HomeFactopediaBrainoffsRankingsCommunityLog In
You know 0 facts





Thu 19 Jul 12 #1 
USS Palladin
Contributor


There will always be a big debate about global warming/climate change. Actually the debate centers more on whether it is human caused or not. The historical and geologic record show that there have been many climate changes in the history of the earth.

Either way it does seem the planet is warming and getting increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the air.

There are a lot of ideas out there about how to restore the balance. Less burning of fossil fuels, sulphur dioxide spewed into the high atmosphere to reflect sun rays, giant mirrors in space, pumping CO2 underground, etc, etc, etc.

But like water is to a desert, iron is to cold water, specifically polar waters. It has been said by one scientist that give him a boat load of iron ore and he could start the next ice age. But is it true?

So they actually did an experiment with iron in colder waters. Algae just crave iron, but since it is so rare in these waters they don't grow a lot.
The scientists sailed to a spot in the Southern Ocean that had currents that seemed to stay confined to one general area, treated the water with iron and waited to see what happened. With these waters rich in oxygen and the algae getting a vital nutrient they did see what they expected. A large algae bloom and with the bloom a large capturing of CO2 from the atmosphere to be incorporated in the cell wall of the organism. Once the bloom died, the dead algae descended to the bottom, effectively taking excess carbon to the bottom of the sea. So this may be a way to rid the atmosphere of excess carbon dioxide and prevent global warming.

Yet even the scientist that carried out the experiment is against doing this to help prevent climate change. They reason being is that they do not know how much damage it will do to the ecosystem by having giant algal blooms.

Any thoughts?


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Fri 20 Jul 12 #2 
kevg
The Grumpinator

You may well regret this young man !! I've been waiting for a chance to start a diatribe about this nonsense for a long time !!
Firstly may I say the Earth is NOT warming and hasn't been since the late 90's, which is why scientists now talk about Climate Change not Global warming.
As you point out the earth warms and carbon dioxide builds up NOT carbon dioxide causes warming. Methane is a far more common and better insulating gas. We know where methane comes from don't we ??
From the infamous "hockey stick" swindle, through Al Gore's laughable book to the manipulation of data by Norwich University the whole "science" of GW has been investigated and derided by more and more scientists.
Romans growing vines in Nothumbria, Middle Ages heatwaves etc all point to weather moving in cycles. We are leaving a (slightly) warmer cycle.
Aided by the Media looking for sensational stories, scientists needing grants and general nutcases this nonsense is now the reason so much of our earnings are taken in tax. To offset the damage ?? Erm what damage ??
I see that far from receding the latest satellite pictures of the Himalaya's show the ice is thickening (released this week).
The Peterman Glacier breaks away and we are all going to die !! Nope, it's in the far North West of Greenland, well away from shipping lanes and no danger to anyone. Why did it break away ?? Possibly it got slightly warmer (it has been very hot in USA/Canada lately) but also that is what glaciers do, especially when the weight of ice gets too much !!
Incidently, the current heatwave in USA is the worst since 1956, so why was it warmer then ??
Kristian and Mimoza have been suffering temperatures of over 40C for weeks. It's called the Mediterranean summer.
Dumping iron in the ocean to promote algae to eat our "spare" carbon ?? And how much iron will be needed ?? Do you realise what area of sea would need to be covered with algae to make any difference. Could we then have "protected" algae areas ?? When the algae eats all our carbon dioxide and the trees start to die who will be blamed then ??

This is just the start folks. Come on join in. Interesting subject USS, good man.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Fri 20 Jul 12 #3 
USS Palladin
Contributor

We have no issues in regards to climate change. There always has been some and always will be some.
Gore's point and a view held by many (I am open minded on it) is that current levels of CO2 are high and increasing faster than they ever have before and they think it is due to man and his activities.

Yes you are correct about glaciers, some on earth are expanding while others are shrinking, but on the WHOLE, more are shrinking than expanding. I am sure the polar ice cap has big and small years but satellite photos show a steady....steady decline in the extent of the ice pack year after year. Natural or man made? Considering how effect both the tropics and the poles have on our weather I think it does bear watching. Everybody thought that CFC's were harmless till they did verify the big ozone hole in the Southern Hemisphere. For me that is at least some proof that man made activity can have a large effect on the whole earth ecosystem.

The issue is they can't prove for sure that it is man made and others can't prove that it isn't. The system is just too big to be put into a mathematical model to predict with any certainty. Both sides also have their propagandists.

The bottom line is the price of ignoring all this may be too high to bear.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Tue 24 Jul 12 #4 
southshoregirl

Make the South Americans and Africans stop cutting down all the rain forests for strarters. I do agree with Climate Change. But there are cycles, as Kevin said. Right now we are cooking and it sucks. Do I think it will last? Not at all. There have been many "mini-ice ages" and hot spells over the past centuries and while we have something to do with it I truly believe that the hot air coming out of politician's mouths is the most damaging element in the whole warming issue. Seriously, the forests must be kept intact. They are our air conditioners and air filters.


like | send message


Wed 25 Jul 12 #5 
jmaxg
Contributor

Gore basically lied in his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth". At the very least, he misrepresented facts. That didn't help anything. It just meant he treated his possible viewership like a bunch of dummies.

From my perspective, I keep my eye on meteorologists. As opposed to "climatologists", it's a discipline that has been around for a lot longer and was not created to fit a "niche" in order to back up a hypothesis.

Remember back in the old days when the weather person on TV was just some pretty "talking head" that could use a clicker? Then, one day, the weather guy got replaced by some dude called a "meteorologist". The next thing, "Twister" gets released and we find out that these guys are sages equalling the level of Yoda!

