Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Simon Jester · Mar 16, 2004, 05:55 pm

[font=verdana][color=navy]I came across this gem[/font] while browsing my school’s Library. For those of you who don’t have access I’m posting some of the highlights:[/color]<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (NEWSWEEK. APRIL 28 1975)
There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production-with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree-a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> [font=verdana][color=navy]That’s a pretty drastic solution! Given the utter failure of any of the theory’s predictions to materialize – decreased agricultural productivity, increased climatic instability, and steadily dropping global temperatures – I question just how much faith we should place in doomsday theories about the impacts of its modern cousin, “Global Warming,” as well as the proposed solutions.[/font][/color]

Zeebadee · Mar 16, 2004, 10:34 pm

Yeah, let's continue to pretend that global warming is a strictly political issue, and not a scientific one. Whether the earth is getting cooler or warmer isn't really the point. We need to look at how the billions of kilowatts that humans are adding to the natural cycle are going to affect the environment. We should understand that by the time symptoms appear, the disease may already be terminal.

Simon Jester · Mar 17, 2004, 03:30 am

[font=verdana][color=navy]It’s not political right? I’m going to hazard a guess and say you’re not a Republican. Perhaps it shouldn’t be a political issue, but it’s funny how these sorts of things seem to fall along political lines…

The science – then as now – is dead on. There was a period of cooling from ~1950 to ~1975 – just as the article stated. The problem is in the solution – not the science. Would you concede that the proposed solution to “Global Cooling” would be somewhat detrimental to a world caught up in runaway “Global Warming?”
I’m not dismissing the possibility that our actions are having an impact – perhaps even a significant one. But I think we’re focusing on the short-term changes and approaching the phenomenon from hot-headed and fatalistic extremes. Might it be wiser – or at least beneficial – to look at the long-term climate to see if what we’re experiencing now is new or if it has occurred before? If it has, what can we learn about our current situation?[/font][/color]

Samildanach · Mar 17, 2004, 05:38 am

The solution is simple. We need to look at the biggest impacts we are having and try to moderate them. We are throwing all kinds of things into the atmosphere which under normal circumstances would not be released in great quantities except in maybe things like volcanic eruptions. We need to increase regulations on industries producing those chemicals and regulate individuals producing them as well.

NotScientific · Mar 17, 2004, 08:21 am

Right u r Samildanach

mlingley · Mar 17, 2004, 01:45 pm

The environment will take care of itself, it's us humans I'm really worried about. If the food chain under us slowly dies off we die to. Considering 15 Million species have gone extinct in the last 100 years, I'd say we should start taking notice.

Impenitent · Mar 17, 2004, 02:05 pm

15 million?!? NAME 10...

harami · Mar 17, 2004, 08:21 pm

There was indeed a period of global warming about 1100-1300 AD, which was called the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period. It is recorded in ocean deposits and ice cores. The temperatures were perhaps a 1/2 degree C warmer than now, or more (please check this). It was a bountiful time for the human race, with none of the adverse affects predicted for the future. It was followed by the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1850. This cool period was about 1/2 degree cooler than the present. All of this transpired without the energy consumption, environmental modification, etc etc of modern society. The conclusion must be that there are other strong forces driving climate change. It seems to me that honest scientists should recognize the existence of these other factors, and the fact that the last global warming was not harmful.

glenn_w_l · Mar 17, 2004, 09:39 pm

I am hoping that Zeebadee can explain the ‘science’ that justifies a belief in ‘global warming’, particularly the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ which contends that the gaseous products of fossil fuel combustion by humans will cause the Earth’s surface and atmosphere to heat up. I recently read ‘The Greenhouse Effect’ by professors Ann Henderson-Sellers and Russell Blong of Macquarie University, and while it was entertaining because of the naivety of its assertions, assumptions and errors, I could find very little ‘science’ in it.
Whether the earth is getting cooler or warmer is the point, because it is to ameliorate the supposed effects of the alleged cooling/warming that people are being asked to abandon national sovereignty and national constitutions and accept the overlordship of yet another global Bureaucracy.

The 18th World Energy Congress (sounds impressive doesn’t it) recommended:
1) Binding emission limits per country
2) Enhance international environmental law.
3) Establish an international climate agency
4) Establish standards under which a law suit can be brought forward.
5) Establish sanctions for non-performance.
( http://www.worldenergy.org )

The political consequences of an acceptance (or enforcement) of these recommendations are enormous and self evident. Developing countries would be forbidden to use cheap and accessible energy supplies to lift themselves from poverty. The congress envisages and increasingly greater reliance on ‘clean’ nuclear energy and I suspect herein may lie the true motivation for the ‘global warming awareness’ campaign. But nuclear energy is a one-way path that though profitable to a few, is very, very dangerous.

