See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: UNH Scientist Helps Show Collapse of Antarctic Ice Shelf is “Unprecedented” ENVIRONMENTAL ALERT**
Source:
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
URL Source: http://www.unh.edu/news/news_releases/2005/august/ds_050802ice.html
Published: Aug 3, 2005
Author: David Sims, UNH Science dept.
Post Date: 2005-08-14 12:09:24 by siagiah
Keywords: “Unprecedented”, ENVIRONMENTAL, Scientist
Views: 615
Comments: 57
UNH Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space UNH Scientist Helps Show Collapse of Antarctic Ice Shelf is “Unprecedented” Contact: David Sims mailto:david.sims@unh.edu 603-862-5369 Science Writer Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space Aug. 3, 2005 DURHAM, N.H. -- A paper to be published in the August 4 issue of the journal Nature asserts that the recent collapse of the Larsen B Ice Shelf in the Weddell Sea of Antarctica is “unprecedented” in recent times. The ice shelf – the third largest in the Antarctic – has undergone catastrophic decay in recent years. A total of about 3, 250 square kilometers of the shelf area disintegrated in a five-day period in the winter of 2002. Over the last five years the ice mass has lost some 5,700 square kilometers and is currently 40 percent the size it was previously when stable. Using marine sediment cores from the ocean floor formerly covered by the ice shelf, scientists found no evidence for “episodes of open marine conditions” indicating that the ice shelf has been in existence for last 8,000 years – a period of time referred to as the Holocene Epoch. “Our unique observation, that for the first time the Larsen B is involved in collapse, indicates that the current warming trend in the NW Weddell Sea has exceeded past warm episodes in its magnitude,” states the paper, whose lead author is Eugene Domack of Hamilton College. University of New Hampshire scientist Michael Prentice, one of the article’s authors, is an expert in the paleoceanographic technique used to extract past ocean properties from the seafloor sediment. The technique involves analyzing the chemical composition of the remains of tiny, one-celled animals called Foraminifera or “forams.” The technique, according to Prentice, is technically challenging in polar regions but highly accurate at giving a clear picture of past water temperatures and salinity levels. Says Prentice, “Some of the forams in the cores lived and died in the surface water adjacent to the ice shelf before settling to the seafloor to be incorporated into the sediment that we recovered. A pristine record of ocean surface water can be had from analyzing them.” Prentice calls forams the “workhorse” in the field of paleoclimatology. The method involves dissolving the carbonate shells of the tiny forams and, using a mass spectrometer, measuring the oxygen isotopes contained within the carbon dioxide gas that comes from the shells. Because the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the shells is controlled by the water conditions at the time the forams were living, forams from layers of accumulating sediment give a clear record of water conditions from the present back deep into the past. “We got a pretty good fix on what the longer history of ice shelf extent and melting has been,” Prentice says. This fix, in turn, gives scientists a context for judging the significance of the current collapse. Prentice adds, “These data are the first good isotopic record adjacent to a crumbling ice shelf.” And that isotope record, he says, suggests that there has been a progressive slow melting/thinning of the ice shelf over the last 8,000 years. “This is due in part to climate warming. But melting over the last 8,000 years was never close to what it is today, and so the current collapse and glacier surge that it has unleashed are unprecedented.” He adds, “The Larsen B is considered a harbinger for the massive ice shelves to its south, which, for now, dam the large majority of the world’s ice. “ UNH credentials: related links: http://www.eos.sr.unh.edu/ The Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space (EOS) at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) is a multidisciplinary scientific research institute dedicated to understanding the integrated behavior of the Earth and its surrounding universe. Established in 1985, the Institute has become a world leader in the fields of space science, terrestrial ecosystems, oceanography, atmospheric science and global climate change. About the Institute . . . UNH is a "high-impact university" (in the company of Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton). The Institute for Scientific Information ranks UNH third in geoscience research citations and fourth in environmental science citations. EOS is the University of New Hampshire's largest research enterprise, receiving more than $30 million each year in external research support. UNH is a world leader in Gamma-Ray telescopes. EOS was the American center for development of the Compton Telescope (COMPTEL) on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, one of NASA's "great observatories." UNH Receives $38 Million From NASA for Sun-Earth Mission http://www.eos.sr.unh.edu/About/News/Articles?NEWS_ID=454 DURHAM, N.H. – The University of New Hampshire has received the largest, single research award in the history of the institution – $38 million from NASA to build instruments for the space agency’s Magnetospheric MultiScale (MMS) mission. As part of an international team from 12 institutes, space scientists at UNH’s Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space (EOS) will construct instruments for MMS’ four identical solar-terrestrial probes, which will study little understood, fundamental processes in the Earth’s magnetosphere -- the magnetic shield that protects the Earth from solar and cosmic radiation. Over the next eight years, UNH scientists, engineers, graduate