But here's the thing. Of the current roster of qualified meteorologists, only 19% currently subscribe to the anthropomorphic global warming theory. That's a really big bloody shortfall! When asked by news anchors, they deftly step aside of the whole "global warming is the reason" thing. They did it back with Katrina, and they are still doing it now. And I am watching them very closely.

When the meteorologists say it's all because of anthropomorphic global warming, I'll believe there is anthropomorphic global warming.

That's the word you are missing by the way...."anthropomorphic". It means we caused it.

I am NOT saying there is not a catastrophic global warming event happening either. Neither are meteorologists. If that is happening then, oh well, you know, sucks to be us.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 26 Jul 12 #6 
Proofreader
Member

I think the word you want is anthropogenic....caused by humans. And we DO cause a lot of trouble, don't we?? :)


Knows 72613 facts
like | send message


Sat 28 Jul 12 #7 
jmaxg
Contributor

Wait......we should be getting back to the point here.

USS Palladin is asking us if seeding iron in cold water might be an effective method of dealing with excess CO2.

Sorry Skippuh. I read the wafflings of the above and mistakenly thought that was your point.

By the way, you wafflers do realise that excess CO2 is the whole point, right?


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 28 Jul 12 #8 
kevg
The Grumpinator

what excess CO2 ?? Russian tiaga and equatorial forest take care of that. Did you actually read my post about iron/algae needed ?


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sat 28 Jul 12 #9 
jmaxg
Contributor

There is too much CO2 in the atmosphere at the moment. That has been registered. Skippuh's point was how do we deal with it and is the scenario he proposed feasible? Have you addressed that yet, meathead?

Now I get was Skippuh is up to, gonna get back to it directly.

For Proofreader - Anthropomorphic: "...any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to other animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities.

Anthropogenic: "Caused or influenced by humans."

I concede. The simplest definition is always the best one.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 28 Jul 12 #10 
JMK
Editor

Can we please stick to the topic without the personal insults.


Knows 47653 facts
like | send message


Sat 28 Jul 12 #11 
jmaxg
Contributor

But he has a head and there is meat on it. I assume. So what's the problem?

;-)

Ok, ok.....I will stick to Skip's point from now on.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 28 Jul 12 #12 
USS Palladin
Contributor

It just seemed to me that out of all the proposals out there to take excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, from whatever the cause, this seemed to be the least harmful, most feasible.

How do people feel about injecting large amounts of SO2 high up into the atmosphere to block sunlight? When Mt. Pinatabo blew in the Philippines in the 90's global temperatures actually decreased for a while due to the SO2 and other sediments blown sky high. I actually think this method would work but would involve less control over the consequences than say using iron to stimulate algal growth.

While I think it would be great if those countries did stop cutting so many trees, what are you willing to pay them to do so? Doesn't seem fair that we ask them not to use the resources that their country has while we feel free in the first world to continue to ascribe to a life style that may cause the problem and at the very least doesn't slow it down.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Sun 29 Jul 12 #13 
southshoregirl

But was that cooling caused by ash in the atmosphere or SO2? Personally I think the biggest problem could be solved by mandatory replanty of forests. The horrific deforestation going on is causing a big overload of CO2 and decreasing the oxygen production, too.

Why should we PAY everyone to act responsibly? Those rain forest choppers in Brazil are going to croak from the heat faster than we will. Let them replant! No, I will not pay any other country anymore. Aid for a disaster, absolutely but what you suggest is ransom for acting responsibly. They need farm land and housing land, that's certain. There must be people who can help them sort it out. They could try at least, couldn't they?

We can grow huge amounts of wood here to be used for paper products to replace plastics. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we cannot use paper bags instead of paper. It is truly insane.


like | send message


Sun 29 Jul 12 #14 
USS Palladin
Contributor

From what I understand huge amounts of SO2 were shot high into the atmosphere with that particular eruption. And yes there was a great deal of particulate material too.

You can't replicate the ash part but it is easy to replicate the SO2 part from what I understand. It would just be like the iron/algae experiment but that was done with some limitations (they found an area of the Southern Ocean) that had limited currents. To perform the SO2 in the atmosphere requires much more commitment.

When you have countries as poor as those that tend to ring the equator, it is pretty arrogant for us to tell them to act responsibly when they could make a very good case that we don't. We utilized our countries resources to the fullest to build the society that we presently have, why shouldn't they? That is why the idea of a global carbon credit/market/exchange was sort of interesting. It is in everybody's interest to keep those trees, especially those of us in the northern latitudes as global warming/climate change appears to have quicker and more devastating effects. An exchange would allow those countries to benefit from having something on their land that is of value to the world.

The debate of paper vs plastic will never end. Cut down a tree to make a bag you take out a carbon absorbing unit. Use plastic, you have something that will never go away but could be re used again and again if people actually wanted to. We use cloth bags in our household.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Sun 29 Jul 12 #15 
southshoregirl

Cut down a tree as you have planted a new one. A white pine with be 30 feet tall in 5 years.

I do not like the idea of shooting SO2 into the upper levels of the atmosphere at all. We don't know what the long terms effects will be, do we? I think it too extreme. I don't think it is arrogant to expect the equatorial areas to be responsible with the trees. Knowing what we do now vs. what we knew 150 yrs. ago is tremendous. The countries involved can be taught easily to conserve the forests (and the wildlife in them) and learn higher producing farming. We can certainly offer help in training if they want it. I am certain the farming would improve greatly. The land in rianforests is not particularly fertile so that could be remedied and far less could be chopped down if modern farming techniques, including soil improvement, were used.

I just don't want to think of SO2 starting a mini ice age. We really don't know what would happen so I say let's leave it alone.