Zeebadee · Mar 18, 2004, 01:47 am

I don't believe that I said anything about global warming, or even global cooling. I was merely making the observation that humans are now producing billions of kilowatts of power that are being added to the natural cycle, and that have to be dissipated somehow. To believe that humanity is having no effect on the environment is naive at best, foolhardy at worst. The main point to consider is that by the time things have gotten bad enough to prove either warming or cooling is fact, it may be too late to reverse. Without going to extremes on either side, this is a subject that deserves some unbiased study (if that's even possible).

Mia · Mar 18, 2004, 02:17 am

not regulations! *gasp*

Samildanach · Mar 18, 2004, 05:32 am

Yep regulations. And not those wussy regulations you currently have in the US being able to buy and sell pollution credits between companies or however they do it which more or less avoids the issue. Some hard hitting regulations that mandate if you haven't cut your pollution by 50% in five years then you will be shut down, that ought to get big corporations attention. They need to make it a priority.

G. Adams · Mar 18, 2004, 07:50 am

Just for clarification, during global warming the UK would actually cool, the change in wind would push out current flow that warms the UK, without which our terrain would be more like that of Canada.

For you sceptics you might like to read this article.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1153513,00.html

glenn_w_l · Mar 19, 2004, 04:44 am

Zeebadee... i'm dissapointed!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Zeebadee,)
Yeah, let's continue to pretend that global warming is a strictly political issue, and not a scientific one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

i understood this remark to mean you believed we have been pretending global warming is not a scientific issue. If this wasn't what you meant, perhaps you could clarify what you did mean.
The energy released by human activities is negligable in comparison to solar radiation intercepted by the earth. The sun supplies 1,560,000 exp12 kWh of energy to earth's surface and atmosphere per year.(Holmes, Arthur. (1965)Principles of Physical Geology. p.463)
The total in energy output by humans in 2001 was 403 quadrillion Btu ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/overview.html ). One Btu is equivalent to 0.000293 kWh. This is, (presuming they mean the american and not the british quadrillion), 403 exp15 Btu, or 118 exp12 kWh.
In more familiar terms, if the sun and humans were throwing in for an annual energy party, the sun would provide $1,560,000 whereas humans would contribute a mere $118.

Impenitent · Mar 19, 2004, 09:35 am

damn, there you go, confuse the environmentalist wacko socialists with scientific facts...

don't you realize that they will lie and continue to lie until the united states is reduced to a third world dictatorship?

it was never about the science, it is always about the money... the rich capitalist pigs are exploiting the planet... save the planet by regulating and taxing the rich away...

glenn_w_l · Mar 19, 2004, 09:45 pm

It's not always just about money... Science has its own politics too.
The 'greenhouse effect' came into prominence in the '60s when venus was found to have a much higher surface temperature than had been expected or predicted by scientists. At that time a group of prominent scientists headed by Harlow Shapely of Harvard were busy debunking Immanuel Velikovsky, one of whose predictions had been a high Cytherean temperature. A 'scientific' explanation was needed fast to prevent Velikovsky's supporters from chalking up a victory.
Thus we were lumped with the 'greenhouse effect', which then somehow migrated from venus' to our own atmosphere.

shunyadragon · Mar 20, 2004, 03:55 am

The earth has been in a general global warming trend since the last glacial period. According to the long term trend we should be approaching the peak of the global warming trend within the next several thousand years. The long term records show cyclic periods global cooling and warming within this trend. The previous global cooling periods fit this cycle. Naturally, without human influences we would be in a warming trend since the 70s. The question is how much of the historic warming trend since the industrial revolution is due to human causes.

As a geologist I believe humans have caused an excelerated global warming trend and there is virtually nothing we can do about, but learn to adapt to the change. All the recommendations that people propose could not put a dent in the future increase in global warming due to future population growth and the industrialization of the third world.

Suburbanite · Mar 20, 2004, 04:42 am

A partial list of extinct animals of the United States (and Puerto Rico) from the mid-1800s to the late 1990s.

Fish
• Longjaw cisco
• Deepwater cisco
• Blackfin cisco
• Yellowfin cutthroat trout
• Silver trout
• Thicktail chub
• Pahrangat spinedace
• Phantom shiner
• Bluntnose shiner
• Clear Lake splittail
• Las Vegas dace
• June sucker
• Snake River sucker
• Harelip sucker
• Tecopa pupfish
• Shoshone pupfish
• Raycraft Ranch killifish
• Pahrump Ranch killifish
• Ash Meadows killifish
• Whiteline topminnow
• Amistad gambusia
• Blue pike
• Utah Lake sculpin
• Lake Ontario kiyi
• Alvord cutthroat
• Maravillas red shiner
• Independence Valley tui chub
• Banff longnose dace
• Grass Valley speckled dace
• San Marcos gambusia
Amphibians
• Relict leopard frog
• Golden coqui
• Web-footed coqui
Reptiles
• Navassa iguana
• St. Croix racer, Alsophis sancticrucis
Birds
• Spectacled Cormorant, Aleutian Islands
• Labrador Duck, Northeastern United States
• Edgington's lesser titmouse
• Heath hen, Eastern United States
• Kusaie crake
• Laysan rail
• Hawaiian brown rail
• Hawaiian spotted rail
• Wake island rail
• Great auk
• Passenger pigeon
• Culebra Puerto Rican parrot
• Mauge's parakeet
• Carolina parakeet
• Louisiana parakeet
• Virgin Islands screech owl
• San Clemente Bewick's wren
• Lanai thrush
• Oahu thrush
• Laysan millerbird
• Kioea
• Oahu oo
• Molokai oo
• Hawaii oo
• Santa Barbara song sparrow
• Texas Henslow's sparrow
• Laysan apapane
• Hawaiian mamo
• Black mamo
• Lanai akialoa
• Oahu akialoa
• Hawaii akialoa
• Oahu nukupu'um
• Oahu akepa
• Greater amakihi
• Lanai creeper
• Ula-ai-hawane
• Greater Kona finch
• Lesser Kona finch
• Kona finch
• Kusaie starling
• Dusky seaside sparrow
• Amak song sparrow
• Ivory-billed Woodpecker
Mammals
• Puerto Rican shrew
• Puerto Rican long-nosed bat
• Puerto Rican long-tongued bat
• Puerto Rican ground sloth
• Penasco chipmunk
• Tacoma pocket gopher
• Goff's pocket gopher
• Sherman's pocket gopher
• Pallid beach mouse
• Giant deer mouse
• Chadwick Beach cottonmouth
• Gull Island vole
• Louisiana vole
• Puerto Rican hutia
• Puerto Rican paca
• Lesser Puerto Rican agouti
• Greater Puerto Rican agouti
• Atlantic gray whale
• Southern California kit fox
• Florida red wolf
• Texas red wolf, Oklahoma
• Kenai Peninsula wolf
• Newfoundland wolf
• Banks Island wolf
• Cascade Mountains wolf
• Northern Rocky Mountain wolf
• Mongollon Mountains wolf
• Texas gray wolf
• Great Plains wolf
• Southern Rocky Mountains wolf
• California grizzly bear
• Sea mink
• Wisconsin cougar
• Caribbean monk seal
• Steller's Sea Cow
• Eastern elk
• Merriam's elk
• Queen Charlotte caribou
• Badlands bighorn

shunyadragon · Mar 20, 2004, 06:38 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (glenn_w_l,)
It's not always just about money... Science has its own politics too.
The 'greenhouse effect' came into prominence in the '60s when venus was found to have a much higher surface temperature than had been expected or predicted by scientists. At that time a group of prominent scientists headed by Harlow Shapely of Harvard were busy debunking Immanual Velikovsky, one of whose predictions had been a high Cytherean temperature. A 'scientific' explanation was needed fast to prevent Velikovsky's supporters from chalking up a victory.
Thus we were lumped with the 'greenhouse effect', which then somehow migrated from venus' to our own atmosphere.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Valokovsky is greatest April fools joke in history. A close second is the story you can see the Great Wall and the pyramids from space.

The best April fools jokes are when you convince a lot of people something is true when it is totally foolish and rediculous to the point that it is impossible. The story that Einstein supported Valikovsky's claims rates as one of the top foolish stories since Nixon claimed he was innocent.

gluadys · Mar 20, 2004, 04:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (harami,)
There was indeed a period of global warming about 1100-1300 AD, which was called the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period. It is recorded in ocean deposits and ice cores. The temperatures were perhaps a 1/2 degree C warmer than now, or more (please check this). It was a bountiful time for the human race, with none of the adverse affects predicted for the future. It was followed by the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1850. This cool period was about 1/2 degree cooler than the present. All of this transpired without the energy consumption, environmental modification, etc etc of modern society. The conclusion must be that there are other strong forces driving climate change. It seems to me that honest scientists should recognize the existence of these other factors, and the fact that the last global warming was not harmful.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I don't come into this forum very often, so I hope I don't come across as a troll. That is not my intention. This thread just happened to catch my eye and as my work has involved learning something about climate change I am moved to comment.

It is true the last global warming period was not harmful. This is because it was fairly short and fairly minor.

Your conclusion that there are other strong forces driving climate change today is correct. What we have today that was not in existence then is a significantly higher level of human induced greenhouse gas {ghg) emissions primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. Based on the predicted effects of this increased level of emissions, scientists are predicting not a mere 1/2 degree rise in average temperature, but a 3-5 degree rise. That has enormous potential consequences, some of which we are begining to see. (e.g. melting of permafrost and rising of ocean temperatures in the Canadian Arctic leading to shorter periods of easy transportation on ice roads and increased costs for companies doing business in the Arctic, pollution of inland and near-shore waters from permafrost melt, decreasing ice coverage of Arctic waters--posing transportation problems for both humans and terrestrial animals, movement of fish to deeper, cooler waters farther offshore which decreases the available food supply for polar bears and marine mammals, as well as Inuit fishers, etc. etc. This past two summers we have also had devastating droughts on the Canadian prairies, resulting in significant costs to both beef and grain producers.)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (glenn_w_l,)
Whether the earth is getting cooler or warmer is the point, because it is to ameliorate the supposed effects of the alleged cooling/warming that people are being asked to abandon national sovereignty and national constitutions and accept the overlordship of yet another global Bureaucracy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

All advances in civilization have required some yielding of local sovereignty to a wider sovereignty. The emergence of nations demanded the yeilding of sovereignty by cities to a national bureaucracy. Nations such as Germany and Italy were cobbled together out of a plethora of counties, duchys, principalities and free cities which had to yield sovereignty to a central national authority. Facilitation of cross-border trading, transportation networks and environmental management meant that in the fledgling US states had to yield sovereignty over these matters to the federal government. The current move to international cooperation to manage global issues is just another step in the same direction.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (glenn_w_l,)
The 18th World Energy Congress (sounds impressive doesn’t it) recommended:
1) Binding emission limits per country
2) Enhance international environmental law.
3) Establish an international climate agency
4) Establish standards under which a law suit can be brought forward.
5) Establish sanctions for non-performance.
( http://www.worldenergy.org )

The political consequences of an acceptance (or enforcement) of these recommendations are enormous and self evident. Developing countries would be forbidden to use cheap and accessible energy supplies to lift themselves from poverty. The congress envisages and increasingly greater reliance on ‘clean’ nuclear energy and I suspect herein may lie the true motivation for the ‘global warming awareness’ campaign. But nuclear energy is a one-way path that though profitable to a few, is very, very dangerous.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You're right. The political consequences are enormous, though not quite what you propose. Nor quite what I approve. The current Kyoto Protocol is not binding at all on non-signatories, (and won't even be binding on signatories until the ratification standards are met.) The US is not a signatory so it is free to make its own decisions.

While the Kyoto Protocol sets an overall goal of reducing global emissions, each nation has its own goal. These national goals were not assigned arbitrarily. Each nation proposed its own goal. Negotiation resulted in some changes, but in the final analysis each nation freely agreed to its national goal. In the case of my country (Canada) the goal originally proposed by the Canadian government was not changed, so our target was chosen by us, not imposed by the international body. The same is true of most other national goals. For, after all, the international body has no enforcement mechanism to impose a goal rejected by the nation.

Under the current Protocol, third world nations are not only free to continue using fossil fuel but to increase their use. They can also trade credits to nations which must decrease emissions. Since they can maintain and increase current usage, this is an incentive for industrial investment in these countries. Still the ultimate aim in future negotiations is to have all nations contribute to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The reason developing nations are being given a pass in the first round is that they contribute very minimally to ghg emissions now and can increase their use within an overall global decrease.

I concur with your thoughts on 'clean' nuclear energy. While it is 'clean' in respect of ghg emissions, it is not a good choice for many other reasons. There are better ways to generate clean energy.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (glenn_w_l,)
The energy released by human activities is negligable in comparison to solar radiation intercepted by the earth. The sun supplies 1,560,000 exp12 kWh of energy to earth's surface and atmosphere per year.(Holmes, Arthur. (1965)Principles of Physical Geology. p.463)
The total in energy output by humans in 2001 was 403 quadrillion Btu ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/overview.html ). One Btu is equivalent to 0.000293 kWh. This is, (presuming they mean the american and not the british quadrillion), 403 exp15 Btu, or 118 exp12 kWh.
In more familiar terms, if the sun and humans were throwing in for an annual energy party, the sun would provide $1,560,000 whereas humans would contribute a mere $118.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No one is disputing that the ghg emissions due to human activity are negligible in comparison to natural sources. But it is not the amount that matters. It is the impact. Even a negligible contribution can have major impact. It only took one additional straw to break the camel's back.

We are in a natural global warming phase right now, and that is something the politicians and corporations should be planning for even without considering the human contribution. The human contribution intensifies the impact, and it is something we can control if we choose to.

And the sooner we choose to, the less drastic the measures we will need to take. If we continue to dawdle, we will eventually be forced into much more draconian measures whether we wish it or not.