and undergraduate students will help construct two Electron Drift Instruments, (EDI) for each of the four spacecraft. EDI is designed to measure electric fields and electron drifts using a controlled beam of electrons. In addition, UNH will construct the central electronic controls for all the instruments being built to measure the spectrum of electromagnetic fields around the spacecraft. This “FIELDS” instrument suite will be comprised of six sensors per spacecraft. “The expertise of the UNH Space Science Center in space instrumentation was critical to forming our excellent international FIELDS team on MMS, which will contribute many of the new observations for this exciting mission,” says physics professor Roy Torbert, director of the EOS Space Science Center and UNH’s principal investigator for the mission. James L. Burch of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, is leading construction of the mission’s $140 million instrument suite. The MMS spacecraft are slated to launch aboard an 86-foot, 225,000-pound Delta II rocket in July 2013. The mission is designed to explore the plasma processes that govern the interaction of the Earth’s magnetic field with the highly charged solar wind. Plasma is a highly ionized gas sometimes described as the “fourth state of matter.” Plasmas occupy 99 percent of the observable universe. However, only in the Earth’s magnetosphere – a multilayered, comet-shaped magnetic shield that, in its tail, extends as far as 60,000 kilometers away – are these important plasma processes readily accessible for sustained study through in situ measurements. One of those processes is magnetic reconnection, in which magnetic fields reconfigure themselves and release energy. Reconnection, a main focus of the MMS mission, is the basic mechanism by which energy from the sun and the solar wind is transferred into the Earth’s magnetospheric system. Reconnection is widely believed to play a crucial role in space and astrophysical phenomena such as magnetospheric substorms and solar flares. It is a crucial process to understand in order to be able to predict “space weather” conditions. For example, a blast of this energy from substorms or solar flares can affect satellites, Earth-based instruments and power grids, shower astronauts and aircraft flying over the Earth’s poles with deadly radiation, and light up the sky with aurora. “In a sense, MMS represents a culmination of the extensive work done in space science at the university,” Torbert says. “It is based on previous successful NASA and European Space Agency missions in which UNH has participated, such as the CLUSTER, SOHO, ACE, WIND, and POLAR satellites, as well as our theoretical and numerical simulation work, where the process of reconnection has been observed and simulated, but never studied as rigorously as will be done on MMS.” Other plasma processes that MMS will study include charged particle acceleration, and turbulence in key boundary regions of the Earth’s magnetosphere. Along with magnetic reconnection, these processes control the flow of energy, mass, and momentum within and across plasma boundaries, occur throughout the universe, and are fundamental to our understanding of astrophysical and solar system plasmas. Despite four decades of study, beginning with the early Sputnik and Explorer spacecraft, much about the operation of these processes remains unknown or poorly understood. MMS and its multiple spacecraft approach will provide a much more detailed picture of the region. Each of the four satellites, flying together as a tightly coordinated fleet through the magnetosphere, will carry identical instruments and will thus be able to gather a multi-dimensional view of these processes that have eluded previous studies. Along with UNH, co-investigators include the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, the Austrian Academy of Sciences, the French Center for Terrestrial and Planetary Environments, the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, the Technical University of Braunschweig, the University of California at Los Angeles, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and the University of Iowa. Scientists Gather at UNH to Discuss Initial Findings From Massive 2004 Air Quality Study DURHAM, N.H. -- Last year at this time, seacoast New Hampshire was the hub of an unprecedented atmospheric science field campaign involving hundreds of scientists from around the world. Beginning Tuesday, August 9 at the University of New Hampshire, preliminary data from the International Consortium for Atmospheric Research on Transport and Transformation (ICARTT) will be shared for the first time since the six-week-long field experiment drew to a close in mid-August 2004. “This was a really complex experiment, with so many people and so much logistical integration that it took a year for people to pull their data together,” says UNH atmospheric chemist Robert Talbot, director of AIRMAP– a joint National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/UNH program aimed at understanding climate variability and the source of persistent air pollutants in New England. AIRMAP’s four regional state-of-the-art atmospheric observatories served as the foundation for the field experiment. U.S. Senator Judd Gregg helped secure funding for the AIRMAP program and facilitated NOAA's role in ICARTT. Adds Talbot, “This campaign was the first time we’ve been able to make a concerted effort, using airplanes, a ship, satellites, and balloons, to better understand regional air quality, intercontinental transport of polluted air masses, the role that nighttime chemistry plays, and the effects of pollutants on atmospheric cooling and warming. So, there should be some important information coming out of this meeting.” For example, there will be insights into the possible role that sea-borne compounds called halogens, like chlorine or iodine, play in creating or destroying ground-based