Also, I don't think it would be necessary for the equatorial countries to be industrialized. The products produced in them are desirable and pricey. I think it would all be fine for all concerned.The coffee, fruit, plant oils, chocolate, tree nuts....just for starters....would be good money makers for many of these countries and tourism should never be undercounted as great sources of income


like | send message


Sun 29 Jul 12 #16 
USS Palladin
Contributor

All well and good but what if THEY want to be industrialized, what if THEY want to be rich and what if THEY want to use those resources the way THEY want too. May seem foolish to us, but we sit in the first world, maybe THEY want to be first world too. I know if I were them I wouldn't want to be told what to do with my own land, especially since it may be that your industrialization has made my trees that more valuable and now I can't do anything with them.

By the way China is by far the most generous foreign aid donor to Africa. They are busy buying up all sorts of resources for the 21st century and it appears these countries are selling so either we pay more for conservation or we let the Chinese cut, and mine and plow under.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Mon 30 Jul 12 #17 
southshoregirl

If you were they you could do very well getting rich selling FOOD to other nations! Do they want to be industrialized? OK, then we have to deal with the consequences of sloppy land management and plant our own extra trees, a very good thing to do anyway, and decrease our need for fuel.

China. What can I tell you about my thoughts there? They are playing games with manipulating their currency and my main complaint about them is that we pay tariffs on the goods we import but they don't pay on what they import from us. BAD! As far as buying up Africa, it is not surprising since they are buying up everything they can get their hands on. I think I prefer they buy it up than the Muslims but I would think there will be a clash there sooner or later. If you said South America I would be much more upset but you did say Africa, correct? I am actually more concerned about the South American countries, Amazonia to be precise, but there is plenty to ruin in Africa, too.

Look, I am not a geo-economist or something. I am just expressing my opinions. Like them or leave them. I just speak my mind. I don't want any one oppressed by poverty. I named some things that tropical climates can produce and there are plenty of necessary crops and animals to be raised in temperate and cold areas, too. I am not cold hearted but I know the USA can no longer provide for the whole world. I hope that we can change that around. I really do. We have great, great resources which are unused and we are not allowed to tap into them or the rights are given to foreign countries. When that stops things will change. I can't wait.


like | send message


Mon 30 Jul 12 #18 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Tariffs are what the sovereign government charges on imports. We pay a tariff on Chinese imports if our government says they (the Chinese) are not practicing free trade which under the agreements of the WTO, both governments are supposed to do. The Chinese government has in the past slapped tariffs on U.S. goods.

Chinese investment is South America is huge although I don't think it matches the investment they have in Africa.

Finally I don't think you can plant enough trees to make up for what tropical rainforests do. While the rainforest that occupies the western coast of North America is one of the world's largest it is only in "business" 6-8 mos out of the year, while tropical rainforests are busy respiring 24/7/365.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Mon 30 Jul 12 #19 
jmaxg
Contributor

Okay, now I have properly read Skippuh's thoughts, there are some things to state....

The Ultimate Result of Global Warming:

It is not the planet Venus as some climatologists would have you believe. The average (mean) temperature shift of 5 degrees or more WOULD initially lead to the melting of the polar ice caps and catastrophic flooding......albeit in coastal areas.

BUT, the biggest problem is NOT the warming. It is the cooling that follows. IF, and it's still a big if, the current global warming scenario continues, then, in theory, the Earth will become static weatherwise. Why? Because low and high pressure systems will equalise. No winds, no gulf streams. If that happened, then the Earth's dynamic heat-pump has gone to sleep and the planet will then begin to cool and very rapidly. We would then become a huge ice-ball again just like we were a billion years or so ago.

So.....global warming = eventual global cooling, maybe freezing.

Dunno if that changes things Skip. Just felt it should be stated.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Mon 6 Aug 12 #20 
southshoregirl

Let me first clarify one thing, or rather make sure I know that you are clear that Pall is proposing shooting SO2 into the atmosphere (really high up) not CO2. There's a difference, of course. I may have missed it but I don't recall seeing you use SO2 at all, jmaxg. Just making sure we are all on the same page.

I say slap a tariff on Chinese goods. Hell yes. We are going broke here because the Chinese labor is so cheap we cannot compete! Let them think twice about gouging us now that we are hurting.

As far as the tree buisness goes, there are plenty of inventive ways to tuck trees in many areas of the world. Look at Israel! They turned a little piece of desert into a wonderfully productuve country and there is no reson why people who are well-versed in botany and land preservation can't solve this problem. It can be done. Pall, there is no reason to immediately deny that a problem can be solved. Just because you can't or I can't doesn't mean it can't be. And truthfully, with the basic knowledge I have about horticulture I bet I could formulate a rudimentary plan within 2-3 years on my own given the proper information or the means of researching it. I don't like to cave in. No, I really don't. I know you are thinking I am an old bat who can't even type but I truly believe what I just said. Life and the world are just a long string of problems and mysteries to be solved. I think most of them can be solved.


like | send message


Mon 6 Aug 12 #21 
USS Palladin
Contributor

From hot age to ice age...and this is all supposed to be good?
Yes the heat pump would change, parts of Northern Europe would loose the benefit of the Gulf Stream etc, etc, etc.

From what I understand, the last 10,000 years have been remarkably stable climate wise on earth, an unusual occurence. Maybe what we have been experiencing is abnormal rather than the mean.