Mar 16, 2004, 05:55 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Simon Jester Sedimentary Rock Location: 127.1.1.1 Posts: 16	[font=verdana][color=navy]I came across this <span style='color:blue'>gem[/font] while browsing my school’s Library. For those of you who don’t have access I’m posting some of the highlights:[/color]</span></span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (NEWSWEEK. APRIL 28 1975) There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production-with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree-a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> [font=verdana][color=navy]That’s a pretty drastic solution! Given the utter failure of any of the theory’s predictions to materialize – decreased agricultural productivity, increased climatic instability, and steadily dropping global temperatures – I question just how much faith we should place in doomsday theories about the impacts of its modern cousin, “Global Warming,” as well as the proposed solutions.[/font][/color]

Mar 16, 2004, 10:34 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Zeebadee Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,701	Yeah, let's continue to pretend that global warming is a strictly political issue, and not a scientific one. Whether the earth is getting cooler or warmer isn't really the point. We need to look at how the billions of kilowatts that humans are adding to the natural cycle are going to affect the environment. We should understand that by the time symptoms appear, the disease may already be terminal. "Everybody knows that the boat is leaking Everybody knows that the captain lied." - Leonard Cohen

Mar 17, 2004, 05:38 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	The solution is simple. We need to look at the biggest impacts we are having and try to moderate them. We are throwing all kinds of things into the atmosphere which under normal circumstances would not be released in great quantities except in maybe things like volcanic eruptions. We need to increase regulations on industries producing those chemicals and regulate individuals producing them as well. I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)

Mar 17, 2004, 08:21 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
NotScientific Molten Ash Location: Mauritius Posts: 35	Right u r Samildanach I'm Columnist here at Volconvo.com and also at BackWash.com. Check my columns in the Science forum then.

Mar 17, 2004, 02:05 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	15 million?!? NAME 10... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 17, 2004, 03:30 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Simon Jester Sedimentary Rock Location: 127.1.1.1 Posts: 16	[font=verdana][color=navy]It’s not political right? I’m going to hazard a guess and say you’re not a Republican. Perhaps it shouldn’t be a political issue, but it’s funny how these sorts of things seem to fall along political lines… The science – then as now – is dead on. There was a period of cooling from ~1950 to ~1975 – just as the article stated. The problem is in the solution – not the science. Would you concede that the proposed solution to “Global Cooling” would be somewhat detrimental to a world caught up in runaway “Global Warming?” I’m not dismissing the possibility that our actions are having an impact – perhaps even a significant one. But I think we’re focusing on the short-term changes and approaching the phenomenon from hot-headed and fatalistic extremes. Might it be wiser – or at least beneficial – to look at the long-term climate to see if what we’re experiencing now is new or if it has occurred before? If it has, what can we learn about our current situation?[/font][/color]

Mar 17, 2004, 01:45 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
mlingley Molten Ash Posts: 120	The environment will take care of itself, it's us humans I'm really worried about. If the food chain under us slowly dies off we die to. Considering 15 Million species have gone extinct in the last 100 years, I'd say we should start taking notice.

Mar 17, 2004, 08:21 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
harami bear Posts: 88	There was indeed a period of global warming about 1100-1300 AD, which was called the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period. It is recorded in ocean deposits and ice cores. The temperatures were perhaps a 1/2 degree C warmer than now, or more (please check this). It was a bountiful time for the human race, with none of the adverse affects predicted for the future. It was followed by the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1850. This cool period was about 1/2 degree cooler than the present. All of this transpired without the energy consumption, environmental modification, etc etc of modern society. The conclusion must be that there are other strong forces driving climate change. It seems to me that honest scientists should recognize the existence of these other factors, and the fact that the last global warming was not harmful.

Mar 17, 2004, 09:39 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
glenn_w_l Molten Ash Location: 34.25 S 150.54 E Posts: 39	I am hoping that Zeebadee can explain the ‘science’ that justifies a belief in ‘global warming’, particularly the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ which contends that the gaseous products of fossil fuel combustion by humans will cause the Earth’s surface and atmosphere to heat up. I recently read ‘The Greenhouse Effect’ by professors Ann Henderson-Sellers and Russell Blong of Macquarie University, and while it was entertaining because of the naivety of its assertions, assumptions and errors, I could find very little ‘science’ in it. Whether the earth is getting cooler or warmer is the point, because it is to ameliorate the supposed effects of the alleged cooling/warming that people are being asked to abandon national sovereignty and national constitutions and accept the overlordship of yet another global Bureaucracy. The 18th World Energy Congress (sounds impressive doesn’t it) recommended: 1) Binding emission limits per country 2) Enhance international environmental law. 3) Establish an international climate agency 4) Establish standards under which a law suit can be brought forward. 5) Establish sanctions for non-performance. ( http://www.worldenergy.org ) The political consequences of an acceptance (or enforcement) of these recommendations are enormous and self evident. Developing countries would be forbidden to use cheap and accessible energy supplies to lift themselves from poverty. The congress envisages and increasingly greater reliance on ‘clean’ nuclear energy and I suspect herein may lie the true motivation for the ‘global warming awareness’ campaign. But nuclear energy is a one-way path that though profitable to a few, is very, very dangerous.

Mar 18, 2004, 01:47 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Zeebadee Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,701	I don't believe that I said anything about global warming, or even global cooling. I was merely making the observation that humans are now producing billions of kilowatts of power that are being added to the natural cycle, and that have to be dissipated somehow. To believe that humanity is having no effect on the environment is naive at best, foolhardy at worst. The main point to consider is that by the time things have gotten bad enough to prove either warming or cooling is fact, it may be too late to reverse. Without going to extremes on either side, this is a subject that deserves some unbiased study (if that's even possible). "Everybody knows that the boat is leaking Everybody knows that the captain lied." - Leonard Cohen

Mar 18, 2004, 02:17 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	not regulations! gasp "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 18, 2004, 05:32 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	Yep regulations. And not those wussy regulations you currently have in the US being able to buy and sell pollution credits between companies or however they do it which more or less avoids the issue. Some hard hitting regulations that mandate if you haven't cut your pollution by 50% in five years then you will be shut down, that ought to get big corporations attention. They need to make it a priority. I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)

Mar 18, 2004, 07:50 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Just for clarification, during global warming the UK would actually cool, the change in wind would push out current flow that warms the UK, without which our terrain would be more like that of Canada. For you sceptics you might like to read this article. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1153513,00.html Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Mar 19, 2004, 04:44 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
glenn_w_l Molten Ash Location: 34.25 S 150.54 E Posts: 39	Zeebadee... i'm dissapointed! </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Zeebadee,) Yeah, let's continue to pretend that global warming is a strictly political issue, and not a scientific one.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> i understood this remark to mean you believed we have been pretending global warming is not a scientific issue. If this wasn't what you meant, perhaps you could clarify what you did mean. The energy released by human activities is negligable in comparison to solar radiation intercepted by the earth. The sun supplies 1,560,000 exp12 kWh of energy to earth's surface and atmosphere per year.(Holmes, Arthur. (1965)Principles of Physical Geology. p.463) The total in energy output by humans in 2001 was 403 quadrillion Btu ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/overview.html ). One Btu is equivalent to 0.000293 kWh. This is, (presuming they mean the american and not the british quadrillion), 403 exp15 Btu, or 118 exp12 kWh. In more familiar terms, if the sun and humans were throwing in for an annual energy party, the sun would provide $1,560,000 whereas humans would contribute a mere $118.

Mar 19, 2004, 09:35 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	damn, there you go, confuse the environmentalist wacko socialists with scientific facts... don't you realize that they will lie and continue to lie until the united states is reduced to a third world dictatorship? it was never about the science, it is always about the money... the rich capitalist pigs are exploiting the planet... save the planet by regulating and taxing the rich away... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 19, 2004, 09:45 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
glenn_w_l Molten Ash Location: 34.25 S 150.54 E Posts: 39	It's not always just about money... Science has its own politics too. The 'greenhouse effect' came into prominence in the '60s when venus was found to have a much higher surface temperature than had been expected or predicted by scientists. At that time a group of prominent scientists headed by Harlow Shapely of Harvard were busy debunking Immanuel Velikovsky, one of whose predictions had been a high Cytherean temperature. A 'scientific' explanation was needed fast to prevent Velikovsky's supporters from chalking up a victory. Thus we were lumped with the 'greenhouse effect', which then somehow migrated from venus' to our own atmosphere.

Mar 20, 2004, 03:55 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	The earth has been in a general global warming trend since the last glacial period. According to the long term trend we should be approaching the peak of the global warming trend within the next several thousand years. The long term records show cyclic periods global cooling and warming within this trend. The previous global cooling periods fit this cycle. Naturally, without human influences we would be in a warming trend since the 70s. The question is how much of the historic warming trend since the industrial revolution is due to human causes. As a geologist I believe humans have caused an excelerated global warming trend and there is virtually nothing we can do about, but learn to adapt to the change. All the recommendations that people propose could not put a dent in the future increase in global warming due to future population growth and the industrialization of the third world. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Mar 20, 2004, 04:42 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	A partial list of extinct animals of the United States (and Puerto Rico) from the mid-1800s to the late 1990s. Fish • Longjaw cisco • Deepwater cisco • Blackfin cisco • Yellowfin cutthroat trout • Silver trout • Thicktail chub • Pahrangat spinedace • Phantom shiner • Bluntnose shiner • Clear Lake splittail • Las Vegas dace • June sucker • Snake River sucker • Harelip sucker • Tecopa pupfish • Shoshone pupfish • Raycraft Ranch killifish • Pahrump Ranch killifish • Ash Meadows killifish • Whiteline topminnow • Amistad gambusia • Blue pike • Utah Lake sculpin • Lake Ontario kiyi • Alvord cutthroat • Maravillas red shiner • Independence Valley tui chub • Banff longnose dace • Grass Valley speckled dace • San Marcos gambusia Amphibians • Relict leopard frog • Golden coqui • Web-footed coqui Reptiles • Navassa iguana • St. Croix racer, Alsophis sancticrucis Birds • Spectacled Cormorant, Aleutian Islands • Labrador Duck, Northeastern United States • Edgington's lesser titmouse • Heath hen, Eastern United States • Kusaie crake • Laysan rail • Hawaiian brown rail • Hawaiian spotted rail • Wake island rail • Great auk • Passenger pigeon • Culebra Puerto Rican parrot • Mauge's parakeet • Carolina parakeet • Louisiana parakeet • Virgin Islands screech owl • San Clemente Bewick's wren • Lanai thrush • Oahu thrush • Laysan millerbird • Kioea • Oahu oo • Molokai oo • Hawaii oo • Santa Barbara song sparrow • Texas Henslow's sparrow • Laysan apapane • Hawaiian mamo • Black mamo • Lanai akialoa • Oahu akialoa • Hawaii akialoa • Oahu nukupu'um • Oahu akepa • Greater amakihi • Lanai creeper • Ula-ai-hawane • Greater Kona finch • Lesser Kona finch • Kona finch • Kusaie starling • Dusky seaside sparrow • Amak song sparrow • Ivory-billed Woodpecker Mammals • Puerto Rican shrew • Puerto Rican long-nosed bat • Puerto Rican long-tongued bat • Puerto Rican ground sloth • Penasco chipmunk • Tacoma pocket gopher • Goff's pocket gopher • Sherman's pocket gopher • Pallid beach mouse • Giant deer mouse • Chadwick Beach cottonmouth • Gull Island vole • Louisiana vole • Puerto Rican hutia • Puerto Rican paca • Lesser Puerto Rican agouti • Greater Puerto Rican agouti • Atlantic gray whale • Southern California kit fox • Florida red wolf • Texas red wolf, Oklahoma • Kenai Peninsula wolf • Newfoundland wolf • Banks Island wolf • Cascade Mountains wolf • Northern Rocky Mountain wolf • Mongollon Mountains wolf • Texas gray wolf • Great Plains wolf • Southern Rocky Mountains wolf • California grizzly bear • Sea mink • Wisconsin cougar • Caribbean monk seal • Steller's Sea Cow • Eastern elk • Merriam's elk • Queen Charlotte caribou • Badlands bighorn

Mar 20, 2004, 06:38 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (glenn_w_l,) It's not always just about money... Science has its own politics too. The 'greenhouse effect' came into prominence in the '60s when venus was found to have a much higher surface temperature than had been expected or predicted by scientists. At that time a group of prominent scientists headed by Harlow Shapely of Harvard were busy debunking Immanual Velikovsky, one of whose predictions had been a high Cytherean temperature. A 'scientific' explanation was needed fast to prevent Velikovsky's supporters from chalking up a victory. Thus we were lumped with the 'greenhouse effect', which then somehow migrated from venus' to our own atmosphere.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Valokovsky is greatest April fools joke in history. A close second is the story you can see the Great Wall and the pyramids from space. The best April fools jokes are when you convince a lot of people something is true when it is totally foolish and rediculous to the point that it is impossible. The story that Einstein supported Valikovsky's claims rates as one of the top foolish stories since Nixon claimed he was innocent. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Mar 20, 2004, 04:37 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
gluadys Molten Ash Posts: 28	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (harami,) There was indeed a period of global warming about 1100-1300 AD, which was called the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period. It is recorded in ocean deposits and ice cores. The temperatures were perhaps a 1/2 degree C warmer than now, or more (please check this). It was a bountiful time for the human race, with none of the adverse affects predicted for the future. It was followed by the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1850. This cool period was about 1/2 degree cooler than the present. All of this transpired without the energy consumption, environmental modification, etc etc of modern society. The conclusion must be that there are other strong forces driving climate change. It seems to me that honest scientists should recognize the existence of these other factors, and the fact that the last global warming was not harmful.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't come into this forum very often, so I hope I don't come across as a troll. That is not my intention. This thread just happened to catch my eye and as my work has involved learning something about climate change I am moved to comment. It is true the last global warming period was not harmful. This is because it was fairly short and fairly minor. Your conclusion that there are other strong forces driving climate change today is correct. What we have today that was not in existence then is a significantly higher level of human induced greenhouse gas {ghg) emissions primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. Based on the predicted effects of this increased level of emissions, scientists are predicting not a mere 1/2 degree rise in average temperature, but a 3-5 degree rise. That has enormous potential consequences, some of which we are begining to see. (e.g. melting of permafrost and rising of ocean temperatures in the Canadian Arctic leading to shorter periods of easy transportation on ice roads and increased costs for companies doing business in the Arctic, pollution of inland and near-shore waters from permafrost melt, decreasing ice coverage of Arctic waters--posing transportation problems for both humans and terrestrial animals, movement of fish to deeper, cooler waters farther offshore which decreases the available food supply for polar bears and marine mammals, as well as Inuit fishers, etc. etc. This past two summers we have also had devastating droughts on the Canadian prairies, resulting in significant costs to both beef and grain producers.) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (glenn_w_l,) Whether the earth is getting cooler or warmer is the point, because it is to ameliorate the supposed effects of the alleged cooling/warming that people are being asked to abandon national sovereignty and national constitutions and accept the overlordship of yet another global Bureaucracy.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> All advances in civilization have required some yielding of local sovereignty to a wider sovereignty. The emergence of nations demanded the yeilding of sovereignty by cities to a national bureaucracy. Nations such as Germany and Italy were cobbled together out of a plethora of counties, duchys, principalities and free cities which had to yield sovereignty to a central national authority. Facilitation of cross-border trading, transportation networks and environmental management meant that in the fledgling US states had to yield sovereignty over these matters to the federal government. The current move to international cooperation to manage global issues is just another step in the same direction. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (glenn_w_l,) The 18th World Energy Congress (sounds impressive doesn’t it) recommended: 1) Binding emission limits per country 2) Enhance international environmental law. 3) Establish an international climate agency 4) Establish standards under which a law suit can be brought forward. 5) Establish sanctions for non-performance. ( http://www.worldenergy.org ) The political consequences of an acceptance (or enforcement) of these recommendations are enormous and self evident. Developing countries would be forbidden to use cheap and accessible energy supplies to lift themselves from poverty. The congress envisages and increasingly greater reliance on ‘clean’ nuclear energy and I suspect herein may lie the true motivation for the ‘global warming awareness’ campaign. But nuclear energy is a one-way path that though profitable to a few, is very, very dangerous.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You're right. The political consequences are enormous, though not quite what you propose. Nor quite what I approve. The current Kyoto Protocol is not binding at all on non-signatories, (and won't even be binding on signatories until the ratification standards are met.) The US is not a signatory so it is free to make its own decisions. While the Kyoto Protocol sets an overall goal of reducing global emissions, each nation has its own goal. These national goals were not assigned arbitrarily. Each nation proposed its own goal. Negotiation resulted in some changes, but in the final analysis each nation freely agreed to its national goal. In the case of my country (Canada) the goal originally proposed by the Canadian government was not changed, so our target was chosen by us, not imposed by the international body. The same is true of most other national goals. For, after all, the international body has no enforcement mechanism to impose a goal rejected by the nation. Under the current Protocol, third world nations are not only free to continue using fossil fuel but to increase their use. They can also trade credits to nations which must decrease emissions. Since they can maintain and increase current usage, this is an incentive for industrial investment in these countries. Still the ultimate aim in future negotiations is to have all nations contribute to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The reason developing nations are being given a pass in the first round is that they contribute very minimally to ghg emissions now and can increase their use within an overall global decrease. I concur with your thoughts on 'clean' nuclear energy. While it is 'clean' in respect of ghg emissions, it is not a good choice for many other reasons. There are better ways to generate clean energy. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (glenn_w_l,) The energy released by human activities is negligable in comparison to solar radiation intercepted by the earth. The sun supplies 1,560,000 exp12 kWh of energy to earth's surface and atmosphere per year.(Holmes, Arthur. (1965)Principles of Physical Geology. p.463) The total in energy output by humans in 2001 was 403 quadrillion Btu ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/overview.html ). One Btu is equivalent to 0.000293 kWh. This is, (presuming they mean the american and not the british quadrillion), 403 exp15 Btu, or 118 exp12 kWh. In more familiar terms, if the sun and humans were throwing in for an annual energy party, the sun would provide $1,560,000 whereas humans would contribute a mere $118.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No one is disputing that the ghg emissions due to human activity are negligible in comparison to natural sources. But it is not the amount that matters. It is the impact. Even a negligible contribution can have major impact. It only took one additional straw to break the camel's back. We are in a natural global warming phase right now, and that is something the politicians and corporations should be planning for even without considering the human contribution. The human contribution intensifies the impact, and it is something we can control if we choose to. And the sooner we choose to, the less drastic the measures we will need to take. If we continue to dawdle, we will eventually be forced into much more draconian measures whether we wish it or not.