i was sitting in the bar (for a change) with large jack Daniels all around me when the bar maid tipped all of one large j d into the other and because i'm an annoying mickey taking ,prank pulling sort of a customer she thought she would get her own back by pouring it all into one glass it was full to the brim totally with the ice just sticking up a bit ,i said ha ha when the ice melts you will have to clean the bar for it will cause my drink to overflow barmaid laughs and says something like ice is less dense than water although it takes up a larger volume in the glass and some of the ice actually rises out of the glass by the time it melts it will take up exactly the same space in the glass without over flowing
i of course laughed at her and then to be stubborn ordered another drink whilst the ice melted and to my astonishment she was right , so i quickly drank said drink and spilt some on the bar saying it had overflowed, she was having none of it and said she was really good a physics at school and it was a well known fact
soooo i know a little of the ice caps are on land but not much ,so if she is right melting ice cap don't = much rise in water
jimbo smells conspiracy here
so intelligent people of the forum what are your views
global warming myth ?
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
global warming myth ?
jimbo wrote:
soooo i know a little of the ice caps are on land but not much ,so if she is right melting ice cap don't = much rise in water
jimbo smells conspiracy here
so intelligent people of the forum what are your views
Much of the ice is sitting on land, not floating in the sea.
soooo i know a little of the ice caps are on land but not much ,so if she is right melting ice cap don't = much rise in water
jimbo smells conspiracy here
so intelligent people of the forum what are your views
Much of the ice is sitting on land, not floating in the sea.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
global warming myth ?
The globe warms. The globe cools. Pass me one o' those Jacks. :yh_bigsmi
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
global warming myth ?
I'll have some ice for my morning diet coke......................
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
global warming myth ?
:-6
jimbo wrote:
soooo i know a little of the ice caps are on land but not much ,so if she is right melting ice cap don't = much rise in water
The rise in sea level so far is mostly due to thermal expansion of the oceans. (When the water gets hotter it takes up more volume.)
However the beaking down of the ice sheets in the antarctic has dramatically increased the flow of glaciers down there, which is pumping water from the land into the ocean. The large predicted rises in sea level over the coming century are due to melting of ice on the antarctic and greenland mostly. Although there is ice on the other landmasses up by the artic circle whose melting will contribute.
The 2001 IPCC report notes that there is about 60 meters of sea level rise sitting on Antarctica. I can't post URLs yet, but if you can decode the cleverly obfuscated one below it takes you to the appropriate table 113 of the IPCC climate change: the scientific basis (2001)
www[dot]grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/412.htm#tab113
jimbo wrote:
soooo i know a little of the ice caps are on land but not much ,so if she is right melting ice cap don't = much rise in water
The rise in sea level so far is mostly due to thermal expansion of the oceans. (When the water gets hotter it takes up more volume.)
However the beaking down of the ice sheets in the antarctic has dramatically increased the flow of glaciers down there, which is pumping water from the land into the ocean. The large predicted rises in sea level over the coming century are due to melting of ice on the antarctic and greenland mostly. Although there is ice on the other landmasses up by the artic circle whose melting will contribute.
The 2001 IPCC report notes that there is about 60 meters of sea level rise sitting on Antarctica. I can't post URLs yet, but if you can decode the cleverly obfuscated one below it takes you to the appropriate table 113 of the IPCC climate change: the scientific basis (2001)
www[dot]grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/412.htm#tab113
global warming myth ?
The climate is warming, and the rate is accelerating. The consequences are sobering and will be global in effect. Its not something that the vast majority of reputable scientists refute. I just read the latest analysis of the situation that was published by the British metrological office, I don't have the link sorry, but I'm sure its available at their website, its findings are alarming and I have to be honest on that. Whatever the politics and economics of what all this means, the fact is that this is what is happening, period. I would suggest that people who are concerned or interested in this topic view scientific sources in relation to it as they are the best source of uneditorialized data on climate.
My opinion on what is going to happen is pessimistic, it seems to me that some of the major industrialized countries simply do not want to accept the evidence as they percieve that attempts being made to tackle emissions are an attack on their economic systems, national soverignty etc. They seem content to just wait a couple of decades and see if its all some kind of mistake or hoax and simply hope for the best. That is a highly irresponsible position as far as I can see, as the space of time required to deal with this is now being estimated at 10 to 20 years starting from tomorrow, I just don't see that happening. Its depressing.
My opinion on what is going to happen is pessimistic, it seems to me that some of the major industrialized countries simply do not want to accept the evidence as they percieve that attempts being made to tackle emissions are an attack on their economic systems, national soverignty etc. They seem content to just wait a couple of decades and see if its all some kind of mistake or hoax and simply hope for the best. That is a highly irresponsible position as far as I can see, as the space of time required to deal with this is now being estimated at 10 to 20 years starting from tomorrow, I just don't see that happening. Its depressing.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
global warming myth ?
Rising water levels aren't the biggest problem. Look here:
The world's top polluting nations were told on Wednesday to prepare for decades of weather turmoil, even if they act now to curb emissions and pursue green energy sources.
Environment and energy ministers meeting in the Mexican city of Monterrey vowed to work faster to control global warming as scientists told them each year wasted in curbing greenhouse gas emissions would cost them dearly.
The informal talks did not set emissions-cutting targets, but delegates agreed on the need to expand the global carbon trading market to provide investment for green initiatives.
British Environment Secretary David Miliband said scientists told the meeting that if no action is taken, carbon dioxide emissions will more than double by 2050.
"The meeting has dramatized the need for comprehensive global action. The message about the need for early action is very strong," he told a news conference.
Yet even if countries froze emission levels tomorrow, the world still faces 30 years of floods, heatwaves, hurricanes and coastal erosion, the British government's chief scientific advisor David King, said.
King, who considers global warming a bigger threat than terrorism, said rich nations must help the developing world prepare for a weather shift that could put millions of lives at risk.
"We've got 30 years of climate change ahead of us even if we stop right now. We're persuading countries they have to adapt to the changes that are ahead of them," King told Reuters at the meeting of top greenhouse gas emitting countries.
"Because we've raised the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere so quickly, the earth's climate system is falling behind. This is way in excess of anything the planet has known, probably for 45 million years," he said.
Among countries who sent ministers to Monterrey were China and India, whose ballooning demand for energy has made them some of the worst polluters after the United States, which pumps out a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases.
The United States, which could face fiercer hurricanes as sea temperatures rise, sent a senior official, but U.S. officials did not brief the press.
Already, a roughly 1 degree Celsius temperature rise over the past century has allowed icy Greenland to start growing barley, and farmers in Spain are battling arid conditions.
"The people in denial now are the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society," British Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks told Reuters in an interview. "Humankind is in a race for life against global warming."
Delegates discussed energy efficiency, conservation and how to fund initiatives like storing the carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants deep underground.
But it is likely to be at least the end of the decade before most projects can get off the ground.
"Time is running out, and the size of the challenge is enormous," Mexican Environment Minister Jose Luis Luege said.
Developing countries at the talks - including South Africa, Brazil and Mexico - were told to adapt for possible floods, droughts, storms and a surge in tropical diseases like malaria.
The world's top polluting nations were told on Wednesday to prepare for decades of weather turmoil, even if they act now to curb emissions and pursue green energy sources.
Environment and energy ministers meeting in the Mexican city of Monterrey vowed to work faster to control global warming as scientists told them each year wasted in curbing greenhouse gas emissions would cost them dearly.
The informal talks did not set emissions-cutting targets, but delegates agreed on the need to expand the global carbon trading market to provide investment for green initiatives.
British Environment Secretary David Miliband said scientists told the meeting that if no action is taken, carbon dioxide emissions will more than double by 2050.
"The meeting has dramatized the need for comprehensive global action. The message about the need for early action is very strong," he told a news conference.
Yet even if countries froze emission levels tomorrow, the world still faces 30 years of floods, heatwaves, hurricanes and coastal erosion, the British government's chief scientific advisor David King, said.
King, who considers global warming a bigger threat than terrorism, said rich nations must help the developing world prepare for a weather shift that could put millions of lives at risk.