I did not say I wanted SO2 injected into the atmosphere, I just said that was a proposed method for cooling down the planet, as is planting trees, dumping iron into deficient waters, etc, etc, etc. Personally I like the iron one, perhaps because I sense we might may more control over it. Ideally planting trees would be great but the most productive tree land on earth has been taken over by man. They always say that the bottom lands surrounding the Puget Sound were some of the best tree growing areas on the planet. Well, that is all gone now or mostly gone. Where I live was brutally cut down in the 30's with very old forestry methods. The would clear cut and leave a few trees standing to drop cones. They did not re plant like they do now. The point is I am surrounded by some pretty impressive second growth that came about because of my location in the Puget Sound convergence zone. This is an area that gets more rain than any other part of the Sound. The really giant trees grow on the south slope of the Olympics but the Olympics suck a lot of the Pacific moisture out of the fronts as they pass over. Due to some unusual geography though the currents of moist air converge near just north of Seattle and we are blessed with a really long and productive rainy season. We could probably grow a lot more trees but a lot of land has been taken over by housing developers. I just don't think we can plant enough trees in areas that are equal in productivity to tropics. As much as the Israeli's want to try to go trees they don't have the climate nor the water to plant tree farms in the Negev. It doesn't mean that they haven't made it produce, but they have made it productive by planting what would do well there with drip irrigation and temperature extremes.

The point for the discussion isn't in regards to how we are going to do it, but should we do it? The how is important to but I think we first have to agree that the climate is changing, possibly due to excessive human activity and do we take steps to continue to make the place livable for an increasing population or let nature take its course and we deal with the consequences?


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Mon 6 Aug 12 #22 
southshoregirl

I think the human race has to try to do it, Pall. I have been only as far north on the west coast as Northern Califonia and the Reno area and I think it is absolutely magnificent. The whole point I was trying to make is that where there's a will there's a way. And yes, I think we should do it. If we saw a country dumping raw sewage or noxious chemicals into an important body of water we would be all over them and we would not even think about their "right" to pursue a better life. We would be setting them on the straight and narrow real fast! I think we can work with other countries to help the world save itself. The countries may not have lush deciduous forests but what's wrong with the vast area of I believe it's spelled Tiga? The permanent subacrtic ring of trees that circles the earth? That does a damn good job of producing oxygen and they are not deciduous trees. They are fir trees so they must be sucking up CO2 and producing O2. That area is so beautiful. Have you ever seen that series Wild Russia? It is magnificent!

I do think that the South and Central American countries can manage to use their resource and still avoid ruining their entire ecosytems. It just takes a plan. I have not one single doubt in my mind that there is a way to do it. I agree that something needs to be done and I hope it is at the top of the list of things to do.


like | send message


Tue 7 Aug 12 #23 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Well, we don't get after countries for dumping raw sewage. Victoria, B.C., Canada has been dumping raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca for years, despite pleas from Canada and the U.S. to treat. I believe they are now treating.
The point is we cannot get developed countries to do sensible things, nor do developed countries lead by example, so why should an undeveloped country feel anything about doing what they feel is right for their nation on their soil. Would you like Uganda telling us that growing corn for ethanol is stupid and useless....(I wish they would, but we wouldn't listen anyway).
The tiaga is a great forest, but as it is sub arctic its usefullness is limited to a few short months out of the year. Lets face it, tropical rain forests are the lungs of the earth and the Russians cut down this forest too and trees grow very slowly if at all when they do manage to get going again.
Yes managing better is one idea, but will it be enough to stave off increasing temperatures and rising sea levels?


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Tue 7 Aug 12 #24 
southshoregirl

That's outrageous for Canada to be dumping raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca!! I certainly hope they are treating it. Honestly, I think natural forces all sort of take care of things, including destroying all of us, when it is correct to do so. There are watchdog groups out there. I would like to say that I do my own small part here in my town, working to conserve the wetlands. Builders are always threatening to fiill them in and put houses on the new land. So far we have saved a lot. As you may well imagine my area is quite heavily populated. It is a constant battle and there are strict laws about removing trees within 100 ft of a wetland. Unfortunately, few people even KNOW the law and they get really angry when told they can't pull a huge silver maple out and plant a Bradford pear. I have made a few enemies by telling them the law and then trying to have the law enforced by the Conservation Department. I get really upset but I still do what I can. That's the best I can do in my little town.

I tthink we will have fluctuations in our air temperatures as we go forward. I don't want it to warm up! My house is at sea level now! But I do think there are wild changes from one year to the next or over a few years. In the meanwhile PLANT TREES!


like | send message


Tue 7 Aug 12 #25 
Ajax
Contributor

I'm not in any position to comment on the issue, because I'm not a climate scientist, but goddammit I love breathing CLEAN air. The same methods will fix that.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Tue 7 Aug 12 #26 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Clean air, we all like that but in the NW the pollution from coal buring power plants in China is now reaching us. Scarily the levels of mercury are increasing in our environment as well as arsenic and other heavy metals. Yet there a business interests in this country that want to ship even more coal to China through ports on the Columbia and on the Sound. Talk about self inflicted injury.....


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Tue 7 Aug 12 #27 
southshoregirl

There is mercury in those new squiggly energy saving light bulbs. Just saying. Yes, it has to be a team sport to keep the air clean. We get 60% of our own electricity form burning coal so why are electric cars being pushed on us? It is ridiculous. Concerning the burning of coal both here and abroad, isn't there a way to filter the scuzz out of the smoke? Coal is so plentiful and cheap. There has to be a way. Think about it. If the they can filter car emissions they can filter coal burning facilities.. Count me in on this one. BUT we do need to use our resources and one of them is coal. The natural gas we have is a great resource and that should be a primary focus for our energy needs. I am very glad to have my house heated by it. It is extremely clean.

I don't think we should send anything to China. We have to many problems to deal with here. If we send them anything they should be made to chop a big portion of our debt off. I have no concern for the Chinese. I really don't. Their human rights record is appalling and they are just so annoying I don't want to think of them. Sorry. I am in a bit of a bad mood. The people are fine but the government rots.


like | send message


Wed 8 Aug 12 #28 
kevg
The Grumpinator

We had an issue a few years ago over here with Acid Rain. Strangely they don't talk about it any more. For years we were told our pollution was killing trees etc in Norway and Sweden, something had to be done etc etc. Before anything could be done a scientific survey was made to calculate the damage.
Oops the trees were actually doing better. Sorry about that chaps, carry on. No we didn't get an apology, they just dropped the subject.
Anything coming from China to USA in the air is going to be so diluted as to be negligible.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Wed 8 Aug 12 #29 
USS Palladin
Contributor

The pollution generated by 1.5 billion Chinese vs 88 million British. I think the amounts generated are vastly different.

Granted I will have to take into account the distance traveled, yet the recent smoke from forest fires in Siberia was reaching our shores here in the NW as little as three weeks ago so I think you need to look at your calculations and re adjust.....

The greatest impact from acid rain isn't on trees, although it does affect them. It more dangerous to life in lakes. Did they happen to mention how the fishing was in those far northern lakes?


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Wed 8 Aug 12 #30 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Yup, no problems.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sun 12 Aug 12 #31 
southshoregirl

I do, honestly, wonder why acid rain is no longer such a big problem. Where I live I am seeing a great reappearance of reptiles and birds which I hadn't seen in years. I am very happy about it. The only problem here is that we don't have toads! They are being afflicted with a fungal disorder and are practically wiped out.


like | send message


Mon 13 Aug 12 #32 
sally906
Contributor

great - then send that fungus over to kill our feral Cane toads (but not our native ones thank you very much!)


Knows 27415 facts
like | send message


Tue 14 Aug 12 #33 
southshoregirl

I wouldn't dare even if I could find a toad. I might get in terrible trouble! I haven't seen a puffy cute little toad in about five years! I have seen shows about those cane toads. What a terrible problem.


like | send message


Fri 17 Aug 12 #34 
jmaxg
Contributor

I worry about "PPM" (parts per million) when it comes to carbon content in the atmosphere and wonder why I keep getting different figures depending on the documentary I watch.

I saw one the other day that expressed that it was 90 ppm and 280 ppm and that the Earth's atmosphere had bumped within these two extremes since the "assic" periods. That's what was inferred. We are at 390 ppm now and that's bad. On the other hand, that is not exactly what the graphic presentations said in the documentary and it disappointed me that there was no effort to be more explicit.

For instance, the graphs shown had no iterations whatsoever apart from graphical inferrals. That worries me.

I would like to ask a question and wonder if anyone can answer it without graphs that look like cardiograms with no upper or lower values.

Does anyone know, and can prove, that the current carbon content of 390 ppm has happened in the past?

AND....

Can somebody prove that it HASN'T happened in the past?


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 17 Aug 12 #35 
Ajax
Contributor

No, not me.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Fri 17 Aug 12 #36 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Carbon readings of 390 ppm recorded at Hawaii. Not many forests in Hawaii to eat the carbon the ocean is emitting so I'd discount that one. Apparently 350ppm is the "safe" limit. I can't find anything to tell me why this is a safe limit apart from it being a nice round number??

Lifted from Geocraft site I did find this:
"during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today." All the figures are lifted from plant life I think.

"To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400ppm" Temperatures were no warmer then than now.

Click here to go to this interesting site.

Carbon dioxide itself becomes dangerous to humans in concentrations of 4% and above. The current level is 0.039%.

If we are going to panic about something should we not choose something actually worth panicking about ??


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Fri 17 Aug 12 #37 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Interesting site.

I just wonder about Mr. Hieb the author. I can't be sure he isn't biased as he is the Mine and Safety engineer for the State of West Viriginia, a state dependent on coal and doesn't seem to have any training in climatology.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Fri 17 Aug 12 #38 
kevg
The Grumpinator

I doubt he made the figures up. I'll see if other sites come to the same conclusion.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Fri 17 Aug 12 #39 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Yup got at least half a dozen sites backing up those statements. I'm not going to publish them all but if you type into Google "CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today" I'm sure you can find them easy enough.
You want to argue do your own work !!!


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Fri 17 Aug 12 #40 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

There are a couple of problems with researching by Google that way...

One is that you're searching for something very specific. You're asking a leading question, if you like. You're looking directly for support for what you believe rather than asking an open question (e.g. searching on Google for "Ordovician period CO2").

The other is that the sites that come up don't just contain the same data, they contain the exact same paragraph. That means that you haven't found evidence of a generally accepted scientific fact, you've found evidence of cutting and pasting. At least one of them gives Monte Hieb his due by naming him as the source.

Now, I'm not saying that you're wrong - just suggesting that your methodology might be a little flawed.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Fri 17 Aug 12 #41 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Ah well, I don't have a library full of books and research articles at my disposal, nor the time or interest really. This may be a fact site but it would be damn boring if everything had to be noted with references etc. I'm happy with what I brung, Climate Change is twaddle as was Global Warming, did anyone notice they changed the name ?? Thought so.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Fri 17 Aug 12 #42 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

For the record, I'm happy with what you brung too. I'd agree with USS Palladin, though, in observing that it has to be read in the understanding that Hieb may have a motive to downplay this stuff.

From everything I've heard, climate change is generally accepted. There's less consensus on whether human activity has a demonstrable part to play in it.

Personally, I'm not sure. Why would I be? I write computer software, I'm not a climatologist. I haven't seen all the evidence and I wouldn't understand it if I did.

For me, it's down to gambling. You look at the odds and you look at the stakes and you place your bets. For me, doing nothing about climate change just isn't a bet worth making. It's not about panicking either, it's about taking moderate precautions.

If the upshot of that is that we reduce waste and find cleaner energy sources then that's just a bonus to my mind.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Sat 18 Aug 12 #43 
southshoregirl

Sally, I saw a show on the Smithsonian Channel which said that the amphibian disease which is killing my cute little toads off is a worldwide occurence. I tried so hard to hear the name of the disease but I couldn't understand the accent. I have sent an email to my nephew who is a herpetologist to see if he knows. I'll let you know if I get the answer. Meanwhile, you will just have to hope that those cane toads croak.


like | send message


Sat 18 Aug 12 #44 
southshoregirl

I do not know why there can't be a filtering system developed for coal burning plants. It surely is something that can be done. Anyone agree with me?


like | send message


Sat 18 Aug 12 #45 
kevg
The Grumpinator

There is one already SSG, most European coal burners use it, not sure about the Ch*nks or Indians, although both can launch space ships ???


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sat 18 Aug 12 #46 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Kev, Mr. Hieb may be onto something, heck I don't know.

The first thing I often do with anything I read or look up, whether it is the internet or a book is the author's qualifications.

My only point is this, he is a man of science, but if you are having a heart attack do you want to have a cardiologist attend you or a dermatologist? I mean both are M.D.s yet I know which one I would prefer. The same goes for me when it comes to talking about climate change/global warming. Wouldn't you believe what he had to say if he was a paleoclimatologist vs. a mine safety engineer?

I don't know why the Chinese don't filter more. They shut down the air monitoring station in Beijing that was located at the U.S. Embassy because it was making public how bad the air was.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Sat 18 Aug 12 #47 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Unfortunately so many of the climate scientists are dependent upon grants to do their work. Easiest way to get a grant is to fall in with what people want to hear. See Norwich University UK. Manipulated the figures yet are considered world leaders in the climatology field.
Charlatans and snake oil salesmen, never trust a university graduate who's never had a real job !!
Yes this includes politicians.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sun 19 Aug 12 #48 
jmaxg
Contributor

"From everything I've heard, climate change is generally accepted. There's less consensus on whether human activity has a demonstrable part to play in it."

So, it's indeed possible that 390ppm carbon content has occurred before during the last 100,000 years or at least prior to the industrial revolution.

I just watched a documentary and they made claims and I had questions is all.

A simple question. According to ice core samples, has 390ppm atmosphere carbon content happened before?


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sun 19 Aug 12 #49 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Yes, frequently.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sun 19 Aug 12 #50 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

I wouldn't use my quote as a basis to say that anything is possible. I have no idea about the whole atmospheric content thing.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Tue 21 Aug 12 #51 
sally906
Contributor

There is the theory that the warming is a natural occurrence that occurs prior to an ice age - many scientists think that an ice age is approaching (in another tens of thousands years so don't go into a knitting frenzy). There is pollution and there is global warming that are occurring at the same time.

Interesting theory I thought.


Knows 27415 facts
like | send message


Wed 22 Aug 12 #52 
southshoregirl

Interesting theory and we know the warming and cooling do fluctuate.


like | send message


Thu 23 Aug 12 #53 
jmaxg
Contributor

Still the same question......

Even though 280 ppm was thought to be the upper margin of carbon atmospheric content, it is still a simple question.....

Has 390 ppm happened before?


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 23 Aug 12 #54 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Kev has already said "yes, frequently". Nobody else claims to have a clue.

Is it a rheotorical question? Do you know the answer?


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Thu 23 Aug 12 #55 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Well just off hand. Yes, sure, I mean why not. Sometime between the the planets formation and now it probably did hit that level.

On the other hand if we accept some of Mr. Hieb's workup, then yes, many times.

Just a quick perusal of his work would indicate that it wasn't during times that homo sapiens ruled the earth, I haven't gone back on his stuff, nor done enough research to see if there was much, if any life on the planet per those times I see on his graphs that it was very high but then I don't have to. Common sense sorta dictates that with CO2 that high the oceans would way to acidic to support life as we know it but I should also say that scientists are finding life in environments here on earth where they hadn't expected to find them before. Deep sea ocean vents, hot springs, etc, etc, etc.

Boils down to at that high a level is our species going to be sticking around. I am sure there will be life and hooray for those organisms that make it but I am gonna a be a bit selfish here and say I want my species to be one of them and I don't think at that high a PPM we are gonna be thriving.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Thu 23 Aug 12 #56 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Try an experiment. Sit in your car behind another, both engines running. Turn on your heater and blow the outside air into the car. You get all those lovely exhaust fumes in your car. Which you hardly notice these days cos cars are so "clean". Except that catalytic converters double the amount of carbon dioxide coming from an engine. ( such is the twisted thinking of the Green Movement). After a few minutes you will become sleepy, warm and fuzzy, it actually feels quite nice. That is ultra high carbon levels. Open your windows and allow all that horrible polluted air in. You'll never guess what !! You return to normal !!
390ppm is 0.039%. We are talking carbon here, not Sarin. It's a natural gas. Nothing I have seen indicates any effect on man or plants ( who love the stuff) at concentrations less than 4%.
Can we please start panicking over something that makes sense.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Thu 23 Aug 12 #57 
kevg
The Grumpinator

can't work out the actual % 390ppm is. getting all sorts of answers from 0.039 to 0.00039. anybody any good at maths ?? I think 0.039% may be right.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Thu 23 Aug 12 #58 
USS Palladin
Contributor

So what does that prove, nitrous oxide is what the dentist uses, it makes you feel warm and fuzzy and nice and if you aren't given supplemental oxygen before being taken off of it you...die.