ozone levels. When polluted continental air meets up with halogen-rich coastal marine air, the chemistry gets complicated and is not well understood. A better understanding is important if scientists are to calculate the global ozone budget much like they are trying to ascertain the world’s carbon budget vis-à-vis climate change and global warming. Tropospheric ozone (as opposed to the stratospheric variety that helps protect the Earth from ultraviolet radiation) is generally considered to be a pollutant and can cause respiratory problems and damage plants. At the same time, this ozone plays a dual role in helping to cleanse the Earth’s atmosphere, and so keeping a healthy balance of the compound is important in the overall, global state of our atmosphere. At the workshop, ICARTT scientists will also for the first time be able to compare notes on what was discovered about the effect aerosols or particulate matter have on the cooling or warming of air masses. The “radiative” properties of these particles play a critical role in regional and hemispheric temperatures. Additional insights, based on what was observed last summer, will be provided into how well current forecast models are able to simulate the chemistry and transport of pollutants. Talbot notes also that, like the university’s prominent role in ICARTT itself, UNH’s hosting of this meeting is a feather in its cap because scientific gatherings of this size and importance are generally reserved for special sessions of the American Geophysical Union meetings or the like. This will be the first meeting of some of the finest minds in atmospheric chemistry well before next fall’s AGU meeting in San Francisco. And, says Talbot, “Until you hear what everybody’s found it’s really hard to develop any answers, until you can see how the whole thing fits together it’s hard to pull out the real simplified gems.” Editors: The ICARTT meeting will be held in the Granite State Room of the Memorial Union Building on the Durham campus beginning Tuesday, August 9, and running through Friday morning on August 12. Scientists will be available for reporter’s questions Wednesday and Thursday. There will be nearly 100 posters graphically displaying the ICARTT data. By David Sims Science Writer Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space (603) 862-5369 david.sims@unh.edu Sia's comments: UNH's science department is not a "lightweight" source. We'd do well to HEED the alerts our nation's scientists are sending us about what we are doing to the environment with our pollution. Our air quality, our water safety, and our very LIVES can depend on it. If the Artic shelf melts down, we are SCREWED whether we realize it or not. The flood of fresh water into the salty oceans will kill billions of sea creatures essential to Earth's ecology... nevermind flooding our land masses, warming the globe even MORE, and most likely, triggering an ice age. All these things are NORMAL occurences to happen to the earth and all have happened before but NOT due to human pollution and not over a period of 150 years of "triggers" due to POLLUTION. We won't LIKE Mother nature if we don't start listening.
http://www.eos.sr.unh.edu/About/News/Articles?NEWS_ID=476
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: siagiah (#0)
People are concerned about rising gasoline prices ,but we should be looking for alternative fuels instead of more sources of OIL which is exacerbating the global warming problem "A top NASA climate expert who twice briefed Dick Cheney on global warming planned to criticize the administration's approach to the issue in a lecture at the University of Iowa on Tuesday night and say that a senior administration official told him last year not to discuss dangerous consequences of rising temperatures. .The expert, James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, [says] the Bush administration has ignored growing evidence that sea levels could rise significantly unless prompt action is taken to reduce heat-trapping emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes." Hansen says Bush's climate proposals "puts off consideration of binding cuts in such emissions until 2012, was likely to be too little too late."
What if GM shells out money for a partisan think tank to hire a couple of unemployable professors to generate a report saying this isn't true? Rush could then spew the results on the radio to the bots could repeat them on FR and LP. Wouldn't this make the problem go away?
You know, I've heard the tales of doomsters my whole freakin' life. "There's going to be another ice age", "There's going to be a runaway greenhouse and we'll die of the heat!", "Chernobyl is going to poison the Earth and we'll all die of cancer", "We're going to run out of all fossil fuels by 1985", "AIDS is going to kill every sexually active person on the planet", woe, woe, woe, doom, doom, doom, we're all gonna die.... At this point these professors can take their research and jam it sideways where the sun doesn't shine. If they are saying the ice caps are melting that probably means they're thicker than ever. They're a bunch of liars and scammers and I'll never listen to their garbage again for as long as I live. I'd rather drown under a ocean risen five hundred feet than kick myself yet again for being fooled yet one more time by these lying scumbags.
“This is due in part to climate warming. But melting over the last 8,000 years was never close to what it is today, and so the current collapse and glacier surge that it has unleashed are unprecedented.”
#2. To: siagiah (#0)
#3. To: Steppenwolf (#1)
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#4. To: avian virus (#2)
Yes it would, we would be safe then. All I know is I hope they hurry up with their kangaroo think tank so I can breath a sigh of relief.
Rush could then spew the results on the radio to the bots could repeat them on FR and LP. Wouldn't this make the problem go away?
