And you know this how?
Posted on 02/08/2007 5:59:23 AM PST by yoe
The return of arctic conditions to much of the U.S. has many people sympathizing with this (cartoon by Sam Ryskind:)
Unlike most cartoonists, Rysind writes, too:
"You don’t hear much about the ozone hole any more. Has it gone away? Nope. NOAA and NASA say in 2006 it was bigger and deeper than ever.
But wait, you say, we implemented the Montreal Protocols in 1989, eliminating ozone depleting CFCs. Kofi Annan called the Protocol, “Perhaps the most successful international agreement to date.” CFC concentrations have been falling since 1995. How can the ozone hole be worse?
It’s not worse, says NOAA, it’s better. It’s just that you can’t see how great the Protocol is working because colder than average temperatures in the Antarctic mask the benefit. Cold weather “result[s] in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer weather leads to smaller ones.”
Colder in Antarctica? Al Gore told me it was melting! Al Gore told me there was consensus. Consensus!"
Really? I mean, are you series?
Go ahead, you set the initial price for CO2 and I'll start sending you ziplock bags of my breath. I'll even brush my teeth 3 times a day...I'll probably be able to afford the extra toothpaste.
I really think innovative solutions should be explored. For instance, adding iron (a missing trace mineral) to the Southern Oceans could cause enough plankton growth to totally sequester all of the carbon humans add to the atmosphere. Another simple concept is to burn crop waste or logged areas to create carbon and then plow it under to improve the soil and lock up the carbon for generations. One of my colleagues wrote a pioneering study in the 1970s that examined the energy cost of various sequestration schemes. He concluded that row cropping and plowing stalks under was the lowest cost solution. We need to counter the euroweenies attempt to hamstring the American economy with Kyoto.
Bear in mind that warmer temperatures also increase the release of CO2 from water...and 2/3rds of Earth's surface is covered in water.
That is why I support rain-forest mitigation. Planners should forthwith set attainable acreage reduction targets, and be held accountable for the results.
The rain-forest is producing millions of tons of methane and carbon dioxide, powerful greenhouse gases. As sub-tropical acreage is bulldozed, so will the life of the average Brazilian improve, and the planet will be saved.
Global Warming cures the Ozone Hole. Nothing like using one "problem" to get rid of another.
And, No there is nore significant evidence of manmade global warming. Since the Earth warms and cools throughout time the secular warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is exemplifying that cycle.
Of course, those inclined to panic can really work themselves into a lather over the fact that the temperature of the Earth has increased DRASTICALLY since 10,000 BC. Then Chicago was under thick sheets of ice now it is only -3.
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The rains stopped coming, the temperature rose and the great grasslands of North Africa turned to desert a few thousand years ago -- changes that may have helped spur development of civilization in the Nile Valley.
The change to today's arid climate was not gradual, but occurred in two episodes -- the first 6,700 to 5,500 years ago and the second 4,000 to 3,600 years ago, according to a paper published Thursday by the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
"The latter was very severe, ruining ancient civilizations and socio-economic systems," the researchers wrote.
A team of researchers headed by Martin Claussen of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research analyzed computer models of climate over the past several thousand years.
They concluded that the change to today's desert climate in the Sahara was triggered by changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of Earth's axis.
While the changes in Earth's orbit occurred gradually, the switch in North Africa's climate and vegetation was abrupt. In the Sahara, "we find an abrupt decrease in vegetation from a green Sahara to a desert shrubland within a few hundred years," the scientists reported.
No longer were grasses and other plants collecting water and releasing it back into the atmosphere; now sand baked in the stronger sun and rivers and streams dried up.
This event devastated ancient civilizations in the moist desert, now remembered only by rock paintings. The change may have spurred them to move to the Nile Valley and other river valleys where great civilizations developed.
"The migration of people from the Sahara to the Nile is a hypothesis," Claussen said.
"Whether or not this migration was the stimulus for the high civilization there is not yet known. ... For me it seems plausible," he said.
Claussen and his team used computer models of climate to calculate the impact of weather, oceans and vegetation separately and in various combinations. They concluded that oceans played only a minor role in the Sahara's desertification.
The research also suggested that land use practices of humans who lived in and cultivated the Sahara were not significant causes of the desertification. Claussen noted that changes in the Earth's orbit and tilt will continue to occur in the future.
As to their effects, he said: "What will happen in the future, frankly, we can only speculate." "
"The rain-forest is producing millions of tons of methane and carbon dioxide, powerful greenhouse gases." Huh? The rain-forest absorbs carbon dioxide and releases oxygen. Living trees incorporate CO2 and create wood, leaves with it REMOVING it from the atomosphere. Growing trees is the best way of removing it. Living trees do not produce methane.
Your response only confirms the validity of your chosen screen name.
And you know this how?