Bee venom is a natural substance and it kills people, so do peanuts, so do lots of things in the environment that can cause people to have fatal allergic or asthmatic attacks. Too much nitrogen can cause the bends which can kill you. CO2 may be natural substance but it can kill you.

So a better question is at what level and for how long can human life be sustained at 390 ppm? I don't know but what you said in the above sadly proves nothing to me.

This is an oxygen question, more C02 means less oxygen for you to breath. Maybe we are ok at 390, but I do think there would be consequences.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Thu 23 Aug 12 #59 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

390ppm is 390 parts per million.

To convert from ppm to a percentage, divide by a million and multiply by 100 (percent, of course, being equivalent to parts per hundred). So it's 0.039%, as you first thought.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Thu 23 Aug 12 #60 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Not meant to prove anything, just an experiment to show what too much carbon dioxide feels like.
350 "safe limit" is a figure picked out of mid air, it means nothing. Where does it show that this is a harmful amount ??
Carbon taxes keep going up but nothing I have seen makes me believe that carbon is damaging either us or the planet. It certainly isn't responsible for "global warming". I've seen no evidence it is responsible for "climate change" (which we usually call weather). Methane is a far more dangerous gas but as cows produce most of that and they can't tax them................
Romans grew vines on Hadrians Wall and walked around in short skirts !!
In Britain we were promised Mediterranean summers, ain't happened yet and is unlikely to.
The whole carbon thing is a scam lining companies pockets. A "windmill" takes 15 years to cover it's costs. What is the life of a "windmill" ?? 20 years. So we get 5 years cheap electric (if the wind is blowing enough or not too hard) which can't be stored as it can from a conventional plant. A complete and utter waste of time, just an excuse to load taxes on us which are used to fund politicians to no benefit to us.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Thu 23 Aug 12 #61 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Things mightn't be changing quick enough for your liking, maybe Kev, and perhaps you won't be around to bask in those Mediterranean summers but data from the Met office suggests an increase in temperature over the last few decades.

Take a look at the maps on the Met Office page. Change the Month/Season/Annual to show Annual data and then compare the three averaging periods.

Select any of the mean temperature measures and you'll see the map getting redder (warmer) as time progresses. Select the sunshine graphs and the map will get yellower (sunnier) as time progresses.

Unfortunately, there are only 3 periods (each taking a 30 year mean) so I wouldn't rush to any conclusions or claim that it's proof of an on-going trend but it's a good illustration. We tend to get influenced by anecdotal observations - we get a cold spell over winter and then mutter that this warming stuff is all nonsense, ignoring the fact that when you look at the temperature over the course of the year, there is an increase.

But still...I'm not going to plant my olive groves just yet.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Thu 23 Aug 12 #62 
USS Palladin
Contributor

You do know that there are grape varieities that do thrive in cooler weather so just the fact that they grew vines on the wall says nothing as to whether the climate was warmer or not it just says they were able to grow them.

I understand that summers can be pleasant in many parts of Great Britain, when you say they were walking around in shorts, it may have been winter but the Romans seemed to be blessed with a small modicum of common sense, I doubt they were doing that during the winter.

I understand your concerns about the cost of windmills vs convential power generation and I hear you about the politicians, yet 15 years to recover the cost of a windmill, seems high but what is the cost and the time period involved to recover from too many greenhouse gases? I can assure you it isn't 15 years and the cost....


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Fri 24 Aug 12 #63 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

People are still growing grapes in the north of England - so it says even less about the difference in climate.

There are several commercial vineyards in Yorkshire and Lancashire and just one in Cumbria. The Cumbrian vineyard (Townhead Farm) is less than 50 miles from Hadrian's Wall.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Mon 27 Aug 12 #64 
sally906
Contributor

"...There are several commercial vineyards in Yorkshire and Lancashire and just one in Cumbria. The Cumbrian vineyard (Townhead Farm) is less than 50 miles from Hadrian's Wall..."

Yes but does it taste good - just cos they make wine doesn't mean a thing - they make wine in Queensland - I use the term loosley - 90% of it is foul - just the odd bottle shines through.


Knows 27415 facts
like | send message


Mon 27 Aug 12 #65 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

I haven't a clue, Sally.

Kev's point was that they grew vines on Hadrian's Wall in Roman Times and that this was evidence that it was pretty warm back then. Judging by there being a commercial vineyard under 50 miles away from Hadrian's Wall these days, I'm suggesting that it needn't have been at all different from the current climate.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Mon 27 Aug 12 #66 
sally906
Contributor

We grow grapes here in Darwin - much too tropical and hot for vines - we just grow for shade and a windbreak - maybe the Romans grew them for a windbreak rather than useable fruit. Growing grapes in a climate they are not designed to grow in may have been more experimental than anything. Rather than proof the climate was warmer maybe they're proof it wasn't. The short skirts were uniform rather than showing off sexy legs to get all those strapping northern lassies swooning :)


Knows 27415 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Aug 12 #67 
southshoregirl

I came across a climactic chart on face book and posted it on my wall. I am afraid I don't know how to move it here. Maybe Kevin does. It is completely pertinent to the climate change discussion. I found it interesting that a mini-hot age took place in the 1300's around the type of the big infestation of the Black Plague. I wonder if we are in for a similar plague. Probably. Better get the Bactine, heh? We are in a similar mini-hot age now.


like | send message


Tue 28 Aug 12 #68 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

A "climactic" chart? Does it get more exciting as you go along the X axis?

I couldn't see the chart on your wall.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Tue 28 Aug 12 #69 
jackson
Contributor

kinda anti-climactic, but think she meant climatic. guess you'da known that though.


