PDA

View Full Version : Alarming News Regarding Global Warming



Gayle in MD
05-19-2007, 08:55 AM
WASHINGTON (May 19) - The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is so loaded with carbon dioxide that it can barely absorb any more, so more of the gas will stay in the atmosphere to warm up the planet, scientists reported on Thursday.

Human activity is the main culprit, said researcher Corinne Le Quere, who called the finding very alarming.

The phenomenon wasn't expected to be apparent for decades, Le Quere said in a telephone interview from the University of East Anglia in Britain.

"We thought we would be able to detect these only the second half of this century, say 2050 or so," she said. But data from 1981 through 2004 show the sink is already full of carbon dioxide. "So I find this really quite alarming."

The Southern Ocean is one of the world's biggest reservoirs of carbon, known as a carbon sink. When carbon is in a sink -- whether it's an ocean or a forest, both of which can lock up carbon dioxide -- it stays out of the atmosphere and does not contribute to global warming .

The new research, published in the latest edition of the journal Science, indicates that the Southern Ocean has been saturated with carbon dioxide at least since the 1980s.

This is significant because the Southern Ocean accounts for 15 percent of the global carbon sink, Le Quere said.


Increased winds over the last half-century are to blame for the change, Le Quere said. These winds blend the carbon dioxide throughout the Southern Ocean, mixing the naturally occurring carbon that usually stays deep down with the human-caused carbon.

When natural carbon is brought up to the surface by the winds, it is harder for the Southern Ocean to accommodate more human-generated carbon, which comes from factories, coal-fired power plants and petroleum-powered motor vehicle exhaust.

The winds themselves are caused by two separate human factors.


Most Popular - Last 24 Hours
Richest Shipwreck Treasure Nets $500 MillionLone Gunman Theory in JFK Assassination ChallengedState Says $500,000 Lottery Ticket Is MisprintPresident Bush Hails Agreement on Immigration ReformGorilla Sparks Panic, Injures Four PeopleFirst, the human-spawned ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere over the Southern Ocean has created large changes in temperature throughout the atmosphere, Le Quere said.

Second, the uneven nature of global warming has produced higher temperatures in the northern parts of the world than in the south, which has also made the winds accelerate in the Southern Ocean.

"Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the world's oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the 500 gigatons (500 billion tons) of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans," Chris Rapley of the British Antarctic Survey said in a statement.

"The possibility that in a warmer world the Southern Ocean -- the strongest ocean sink -- is weakening is a cause for concern," Rapley said.

Another sign of warming in the Antarctic was reported on Tuesday by NASA , which found vast areas of snow melted on the southern continent in 2005 in a process that may accelerate invisible melting deep beneath the surface.

moblsv
05-19-2007, 09:05 AM
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462

pooltchr
05-20-2007, 06:46 AM
OMG! Now we are responsible for the wind!
Maybe we should just ban all humans from living on the planet so it can survive!
/ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

We have millions of illegal invaders who are about to get amnisty to stay in our country, and you are worried about the wind! Our country will be destroyed long before global warming ever has any impact on us...but not by the weather!
Steve
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-20-2007, 07:13 AM
Some people have enough brain power to be concerned about more than one thing at a time. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
05-20-2007, 07:14 AM
Thank you friend, good link, as usual.. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

pooltchr
05-20-2007, 03:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Some people have enough brain power to be concerned about more than one thing at a time. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Too bad you aren't one of them.
Steve

moblsv
05-22-2007, 02:59 PM
yet another assualt on reason

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/21/america/NA-GEN-US-Climate-Change.php

Gayle in MD
05-22-2007, 04:03 PM
This is incredible. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

eg8r
05-22-2007, 04:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is so loaded with carbon dioxide that it can barely absorb any more, so more of the gas will stay in the atmosphere to warm up the planet, scientists reported on Thursday.
<hr /></blockquote> Hmm pretty interesting. According to Reid A. Bryson this warming is quite nill. C02 is not the main cause, actually quite a very very small factor in the warming of the earth. Here is the link (http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html) to the whole article.
[ QUOTE ]
We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”

Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.
<hr /></blockquote>[ QUOTE ]
“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.” <hr /></blockquote> [ QUOTE ]
Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”

We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”

<hr /></blockquote> Pretty interesting to say the least. If not for the earth warming up (naturally) we would never have known about this silver mine.