It took me too long to finish this to catch you on the other thread, but here are the graphs I promised you. They delineate the sinusoidal variation in global climate over the last millenia
Again, sorry for the delay: using DOS as an FTP shell is like being blind and deaf :0(
The following graphs and charts are taken from "Apocalypse Cancelled" - a research article on the science of climate change by Lord Monckton of Brenchley. I thoroughly recommend the whole PDF which is available here. Also his scholarly dialogue with Al Gore which is here
First: the contrast between the UN's 1996 version of climate history vs the 2001 IPCC scare graph
To quote Lord Brenchley:
The UN’s 2001 graph, variously known as the “hockey-stick” or “foxtail” or “J-curve”, had first appeared in Nature (Mann et al., 1998) and, the following year, in Geophysical Review Letters (Mann et al., 1999). After its appearance in the UN’s 2001 report, McIntyre et al. (2003, 2005) demonstrated that the erasure of the mediaeval warm period in the 2001 graph had been caused by inappropriate data selection and incorrect use of statistical methods.
Moncktons complete analysis of the mistakes made in the IPCC graph are best followed up in his research article. The analysis is fascinating and quite accessible.
To demonstrate what I mean by the sinusoidal variation in climate change here are two graphs taken from Lord Monckton's article.
The first is a round up of palaeoclimatological studies summarised by the US Senate in 2005. The references can be found in the research article.
Note that all the studies show a periodic change from warmer (red) to cooler (blue) to warm again. The peak-to-peak period of of the major oscillation looks to be about a thousand years, with a current uptick at the present day
Also note that the studies show a great deal of small-period temperature oscillation: indicative of a driving by smaller period oscillatory factors. The Milankovitch cycle and changes in Solar Insolation are the two most obvious culprits for the large and small period oscillations. Its hard to fit CO2 variation as a driving factor into these graphs.
The final graph is from ground-boreholes (references in the PDF). While less useful/fine scale than the round up of study results above, it shows up the sinusoidal variation with absolutely blinding clarity
I hope this is helpful, Einigkeit. You are a man of science: I know you will find these graphs and their implication to be of interest. The sinusoidal variation is - IMO - compelling evidence of a sinusoidal driver. The Milankovitch and solar cycles fit as climate drivers. It's hard to see how CO2 variation could fit the data.
"The rain-forest is producing millions of tons of methane and carbon dioxide, powerful greenhouse gases." ~ -Mission9
"Huh? The rain-forest absorbs carbon dioxide and releases oxygen. Living trees incorporate CO2 and create wood, leaves with it REMOVING it from the atomosphere. Growing trees is the best way of removing it. Living trees do not produce methane." ~ Justshutupandtakeit
Items of interest:
Scientists question trees' role in global warming January 12, 2006. 6:00am
European scientists could turn climate science on its head after suggesting trees may contribiute greenhouse gases. (ABC TV)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1545977.htm
BBC News Scientists in Germany have discovered that ordinary plants produce significant amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas which helps trap the sun's energy in the atmosphere.
...The findings, reported in the journal Nature, have been described as "startling", and may force a rethink of the role played by forests in holding back the pace of global warming. To their amazement, the scientists found that all the textbooks written on the biochemistry of plants had apparently overlooked the fact that methane is produced by a range of plants even when there is plenty of oxygen. The amount of the gas produced increased when the air was warmer, and when there was more sunlight. The paper estimates that this unexplained phenomenon could account for 10-30% of the world's methane emissions. The possible implications are set out in Nature by David Lowe of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, who writes: "We now have the spectre that new forests might increase greenhouse warming through methane emissions rather than decrease it by sequestering carbon dioxide." ...If this turned out to be true, it would have major implications for the rules of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which allows countries and companies to offset emissions from the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil by funding the planting of new forests or the restoration of deforested areas .." Continue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm
If you mean cleaning the air, the water, and making fuel efficient autos - we're doing all of that. We cannot change weather; we cannot change volcano eruption; we cannot change the Sun storms; we cannot change earthquakes; we cannot make rain.......the climate change is unstoppable. The bright side of the warming is that it will help many in a lot of ways. Stay focused on the WOT, we can stop terrorism and we can stop debris in space…..we can never feed the world, the breeding of humans is faster than crops can grow to feed them….but we can provide little towns and villages with clean water and the tools to farm IF they will use such help rather than fritter it away.
Then the trees die and rot. What happens to the Carbon then?
Anthropogenic climate change is the biggest, most audacious deception in the history of "science".
I'ld like to thank you Einigkeit for raising the level of debate on this subject: it helps all of us to raise our game and general information-level. Seriously, thank you.
Plants contribute to temperature pollution in many ways. Transpiration during the day absorbs carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, during the night, the plant releases excess carbon dioxide. During the day, water vapor release increases the blanket effect of the atmosphere and results in greenhouse heating. Clearly, the net effect is million of tons of greenhouse gases. Methane is produced by plant decay. It is important to note that the work of plant life is not a zero sum game. Ultimately the capture and storage of solar radiation is the evolutionary strategy for life. Over the last billion years, Mother Earth has been a frozen world for many more eons than a tropical world. It is the work of plant life to create net warming, and therefore, other the eons, more habitats for life.
Pretty much blew your legitimacy right there. Thank you Malthus.
Always love the never before discovered SOME scientists come up with. Assume what they say is true then the relevant question is "Does the methane contribution to GW overcome the reduction due to CO2 absorbtion?" Without going into intricate chemical formulae I would say that would appear to be impossible.
I specifically said "living trees". Wood used to build things is not allowed to rot. So one has to harvest the trees.
Right back at you. I appreciate the chance to talk about the climate rather than the weather.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.