Are we but an organic computer influenced by our environment to desire one set of neuropeptides over another, equating into competition for self worth on a primitive level never realized by the shallow and self empowering.
#5. To: avian virus (#2)
Then it would have the exact same lack of credibility that those do who claim that human activity is the cause of global warming.
What if GM shells out money for a partisan think tank to hire a couple of unemployable professors to generate a report saying this isn't true?
- "Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie
#6. To: Elliott Jackalope (#3)
The thing to note is that they always follow up with their political agenda of legislation that they'd like to pass that would force other people to live they way they think we all ought to, according to their personal value system. It's all about regulation, control and the subjugation of liberty. Always.
They're a bunch of liars and scammers and I'll never listen to their garbage again for as long as I live.
- "Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie
#7. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#5)
The idea that human activity has nothing to do with global warming did come out of a GM funded think tank. The Center for Climatological Studies. When they came out with this report back in 1990, Ford pulled out. The resulted in some serious demonization from Rush. Ford's reason for pulling out was that they felt the short term gains of the sham would eventually harm them as more studies came in.
Then it would have the exact same lack of credibility that those do who claim that human activity is the cause of global warming.
#8. To: timetobuildaboat (#4)
Google the three New Yorker articles on this. They came out about last April. They do a really good job of showing what data is available and how it was obtained. They have a really good record of the percent CO2 from ice cores. It goes back about ten thousand years. The articles explain how the mean temperature was obtained for about the past two thousand years. The CO2 level and average mean temperature track almost 100%. You can see the start of the industrial age very clearly. A place where I used to work had a great graph of CO2 levels and temperature for about the past 1000 years. One thing I saw was that the average mean temperature reached a peak in about 1929, when the dust bowel hit. The temperature then came back down for WW I and WW II. It started ramping back up at the end of WW II. It hit the level of the 1929 peak again a couple of years ago. This is when the bad droughts again started up in the west. I don't know if the rise in mean temperature was the cause, but the droughts began as soon as the temperature hit the old 1929 level.
#9. To: siagiah (#0)
I agree they are normal and have occured before and this time there could be man-made changes (although that is far from certain). But even so, why does that matter? I have a book in front of me that I pull off the shelf for times like this. It's by John Gribben called "Forecasts, Famines and Freezes". Among the items on the back cover is Item: we have just lived through the worst winter in a century. Dr. John Gribben predicts that savage winters will continue for the next 30 years. On the front cover is this quote: "Likely to become of classical importance" --The Washington Post
All these things are NORMAL occurences to happen to the earth and all have happened before but NOT due to human pollution and not over a period of 150 years of "triggers" due to POLLUTION.
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
#10. To: avian virus (#8)
Are you talking about continental U.S. or the Northern hemisphere? It's not true for worldwide temperature as this graph shows:A place where I used to work had a great graph of CO2 levels and temperature for about the past 1000 years. One thing I saw was that the average mean temperature reached a peak in about 1929, when the dust bowel hit.
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
#11. To: avian virus (#8)
Ohhh!, I'm with you all the way on this. They have been taking CO2 readings from: (Hell, I'll just copy and post) CO2 has gone from 315 to 375 in less than 50 years and if that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.... we are fucked IMHO....o.k. on to the data: ******************************************************************* *** Atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppmv) derived from in situ *** *** air samples collected at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii *** *** *** *** Source: C.D. Keeling *** *** T.P. Whorf, and the Carbon Dioxide Research Group *** *** Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) *** *** University of California *** *** La Jolla, California USA 92093-0444 *** *** *** *** June 2004 *** *** *** ******************************************************************* Year Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual Annual-Fit 1958 -99.99 -99.99 315.71 317.45 317.50 -99.99 315.86 314.93 313.19 -99.99 313.34 314.67 -99.99 -99.99 1959 315.58 316.47 316.65 317.71 318.29 318.16 316.55 314.80 313.84 313.34 314.81 315.59 315.98 316.00 1960 316.43 316.97 317.58 319.03 320.03 319.59 318.18 315.91 314.16 313.83 315.00 316.19 316.91 316.91 1961 316.89 317.70 318.54 319.48 320.58 319.78 318.58 316.79 314.99 315.31 316.10 317.01 317.65 317.63 1962 317.94 318.56 319.69 320.58 321.01 320.61 319.61 317.40 316.26 315.42 316.69 317.69 318.45 318.46 1963 318.74 319.08 319.86 321.39 322.24 321.47 319.74 317.77 316.21 315.99 317.07 318.36 318.99 319.02 1964 319.57 -99.99 -99.99 -99.99 322.23 321.89 320.44 318.70 316.70 316.87 317.68 318.71 -99.99 319.52 1965 319.44 320.44 320.89 322.13 322.16 321.87 321.21 318.87 317.81 317.30 318.87 319.42 320.03 320.09 1966 320.62 321.59 322.39 323.70 324.07 323.75 322.40 320.37 318.64 318.10 319.79 321.03 321.37 321.34 1967 322.33 322.50 323.04 324.42 325.00 324.09 322.55 320.92 319.26 319.39 320.72 321.96 322.18 322.13 1968 322.57 323.15 323.89 325.02 325.57 325.36 324.14 322.11 320.33 320.25 321.32 322.90 323.05 323.11 1969 324.00 324.42 325.64 326.66 327.38 326.70 325.89 323.67 322.38 321.78 322.85 324.12 324.62 324.60 1970 325.06 325.98 326.93 328.13 328.07 327.66 326.35 324.69 323.10 323.07 324.01 325.13 325.68 325.65 1971 326.17 326.68 327.18 327.78 328.92 328.57 327.37 325.43 323.36 323.56 324.80 326.01 326.32 326.32 1972 326.77 327.63 327.75 329.72 330.07 329.09 328.05 326.32 324.84 325.20 326.50 327.55 327.46 327.52 1973 328.54 329.56 330.30 331.50 332.48 332.07 330.87 329.31 327.51 327.18 328.16 328.64 329.68 329.61 1974 329.35 330.71 331.48 332.65 333.09 332.25 331.18 329.40 327.44 327.37 328.46 329.58 330.25 330.29 1975 330.40 331.41 332.04 333.31 333.96 333.59 331.91 330.06 328.56 328.34 329.49 330.76 331.15 331.16 1976 331.74 332.56 333.50 334.58 334.87 334.34 333.05 330.94 329.30 328.94 330.31 331.68 332.15 332.18 1977 332.92 333.42 334.70 336.07 336.74 336.27 334.93 332.75 331.58 331.16 332.40 333.85 333.90 333.88 1978 334.97 335.39 336.64 337.76 338.01 337.89 336.54 334.68 332.76 332.54 333.92 334.95 335.50 335.52 1979 336.23 336.76 337.96 338.89 339.47 339.29 337.73 336.09 333.91 333.86 335.29 336.73 336.85 336.89 1980 338.01 338.36 340.08 340.77 341.46 341.17 339.56 337.60 335.88 336.01 337.10 338.21 338.69 338.67 1981 339.23 340.47 341.38 342.51 342.91 342.25 340.49 338.43 336.69 336.85 338.36 339.61 339.93 339.95 1982 340.75 341.61 342.70 343.56 344.13 343.35 342.06 339.82 337.97 337.86 339.26 340.49 341.13 341.09 1983 341.37 342.52 343.10 344.94 345.75 345.32 343.99 342.39 339.86 339.99 341.16 342.99 342.78 342.75 1984 343.70 344.51 345.28 347.08 347.43 346.79 345.40 343.28 341.07 341.35 342.98 344.22 344.42 344.44 1985 344.97 346.00 347.43 348.35 348.93 348.25 346.56 344.69 343.09 342.80 344.24 345.56 345.90 345.86 1986 346.29 346.96 347.86 349.55 350.21 349.54 347.94 345.91 344.86 344.17 345.66 346.90 347.15 347.14 1987 348.02 348.47 349.42 350.99 351.84 351.25 349.52 348.10 346.44 346.36 347.81 348.96 348.93 348.99 1988 350.43 351.72 352.22 353.59 354.22 353.79 352.39 350.44 348.72 348.88 350.07 351.34 351.48 351.44 1989 352.76 353.07 353.68 355.42 355.67 355.13 353.90 351.67 349.80 349.99 351.30 352.53 352.91 352.94 1990 353.66 354.70 355.39 356.20 357.16 356.22 354.82 352.91 350.96 351.18 352.83 354.21 354.19 354.19 1991 354.72 355.75 357.16 358.60 359.34 358.24 356.17 354.03 352.16 352.21 353.75 354.99 355.59 355.62 1992 355.98 356.72 357.81 359.15 359.66 359.25 357.03 355.00 353.01 353.31 354.16 355.40 356.37 356.36 1993 356.70 357.16 358.38 359.46 360.28 359.60 357.57 355.52 353.70 353.98 355.33 356.80 357.04 357.10 1994 358.36 358.91 359.97 361.26 361.68 360.95 359.55 357.49 355.84 355.99 357.58 359.04 358.88 358.86 1995 359.96 361.00 361.64 363.45 363.79 363.26 361.90 359.46 358.06 357.75 359.56 360.70 360.88 360.90 1996 362.05 363.25 364.03 364.72 365.41 364.97 363.65 361.49 359.46 359.60 360.76 362.33 362.64 362.58 1997 363.18 364.00 364.57 366.35 366.79 365.62 364.47 362.51 360.19 360.77 362.43 364.28 363.76 363.84 1998 365.32 366.15 367.31 368.61 369.29 368.87 367.64 365.77 363.90 364.23 365.46 366.97 366.63 366.58 1999 368.15 368.87 369.59 371.14 371.00 370.35 369.27 366.94 364.63 365.12 366.67 368.01 368.31 368.30 2000 369.14 369.46 370.52 371.66 371.82 371.70 370.12 368.12 366.62 366.73 368.29 369.53 369.48 369.47 2001 370.28 371.50 372.12 372.87 374.02 373.30 371.62 369.55 367.96 368.09 369.68 371.24 371.02 371.03 2002 372.43 373.09 373.52 374.86 375.55 375.41 374.02 371.49 370.71 370.25 372.08 373.78 373.10 373.07 2003 374.68 375.63 376.11 377.65 378.35 378.13 376.62 374.50 372.99 373.00 374.35 375.70 375.64 375.61 Monthly values are expressed in parts per million (ppm) and reported in the 2003A SIO manometric mole fraction scale. The monthly values have been adjusted to the 15th of each month. Missing values are denoted by -99.99. The "annual" average is the arithmetic mean of the twelve monthly values. In years with one or two missing monthly values, annual values were calculated by substituting a fit value (4-harmonics with gain factor and spline) for that month and then averaging the twelve monthly values.
