Which trend should we reverse? The poverty trend in underdeveloped countries? I’ll go for that. Reverse the trend in increasing malaria rates? Yes, by all means. But my guess is you refer to the CO2 increase and related temperature. You must determine first which is the cause and which is the consequence. Increasing evidence stemming from scientific research (peer reviewed as you like) indicates that temperature rise came first and CO2 levels increase came later –much later. Then you should determine with scientific and undeniable certainty that the observed trend is dangerous and harmful –something that “Increasing evidence stemming from scientific research (peer reviewed as you like) indicates” that the opposite is true: warmer is better, and that was seen during the Medieval Warm Period, sometimes referred by climatologists as the Little Climatic Optimum. So what? That’s happens over just 5% of Earth’s surface covered by cities. If you don’t like it, or think it is deleterious to your health simply move to the country and becomes a farmer. Return to Mother Nature and be happy! Give up electricity, cars, the internet, airplanes, nuclear medicine, safe and abundant food, and some other devilish things that progress has given us. So you still believe that acid rains are caused by man’s activities? Follow Frank Sinatra's advice: "Wake up to reality!". Rains are naturally acid, and in “pristine” regions away from urbanized centers and industries the pH of rains are in the range of 5.7 pH. There are some regions in the world that are exceptions (as regions in China) where calcium carbonate dust in the air makes the rains slightly alkaline with a pH of 7.5 to 8. Why natural rains are acid? The rain washes down CO2 and forms carbonic acid. It also washes down formic acid from the jungles (produced by trillions of ants) so you will never find neutral rain (except in China and some other dusty deserts). It also washes down chlorine from oceans, making hydrochloric acid. Wake up! Read science, stop reading press releases and NGOs leaflets and brochures!
Of course I'm referring to man-made C02 emissions - and all the man-made Green House Gases that we are producing. No one is "pro-pollution." Poverty trends are off the subject forum. Actually, I do live out in the country, but that doesn't mean it won't eventually creep up to me, and no one wants it in urban areas. We are looking for dures: not saying that everything is all right. There's a problem in the air and we're looking for ways to deal with it. Smog causes death. Never before on Earth have we undergone such man-made deforestation problems. Low quality coal burned for fuel for strictly human purposes has and is causing acid rain in the Eastern United States and even circulating over into Europe. What right do wehave to be responsible for the acid rain that are destroying European forests? We did no have this problem before 1840 when the huge industrial coal-burning epic began. We are causing increases in Global Warming that are afecting everyone on Earth. When glaciers and ice sheets melt and flood coastal lands, those people will be moving inland and overpopulating existing areas, as they are now around my neighborhood. The world is already too hot: not too cold. The majority of people in the world live in equatorial areas, not in the Antarctic - and they like it there. But they don't like the intensive heat.
See how strong the hype forming is. CO2 is now a pollutant, where it used to be the precious building stone for all life. If we want to restore life, forests, and oceans we need the basic building blocks. Of all the measures in the hype therefore the most ridiculous in the history of the earth is carbon sequestration back into the crust. The reducing CO2 output for the sake of regulating climate has the same effect as rearranging the deck seats on the Titanic, but carbon burying is like drilling more holes it's hull. So spend your money on reducing smog, filtering, better fuels, better processing whatever. It has nothing to do with the amount of CO2 in the air. Hence another fallacy, guilt by association. Then don't use low quality coal. Guilt by association. Then spend your money on reforestation instead of trying to remove the precious CO2 forests building blocks from the air instead of throwing it in the waste bin for the sole sake of satisfaction for some sick scientists. No, we are not. Apparantly nature has decided that it's time for the next medieval warming period. "Medieval" is not a error, since that's what we are returning to with this ridiculous hype. We will probably never get out of it as long as people have a natural tendency to have fears and be scared and others have a tendency to scaremonger. Affirming the consequent fallacy. How hot is too hot. How hot was the medieval period, and the Roman period, the hypsythermal or early holocene thermal maximum. It has been scorcing hot anytime at places. It's bitterly cold here right now. For the USA this year was the 20tiest warmest. That's nature, get used to it.
could you believe that the holocene period is now over? That the Greenland Icecap and the antarctic icecap are growing thicker? As well as many glaciers around the world? all you hear about is global warming, even though the usa temp for december was the coldest in 200 years. how can this be if were in the middle of global warming? Ocean warming is created by a huge increase in undersea tectonic activity – the kind of increased activity (See Pakistan/India/Indonesia, etc.) we're witnessing on the surface – submerged volcanoes erupting, gushing red hot magma up through the earth's crust, or magma spilling through cracks in the sea floor and turning the ocean waters into boiling cauldrons. see the article on the hydrothermal mega plume and you'll see that it's the oceans warming due to huge amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the upper atmosphere and we know that CO2 becomes moisture and falls as rain or snow. Snow by the feet, rain by the feet. Record low temps. We are meandering back into an old fashioned ice age folks.
From what I see from the temperatures all over the Earth (in my own country winters are as warm as not in a looong long time) is that there is a huge swaying and un-normal weather in many regions - either hotter or colder. What it means is that the global climate is changing, hotter or colder - nobody really can tell, maybe both.
I can't figure it out...you must be highly unintelligent and lacking proper education in the proper fields relating to this subject. To say that anthropogenic gas emissions has no damaging effect on our earth, climate, oceans, and polar caps is delusional and misleading. We have to ask ourselves, what is natural? If we humans did not exist, or rather we did not release any technology related emissions into the atmosphere, how would Earth's atmosphere and climate trend look right now? Do you not believe the Montreal Protocol was a good thing in stopping harmful ozone destroying CFC's from being released? Are you saying that we do not disturb the natural "balance" of earth systems variability? I know from lab experiments, not textbooks, that Greenhouse gases: Methane, CO2, etc all absorb heat energy in form of infra-red radiation. Now, if we know we are releasing these gases and that the earth surface happens to radiate heat energy in the infra-red wavelengths....we can safely and accurately imply that these gases will trap more heat energy thus warming the atmosphere. We compare this to what the case is if we humans did not exist...thus no anthropogenic emissions. Therefore, it is not a question of if we are damaging our earth or if we are contributing to global warming, no, the question that is not fully clear is how much or to what extent are we contributing. AB
You are quite right. I have tried to resist the indoctrination and even did not get captured by the magic spell of the hockeystick. Probably to dumb. My average reading of climate related papers may be just over one or two a day. But I must confess, not every day. Sometimes there is simply nothing left. Far inferior of course. It could help to review a couple of my post to assert my dumbness: http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=5485873 This one for instance is particular stupid: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50999
I agree with you. Use of low quality coal creates much more smog than just CO2. And that we should spend our moneu on reforestation: and we are. And at the same time we are trying to reduce deforestation and CO2 output. CO2 is a poison to humans and all animals: but is a source of energy to plants. Through deforestation, there are no plants left to convert CO2 into the oxygen we need for surivival. We need to stop deforestation and increase reforestation to regenerate the Earth's resources as they were before we started this massive destruction 250 years ago. I agree, we do need CO2, else it cannot be converted into oxygen. But anymore CO2 than we already have is a waste and adds to Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming. protostar: "see the article on the hydrothermal mega plume and you'll see that it's the oceans warming due to huge amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the upper atmosphere and we know that CO2 becomes moisture and falls as rain or snow." I looked 3 pages back but could not find a link to this article. Could you repost it please? Thanks.
So is di-hydro monoxide: http://www.dhmo.org/ and salt and oxygen, it's all poisonous. CO2 in the atmosphere should never reach levels where it can cause harm. No, looking at the billion years time scale on the average CO2 is declining. The very long parts of the carbon cycle may not be in balance for instance: CO2 -> Limestone -> Volcanic reduction to CO2. Hence the amount of limestone is steadily increasing at the expence of precious carbon for the biomass. Humanity is doing Earth and nature a great favour by recovering some carbon (from fossil fuels) that would otherwise be lost for the total Earth biomass. that effect is so small that it isn't worth mentioning and most certainly not worth spending another $ on it: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There are many problems to be solved, don't waste anything to non-problems.
"Pikas, which are very sensitive to high temperatures, are considered to be one of the best early warning systems for detecting global warming in the western United States. Seven of 25 historically described populations of pikas in the Great Basin - the area between the Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountains - have become extinct by the end of the 20th century." Source: Reuters, Correspondence from Dr. Donald Grayson. Full report by the author in the current issue of the Journal of Biogeography. http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/12/30/pika.extinction.reut/index.html
Global Warming could thaw the top 11 feet of permafrost in most areas of the Northern Hemisphere by 2100, altering ecosystems across Alaska, Canada and Russia, according to National Center for Atmospheric Research Federal Study. ""If that much near-surface permafrost thaws, it could release considerable amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and that could amplify global warming," said lead author David Lawrence, with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "We could be underestimating the rate of global temperature increase." The study was published December 17 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters and presented at a science conference in San Francisco." Source: "Climate study predicts big thaw," Associated Press, Dec. 26, 2005. http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/12/26/us.permafrost.ap/index.html
You've twice posted the same graph. Could you please tell me the difference between CO2 and CH4 and it's relevance to Global Warming. What does CH4 have to do with CO2? I just do not know, really. The link you supply about di-hydro monoxide states that: "Among the many commonly-sited DHMO-related environmental impacts are: DHMO contributes to global warming and the "Greenhouse Effect", and is one of the so-called "greenhouse gasses." DHMO is an "enabling component" of acid rain -- in the absence of sufficient quantities of DHMO, acid rain is not a problem. DHMO is a causative agent in most instances of soil erosion -- sufficiently high levels of DHMO exacerbate the negative effects of soil erosion. Measurable levels of DHMO have been verified in ice samples taken from both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps. Recent massive DHMO exposures have lead to the loss of life and destruction of property in California, the Mid-West, the Philippines, and a number of islands in the Caribbean, to name just a few."
In the extreme lower left hand corner, the merged blue dots in the CO2 graph also show that the current variation in greenhouse gas concentration has an almost negliglible effect on it's effectiviness. It's identical the same process of coloring water with ink. The first drop of ink in a glass of water has a strong effect on the color of the water. The differeence between the tenth and eleventh drop doesn't barely show. That's saturation and that's why even a distinct increase in GHG has barely any effect. Again identical the same effect (absorption of a certain EM frequency range only on different wave lenghts). Okay I will not ROFL and stay serious. You posted that without comment perhaps you smelled something fishy but the partisan alarmist style of the text was so appealing to you that you probably did not (bother to) work it out why it was fishy. Never heard of Dihydrogen Monoxide? Let's see, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. So the chemical formula must be H2O. Now read the page again and see that it all applies to water. I'm still managing to keep from laughing because this is deadly serious. This is just a very scary demonstration of how the human mind can be numbed and prepared to accept any BS as long as it is appealing to the human needs to be scared and to scaremonger, ready to fight or flee the enemy, regardless of which enemy. Would have been a extremely interesting case for shrinks, if they were not affected themselfs.
I must apologize for my name calling. You do seem to have sufficient knowledge in the subject at hand. I did not know this. In any case, I do have to disagree with the way you interpret data. I don't know if it's a game of semantics your playing but to say global warming is not happening is....well, wrong. I am sure you know that you are in a minority of "scientists" (quotation marks because I do not know if you are or not) who think we are not contributing to the general warming of Earth's surface. But that's fine, it's actually a good thing. Since I am for science, it's good that scientists take different, interesting and sometimes anti-popular stands. It only improves our knowledge and speeds up theory ratification.
Valich: below is the requested article. from nationalgeographic.com: 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. "In a nutshell, 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. (...) "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." Recent studies have attempted to factor the heat from the world's known hydrothermal ridges into ocean circulation models. "Some studies estimate that for the Pacific, background thermal heating might increase ocean circulation by up to 50 percent," Murton said. Regular hydrothermal fields stir the water for only a few hundred meters (about a thousand feet) above the ocean floor. "But these megaplumes can reach a column of 1,000 to 1,500 meters [3,280 to 4,920 feet], so it reaches right up into the midwater," he said. But even the Indian Ocean megaplume may be small compared to larger underwater eruptions that have as yet gone undetected. "At the moment those that we've seen have come from small eruptions in the larger scheme of things," he said. "But we know when we look at the ocean floor that there have been much larger eruptions, so we can only speculate about what magnitude of event plumes would come from those." Incidently or not, the sun seems to be going through a "mega cycle" at this time as well. earthchangestv.com has article on that. proto
Yeah but you're picking and choosing quotes from this article. Can you please cite the source? Yeah there are many plumes around the word, and there always have been since the beginning of time. And from what you quoted above, it sounds very reasonable and scientific, until the end quote: "At the moment those that we've seen have come from small eruptions in the larger scheme of things." What is he referring to as the "larger scheme of things." Earth has already been through the larger schemes in its beginning. Of course the end will be a big boom. But is there something else that he is implying here? "Climate change could thaw the top 11 feet of permafrost in most areas of the Northern Hemisphere by 2100, altering ecosystems across Alaska, Canada and Russia, according to a federal study. Using supercomputers in the United States and Japan, the study calculated how frozen soil would interact with air temperatures, snow, sea ice changes and other processes. The most extreme scenario involved the melting of the top 11 feet (3.35 meters) of permafrost, or earth that remains frozen year-round. "If that much near-surface permafrost thaws, it could release considerable amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and that could amplify global warming," said lead author David Lawrence, with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "We could be underestimating the rate of global temperature increase." http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/12/26/us.permafrost.ap/index.html
Everywhere I turn TrashShouter is there with his large font and his inane comments. Will all 2006 be like this?
I'll have to research how CH4 is a GHG or what affect it has on the environment to understand the correlation. Look. I just to know - not that I smell something fishy. If the author means water than why does he just say so. But still, it states: "DHMO contributes to global warming and the "Greenhouse Effect", and is one of the so-called "greenhouse gasses." [H2O is not a GHG!] Measurable levels of DHMO have been verified in ice samples taken from both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps. [Isn't this a little ridiculous: ice = water?] Recent massive DHMO exposures have lead to the loss of life and destruction of property in California, the Mid-West, the Philippines, and a number of islands in the Caribbean, to name just a few." [Yes, people do drown?] What is he talking about?
I'll have to research how CH4 is a GHG or what affect it has on the environment to understand the correlation. Look. I just don't know - not that I smell something fishy. If the author means water than why does he just say so. But still, it states: "DHMO contributes to global warming and the "Greenhouse Effect", and is one of the so-called "greenhouse gasses." [H2O is not a GHG!] Measurable levels of DHMO have been verified in ice samples taken from both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps. [Isn't this a little ridiculous: ice = water?] Recent massive DHMO exposures have lead to the loss of life and destruction of property in California, the Mid-West, the Philippines, and a number of islands in the Caribbean, to name just a few." [Yes, people do drown?] What is he talking about?