"We've got 30 years of climate change ahead of us even if we stop right now. We're persuading countries they have to adapt to the changes that are ahead of them," King told Reuters at the meeting of top greenhouse gas emitting countries.
"Because we've raised the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere so quickly, the earth's climate system is falling behind. This is way in excess of anything the planet has known, probably for 45 million years," he said.
Among countries who sent ministers to Monterrey were China and India, whose ballooning demand for energy has made them some of the worst polluters after the United States, which pumps out a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases.
The United States, which could face fiercer hurricanes as sea temperatures rise, sent a senior official, but U.S. officials did not brief the press.
Already, a roughly 1 degree Celsius temperature rise over the past century has allowed icy Greenland to start growing barley, and farmers in Spain are battling arid conditions.
"The people in denial now are the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society," British Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks told Reuters in an interview. "Humankind is in a race for life against global warming."
Delegates discussed energy efficiency, conservation and how to fund initiatives like storing the carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants deep underground.
But it is likely to be at least the end of the decade before most projects can get off the ground.
"Time is running out, and the size of the challenge is enormous," Mexican Environment Minister Jose Luis Luege said.
Developing countries at the talks - including South Africa, Brazil and Mexico - were told to adapt for possible floods, droughts, storms and a surge in tropical diseases like malaria.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
global warming myth ?
Bunk
I'm not falling for it.
I'm not saying pollution isn't a problem, it is, but, I don't believe in global warming as 'they' are stating it. I will have to look for my book that I read recently cuz it showed a table of graphs put out by a watchdog agency that showed that, globally, carbon dioxide levels were higher in the 1930-1940 than it is now. It also showed that the heat was up further in the late 60's and early 70's than it is now.
My belief is that there are too many people on this world and that causes heat to rise and carbon levels to rise. It occured to me about the heat levels in the 60's. . . the table actually showed they rose about the time of the Viet Nam War and the carbon levels rose during WWII. 2+2=?
I'm not falling for it.
I'm not saying pollution isn't a problem, it is, but, I don't believe in global warming as 'they' are stating it. I will have to look for my book that I read recently cuz it showed a table of graphs put out by a watchdog agency that showed that, globally, carbon dioxide levels were higher in the 1930-1940 than it is now. It also showed that the heat was up further in the late 60's and early 70's than it is now.
My belief is that there are too many people on this world and that causes heat to rise and carbon levels to rise. It occured to me about the heat levels in the 60's. . . the table actually showed they rose about the time of the Viet Nam War and the carbon levels rose during WWII. 2+2=?
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
Mae West
global warming myth ?
Then perhaps you can explain why glaciers are melting, polar caps are diminshing and climate shifts are causing havoc with all living things?
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
-
cherandbuster
- Posts: 8594
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 11:33 am
global warming myth ?
Galbally wrote: My opinion on what is going to happen is pessimistic, it seems to me that some of the major industrialized countries simply do not want to accept the evidence as they percieve that attempts being made to tackle emissions are an attack on their economic systems, national soverignty etc. They seem content to just wait a couple of decades and see if its all some kind of mistake or hoax and simply hope for the best. That is a highly irresponsible position as far as I can see, as the space of time required to deal with this is now being estimated at 10 to 20 years starting from tomorrow, I just don't see that happening. Its depressing.
Well said Dr. G :-6
Well said Dr. G :-6
Live Life with
PASSION!:guitarist
PASSION!:guitarist
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
global warming myth ?
911 wrote: Bunk
I'm not falling for it.
I'm not saying pollution isn't a problem, it is, but, I don't believe in global warming as 'they' are stating it.
However, there's no *harm* in being careful with energy, reducing pollution,
and all that sort of thing - is there? Aren't those ideas good ones in any case?
I'm not falling for it.
I'm not saying pollution isn't a problem, it is, but, I don't believe in global warming as 'they' are stating it.
However, there's no *harm* in being careful with energy, reducing pollution,
and all that sort of thing - is there? Aren't those ideas good ones in any case?
global warming myth ?
911 wrote: Bunk
I'm not falling for it.
I'm not saying pollution isn't a problem, it is, but, I don't believe in global warming as 'they' are stating it. I will have to look for my book that I read recently cuz it showed a table of graphs put out by a watchdog agency that showed that, globally, carbon dioxide levels were higher in the 1930-1940 than it is now. It also showed that the heat was up further in the late 60's and early 70's than it is now.
My belief is that there are too many people on this world and that causes heat to rise and carbon levels to rise. It occured to me about the heat levels in the 60's. . . the table actually showed they rose about the time of the Viet Nam War and the carbon levels rose during WWII. 2+2=?
I'd love to know who paid for and published that book 'cos the facts and figures don't match *any* of the scientific papers I've seen.
One study does not make a truth and there's too much evidence for Global Warming to deny it that easily.
I'm not falling for it.
I'm not saying pollution isn't a problem, it is, but, I don't believe in global warming as 'they' are stating it. I will have to look for my book that I read recently cuz it showed a table of graphs put out by a watchdog agency that showed that, globally, carbon dioxide levels were higher in the 1930-1940 than it is now. It also showed that the heat was up further in the late 60's and early 70's than it is now.
My belief is that there are too many people on this world and that causes heat to rise and carbon levels to rise. It occured to me about the heat levels in the 60's. . . the table actually showed they rose about the time of the Viet Nam War and the carbon levels rose during WWII. 2+2=?
I'd love to know who paid for and published that book 'cos the facts and figures don't match *any* of the scientific papers I've seen.
One study does not make a truth and there's too much evidence for Global Warming to deny it that easily.
global warming myth ?
Bill Sikes wrote: However, there's no *harm* in being careful with energy, reducing pollution,
and all that sort of thing - is there? Aren't those ideas good ones in any case?
Absolutely!
Our dependence on fossil fuel is ridiculous. I saw an article in our local newspaper where someone has devised a system for using cooking grease or vegetable oil as fuel.
Of course, they think obesity is bad now, imagine going down the road and smelling fried chicken and hamburgers all day! Talk about getting the munchies! :wah: But that's better than getting behind some bozo without a muffler and a bad carburetor
and all that sort of thing - is there? Aren't those ideas good ones in any case?
Absolutely!
Our dependence on fossil fuel is ridiculous. I saw an article in our local newspaper where someone has devised a system for using cooking grease or vegetable oil as fuel.
Of course, they think obesity is bad now, imagine going down the road and smelling fried chicken and hamburgers all day! Talk about getting the munchies! :wah: But that's better than getting behind some bozo without a muffler and a bad carburetor
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
Mae West
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
global warming myth ?
911 wrote: Our dependence on fossil fuel is ridiculous. I saw an article in our local newspaper where someone has devised a system for using cooking grease or vegetable oil as fuel.
In the UK you could nip down to your supermarket, and buy 25L containers of
new cooking, buy some addatives to be on the safe side, and stick it straight
in the tank of your deisel car, which would work fine, for considerably less than
the cost of mineral diesel fuel. Unfortunately, this is (in most circumstances)
illegal, and if apprehended your car is liable to be confiscated, as well as nasty
duties levvied on you.
911 wrote: Of course, they think obesity is bad now, imagine going down the road and smelling fried chicken and hamburgers all day! Talk about getting the munchies! :wah: But that's better than getting behind some bozo without a muffler and a bad carburetor mad:
A carburettor? Can one really still buy a car fitted with one of these arcane
devices???
In the UK you could nip down to your supermarket, and buy 25L containers of
new cooking, buy some addatives to be on the safe side, and stick it straight
in the tank of your deisel car, which would work fine, for considerably less than
the cost of mineral diesel fuel. Unfortunately, this is (in most circumstances)
illegal, and if apprehended your car is liable to be confiscated, as well as nasty
duties levvied on you.
911 wrote: Of course, they think obesity is bad now, imagine going down the road and smelling fried chicken and hamburgers all day! Talk about getting the munchies! :wah: But that's better than getting behind some bozo without a muffler and a bad carburetor mad:
A carburettor? Can one really still buy a car fitted with one of these arcane
devices???
global warming myth ?
Bill Sikes wrote:
A carburettor? Can one really still buy a car fitted with one of these arcane
devices???
Oh, whatever!
