico?
Conservative: See, that’s why you guys always lose. I’m trying to have a nice conversation, and you just keep up with the insults!
Progressive: Listen, I didn’t mean to insult you.
Conservative: Oh, yes you did!
Progressive: No, look, I’m sorry, OK? I didn’t mean to insult you. Honestly. It’s just that… well, the USA has fifty states. That’s a fact. And I’m just trying to state a fact, and you’re getting very defensive, and…
Conservative: Oh, so now I’m defensive.
Progressive: Well…
Conservative: You just said you weren’t going to insult me!
Progressive: Look, I’m just trying to say the USA has fifty states!
Conservative: According to YOUR sources!
Progressive: MY sources?! What are you talking about? Look it up!
Conservative: I told you, I don’t have time to spend all day cruising the internet, looking up geography questions! Maybe if you were busier at your job, trying to live the American Dream, you wouldn’t have time for all this hate!
Progressive: I work hard at my job!
Conservative: Then why are you spending all day downloading Michael Moore?
Progressive: I don’t spend all day downloading Michael Moore! I don’t even know what you mean by that! All I’m saying is that the USA has fifty states!
Conservative: Again, according to YOU!
Progressive: Not just me! Here, here’s the World Book Encyclopedia. Look it up it’s fifty states!
Conservative: Oh, sure, the World Book! Yeah, like I’m going to believe the World Book!
Progressive: What?
Conservative: Come on, it’s a liberal rag!
Progressive: (Long, teeth-gnashing pause) Look, just look up “United States of America.” Ten bucks it says, “the USA has fifty states.”
Conservative: Ten bucks, huh?
Progressive: Yeah, ten bucks. (pause) Wait, that’s the “M” volume.
Conservative: I know.
Progressive: You need to look under “U” for “United States.”
Conservative: I’m not looking for “United States.” I’m looking for “Moore, Michael.”
Progressive: What?!
Conservative: And when I find a big glowing article about him, you’re going to owe me ten bucks!
Progressive: Why would I owe you ten bucks?!
Conservative: You bet me ten bucks that the World Book Encyclopedia isn’t liberal.
Progressive: No I didn’t!
Conservative: Yes, you did! You bet me ten bucks that I couldn’t find a liberal article in the World Book. So when I find Michael Moore’s picture, you owe me ten bucks!
Progressive: Oh, my lord…
Conservative: AHA!
Progressive: Listen, you idiot, just because you found Michael Moore’s picture in the World Book doesn’t mean that I owe you ten bucks! It doesn’t mean the World Book is a liberal encyclopedia! And it certainly doesn’t mean the USA doesn’t have fifty states!!
Conservative: Oh, no? Look at this!
Progressive: (pause) “Massachusetts”?
Conservative: Bingo!
Progressive: What the hell does Massachusetts have to do with anything?
Conservative: The COMMONWEALTH of Massachusetts!
Progressive: So?
Conservative: So you said Puerto Rico is a commonwealth!
Progressive: Oh, no…
Conservative: You ADMITTED Puerto Rico was a commonwealth! Admit it, you said it!
Progressive: Oh, man…
Conservative: So if Massachusetts is a commonwealth, and Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, then they BOTH must be states! HA!
Progressive: OK, look…
Conservative: You owe me twenty bucks!
Progressive: What?
Conservative: Come one, pay up! Twenty bucks, let’s go!
Progressive: I don’t owe you twenty bucks!
Conservative: And I’m not even counting Pennsylvania!
Progressive: Pennsylvania?
Conservative: That’s a commonwealth, too!
Progressive: It’s a commonwealth, but…
Conservative: And Washington!
Progressive: All right, look, I lived in Seattle Washington is NOT a commonwealth!
Conservative: Seattle’s not even a state it’s a city!
Progressive: Yes, it’s a city, in Washington State! Washington’s a state!
Conservative: I’m talking about Washington D.C.
Progressive: What?
Conservative: Washington D.C. It’s a city.
Progressive: I know what it is!
Conservative: Well, you liberals are always going on about “Statehood for Washington!” Which, you admit, is already a state!
Progressive: Washington D.C. is not a state!
Conservative: Washington State is!
Progressive: You just said Washington D.C.!
Conservative: And you said it should be a state!
Progressive: I never said that! I mean, it should be… but I never…look…
Conservative: Should Washington be a state?
Progressive: Well…
Conservative: Simple question.
Progressive: Washington State?
Conservative: Yes or No?
Progressive: Washington State or Washington D.C.?
Conservative: Right.
(Long pause)
Conservative: He snorts cocaine.
(Long, painful pause)
Progressive: (slowly) This is Washington D.C. you’re talking about.
Conservative: Yeah. The mayor snorts cocaine.
Progressive: Actually, he’s no longer the mayor…
Conservative: I don’t think a state should have a governor who’s used drugs.
Progressive: He’s not the governor; Washington’s not a…
Conservative: Except maybe California.
Progressive: OK, OK, stop for a moment…
Conservative: I mean, that was a long time ago…
Progressive: Listen, listen…
Conservative: I don’t see Michael Moore making any movies about cocaine in Washington State, do you?
Progressive: Please, STOP!
(pause)
Progressive: Look, I’m just trying to make a simple point here…
Conservative: What about…
Progressive: STOP!!!
(long pause)
Progressive: I’m just trying to make a SIMPLE point here. It’s not a big deal it’s just a fact. The USA has fifty states. That’s all! Yes, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, but it isn’t counted among the fifty states. Yes, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are commonwealths too. So are Virginia and, I think, Kentucky. I don’t know about Kentucky for sure, and you know what it doesn’t matter! They’re considered states, OK? They’re states. Washington D.C. isn’t one, even though I wish it was. Guam isn’t one. There are only fifty. Fifty states. Fifty stars on the flag fifty states. That’s all. Fifty.
(long pause)
Conservative: Rush is so right about you people.
Progressive: Huh?
Conservative: Rush. He gets it. You people are the worst.
Progressive: I don’t…
Conservative: Here I am, trying to have an honest political discussion, and all you can do is bring up this liberal claptrap! You call people like Rush racists, but you don’t want to count Mexicans as Americans. You insult the Governor of California every chance you get. You get all your information from encyclopedias and Michael Moore. You want free cocaine in Washington, and you want Seattle to become a commonwealth, and you won’t pay me my fifty dollars even after I proved that blacks run Guam! And then, worst of all, you insult our flag and our troops!!! You disgust me!
Progressive: Good-bye.
Conservative: See, there you liberals go again! Sneaking off to download porn from Kentucky! I’m not forgetting you owe me 100 dollars!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
maybe they exhale cyanide ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