Are we but an organic computer influenced by our environment to desire one set of neuropeptides over another, equating into competition for self worth on a primitive level never realized by the shallow and self empowering.
#12. To: avian virus (#8)
Oooops! forgot the ppm (parts per million).
Are we but an organic computer influenced by our environment to desire one set of neuropeptides over another, equating into competition for self worth on a primitive level never realized by the shallow and self empowering.
#13. To: purpleman (#9)
The data we now have on CO2 levels and average mean temperature is pretty good for the last 5000 years. The CO2 level was almost constant until the start of the industrial age. It then took off, as did the average mean temperature. The average mean temerature has dipped a few times in the past 5000 years, e.g., 1400, but it's never been as high as it is now. We are now seeing changes that clearly have not taken place for 8 to 10 thousand years. The melting of the Russian permafrost, the collapse of the ice shelf discussed above and the retreat of the glaciers world wide are these sorts of events. It's also wrong to assume that a cold winter in one place negates the fact that the entire world has warmed up an average of one half of a degree. The model now in use predicts this. It predicts the weird cold winters that the UK is seeing. It predicts that the eastern seaboard will become like the UK and the UK will become like Sweeden. This is in the New Yorker article I referenced above.
I agree they are normal and have occured before and this time there could be man-made changes
#14. To: purpleman (#10)
No, that wouldn't show it. They are using some diffence function to inject noise into the graph. It looks like something from Limbaugh's site. What you need is a straight plot of the actual average mean temperature. You will probably have to pull this from an actual scientific site.
Are you talking about continental U.S. or the Northern hemisphere? It's not true for worldwide temperature as this graph shows:
#15. To: avian virus (#14)
LOL, like I would ever go there! My chart came from a college class site: http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html and they say how they got the chart: o Data was collected from land based stations, from ocean buoys, and from ships. o For each year data has been averaged to come up with a yearly average. o Data is smoothed to accommodate historical changes that skew the data (e.g., weather stations near cities record artificially high temperatures because create what is called an "urban heat island effect.").
It looks like something from Limbaugh's site.
This data set has been created using the following steps:
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
#16. To: purpleman (#15)
Here is one that is closer to what I saw, but it's still not exactly what I was looking at. It shows a peak from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s and this peak again being reached in the late 1980s. What I remember was a peak in the mid 1930s that was crossed again in the mid 1000s. 
#17. To: avian virus (#13)
The actual claim is that the temperature is the highest in the last 1000 years, not 5000. In the case of the 1000 year claim, there were plenty of warmer years in the warm period in medievil times. The only way to get rid of that evidence is to smooth it out the way Mann did. But inconveniently for him there were a few warmer decades in the last thousand years than the 1990's decade. His "hockey stick" chart relies on smoothed, selected temperature proxies before 1900 and then uses ground temperature measurements from then on: apples and oranges.
The CO2 level was almost constant until the start of the industrial age. It then took off, as did the average mean temperature. The average mean temerature has dipped a few times in the past 5000 years, e.g., 1400, but it's never been as high as it is now.
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
#18. To: All (#16)
the mid 1990s.
the mid 1000s
#19. To: purpleman (#15)
But they are not plotting average mean temperature here. They are plotting someting else and it's not clear what it is. They are then fobbing off this cooked data as average mean temperature. You yourself interpret it this way, but the text on the graph says that this is not what is shown on the graph. What is actually shown is murky. This lack of clarity makes it sound like the GM think tank stuff.
#20. To: avian virus (#16)
Well, that doesn't look much different from my chart in #10 except that they added ranges and a moving average which brings out the trend better.
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
#21. To: purpleman (#15)
You do realize that the geological record shows, among other things, that there was once a time where there were no ice caps at all, and that this was long before the first human lit the first campfire. And no, the oceans didn't cover the entire earth like "Waterworld". Look, the reason we're being pummeled with all of this doom nonsense is to soften us up so that we'll accept whatever tax/fee/punishment the globalists decide to impose on the First World in order to drag their living standards down to the Third World. You can bet that every single word in these global warming stories being pushed in the mass media have been carefully crafted and focus group reviewed for maximum emotional manipulation power. They'll use every soft term and weak allegory in the book, and throw in stories of puppies drowning from rising ocean levels. They'll push and they'll push and they'll push until they get whatever big tax break/spending package/new tax they want, and we'll get the bill. You see, it's the glorious new age of public/private partnerships. The private sector gets the profits, and the public gets the bill. This "global warming" thing is just one more sick scam designed by corporate elites to screw the rest of us. That's why the media is pushing it so hard. You think the megacorporations that own the media give two rat butts about "the environment"? If you do, I've got a bridge to sell you....
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#22. To: purpleman (#17)
But I have never seen any support for ths outside of Newsmax and Limbaugh. The only reports of this that I have seen are from the hired think tanks that I mentioned above. I don't think there are any peer reviewed scientific journal articles that come out and say this. By the way, the New Yorker reports did say the temperature is higher now than in the past 5000 years.
In the case of the 1000 year claim, there were plenty of warmer years in the warm period in medievil times.
#23. To: Elliott Jackalope (#21)
It would be nice if we just got some new tax or other. But what they want is a reversal of energy use to cause instant worldwide depression. I currently commute 75 miles each way, if they got their way I would be unemployed.
You see, it's the glorious new age of public/private partnerships. The private sector gets the profits, and the public gets the bill.
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
#24. To: purpleman (#20)
That isn't a moving average, it's a statistical curve fit. The curve you posted appears to the the difference between the average mean temperature and some other value they are not clear about. This gives the much noisier graph that aids them in their argument that things bounce around. Recall that they are not trying to convince scientists, they have no credibility in the scientific world. They are trying to confuse Limbaugh fans. That is the ultimate objective.
added ranges and a moving average which brings out the trend better.
#25. To: Elliott Jackalope (#21)
I think the record shows that the current polar regions wern't at the poles because the earth's axis of rotation was different. This is different from saying there was no polar ice cap. In addition, this was far in the past, millions of years ago, not thousands of years ago and many other conditins were different as well. What I heard was that the expected melting of the ice caps would raise the sea level a couple of meters. Maybe three. Nothing like water world. This would still have a huge effect however.
You do realize that the geological record shows, among other things, that there was once a time where there were no ice caps at all, and that this was long before the first human lit the first campfire. And no, the oceans didn't cover the entire earth like "Waterworld".
#26. To: purpleman (#23)
I think what needs to be done is to develop hybrids or fuel cells or some other alternative. A major effort needs to be made here. Something like the Apollo program. Oil is going to become too expensive anyway and it would be much better if we could cut our ties to the mideast. The lack of pollution would simply be a collateral benefit.
But what they want is a reversal of energy use to cause instant worldwide depression. I currently commute 75 miles each way, if they got their way I would be unemployed.
#27. To: Elliott Jackalope (#21)
I think the push for all the BS like CAFTA, FTAA and open borders are for the exact reasons you think are trumpted up. Look if you are Mega rich, you could give a shit what the peasants are doing until they start to pollute your backyard (the world) then they get busy figuring out how to make us all live an agrarian life and maybe kill off some of us also. These trade deals and the open border are quite effective in moving us in the direction of just subsistence living. They want less consumption, hence less pollution and they will get it come hell or high water. Buying off politicians on CAFTA, ignoring the invasion from the south (actually encouraging it) and various other means to stopping the "useless eaters" from destroying their world.
Look, the reason we're being pummeled with all of this doom nonsense is to soften us up so that we'll accept whatever tax/fee/punishment the globalists decide to impose on the First World in order to drag their living standards down to the Third World. You can bet that every single word in these global warming stories being pushed in the mass media have been carefully crafted and focus group reviewed for maximum emotional manipulation power. They'll use every soft term and weak allegory in the book, and throw in stories of puppies drowning from rising ocean levels. They'll push and they'll push and they'll push until they get whatever big tax break/spending package/new tax they want, and we'll get the bill.