Knows 96694 facts
like | send message


Fri 31 Aug 12 #70 
southshoregirl

I suppose you are right, jackson. I will check that out on my wall and see why it isn't there, Stein.
I should say, I'll see if I can find it.


like | send message


Fri 31 Aug 12 #71 
southshoregirl

We could start a Climactic Chart on Factacular if you want. It wight be fun. LOL


like | send message


Sat 1 Sep 12 #72 
jmaxg
Contributor

Not really....

Because then you'll have climatologists claiming they have a million websites that do the same and then you'll have meteorologists claiming that they have a million websites that do the same.

You know what would be fun? A debate between climatologists and meteorologists and the moderator would give a background of each of the disciplines before the debate so that, you know, observers could see for themselves that meteorologists have been in the business for a couple of hundred years and that climatologists, whilst earnest, are, I dunno, maybe a reactionary result?

I can see it now....

Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the first "Great Debate" between "climatologists" and "meteorologists".

In the red corner, we have Phil. Phil is qualified in climatology. He also has a doctorate in psychology and metaphysics. When questioned about personal accomplishments, Phil admitted to not knowing what a rain gauge is. BUT, he made a point of expressing his undying love for Arthur Conan Doyle.

In the blue corner, we have Ray. Ray has a doctorate in meteorology, geology, oceanography, volcanology and has published post graduate dissertations in atmospherics, chemistry, physics and biology. When questioned about personal accomplishments, he admitted to designing most of the rain gauges in use today.

Gentlemen, I address my first question to Ray....

Moderator: Is there global warming taking place?

Ray: Possibly

Moderator: That is a yes or a no?

Ray: That is a reservation. There is, statistically some mean rising of temperature. But these anomalies have happened before.

Phil: But never like this! Never concentrated like this! The ice shelves are melting!!

Moderator: That's a good point. Ice formations do appear to be melting at an alarming rate. Your comment Phil?

Ray: While dramatic, this is not unknown. Less than 100 years ago, the Arctic ice mass reduced by 50%. We think it was due to sun-spot activity.

Moderator: Or an overhang of the Industrial Revolution?

Ray: Please explain.

Moderator: Hundreds and hundreds of smoke-stacks spewing smoke into the atmosphere! In England, Russia, Europe in general and in the Americas. So much pollution!

Ray: Well, yes. But so what? I am not sure of the what you are asking.

Moderator: Didn't that cause the ice reduction during that last 100 years?

Ray: No.

Moderator: Are you sure?

Ray: Yes. Well, the statistics say so. Industrial output into the atmosphere was marginal compared to volcanic activity over that 100 year period. There was Krakatoa after all.

Moderator: Krakatoa accounts for it all?

Ray: Well, some. Actually, most. Just like the Mount Pinatubo eruption raised the mean temp around Earth by almost 2 degrees Celsius.

Moderator: So, us humans and our ways are having no impact at all?

Ray: I never said that.

Phil: Aha!!

Ray: Yeah, whatever. I mean there is no evidence either way at this point in time and what spooks me is this popularity and political cycle and what it means personally and philosophically to belong to that.

Moderator: What do you think?

Ray: I personally think that there may be some sort of mean warming going on. Is it human induced? I don't know. One volcano can account for the output of 1,000 factories that take a year to spew so what do you expect?

Moderator: So, it's our fault. We have deliberately spun this crisis so as to contribute to a multi-billion dollar industry. Is that right?

Ray: Ummmmmm.............it is true that people are running you. I mean, make whatever conclusion you like.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 1 Sep 12 #73 
kevg
The Grumpinator

hmmm not bad for a mere Australian !!


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sat 1 Sep 12 #74 
jackson
Contributor

he's a regular one man debate. i see no need for other participants.


Knows 96694 facts
like | send message


Sat 1 Sep 12 #75 
southshoregirl

Nor do I, esp. since he missed the whole joke of "Climactic Changes"


Feel better after your conversation? LOL You are a bit like Clint Eastwood. LOL


BTW, I have been told, and I never checked, that Kracktoa is WEST of Java.


like | send message


Sun 2 Sep 12 #76 
Ajax
Contributor

I envy anyone who can write an essay. Or read one even.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Sun 2 Sep 12 #77 
southshoregirl

Aye.


like | send message


Tue 4 Sep 12 #78 
jmaxg
Contributor

I just feel so chuffed.

Ya got my Clint Eastwood schtick.

:-D


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 4 Sep 12 #79 
Proofreader
Member

Wasn't he just beyond awful??? I couldn't believe what I was hearing.


Knows 72613 facts
like | send message


Tue 4 Sep 12 #80 
jmaxg
Contributor

Aye.

This is CLINT EASTWOOD we are talking about. Given the proficiency of him in a normal movie making setting, the fact that he did that, and did it so badly, we are left in a quandry.

Aye......I realise the writer, director and star of the greatest "Western" of all time (Unforgiven) doing THAT leaves you wondering.

I think it's time to think that the great man has just lost it.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 4 Sep 12 #81 
jackson
Contributor

Unforgiven, the greatest western of all time? disagree


Knows 96694 facts
like | send message


Tue 4 Sep 12 #82 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Evil Roy Slade, that was a good one


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Wed 5 Sep 12 #83 
southshoregirl

Does anyone have a good idea as to why I make so many typos? Truly, I astound myself when I read what I have typed. It is embare-assing.


like | send message


Wed 5 Sep 12 #84 
jackson
Contributor

well, with teens, the more adrenalized they are the more of a typo junkie they're liable to be. of course you're not a teen, but may have similar tendencies.


Knows 96694 facts
like | send message


This topic is now closed.






   About - Terms - Privacy Log In