[ QUOTE ]
UW Green Bay Emeritus Professor Joseph Moran agrees that Bryson qualifies as “the father of the science of modern climatology.” <hr /></blockquote> Sure this is one man's opinion, but who out there would disagree? Bryson surely is not just some guy out there with some environmental studies from 20 years ago in college.

It is quite amazing that the earth was hotter back then than it is today and the worse that happened was Greenland was frozen over (quite the opposite effect of what the alarmists will tell you). If we were to believe even the crazy alarmist on this board if the earth was to heat up one more degree we would probably all fry to death. What sort of proof does he have, nothing. The only proof out there is that the earth will cool again and it has nothing to do with C02.

Why do all the alarmists never mentioned the increased solar activity? According to Bryson water vapor (80%) has a much bigger effect than C02 (eight hundredths of one percent) but the alarmists and their paid henchmen (I mean scientists) are ignoring it.

eg8r

eg8r
05-24-2007, 09:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
OMG! Now we are responsible for the wind!
<hr /></blockquote> Somehow they will also find a way to blame us for the warming that Mars is currently going through.

eg8r

moblsv
05-24-2007, 09:31 AM
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642

There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouses gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity.

The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.

moblsv
05-24-2007, 09:59 AM
http://home.comcast.net/~crriddle/ipcc1.gif

Bobbyrx
05-24-2007, 12:47 PM
<font color="blue"> The first paragraph of article </font color>
"WASHINGTON: The Smithsonian Institution toned down an exhibit on climate change in the Arctic for fear of angering the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration, says a former administrator at the museum."
<font color="blue"> then in the body of the article
</font color>
Robert Sullivan, who was associate director in charge of exhibitions at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.
said that to his knowledge, no one in the Bush administration pressured the Smithsonian, whose $1.1 billion (€0.82 billion) budget is mostly taxpayer-funded.

Rather, he said, Smithsonian leaders acted on their own. "The obsession with getting the next allocation and appropriation was so intense that anything that might upset the Congress <font color="blue"> </font color> or the White House was being looked at very carefully," he said.
White House spokeswoman Kristen Hellmer said Monday: "The White House had no role in this exhibit."

<font color="blue">sounds a little different </font color>

eg8r
05-24-2007, 01:11 PM
You can't argue that there are equally skilled/experienced scientists who are disagreeing with each other on what is causing the earth to warm. My bet is that it is all natural and we cannot do anything about it at all. The earth was warming and cooling long before humans and it will continue to inspite of human interaction.

Your chart says C02 is a high contributor, but the link I provided gave a different outlook on C02 and it being a contributing factor.

Basically the group of scientists that are trying to prove global warming is the cause of humans are funded to prove that point. They are not interested in finding any info that would disprove the idea because they would lose their funding. All the governments and individuals who are giving money to fund this research are not interested in finding out what is actually causing global warming (especially to prove it is only natural) they are interested in trying to prove the human cause.

eg8r

Drop1
05-24-2007, 01:26 PM
Give me enough money,and I will find enough experts to agree with you.

moblsv
05-24-2007, 03:44 PM
hmm, reminds me of Hannah Arendt descriptions, in Origins of Totalitarianism, of how totalitarian movements created "paraprofessional" associations of teachers, doctors, lawyers, and the like, which mimicked ordinary professional groups in order to erode their legitimacy and eventually replace them.


"before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrines, totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself."

Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism

moblsv
05-24-2007, 06:03 PM
Are they really different? Why? Money? The Smithsonian should not feel pressured to tone down scientific facts for political reason, period.
-------
"The Smithsonian Institution toned down an exhibit on climate change in the Arctic for fear of angering the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration"

"anything that might upset the Congress or the White House was being looked at very carefully"

Gayle in MD
05-25-2007, 08:52 AM
More evidence of the roots of fascism growing in the Republican theocracy! Your anaylogy is perfect.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
05-25-2007, 11:30 AM
What do you need money for? Are you still trying to get back into God's country?

eg8r

Deeman3
05-25-2007, 03:28 PM
You know, I noticed it was a little warn this morning so I turned up the air a bit.

Thanks for the heads up. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif