[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Whitney Webb: Foreign Intelligence Affiliated CTI League Poses Major National Security Risk Paul Joseph Watson: What Fresh Hell Is This? Watch: 50 Kids Loot 7-Eleven In Beverly Hills For Candy & Snacks "No Americans": Insider Of Alleged Trafficking Network Reveals How Migrants Ended Up At Charleroi, PA Factory Ford scraps its SUV electric vehicle; the US consumer decides what should be produced, not the Government The Doctor is In the House [Two and a half hours early?] Trump Walks Into Gun Store & The Owner Says This... His Reaction Gets Everyone Talking! Here’s How Explosive—and Short-Lived—Silver Spikes Have Been This Popeyes Fired All the Blacks And Hired ALL Latinos ‘He’s setting us up’: Jewish leaders express alarm at Trump’s blaming Jews if he loses Asia Not Nearly Gay Enough Yet, CNN Laments Undecided Black Voters In Georgia Deliver Brutal Responses on Harris (VIDEO) Biden-Harris Admin Sued For Records On Trans Surgeries On Minors Rasmussen Poll Numbers: Kamala's 'Bounce' Didn't Faze Trump Trump BREAKS Internet With Hysterical Ad TORCHING Kamala | 'She is For They/Them!' 45 Funny Cybertruck Memes So Good, Even Elon Might Crack A Smile Possible Trump Rally Attack - Serious Injuries Reported BULLETIN: ISRAEL IS ENTERING **** UKRAINE **** WAR ! Missile Defenses in Kiev ! ATF TO USE 2ND TRUMP ATTACK TO JUSTIFY NEW GUN CONTROL... An EMP Attack on the U.S. Power Grids and Critical National Infrastructure New York Residents Beg Trump to Come Back, Solve Out-of-Control Illegal Immigration Chicago Teachers Confess They Were told to Give Illegals Passing Grades Am I Racist? Reviewed by a BLACK MAN Ukraine and Israel Following the Same Playbook, But Uncle Sam Doesn't Want to Play "The Diddy indictment is PROTECTING the highest people in power" Ian Carroll The White House just held its first cabinet meeting in almost a year. Guess who was running it. The Democrats' War On America, Part One: What "Saving Our Democracy" Really Means New York's MTA Proposes $65.4 Billion In Upgrades With Cash It Doesn't Have More than 100 killed or missing as Sinaloa Cartel war rages in Mexico New York state reports 1st human case of EEE in nearly a decade

National News
See other National News Articles

Title: Skiing While the Earth Burns
Source: The New American
URL Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index ... 0-skiing-while-the-earth-burns
Published: Oct 10, 2009
Author: Joe Wolverton, II
Post Date: 2009-10-10 16:32:34 by farmfriend
Ping List: *Agriculture-Environment*     Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Keywords: None
Views: 702
Comments: 155

Skiing While the Earth Burns

Written by Joe Wolverton, II
Wednesday, 07 October 2009 19:29

In a sure sign that the Earth is, as predicted, warming to the point of human extinction, snowfall in the West has come sooner and heavier than in recorded history.

Many school districts have already been forced to close by unseasonable accumulations of snow. "We got dumped on last night, you can see that by looking around here. We weren't quite ready for it. It did cause us some issues in the school district," said Lonnie Barber, the superintendent of schools for Blaine County Idaho.

Idaho isn't alone in its reluctance to march into a fiery, iceless demise; in Colorado as well, the snow is falling fast and piling up quickly, to the delight of a state dependent for much of its income on the ski tourism trade. The ski resort at Loveland, Colorado, has opened already, the earliest start to a season in 40 years. It will be joined Friday by the resort at Arapahoe Basin. It seems the owners of ski resorts failed to recognize the climatological chaos that is causing the melting of snow and ice that is in turn setting off an avalanche of impending worldwide doom. Some people will do anything for a buck.

Vegas. Sin City. You would expect them to join the party and they have. You've heard the slogan: "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas." Well, according to the local Fox News affiliate in Las Vegas, what's happening is snow and what's staying is hundreds of skiers getting a welcome early start on the season. The Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort is open for business earlier than ever before and business is booming. Says the resort's Base Operations Manager Craig Baldwin, “There are many skiers and snowboarders who love to jib on our freestyle terrain features, and we expect many families to take advantage of this great opportunity to learn the sport and have fun so early in the season."Again, open rebellion against the stark realities of the inconvenient truth of global warming. Must we brook such insolence and brazen defiance of those Chicken Littles who are doing their best to warn us all of the toasty fate waiting for us just around the corner.

While we wait for the alarming rise in global temperatures to melt the ice caps and swell the levels of the oceans, we might as well head out West and ski. Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

LOL ok I'll take your items one at a time but I'm not in the mood to debate you at all.

you cant dispute the fact that co2 and methane are greenhouse gases.

Why would I want to?

you cant dispute the fact that co2 levels are rising, and have risen by 100 ppm since we've been burning fossil fuels.

That would be 100 ppmv. Correlation is not causation. Whether the increase is due to the use of fossil fuels is a point of contention. For instance, ocean outgassing is the prime source of CO2. Solar cycles 22 and 23 were the most active cycles in the last 1000 years. This in conjunction with a warming phase of the PDO and ENSO was likely the cause of the observed atmospheric warming. Assuming there has been warming and even that is in dispute, but I won't go into that.

The discussion about rising CO2 levels always seems to include the assumption that current levels or lower are normal and prime levels. This is untrue. Currently levels, even after the small increase, are at historic lows for the planet.

you cant dispute the fact that polar ice and glaciers are melting.

Well yeah I can dispute that as well. Glaciers have been in retreat since the end of the little ice age. The extreme arctic melt that happened in '07 was caused by wind not warming. The ice is recovering. There was also some faulty equipment that gave open water readings where there was actually ice.

Both Greenland ice and Antarctic ice are getting thicker. The only warming that was seen in Antarctica was on the western peninsula and this was probably due to the warming oceans around it. The glacier that recently shattered in that area sits in a horseshoe shaped bay. It can't calve the way glaciers do. The build up of pressure behind it caused it to shatter like glass relieving the pressure. No warming needed.

you cant dispute the fact that weather patterns are being disrupted.

Are they? What exactly is "normal" weather? You predispose a stability that has never existed.

you cant dispute the fact that the people with the most motive to deny global warming are the world's prime deniers of global warming.

I dispute your assumption as to who "those people" are. Besides, no one "denies" global warming, only the extent, the cause and the duration.

you cant dispute the fact that israel must acquire high ground to escape sea level rise before its american protector expires from oil shortages.

With solar cycle 24 falling below even the Dalton minimum levels and both the PDO and ENSO now in cooling phases it is unlikely that oceans will see an extreme rise.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   17:25:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

no one "denies" global warming

good enough.

you must be "no one".

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   17:31:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Both Greenland ice and Antarctic ice are getting thicker.

Oh c'mon now .... you meant to say the land mass supporting olde ice flows is becoming apparent while the oceans are rising. Those areas have "thicker" land masses for sure now that the ice flows are melting.

“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”

buckeroo  posted on  2009-10-11   17:34:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

if a gas is a greenhouse gas, and the level of that gas increases in the atmosphere, the atmosphere will get warmer.

that's physics.

LOL no it isn't. There is a limit. IR absorption is the main factor. Photons etc. I can't explain it because I glass over when my scientist friends start throwing formulas around. The bottom line is that CO2 can only influence warming to a certain extent and no more. Increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 have no effect beyond that point. Something about the atmosphere reaching saturation levels.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   17:36:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

you must be "no one".

Weak. Global warming has to be global and there was never any warming in the southern hemisphere and only a small rise in the northern hemisphere that didn't even reach the levels of the medieval warm period also known as climate optimum.

See Buck, this is why I won't debate people like this.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   17:37:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

maybe there's something working here that no one understands yet.

that's possible.

but until there's some evidence of cooling that cant be explained, we have to go with the physical processes that are understood, and one of those processes is the role of greenhouses gases in atmospheres.

co2 is a greenhouse gas, the concentration has increased from 280 ppm to over 380 ppm... and so we have to assume that co2 is causing some of the observed warming.

otherwise, we have to assume that a law of physics has been repealed.

that's just how it is.

as far as the thickness of ice in greenland and anarctica, it's a fact that warmer air can hold more moisture, which would lead to more snowfall as the warmer air masses cool over the ice fields.

and that, too, is just how it is...

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   17:39:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You can dispel all his grammatical errors all you want. After-all we not performing a doctoral thesis on a chit-chat channel are we? I thought we were examining ideas and concepts that might lead to new and invigorated ideas about the world around us.

“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”

buckeroo  posted on  2009-10-11   17:41:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

the basic fact is this: co2 is a greenhouse gas, the concentration has increased from 280 to over 380 ppm since we've been burning fossil fuels.

the present rate of accumulation is nearly 2 ppm per year.

if you feel qualified to repeal physical laws, fine.

in the meantime, you might look into global dimming, discovered by an israeli scientist, which accounts for maybe 2 degrees of cooling... which is still apparently not enough to negate the effects of the co2.

i guess we can only wonder how this guy's findings played into israeli participation in the 9/11 project.

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   17:46:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

so... if we got 2 degrees of cooling from global dimming, and we burn up the rest of the oil and coal in the next hundred years ---adding another 100 ppm of co2--- then we run out of fossil fuels and smog that shade the planet, and the atmospheric lifetime of co2 is a couple hundred years...

then what?

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   17:52:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

otherwise, we have to assume that a law of physics has been repealed.

But that is exactly the problem. Those proposing the AGW hypothesis have not taken into account the CO2 physics that were well known since the late 1800s. They threw them out without showing them to be wrong. That is not science.

as far as the thickness of ice in greenland and anarctica, it's a fact that warmer air can hold more moisture, which would lead to more snowfall as the warmer air masses cool over the ice fields.

Then it should have been really thick during the medieval warm period but it wasn't. There is a reason the Vikings named it Greenland.

You've bought into the propaganda without really understanding what is going on behind the scenes. You seem to know enough to recognize the conspiracy but have no clue how AGW and the green movement in general play their part.

The Pew Charitable Trusts

Enron: The Godfather of Kyoto

Global Warming: How It All Began

And here is a quote from a friend of mine that explains it very well:

The supply regulation game is at least as old as the Dutch East India Company's manipulation of coffee prices by controlling access to the plants. Understanding that sorry history of economic tyranny by European corporate royalty, the founders of this nation tried to design a limited government, one that didn't have the power to control private property or have control of resources. Control of access to resources is too much temptation for the wealthy to purchase corrupt influence that depresses everybody else. They Founders failed.

The key to cracking the Constitutional system was international law, a loophole in Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution, governing the adoption of treaties and the scope of their powers (IMO the rat Patrick Henry and others smelled only too clearly; if you want a good chuckle read Hamilton's defense of the manner of treaty ratification in Federalist #75). To implement the plan European investors needed a foothold in the US before they could get into the market. Until the Civil War, corporations were haltered in the US because they were not allowed to own land and were not protected under the Constitution in a manner co-equal to citizens. After the Civil War the US was deeply in debt to that very European investor class. The 14th Amendment changed that balance of power between the individual and corporate. Once the appropriate Supreme Court cases were in place interpreting persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as including corporate persons, corporations then derived equal protection under the laws and could own property, the investment floodgates opened, and that not only created an American industrial colossus, it produced an American investor class owning enormously influential private tax-exempt foundations.

So it isn't exactly by coincidence that it is those same colossal foundations that are making all those "charitable" donations to those icky Greens. The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell. You do see a pattern, don't you?

These are more than investors in energy, their assets include timber, mining, banking, food production… They aren't fools. They use the same simple and ancient recipe as did their European forbears by which to manufacture a predictable return: Kill the competition with regulations, create a shortage, and cash in. It's become so common there is even an excellent book out on the topic that I suggest you read, .

It's a simple process that has accelerated over the last five decades.

1. Foist the necessary treaty law via (primarily American) NGOs at UN environmental agencies (largely funded by the US government).>br> 2. Get the implementing legislation through Congress.
3. Use lawsuits by those same NGOs in federal courts to alter the meaning of the law.
4. Overwhelm the agencies with graduates brainwashed by professors who subsist of government and foundation grants.
5. Establish the regulatory power on the local level to control the decision-making with the cheapest politicians money can buy.

It's a vertically integrated racketeering system that extends over the entire planet. American investors in multinational operations are perfectly happy taking a hit on US operations destroying domestic production because their investments abroad get the business. They either convert domestic resource land to real estate or mothball it under tax exempt conservancies, Federal monuments, and such.

It's been done in industry after industry: timber, energy, mining, beef, fish, agriculture, real estate development, soon water… ALL taking advantage of economies of scale in environmental compliance and sometimes selective enforcement. Tax-exempt foundations buy the research "data" they need, fund a few ideological groups trained by the same professorate that lives off their grant money, and not a word need be breathed to the companies in which they are invested. Their pet executives wail about the regulations and scream how stupid and counterproductive they are, just like you do. It makes great theater. There is virtually no way of getting caught.

I recommend reading the whole thing.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   17:56:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

please explain how an increased concentration of co2, a warming gas, cannot warm the planet.

please explain what's gonna happen once we run out of fossil fuels after depositing another 100 ppm in the atmosphere, and the co2 persists for another couple hundred years... without the smog and shade produced by burning fossil fuels.

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   18:00:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

so... if we got 2 degrees of cooling from global dimming, and we burn up the rest of the oil and coal in the next hundred years ---adding another 100 ppm of co2--- then we run out of fossil fuels and smog that shade the planet, and the atmospheric lifetime of co2 is a couple hundred years...

then what?

Sigh. First it is not 100 ppm, it is 100 ppmv. There is a difference.

It is not about global dimming. It has to do with magnetic fields, solar winds, cosmic winds and planetary positions. Cosmic winds have a huge effect on cloud formation. There has been a marked decrease in solar magnetic fields. This has cause the cosmic winds to be strongest since measurements began. This has a direct effect on cloud formation. Cosmic winds produce clouds.

The atmospheric lifetime is nowhere near a couple hundred years. And we are nowhere near running out of fossil fuels. That said, I'm sure technology will find a solution without global regulations and the one world government AGW intends on bringing about.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   18:03:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

seems to me that we're headed for another 4 degrees C increase in temps once we deposit the rest of the co2 that's locked up in the remaining fossil fuels, and the air clears once we quit burning the stuff.

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   18:04:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

please explain how an increased concentration of co2, a warming gas, cannot warm the planet.

As I said before it has to do with infrared obsorption, photons and atmospheric saturation. You'd have to have one of the scientists I talk to explain it. The chemical formulas are waaaayyy over my head. Bottom line is that it can only effect warming to a point. Beyond that point more CO2 has no effect, saturation.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   18:06:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

seems to me that we're headed for another 4 degrees C increase in temps once we deposit the rest of the co2 that's locked up in the remaining fossil fuels, and the air clears once we quit burning the stuff.

I can't help it if you don't understand the science.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   18:07:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Wide Spread and Complex Climatic Changes Outlined in New UNEP Project Atmospheric Brown Cloud Report

ABCs shield the surface from sunlight by reflecting solar radiation back to space and by absorbing heat in the atmosphere.

These two dimming phenomena can act to artificially cool the Earth's surface especially during dry seasons. The pollution can also be transported around the world via winds in the upper troposphere (above 5 km in altitude).

As a result global temperature rises—linked with greenhouse gas emissions—may currently be between 20 per cent and 80 per cent less as a result of brown clouds around the world says the report.

If brown clouds were eliminated overnight, this could trigger a rapid global temperature rise of as much as to 2 degrees C.

*shrug*

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   18:08:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

if the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a sensible number to choose, because it captures the behavior of the majority of the carbon.

A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be ‘‘300 years, plus 25% that lasts forever.’’

Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   18:10:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

would you like to speculate as to how that israeli scientist's discovery of global dimming might have played into israel's participation in the 9/11 operation?

would you like to comment on bibi's opinion that the 9/11 operation was "very good"?

would you like to comment on the logic of PNAC's saying they needed "a new pearl harbor" to get their land and oil acquisition project started?

...especially in view of israel's need to grab high ground before its american protector goes tits up from oil shortages?

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   18:19:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

that we're headed for another 4 degrees C increase in temps once we deposit the rest of the co2 that's locked up in the remaining fossil fuels, and the air clears once we quit burning the stuff.

Physics isn't driven by "seems to me."

But perhaps you can give us the run down on the science behind that. (Without googling an article, of course.)

randge  posted on  2009-10-11   18:21:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

the physics will be driven by the fact that we've got enough fossil fuel left to deposit another 100 ppm of co2 into the atmosphere, at which time we will run out of the stuff, the air will clear, and the full effect of the co2 will become apparent.

if the methane gets loose in the resultant warming... then what?

. well, that's pretty easy to figure out: the world will warm up enough that the oceans will become stagnant algae stews, which will then be shoved underground by tectonics, then, after a few billion years, we will have a fresh supply of oil.

good deal.

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   18:27:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Well, thanks for clearing that all up for me and proving that anyone can post on these forums.

randge  posted on  2009-10-11   18:30:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

The previous paragraphs are about how much human induced CO2 still is in the atmosphere. That is about the origin and fate of individual CO2 molecules, which atmospheric lifetime is governed by the seasonal turnover (back and forth flows) of about 150 GtC in/out the atmosphere from/to oceans and vegetation, and has nothing to do with the fate of the extra amount of CO2 (as mass) that humans emit, neither with the increase of total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as result of that. The latter is governed by the net amounts which year by year are incorporated into oceans and vegetation. That is only 1-7 GtC/year (variable due to temperature variability) or in average about 55% of the emissions. The half life time of this extra CO2 (as mass) is much longer than the half life time of an individual CO2 molecule: around 40 years [20]. Thus if we should stop all CO2 emissions today, then the increase of 100 ppmv since the start of the industrial revolution would be reduced to 50 ppmv after some 40 years, further to 25 ppmv after 80 years and 12.5 ppmv after 120 years...

The IPCC comes with much longer half life times, according to the Bern model. This is a combination of relative fast (upper oceans), slower (deep oceans) and very slow (rock weathering) sinks for the extra CO2. They assume that the first, relative fast, sink of CO2 will reduce in capacity over the years. Some media talk about hundreds to thousands of years that the extra CO2 will be in the atmosphere. That is true for the last part of the curve, as the smaller amounts of CO2 are getting slower and slower into the sinks. But the bulk (87.5 %) of the extra CO2 will disappear within 120 years.

From several discussions, I know that it is quite difficult to understand the two different mechanisms which govern the fate of human CO2 in the atmosphere: the fate of individual molecules, governed by exchange rates (turnover) and the fate of an increase in total CO2, governed by absorption rates (sink capacity). Here I try to give an example of how to interprete the difference:

Let us say that you start the day in your shop with € 1000.00 in your cash register, all 1000 euro is in 1 euro pieces, all stamped in France. During the day, you have about € 200.00 expenses from goods delivery and you receive € 192.00 back from sales. At the end of the day, you have € 992.00 in your cash register, not only with French euro's anymore, but part of them are now stamped in Germany, Belgium, Spain,...

Next day, you add some € 16.00 from your own personal money, only euro's stamped in The Netherlands, to the cash register to start a fresh day with € 1008.00. During that day the same happens as in the previous day: € 200.00 expenses, € 192.00 income. Thus the day ends with € 1000.00 in your cash register, with now an increase of Netherlands euro's (but less than what you have added). Next day, you add € 16.00, again in Netherlands euro's and end the day with € 1008.00. You can repeat that for a few weeks, until you run out of personal money... Over several weeks, you will see that the number of euro's from The Netherlands slowly increases in ratio, but that the increase of the total amount in the cash register is only 50% of what you add on a daily base. That means that you have a problem: your expenses are larger than your income. That also means that despite the huge daily exchanges (which result in a rapid reduction of Netherlands euro's), that has no influence at all on the total amount of money you have at the end of the day, only what you have added yourself and the (negative) difference of the total balance counts. In this case there is no (net) addition of money from your daily bussiness, only a daily loss.

The difference between the two half life times of CO2 is comparable to at one side the fate of the number of Netherlands euro's in the cash register at the end of each day (which depends of the amounts which were added and exchanged that day and the composition of the exchanges), while on the other side, the second half time only depends of the total sum of euro's that is added and what rests from all tarnsactions at the end of the day. That is independent of the height of each individual transaction or the number of transactions, or the composition of the transactions: the total loss/gain at the end of the day is what you have earned or lost that day... In this case, there is a continuous loss of CO2 added by humans, which means that all natural flows of CO2 in/out the atmosphere together, over a full year, gives zero net addition to the atmosphere: nature acts as a sink for human CO2...

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   18:31:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

100 ppm of co2

Sigh. 100 ppmv. Don't forget the V. it is important!

There is a big difference between 100 parts per million and 100 parts per million by volume.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   18:32:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

readers are probably noticing by now that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of global dimming and its role in israel's decision to mount the 9/11 operation.

why is that?

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   18:34:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Results 1 - 10 of about 8,800 for "global dimming" israel.

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   18:36:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Latest Solar Differential Rotation Information.

Sunspot cycles and supercycles and their tentative causes.

Sunspots: The Gleissberg cycle.

Sadly Timo has passed of cancer and we will have to rely on others to finish he work.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   18:37:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

readers are probably noticing by now that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of global dimming and its role in israel's decision to mount the 9/11 operation.

why is that?

LOL readers have noticed no such thing. I'm too well known for that.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   18:38:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

i have to admit: shade is a difficult concept to grasp.

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   18:39:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

i have to admit: shade is a difficult concept to grasp.

Sigh. Ignoring completely my comments on cosmic radiation and cloud formation. That's ok. You are set in your beliefs and have no interest in looking at the facts. You won't read my links either will you?

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   18:49:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Results 1 - 10 of about 8,800 for "global dimming" israel.

You google, I talk to PhDs. Hmmm.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   18:50:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Results 1 - 10 of about 101,000 for "global dimming" OR "atmospheric brown clouds"

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   18:56:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I talk to PhDs.

OK, I am back, exactly what did I miss?

“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”

buckeroo  posted on  2009-10-11   19:07:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

i'll run through this one more time...

co2 is a greenhouse gas.

burning fossil fuels deposits co2 in the atmosphere: for instance, burning one gallon of gas produces about 19 pounds of co2.

we deposit something like 30 gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere every year.

okay, that's the warming side.

.

then we have the smog ---aka "atmospheric brown clouds" that shade the planet and produce global dimming that may cause 2 degrees C of cooling... and despite that shade, we're still warming up.

once we run out of fossil fuels ---and we have enough fuel left to produce at least another 100 ppm of co2--- the particulates that shade the planet will settle out, leaving us at the mercy of the full effect of the co2, and the co2 will persist in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

so we're cruising along now in a cross-controlled environment, but once we run out of gas, the co2 will assert itself.

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   19:09:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

exactly what did I miss?

Pant loads.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   19:11:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

we deposit something like 30 gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere every year.

Quoting from the link I gave you:

The amount of CO2 emitted by humans nowadays is about 7 GtC/yr (CO2 counted as carbon). The increase in the atmosphere is about 4 GtC/yr.

The natural seasonal exchange between vegetation and oceans at one side and the atmosphere at the other side is estimated at about 150 GtC/yr. But that is not of interest for what the change is over a year, as most of the natural releases are absorbed within the same year. The difference after a year is not more than +/- 2 GtC, mainly caused by temperature changes (El Niño, Pinatubo eruption). Thus the natural variations over a year are smaller than the emissions. No matter how high the natural seasonal turnover might be, in all years over the previous near 50 years, the natural CO2 sinks were larger than the natural CO2 sources... Thus it is impossible that natural sources were responsible for (a substantial part of) the increase of CO2 in the past 50 years. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphereof about 60 ppmv (122 GtC) in the past near 50 years is about 60% of the increase since the start of the industrial revolution. This is based on accurate measurements at Mauna Loa and a lot of other places. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in pre-industrial times is based on ice cores, which of course are less certain and more smoothed, but there are other proxies with a better resolution in time, which point to lower CO2 levels prior to the emissions.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   19:17:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

then we have the smog ---aka "atmospheric brown clouds" that shade the planet and produce global dimming that may cause 2 degrees C of cooling... and despite that shade, we're still warming up.

That was the explanation for the cooling of the 70s. It is not current science nor reality. That cooling was due to PDO and ENSO being in cooling phases. And yes we warmed slightly during solar cycles 22 and 23 which were not only record setting cycles but coincided with PDO and ENSO being in warming phases. That is not anthropogenic by any stretch.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   19:20:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The amount of CO2 emitted by humans nowadays is about 7 GtC/yr (CO2 counted as carbon). The increase in the atmosphere is about 4 GtC/yr.

carbon is not co2.

co2 is not carbon.

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   19:21:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   19:28:57 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

...cooling of the 70s. It is not current science nor reality. That cooling was due to PDO and ENSO being in cooling phases.

i just posted over a hundred thousand references to global dimming and atmospheric brown clouds.

that's a lot of smoke... dont you spose there's some fire there somewhere?

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   19:32:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

i just posted over a hundred thousand references to global dimming and atmospheric brown clouds.

LOL you can google with the best of them.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   20:35:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]