So, I don't know that much about cars. Used to be, I was told, if there was white smoke coming from the back of a car, it was a bad carburetor and if it was black smoke it meant the engine was going. That's about the extent of my knowledge. If I see either one, I move away from them. But, I got behind someone the other day which had neither colored smoke and it nearly gagged me until I could get out from behind him.
A carburettor? Can one really still buy a car fitted with one of these arcane
devices???
Oh, whatever!
So, I don't know that much about cars. Used to be, I was told, if there was white smoke coming from the back of a car, it was a bad carburetor and if it was black smoke it meant the engine was going. That's about the extent of my knowledge. If I see either one, I move away from them. But, I got behind someone the other day which had neither colored smoke and it nearly gagged me until I could get out from behind him.
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Mae West
Mae West
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
global warming myth ?
911 wrote: Used to be, I was told, if there was white smoke coming from the back of a car, it was a bad carburetor and if it was black smoke it meant the engine was going. That's about the extent of my knowledge. If I see either one, I move away from them.
That's it, floor it and leave *them* in a choking cloud of fumes! I have often
wondered about a mechanism to allow me to feed old used engine oil into
the exhaust manifold, specially for tailgaters. However, this sort of frivolous
discussion ought to go in a "driving" thread, I suppose!
911 wrote: But, I got behind someone the other day which had neither colored smoke and it nearly gagged me until I could get out from behind him.
Ah. That'll be one of they there "crapolitic konverters", I guess. Not nice 'till
they warm up. We've got 'em in the UK, where they are useless for perhaps
most journeys, counter-prioductive, even, in terms of economy, not to mention
their spreading finely-divided platinum all over the place, a possible health
hazard for the future. Anyway, I'll have to go and put out the recycling now.
That's it, floor it and leave *them* in a choking cloud of fumes! I have often
wondered about a mechanism to allow me to feed old used engine oil into
the exhaust manifold, specially for tailgaters. However, this sort of frivolous
discussion ought to go in a "driving" thread, I suppose!
911 wrote: But, I got behind someone the other day which had neither colored smoke and it nearly gagged me until I could get out from behind him.
Ah. That'll be one of they there "crapolitic konverters", I guess. Not nice 'till
they warm up. We've got 'em in the UK, where they are useless for perhaps
most journeys, counter-prioductive, even, in terms of economy, not to mention
their spreading finely-divided platinum all over the place, a possible health
hazard for the future. Anyway, I'll have to go and put out the recycling now.
global warming myth ?
Diuretic wrote: I take a simplistic view on the situation we're in.
If it's as bad as the science says it is then we should do something about it now.
If it's not as bad as the science says it is then we should still do something about it now because doing something about it now will have less repercussions than not doing something about it if it really is as bad as science says it is.
So on balance we should do something about it. So I am doing whatever I can to help and I will certainly give my vote to the political party which convinces me it is taking this situation seriously.
Lip service only - It gets votes to say it but loses votes to actually spend money on it.
If it's as bad as the science says it is then we should do something about it now.
If it's not as bad as the science says it is then we should still do something about it now because doing something about it now will have less repercussions than not doing something about it if it really is as bad as science says it is.
So on balance we should do something about it. So I am doing whatever I can to help and I will certainly give my vote to the political party which convinces me it is taking this situation seriously.
Lip service only - It gets votes to say it but loses votes to actually spend money on it.
global warming myth ?
Diuretic wrote: That can be the case for sure but here the electoral cycle for a federal government is three years, for my state government it's four years and we have sufficient environmental issues to judge whether or not an incumbent government is just mouthing words or actually doing something about them so that next election they can be held accountable. Anyway that's my view, it might not be that of other electors but that's their problem 
Whenever you have a single vote to empower a government the electorate have to balance many policies in their choice of representative.
That representative can then claim a mandate for whatever policies (s)he wants with no accountability until the next compromise you are allowed to make.
Whenever you have a single vote to empower a government the electorate have to balance many policies in their choice of representative.
That representative can then claim a mandate for whatever policies (s)he wants with no accountability until the next compromise you are allowed to make.
global warming myth ?
Diuretic wrote: I hope I'm intepreting this correctly but here's my response.
The electorate does have to balance policies but it also needs to set the priorities. I'm not a radical environmentalist by any means but without a healthy environment pretty much everything else is a goner. Our representatives will only respond to pressure so it's up to us to get that message through to them that our environment is a priority but we realise it isn't the only issue, just the most important.
But given a list of possible policies (some of which could well be dropped immediately after the election) from each of the parties - some of which you agree with and some of which you oppose in each case, how do you indicate to the party you eventually chose which of the policies you are voting for?
The electorate does have to balance policies but it also needs to set the priorities. I'm not a radical environmentalist by any means but without a healthy environment pretty much everything else is a goner. Our representatives will only respond to pressure so it's up to us to get that message through to them that our environment is a priority but we realise it isn't the only issue, just the most important.
But given a list of possible policies (some of which could well be dropped immediately after the election) from each of the parties - some of which you agree with and some of which you oppose in each case, how do you indicate to the party you eventually chose which of the policies you are voting for?
global warming myth ?
Okay, here is something I got off the internet, just to provide people with some figures about CO2 in the atmosphere at present.
Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded
By David Shukman
BBC science correspondent
Air samples have been taken from Colorado's Rocky Mountains
US climate scientists have recorded a significant rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pushing it to a new record level.
BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.
The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record - a rise of 2.6ppm.
The figures are seen as a benchmark for climate scientists around the globe.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) has been analysing samples of air taken from all over the world, including America's Rocky Mountains.
The chief carbon dioxide analyst for Noaa says the latest data confirms a worrying trend that recent years have, on average, recorded double the rate of increase from just 30 years ago. Mankind is changing the climate
Professor Sir David King,
UK chief scientific adviser
"We don't see any sign of a decrease; in fact, we're seeing the opposite, the rate of increase is accelerating," Dr Pieter Tans told the BBC.
The precise level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of global concern because climate scientists fear certain thresholds may be "tipping points" that trigger sudden changes.
The UK government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, said the new data highlighted the importance of taking urgent action to limit carbon emissions.
"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate."
When I was studying climatic chemistry in 1996 I remember that the atmospheric level of CO2 was determined to be in the 340-350 area, and already then climatic scientists were telling politicians that the situation was very serious. Its ten years later and now its 385 ppm and the rate of this growth seems to be increasing year on year, and still very little has been addressed. I am wondering what the situation will be in 2016 when we will be well over the 400ppm limit and heading to what I was taught was the "tipping point of 450 ppm (which has now been optimistically revised up to 500ppm), after which climatologists agree we will be unknown climatic terriorty, which is a nice way of saying we don't know what exactly the climate will act like except that it will not be the one we recognize at the moment. I am not very optimistic about this one i must admit, and its infinietly depressing to see books and websites being produced that are using statistical tautologies to basically discredit climate science because people don't want to hear bad news. Oh well, its a case of "shoot the messenger" I guess.
Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded
By David Shukman
BBC science correspondent
Air samples have been taken from Colorado's Rocky Mountains
US climate scientists have recorded a significant rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pushing it to a new record level.
BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.
The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record - a rise of 2.6ppm.
The figures are seen as a benchmark for climate scientists around the globe.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) has been analysing samples of air taken from all over the world, including America's Rocky Mountains.
The chief carbon dioxide analyst for Noaa says the latest data confirms a worrying trend that recent years have, on average, recorded double the rate of increase from just 30 years ago. Mankind is changing the climate
Professor Sir David King,
UK chief scientific adviser
"We don't see any sign of a decrease; in fact, we're seeing the opposite, the rate of increase is accelerating," Dr Pieter Tans told the BBC.
The precise level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of global concern because climate scientists fear certain thresholds may be "tipping points" that trigger sudden changes.
The UK government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, said the new data highlighted the importance of taking urgent action to limit carbon emissions.
"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate."
When I was studying climatic chemistry in 1996 I remember that the atmospheric level of CO2 was determined to be in the 340-350 area, and already then climatic scientists were telling politicians that the situation was very serious. Its ten years later and now its 385 ppm and the rate of this growth seems to be increasing year on year, and still very little has been addressed. I am wondering what the situation will be in 2016 when we will be well over the 400ppm limit and heading to what I was taught was the "tipping point of 450 ppm (which has now been optimistically revised up to 500ppm), after which climatologists agree we will be unknown climatic terriorty, which is a nice way of saying we don't know what exactly the climate will act like except that it will not be the one we recognize at the moment. I am not very optimistic about this one i must admit, and its infinietly depressing to see books and websites being produced that are using statistical tautologies to basically discredit climate science because people don't want to hear bad news. Oh well, its a case of "shoot the messenger" I guess.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
global warming myth ?
Diuretic wrote: Thanks for that information Galbally - illuminating to say the least.
Actually I better get the actual level for 1996 as I am just recollecting and given the nature of the debate its important to have clear facts, it was definetly a lot lower than 381 ppm, I found that level quite shocking as it is higher even that I thought it was and I'm pretty pessimistic about this.
Actually I better get the actual level for 1996 as I am just recollecting and given the nature of the debate its important to have clear facts, it was definetly a lot lower than 381 ppm, I found that level quite shocking as it is higher even that I thought it was and I'm pretty pessimistic about this.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
global warming myth ?
Galbally wrote:
When I was studying climatic chemistry in 1996 I remember that the atmospheric level of CO2 was determined to be in the 340-350 area, and already then climatic scientists were telling politicians that the situation was very serious. Its ten years later and now its 385 ppm and the rate of this growth seems to be increasing year on year, and still very little has been addressed. I am wondering what the situation will be in 2016 when we will be well over the 400ppm limit and heading to what I was taught was the "tipping point of 450 ppm (which has now been optimistically revised up to 500ppm), after which climatologists agree we will be unknown climatic terriorty, which is a nice way of saying we don't know what exactly the climate will act like except that it will not be the one we recognize at the moment. I am not very optimistic about this one i must admit, and its infinietly depressing to see books and websites being produced that are using statistical tautologies to basically discredit climate science because people don't want to hear bad news. Oh well, its a case of "shoot the messenger" I guess.
The chance to ask someone who has been a student in the subject is too good to miss.
You quote 450ppm as the tipping point. The three discontinuities I know of are the underwater methyl hydrates, the carbon carrying capacity of the rain forests and the ocean conveyor systems.
Does the tipping point apply to all three or are they spread around the general area?
What would you see as the effects of tripping one or all of these discontinuities?
Do you see any chance of our preventing sufficient temperature rise to avoid any or all of these discontinuities?
When I was studying climatic chemistry in 1996 I remember that the atmospheric level of CO2 was determined to be in the 340-350 area, and already then climatic scientists were telling politicians that the situation was very serious. Its ten years later and now its 385 ppm and the rate of this growth seems to be increasing year on year, and still very little has been addressed. I am wondering what the situation will be in 2016 when we will be well over the 400ppm limit and heading to what I was taught was the "tipping point of 450 ppm (which has now been optimistically revised up to 500ppm), after which climatologists agree we will be unknown climatic terriorty, which is a nice way of saying we don't know what exactly the climate will act like except that it will not be the one we recognize at the moment. I am not very optimistic about this one i must admit, and its infinietly depressing to see books and websites being produced that are using statistical tautologies to basically discredit climate science because people don't want to hear bad news. Oh well, its a case of "shoot the messenger" I guess.
The chance to ask someone who has been a student in the subject is too good to miss.
You quote 450ppm as the tipping point. The three discontinuities I know of are the underwater methyl hydrates, the carbon carrying capacity of the rain forests and the ocean conveyor systems.
Does the tipping point apply to all three or are they spread around the general area?
What would you see as the effects of tripping one or all of these discontinuities?
Do you see any chance of our preventing sufficient temperature rise to avoid any or all of these discontinuities?
global warming myth ?
It was 358ppm in 1994 and now its 381 ppm, thats 23 ppm in 12 years. That means that even if CO2 emissions were frozen right now we will still be at 450 ppm by about 2040. Considering it took a hundred years for it to go from 260 to 360, and now it seems like that rate has doubled in the last decade or two, thats not good.
BTW, if you want to know what a runaway greenhouse effect would be like, take a look at the weather on Venus today, 400 degrees in the shade and sulphuric acid rain showers after tea. Lovely.
BTW, if you want to know what a runaway greenhouse effect would be like, take a look at the weather on Venus today, 400 degrees in the shade and sulphuric acid rain showers after tea. Lovely.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
global warming myth ?
Bryn Mawr wrote: The chance to ask someone who has been a student in the subject is too good to miss.
You quote 450ppm as the tipping point. The three discontinuities I know of are the underwater methyl hydrates, the carbon carrying capacity of the rain forests and the ocean conveyor systems.
Does the tipping point apply to all three or are they spread around the general area?
What would you see as the effects of tripping one or all of these discontinuities?
Do you see any chance of our preventing sufficient temperature rise to avoid any or all of these discontinuities?
Okay Bryn, on the first one 450ppm was the tipping point in models we studied, but anywhere between the 450ppm and 500ppm level is definetly into the area of severe climate impacts, in terms of overall energy being retained in the global system. I would think that at 450 or certainly at 500 ppm that any or all of these outcomes at once become a serious possibility (not certain, but far too likely to be playing around with). If any of these events were to occur, particularly the ocean system one the effects would be bluntly catastrophic.
In terms of specifically what would happen shoud say the carbon trapping capacity of the rain forests be overwhelmed (considering they are being cut down at a rate of knots anyway that probably the likiest of the three), or wholesale changes in ocean systems (which are one of the main components of the climate on Earth), then you are in a territory where prediction becomes difficult as there is no precendent for such events.
In terms of the last question, I simply don't know, we can't simply stop emitting carbon as we are completely dependent upon fossil fuels for running our economies and I don't see any technology at the moment that could replace coal, gas, and petrol. Renewables and Nuclear power are alternatives, but they simply aren't at the stage where they could replace traditonal power sources, and of course Nuclear power comes with its own issues, political, economic, and environmental. Carbon sequestration (which involves fixing CO2 before its emitted from say a coal plant are extremely expensive, impractical, and you would still have to store billions of tons of CO2 somewhere.
In short I think that if the major governments made this their number one priority and radically improve the world's energy efficiency, invest in energy technology, and develop programs that involve reforestation, sustainable urban development, agriculture, transport, and economic policies then we can mitigate the worst effects of climate change, but I still think we are in for a wild ride about 20 to 30 years from now one way or another. I think that as well as trying to develop susainable development policies, it would be prudent at this stage to start making worst case scenario projections and planning for ways (if any are possible) that we can cope with climate change as I think at this stage its gonna happen anyway.
You quote 450ppm as the tipping point. The three discontinuities I know of are the underwater methyl hydrates, the carbon carrying capacity of the rain forests and the ocean conveyor systems.
Does the tipping point apply to all three or are they spread around the general area?
What would you see as the effects of tripping one or all of these discontinuities?
Do you see any chance of our preventing sufficient temperature rise to avoid any or all of these discontinuities?
Okay Bryn, on the first one 450ppm was the tipping point in models we studied, but anywhere between the 450ppm and 500ppm level is definetly into the area of severe climate impacts, in terms of overall energy being retained in the global system. I would think that at 450 or certainly at 500 ppm that any or all of these outcomes at once become a serious possibility (not certain, but far too likely to be playing around with). If any of these events were to occur, particularly the ocean system one the effects would be bluntly catastrophic.
In terms of specifically what would happen shoud say the carbon trapping capacity of the rain forests be overwhelmed (considering they are being cut down at a rate of knots anyway that probably the likiest of the three), or wholesale changes in ocean systems (which are one of the main components of the climate on Earth), then you are in a territory where prediction becomes difficult as there is no precendent for such events.
In terms of the last question, I simply don't know, we can't simply stop emitting carbon as we are completely dependent upon fossil fuels for running our economies and I don't see any technology at the moment that could replace coal, gas, and petrol. Renewables and Nuclear power are alternatives, but they simply aren't at the stage where they could replace traditonal power sources, and of course Nuclear power comes with its own issues, political, economic, and environmental. Carbon sequestration (which involves fixing CO2 before its emitted from say a coal plant are extremely expensive, impractical, and you would still have to store billions of tons of CO2 somewhere.
In short I think that if the major governments made this their number one priority and radically improve the world's energy efficiency, invest in energy technology, and develop programs that involve reforestation, sustainable urban development, agriculture, transport, and economic policies then we can mitigate the worst effects of climate change, but I still think we are in for a wild ride about 20 to 30 years from now one way or another. I think that as well as trying to develop susainable development policies, it would be prudent at this stage to start making worst case scenario projections and planning for ways (if any are possible) that we can cope with climate change as I think at this stage its gonna happen anyway.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
global warming myth ?
Galbally wrote:
In short I think that if the major governments made this their number one priority and radically improve the world's energy efficiency, invest in energy technology, and develop programs that involve reforestation, sustainable urban development, agriculture, transport, and economic policies then we can mitigate the worst effects of climate change, but I still think we are in for a wild ride about 20 to 30 years from now one way or another. I think that as well as trying to develop susainable development policies, it would be prudent at this stage to start making worst case scenario projections and planning for ways (if any are possible) that we can cope with climate change as I think at this stage its gonna happen anyway.
In other words (those of Dad's Army) Werrr Allll doooomed.
Given the GWB is flatly opposed to jjioning the Kyoto agreement, that the third world countries take the attitude "you did it why shouldn't we" and the rest of the world cannot agree to afford it, the changes are not goingto happen and before it does the inbuilt time lag will mean it's too late.
Sorry for the depression but I can see no alternative.
In short I think that if the major governments made this their number one priority and radically improve the world's energy efficiency, invest in energy technology, and develop programs that involve reforestation, sustainable urban development, agriculture, transport, and economic policies then we can mitigate the worst effects of climate change, but I still think we are in for a wild ride about 20 to 30 years from now one way or another. I think that as well as trying to develop susainable development policies, it would be prudent at this stage to start making worst case scenario projections and planning for ways (if any are possible) that we can cope with climate change as I think at this stage its gonna happen anyway.
In other words (those of Dad's Army) Werrr Allll doooomed.
Given the GWB is flatly opposed to jjioning the Kyoto agreement, that the third world countries take the attitude "you did it why shouldn't we" and the rest of the world cannot agree to afford it, the changes are not goingto happen and before it does the inbuilt time lag will mean it's too late.
Sorry for the depression but I can see no alternative.
global warming myth ?
Global temp records only go back so far. There is no way to tell for certain whether global warming is a real threat or not. I for one think that it is cyclical. There are cool periods, and there are hot periods that cycle.
The poolhall's a great equalizer. In the poolhall, nobody cares how old you are, how young you are, what color your skin is or how much money you've got in your pocket... It's about how you move. I remember this kid once who could move around a pool table like nobody had ever seen. Hour after hour, rack after rack, his shots just went in. The cue was part of his arm and the balls had eyes. And the thing that made him so good was... He thought he could never miss. I know, 'cause that kid was me.
global warming myth ?
Of course there are. The problem is that those cycles last for thousands of years and the world as we know it will change forever.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
global warming myth ?
Lulu2 wrote: Of course there are. The problem is that those cycles last for thousands of years and the world as we know it will change forever.
These cycles Have happened and will continue to happen until the end of time. There really is no sense in getting all worked up over the temp. It is beyond anyone's control.
These cycles Have happened and will continue to happen until the end of time. There really is no sense in getting all worked up over the temp. It is beyond anyone's control.
The poolhall's a great equalizer. In the poolhall, nobody cares how old you are, how young you are, what color your skin is or how much money you've got in your pocket... It's about how you move. I remember this kid once who could move around a pool table like nobody had ever seen. Hour after hour, rack after rack, his shots just went in. The cue was part of his arm and the balls had eyes. And the thing that made him so good was... He thought he could never miss. I know, 'cause that kid was me.
global warming myth ?
Bryn Mawr wrote: In other words (those of Dad's Army) Werrr Allll doooomed.
Given the GWB is flatly opposed to jjioning the Kyoto agreement, that the third world countries take the attitude "you did it why shouldn't we" and the rest of the world cannot agree to afford it, the changes are not goingto happen and before it does the inbuilt time lag will mean it's too late.
Sorry for the depression but I can see no alternative.
Yes, I hate to sound alarmnist, but I think people should be worried. I do think that we can mitigate some of it, and managing economic growth better and reducing CO2 levels would be very helpful, but again, whether people in power will actually get around to doing something is unlikely. This is one of those times when you think to yourself it would be good to have more politicans in the world how trained as scientists and not the usual, lawyers, communist revolutionaries, retired generals, economists and accountants that run the world.
Given the GWB is flatly opposed to jjioning the Kyoto agreement, that the third world countries take the attitude "you did it why shouldn't we" and the rest of the world cannot agree to afford it, the changes are not goingto happen and before it does the inbuilt time lag will mean it's too late.
Sorry for the depression but I can see no alternative.
Yes, I hate to sound alarmnist, but I think people should be worried. I do think that we can mitigate some of it, and managing economic growth better and reducing CO2 levels would be very helpful, but again, whether people in power will actually get around to doing something is unlikely. This is one of those times when you think to yourself it would be good to have more politicans in the world how trained as scientists and not the usual, lawyers, communist revolutionaries, retired generals, economists and accountants that run the world.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
global warming myth ?
Fibonacci wrote: Global temp records only go back so far. There is no way to tell for certain whether global warming is a real threat or not. I for one think that it is cyclical. There are cool periods, and there are hot periods that cycle.
Very good atmospheric CO2 levels are available for the past 100,000 years, and far further back than than. The level of CO2 is now higher than it has been at any time in the last 1,000,000 years and has done so at exactly at the same time that the world industrialized over the past 200 years or so, so would that suggest that perhaps industrializtion may have something to do with this? The mean average temperaures are now higher than at any point since records began with the 10 hotest years on record coming in over the last 12 years, of which 2005 was the hottest. Again, any possible connections make themselves apparent?
Very good atmospheric CO2 levels are available for the past 100,000 years, and far further back than than. The level of CO2 is now higher than it has been at any time in the last 1,000,000 years and has done so at exactly at the same time that the world industrialized over the past 200 years or so, so would that suggest that perhaps industrializtion may have something to do with this? The mean average temperaures are now higher than at any point since records began with the 10 hotest years on record coming in over the last 12 years, of which 2005 was the hottest. Again, any possible connections make themselves apparent?
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
global warming myth ?
Galbally wrote: ... The mean average temperaures are now higher than at any point since records began with the 10 hotest years on record coming in over the last 12 years, of which 2005 was the hottest.
I read that this difference in temperatures is only about 1-1.5 degrees tops.
I read that this difference in temperatures is only about 1-1.5 degrees tops.
The poolhall's a great equalizer. In the poolhall, nobody cares how old you are, how young you are, what color your skin is or how much money you've got in your pocket... It's about how you move. I remember this kid once who could move around a pool table like nobody had ever seen. Hour after hour, rack after rack, his shots just went in. The cue was part of his arm and the balls had eyes. And the thing that made him so good was... He thought he could never miss. I know, 'cause that kid was me.
global warming myth ?
From Nasa:
Climate change hotspots"Further global warming of 1 °C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know."
So says Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Hansen and colleagues have analysed global temperature records and found that surface temperatures have been increasing by an average of 0.2 °C every decade for the past 30 years. Warming is greatest in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, particularly in the sub-Arctic boreal forests of Siberia and North America. Here the melting of ice and snow is exposing darker surfaces that absorb more sunlight and increase warming, creating a positive feedback.
Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288).
The analysis reinforces a series of recent findings on accelerating environmental disruption in Siberia, northern Canada and Alaska, underlining a growing scientific consensus that these regions are pivotal to climate change. Earlier this month, NASA scientists reported that climate change was speeding up the melting of Arctic sea ice. Permanent sea ice has contracted by 14 per cent in the past two years (Geophysical Research Letters, vol 33, L17501). However, warming and melting have been just as dramatic on land in the far north.
A meeting on Siberian climate change held in Leicester, UK, last week confirmed that Siberia has become a hotspot of global climate change. Geographer Heiko Balzter, of the University of Leicester, said central Siberia has warmed by almost 2 °C since 1970 - that's three times the global average.
Meanwhile, Stuart Chapin of the University of Alaska Fairbanks this week reported that air temperatures in the Alaskan interior have risen by 2 °C since 1950, and permafrost temperatures have risen by 2.5 °C (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0606955103).
In Siberia the warming is especially pronounced in winter. "It has caused the onset of spring to advance by as much as one day a year since satellite observations began in 1982," says Balzter. Similarly, Alaskan springs now arrive two weeks earlier than in 1950, according to Chapin.
The Leicester meeting heard that the rising temperatures are causing ecological changes in the forests that ratchet up the warming still further. Vladimir Petko from the Russian Academy of Sciences Forest Research Institute in Krasnoyarsk says warm springs are triggering plagues of moths. "They can eat the needles of entire forest regions in one summer," he says. The trees die and then usually succumb to forest fires that in turn destroy soil vegetation and accelerate the melting of permafrost, Petko says.
In 2003 Siberia saw a record number of forest fires, losing 40,000 square kilometres according to Balzter, who has analysed remote sensing images of the region. Similar changes are occurring in Alaska. According to Chapin, warming there has shortened the life cycle of the bark beetle from two years to one, causing huge infestations and subsequent fires, which destroyed huge areas of forest in 2004. "The current boreal forest zone could be so dried out by 2090 that the trees will die off and be replaced by steppe," says Nadezhda Tchebakova, also at the institute in Krasnoyarsk.
Melting permafrost in the boreal forests and further north in the Arctic tundra is also triggering the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from thick layers of thawing peat. First reports published exclusively in New Scientist last year (13 August 2005, p 12) were recently confirmed by US scientists (Nature, vol 443, p 71).
"Large amounts of greenhouse gases are currently locked in the permafrost and if released could accelerate the greenhouse effect," says Balzter. Hansen's paper concludes that the effects of this positive feedback could be huge. "In past eras, the release of methane from melting permafrost and destabilised sediments on continental shelves has probably been responsible for some of the largest warmings in the Earth's history," he says.
“The release of methane from melting permafrost has been responsible for some of the largest warmings in historyWe could be close to unleashing similar events in the 21st century, Hansen argues. Although the feedbacks should remain modest as long as global temperatures remain within the range of recent interglacial periods of the past million years, outside that range - beyond a further warming of about 1 °C - the feedbacks could accelerate. Such changes may become inevitable if the world does not begin to curb greenhouse gas emissions within the next decade, Hansen says.
Meanwhile, another new study underlines that the boreal peat bogs, permafrost and pine forests are not just vital to the planet as a whole, they are major economic assets for the countries that host them. A detailed study of the northern boreal forests by environmental consultant Mark Anielski of Edmonton, Canada, puts the value of their "ecosystem services" at $250 billion a year, or $160 per hectare.
“The value of the services this ecosystem performs is more than twice that of the resources taken from the region each yearThese benefits include flood control, water purification and pest control provided by forest birds, plus income from wilderness tourism and meat from wildlife such as caribou. Anielski presented his findings to Canada's National Forest Congress in Gatineau-Ottawa earlier this week.
The value of these ecosystem services is more than twice that of conventional resources taken from the region each year, such as timber, minerals, oil and hydroelectricity, Anielski says. "If they were counted in Canadian inventories of assets, they would amount to roughly 9 per cent of our gross domestic product - similar in value to our health and social services."
You can add to that figure the value of having such a huge volume of carbon locked away. "The boreal region is like a giant carbon bank account," he says. "At current prices in the European carbon emissions trading system, Canada's stored carbon alone would be worth $3.7 trillion."
And if Hansen is right that the carbon and methane stored in the boreal regions has the potential to transform the world into "another planet", then the boreal region may be worth a great deal more than that.
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 27 September 2006, page 8-9
Fibonacci "There really is no sense in getting all worked up over the temp. It is beyond anyone's control."
The point is...we can still have some influence over the degredation of the climate. Sticking our heads into the sand or throwing up our hands and doing nothing isn't very productive, is it?:rolleyes:
Climate change hotspots"Further global warming of 1 °C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know."
So says Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Hansen and colleagues have analysed global temperature records and found that surface temperatures have been increasing by an average of 0.2 °C every decade for the past 30 years. Warming is greatest in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, particularly in the sub-Arctic boreal forests of Siberia and North America. Here the melting of ice and snow is exposing darker surfaces that absorb more sunlight and increase warming, creating a positive feedback.
Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288).
The analysis reinforces a series of recent findings on accelerating environmental disruption in Siberia, northern Canada and Alaska, underlining a growing scientific consensus that these regions are pivotal to climate change. Earlier this month, NASA scientists reported that climate change was speeding up the melting of Arctic sea ice. Permanent sea ice has contracted by 14 per cent in the past two years (Geophysical Research Letters, vol 33, L17501). However, warming and melting have been just as dramatic on land in the far north.
A meeting on Siberian climate change held in Leicester, UK, last week confirmed that Siberia has become a hotspot of global climate change. Geographer Heiko Balzter, of the University of Leicester, said central Siberia has warmed by almost 2 °C since 1970 - that's three times the global average.
Meanwhile, Stuart Chapin of the University of Alaska Fairbanks this week reported that air temperatures in the Alaskan interior have risen by 2 °C since 1950, and permafrost temperatures have risen by 2.5 °C (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0606955103).
In Siberia the warming is especially pronounced in winter. "It has caused the onset of spring to advance by as much as one day a year since satellite observations began in 1982," says Balzter. Similarly, Alaskan springs now arrive two weeks earlier than in 1950, according to Chapin.
The Leicester meeting heard that the rising temperatures are causing ecological changes in the forests that ratchet up the warming still further. Vladimir Petko from the Russian Academy of Sciences Forest Research Institute in Krasnoyarsk says warm springs are triggering plagues of moths. "They can eat the needles of entire forest regions in one summer," he says. The trees die and then usually succumb to forest fires that in turn destroy soil vegetation and accelerate the melting of permafrost, Petko says.
In 2003 Siberia saw a record number of forest fires, losing 40,000 square kilometres according to Balzter, who has analysed remote sensing images of the region. Similar changes are occurring in Alaska. According to Chapin, warming there has shortened the life cycle of the bark beetle from two years to one, causing huge infestations and subsequent fires, which destroyed huge areas of forest in 2004. "The current boreal forest zone could be so dried out by 2090 that the trees will die off and be replaced by steppe," says Nadezhda Tchebakova, also at the institute in Krasnoyarsk.
Melting permafrost in the boreal forests and further north in the Arctic tundra is also triggering the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from thick layers of thawing peat. First reports published exclusively in New Scientist last year (13 August 2005, p 12) were recently confirmed by US scientists (Nature, vol 443, p 71).
"Large amounts of greenhouse gases are currently locked in the permafrost and if released could accelerate the greenhouse effect," says Balzter. Hansen's paper concludes that the effects of this positive feedback could be huge. "In past eras, the release of methane from melting permafrost and destabilised sediments on continental shelves has probably been responsible for some of the largest warmings in the Earth's history," he says.
“The release of methane from melting permafrost has been responsible for some of the largest warmings in historyWe could be close to unleashing similar events in the 21st century, Hansen argues. Although the feedbacks should remain modest as long as global temperatures remain within the range of recent interglacial periods of the past million years, outside that range - beyond a further warming of about 1 °C - the feedbacks could accelerate. Such changes may become inevitable if the world does not begin to curb greenhouse gas emissions within the next decade, Hansen says.
Meanwhile, another new study underlines that the boreal peat bogs, permafrost and pine forests are not just vital to the planet as a whole, they are major economic assets for the countries that host them. A detailed study of the northern boreal forests by environmental consultant Mark Anielski of Edmonton, Canada, puts the value of their "ecosystem services" at $250 billion a year, or $160 per hectare.
“The value of the services this ecosystem performs is more than twice that of the resources taken from the region each yearThese benefits include flood control, water purification and pest control provided by forest birds, plus income from wilderness tourism and meat from wildlife such as caribou. Anielski presented his findings to Canada's National Forest Congress in Gatineau-Ottawa earlier this week.
The value of these ecosystem services is more than twice that of conventional resources taken from the region each year, such as timber, minerals, oil and hydroelectricity, Anielski says. "If they were counted in Canadian inventories of assets, they would amount to roughly 9 per cent of our gross domestic product - similar in value to our health and social services."
You can add to that figure the value of having such a huge volume of carbon locked away. "The boreal region is like a giant carbon bank account," he says. "At current prices in the European carbon emissions trading system, Canada's stored carbon alone would be worth $3.7 trillion."
And if Hansen is right that the carbon and methane stored in the boreal regions has the potential to transform the world into "another planet", then the boreal region may be worth a great deal more than that.
From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 27 September 2006, page 8-9
Fibonacci "There really is no sense in getting all worked up over the temp. It is beyond anyone's control."
The point is...we can still have some influence over the degredation of the climate. Sticking our heads into the sand or throwing up our hands and doing nothing isn't very productive, is it?:rolleyes:
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
global warming myth ?
:yh_frustr I am not saying that we should bury our heads in the sand or do nothing. Seeing as this is a new relatively new problem, we have no idea of the effect that any action that may be taken could have on the planet. I would rather l et it sort itself out.:yh_think
The poolhall's a great equalizer. In the poolhall, nobody cares how old you are, how young you are, what color your skin is or how much money you've got in your pocket... It's about how you move. I remember this kid once who could move around a pool table like nobody had ever seen. Hour after hour, rack after rack, his shots just went in. The cue was part of his arm and the balls had eyes. And the thing that made him so good was... He thought he could never miss. I know, 'cause that kid was me.
global warming myth ?
lulu your a geniusthe way you put things is great even a dumbo like me gets it ..thanks
so i have to put extra ice in my j d to combat global warming right
global warming myth ?
Fibonacci wrote: Global temp records only go back so far. There is no way to tell for certain whether global warming is a real threat or not. I for one think that it is cyclical. There are cool periods, and there are hot periods that cycle.
Direct temperature and CO2 level readings might only go back 100 years but artic core samples, ocean sediment samples tree ring studies etc go back many hundred thousand years and they consistantly show that the rate of warming and the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is by far the highest it has ever been and that these increases and increase in rates are co-incident with world industrialisation. Far from there being no evidence there is overwhelming evidence that man made global warming is occurring.
Direct temperature and CO2 level readings might only go back 100 years but artic core samples, ocean sediment samples tree ring studies etc go back many hundred thousand years and they consistantly show that the rate of warming and the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is by far the highest it has ever been and that these increases and increase in rates are co-incident with world industrialisation. Far from there being no evidence there is overwhelming evidence that man made global warming is occurring.
global warming myth ?
Fibonacci wrote: :yh_frustr I am not saying that we should bury our heads in the sand or do nothing. Seeing as this is a new relatively new problem, we have no idea of the effect that any action that may be taken could have on the planet. I would rather l et it sort itself out.:yh_think
As Lulu said - sticking you head in the sand.
We know exactly what we have to do and we have a fairly good idea of the (restricted) timescale we have to do it in. It will not sort itself out - drastic action is needed now or it will be too late.
As Lulu said - sticking you head in the sand.
We know exactly what we have to do and we have a fairly good idea of the (restricted) timescale we have to do it in. It will not sort itself out - drastic action is needed now or it will be too late.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
global warming myth ?
jimbo wrote: lulu your a genius
the way you put things is great even a dumbo like me gets it ..thanks
so i have to put extra ice in my j d to combat global warming right
We all have choices. if you let the ice melt, granted, the glass won't overflow. But if the air conditioning goes out and the room gets too warm, the liquid will likewise get warm and expand, which might cause an overflow. :yh_glasse
Then again, alcohol evaporates faster than water, so if you just sit and watch it, the JD will just lose its potency. :yh_think
I recommend you drink it now.
lulu your a geniusthe way you put things is great even a dumbo like me gets it ..thanks
so i have to put extra ice in my j d to combat global warming right
We all have choices. if you let the ice melt, granted, the glass won't overflow. But if the air conditioning goes out and the room gets too warm, the liquid will likewise get warm and expand, which might cause an overflow. :yh_glasseThen again, alcohol evaporates faster than water, so if you just sit and watch it, the JD will just lose its potency. :yh_think
I recommend you drink it now.
global warming myth ?
FIBONACCI The idea of "letting it sort itself out" is disastrous. Don't you see? WE caused this latest crisis with our ignorance, greed and willingness to let somebody ELSE fix things. WE are the only ones who can fix it. Now.
The planet got along very well before we evolved and can do well without us. It's just an unimaginable thing that we'll destroy everything else with whom we share the planet, too.
Please go back and read the posts of BRYN and ACCOUNTABLE. They're well-stated.
The planet got along very well before we evolved and can do well without us. It's just an unimaginable thing that we'll destroy everything else with whom we share the planet, too.
Please go back and read the posts of BRYN and ACCOUNTABLE. They're well-stated.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
global warming myth ?
I'VE JUST READ THAT 3/4 OF THE EARTHS FRESH WATER IS IN THE POLAR ICE CAPS THATS A BIT WORRYING
global warming myth ?
Bryn:
Enlighten Us On what exactly we Have to Do.
Also elaborate on the restricted time scale.
Enlighten Us On what exactly we Have to Do.
Also elaborate on the restricted time scale.
The poolhall's a great equalizer. In the poolhall, nobody cares how old you are, how young you are, what color your skin is or how much money you've got in your pocket... It's about how you move. I remember this kid once who could move around a pool table like nobody had ever seen. Hour after hour, rack after rack, his shots just went in. The cue was part of his arm and the balls had eyes. And the thing that made him so good was... He thought he could never miss. I know, 'cause that kid was me.
global warming myth ?
:-5 :-5 :-5
Troubling Lack of Science Behind Global Warming Claims
Cooler Heads Coalition
March 19, 2003
One February 27, Christopher Essex, a professor in the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario, and Ross McKitrick, an associate professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph, gave a Cooler Heads Coalition congressional staff and media briefing on their new book, Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.
Essex, who studies the underlying mathematics, physics and computation of complex dynamical processes, raised some very fundamental scientific issues with regard to the science of global warming. Take, for instance, the "average global temperature," which is a mainstay of the debate. Such a thing doesn’t exist, according to Essex. You can’t add up temperature and take its average like you can with physical quantities such as energy, length, and so on.
"Thermodynamic variables are categorized as extensive or intensive," said Essex. "Extensive variables occur in amounts¦. Intensive variables [such as temperature] refer to conditions of a system, defined continuously throughout its extent." For example, one could add the temperature of a cup of ice water to the temperature of a cup of hot coffee, but what does that number mean? It doesn’t mean anything because there is no such thing as total temperature. Dividing that number by two to get the average doesn’t mean anything either. Yet that is exactly what occurs when the average global temperature is computed.
Essex also pointed out that the internal energy of a system can change without changing the temperature and the temperature can change while the internal energy of the system remains the same. "This disconnect happens routinely in the natural world around us all the time," said Essex. "Ultimately this has to be so because temperature and energy belong to two fundamentally different classes of thermodynamic variables."
Global warming enthusiasts want us to believe that average temperature can tell us something about what is going on in the climate, but it is just a number with no physical content. To add insult to injury, Essex explained that there are literally an infinite number of averaging rules that could be used, some of which will show "warming" and others that will show "cooling," but the "physics doesn’t say which one to use."
Essex also explained that the earth’s so-called greenhouse effect does not work like a greenhouse. "Incoming solar radiation adds energy to the Earth’s surface," he said. To restore radiative balance the energy must be transported back to space in roughly the same amounts that it arrived in. The energy is transported via two processes – infrared radiation (heat transfer) and fluid dynamics (turbulence).
A real greenhouse works by preventing fluid motions, such as the wind, by enclosing an area with plastic or glass. To restore balance, infrared radiation must increase, thereby causing the temperature to rise. Predicting the resulting temperature increase is a relatively straightforward process.
But the "greenhouse effect" works differently. Greenhouse gases slow down outgoing infrared radiation, which causes the fluid dynamics to adjust. But it cannot be predicted what will happen because the equations which govern fluid dynamics cannot be solved! Scientists cannot even predict the flow of water through a pipe, let alone the vastly more complex fluid dynamics of the climate system. "No one can compute from first principles what the climate will do," said Essex. "It may warm, or cool, or nothing at all!" Saying that the greenhouse effect works the same way as a greenhouse, which is a solvable problem, creates certainty where none exists, said Essex.
Surely scientists are aware of the issues that Essex brings up (and several other equally devastating points that aren’t discussed here). If so, then how have we come to a place where the media and politicians repeatedly state that there is a scientific consensus that the planet is warming up, it is caused by man, and the effects will be catastrophic? McKitrick offered a very convincing explanation. He discussed several relevant groups, but we’ll focus on politicians and what McKitrick calls "Official Science."
Politicians need big issues around which they can form winning coalitions. Global warming is a good issue because, "It is so complex and baffling the public still has little clue what it’s really about. It’s global, so ¦ you get to have your meetings in exotic locations. Policy initiatives could sound like heroic measures to save the planet¦, but on the other hand the solutions are potentially very costly. So you need a high degree of scientific support if you are going to move on it. There’s a premium on certainty."
This is where Official Science comes in. Official Science is made up of staffs of scientific bureaucracies, editors of prominent magazines, directors of international panels, and so on. These members of Official Science aren’t appointed by scientists to speak on their behalf, but are appointed by governments. They have the impossible job of striking "a compromise between the need for certainty in policymaking and the aversion to claims of certainty in regular science." What happens is that science ends up serving a political agenda rather than a scientific one. "If things were as they should be, leaders would want a treaty because they observe that scientists are in agreement. What happens instead is that Official Science ‘orchestrates’ agreement because leaders want to make a treaty." The presentation will soon be available at www.cei.org. Taken By Storm may be ordered at www.amazon.ca.
Etc.
On March 13, Hans Blix, the U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq was interviewed on MTV about his thoughts regarding war with Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. During the interview he stated that, "On big issues like war in Iraq, but in many other issues, they simply must be multilateral. There’s no other way around. You have the instances like the global warming convention, the Kyoto protocol, when the U.S. went its own way. I regret it. To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will have regional conflicts and use of force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But the environment, that is a creeping danger. I’m more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict." Presumably, the risks of war, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorist acts such as 9/11, pale in comparison to the threat of global warming.
Troubling Lack of Science Behind Global Warming Claims
Cooler Heads Coalition
March 19, 2003
One February 27, Christopher Essex, a professor in the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario, and Ross McKitrick, an associate professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph, gave a Cooler Heads Coalition congressional staff and media briefing on their new book, Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.
Essex, who studies the underlying mathematics, physics and computation of complex dynamical processes, raised some very fundamental scientific issues with regard to the science of global warming. Take, for instance, the "average global temperature," which is a mainstay of the debate. Such a thing doesn’t exist, according to Essex. You can’t add up temperature and take its average like you can with physical quantities such as energy, length, and so on.
"Thermodynamic variables are categorized as extensive or intensive," said Essex. "Extensive variables occur in amounts¦. Intensive variables [such as temperature] refer to conditions of a system, defined continuously throughout its extent." For example, one could add the temperature of a cup of ice water to the temperature of a cup of hot coffee, but what does that number mean? It doesn’t mean anything because there is no such thing as total temperature. Dividing that number by two to get the average doesn’t mean anything either. Yet that is exactly what occurs when the average global temperature is computed.
Essex also pointed out that the internal energy of a system can change without changing the temperature and the temperature can change while the internal energy of the system remains the same. "This disconnect happens routinely in the natural world around us all the time," said Essex. "Ultimately this has to be so because temperature and energy belong to two fundamentally different classes of thermodynamic variables."
Global warming enthusiasts want us to believe that average temperature can tell us something about what is going on in the climate, but it is just a number with no physical content. To add insult to injury, Essex explained that there are literally an infinite number of averaging rules that could be used, some of which will show "warming" and others that will show "cooling," but the "physics doesn’t say which one to use."
Essex also explained that the earth’s so-called greenhouse effect does not work like a greenhouse. "Incoming solar radiation adds energy to the Earth’s surface," he said. To restore radiative balance the energy must be transported back to space in roughly the same amounts that it arrived in. The energy is transported via two processes – infrared radiation (heat transfer) and fluid dynamics (turbulence).
A real greenhouse works by preventing fluid motions, such as the wind, by enclosing an area with plastic or glass. To restore balance, infrared radiation must increase, thereby causing the temperature to rise. Predicting the resulting temperature increase is a relatively straightforward process.
But the "greenhouse effect" works differently. Greenhouse gases slow down outgoing infrared radiation, which causes the fluid dynamics to adjust. But it cannot be predicted what will happen because the equations which govern fluid dynamics cannot be solved! Scientists cannot even predict the flow of water through a pipe, let alone the vastly more complex fluid dynamics of the climate system. "No one can compute from first principles what the climate will do," said Essex. "It may warm, or cool, or nothing at all!" Saying that the greenhouse effect works the same way as a greenhouse, which is a solvable problem, creates certainty where none exists, said Essex.
Surely scientists are aware of the issues that Essex brings up (and several other equally devastating points that aren’t discussed here). If so, then how have we come to a place where the media and politicians repeatedly state that there is a scientific consensus that the planet is warming up, it is caused by man, and the effects will be catastrophic? McKitrick offered a very convincing explanation. He discussed several relevant groups, but we’ll focus on politicians and what McKitrick calls "Official Science."
Politicians need big issues around which they can form winning coalitions. Global warming is a good issue because, "It is so complex and baffling the public still has little clue what it’s really about. It’s global, so ¦ you get to have your meetings in exotic locations. Policy initiatives could sound like heroic measures to save the planet¦, but on the other hand the solutions are potentially very costly. So you need a high degree of scientific support if you are going to move on it. There’s a premium on certainty."
This is where Official Science comes in. Official Science is made up of staffs of scientific bureaucracies, editors of prominent magazines, directors of international panels, and so on. These members of Official Science aren’t appointed by scientists to speak on their behalf, but are appointed by governments. They have the impossible job of striking "a compromise between the need for certainty in policymaking and the aversion to claims of certainty in regular science." What happens is that science ends up serving a political agenda rather than a scientific one. "If things were as they should be, leaders would want a treaty because they observe that scientists are in agreement. What happens instead is that Official Science ‘orchestrates’ agreement because leaders want to make a treaty." The presentation will soon be available at www.cei.org. Taken By Storm may be ordered at www.amazon.ca.
Etc.
On March 13, Hans Blix, the U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq was interviewed on MTV about his thoughts regarding war with Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. During the interview he stated that, "On big issues like war in Iraq, but in many other issues, they simply must be multilateral. There’s no other way around. You have the instances like the global warming convention, the Kyoto protocol, when the U.S. went its own way. I regret it. To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will have regional conflicts and use of force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But the environment, that is a creeping danger. I’m more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict." Presumably, the risks of war, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorist acts such as 9/11, pale in comparison to the threat of global warming.
The poolhall's a great equalizer. In the poolhall, nobody cares how old you are, how young you are, what color your skin is or how much money you've got in your pocket... It's about how you move. I remember this kid once who could move around a pool table like nobody had ever seen. Hour after hour, rack after rack, his shots just went in. The cue was part of his arm and the balls had eyes. And the thing that made him so good was... He thought he could never miss. I know, 'cause that kid was me.
global warming myth ?
Fibonacci....just continue to stick your head in the sand ....that's all you need to do. No problem. Just ignore credible science and continue to enjoy your life.
You and millions of your fellows will dance and sing while the earth heats up. No problem....of course not.
You and millions of your fellows will dance and sing while the earth heats up. No problem....of course not.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
global warming myth ?
:-3 I thought we were here to have an honest, civilized discussion? I gave my Views. You commented and shared yours. You gave information supporting your views. I did the same. What Happened?
The poolhall's a great equalizer. In the poolhall, nobody cares how old you are, how young you are, what color your skin is or how much money you've got in your pocket... It's about how you move. I remember this kid once who could move around a pool table like nobody had ever seen. Hour after hour, rack after rack, his shots just went in. The cue was part of his arm and the balls had eyes. And the thing that made him so good was... He thought he could never miss. I know, 'cause that kid was me.