Are we but an organic computer influenced by our environment to desire one set of neuropeptides over another, equating into competition for self worth on a primitive level never realized by the shallow and self empowering.
#28. To: Elliott Jackalope (#21)
If you read some of the serious stuff on this, I think you'll see that nobody thinks we can suddenly get conservation conscious and stop it. We are now past the point of no return. We need to be sensible to keep the process for accerating, but most of the concern is about trying to figure out what is going to happen and what we are going to do about it. Some huge droughts and some very violent weather is expected. Also serious flooding in other areas. Good crop growing regions may dry up in the next thirty years and formerly arid regions my become very wet.
#29. To: avian virus (#28)
Sound like we could be looking at some mass migrations.
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
#30. To: avian virus (#22)
Then the New Yorker is out on a limb. The only way to know that is to use proxies for temperature measurements (e.g. tree ring growth, sediment cores, etc) which are difficult to precisely relate to temperature. The proxy resolution is usually pretty bad (trees have rings each year, but cores generally only yield decade or multi-decade resolution. There's an FTP site with tons of data: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/contributions_by_author/ which has many data sets that contradict the New Yorker. For 5000 years, look for data sets showing proxy measurements for that span such as demenocal2000 (ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/contributions_by_author/demenocal2000/658_sst.txt) showing anomalous warming 1000 years ago, 1300 years ago and about 4000 years ago. For the last 1000 years, there are data sets like briffa1998 which show anomalous years sych as 1026 to 1033, but also quite a bit of anomalous warming since WWII. So, while there is warming over the last century as both of our charts demonstrate, it is not true to state that the 1990's had the warmest years in the last 1000 or 5000, but it is true that the 1990's had the warmest years in the last 200 or so.
By the way, the New Yorker reports did say the temperature is higher now than in the past 5000 years.
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
#31. To: purpleman (#30)
I think Rush just says that they are there. He counts on the fact that nobody is going to wade through the silly mess on that site. If there were actual peer reviewed articles that supported Rush and Newsmax, Rush and Newsmax would be quoting these 24/7 instead of relying on the "reports" from "institutes" - what they now use to support their blather. A "report" from an "institute" is just a hired whore being paid to put out ammo. I could declare myself an "institute" tonight and put out a "report" tomorrow saying anything I wanted to say. What matters are peer reviewed articles in respected journals. As I said, if these existed, they would be posted on Rush's site as we speak.
There's an FTP site with tons of data: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/contributions_by_author/ which has many data sets that contradict the New Yorker.
#32. To: avian virus (#7)
What we have so far that implicates human activity is "models." In other words, people with political agendas build models that confirm their predisposed desire to motivate legislation and regulation.
Ford's reason for pulling out was that they felt the short term gains of the sham would eventually harm them as more studies came in.
- "Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie
#33. To: purpleman (#30)
Bookmarked.
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
#34. To: purpleman (#30)
When Rush and Newsmax say they have a "report" from a respected "institute" that contradicts the world wide scientific community, what they mean is that somewhere there was an unstable professor in some earth sciences department that did pretty good until he got into the bottle. The guy then molested a coed and got fired. Given that it's really hard to find earth science teaching positions, and given that everyone in academia knows everyone else, the guy was on the skids. GM then came along and set him up with a $200k per year salary and an office in Santa Monica. The guy now does really well as long as the stuff he pumps out of the "intitute" makes GM happy. On top of it all, the alcoholic molester probably feels victimized by the established scientific community and is happy to be a pain in the ass to them. I have seen this sort of thing with my own eyes. This same guy soon finds out he can make a few bucks on the side as an expert witness. You run into herds of these types when you practice law.
#35. To: avian virus (#34)
There should be a law passed that the only way expert witnesses will be addressed in court is as "paid liars". "Your honor, I would like to call the paid liar to the stand". That would at least help the jury to know what "expert witnesses" really are.
This same guy soon finds out he can make a few bucks on the side as an expert witness. You run into herds of these types when you practice law.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#36. To: avian virus (#34)
Which I ignore, as we all should. I also ignore articles in the New Yorker since that is not a peer reviewed journal. The web site I provided was set up by NOAA to allow any published scientist to post the data from their articles. This includes all scientists, pro or con, as long as the data corresponds to an article in a peer reviewed journal. I look at that same data and make up my own mind rather than take the word of Rish Limbaugh, the New Yorker or the Washington Post.
When Rush and Newsmax say they have a "report" from a respected "institute" that contradicts the world wide scientific community...
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
#37. To: purpleman, Elliott Jackalope, timetobuildaboat (#23)
the future's so bright we gotta wear shades..
It would be nice if we just got some new tax or other. But what they want is a reversal of energy use to cause instant worldwide depression.
#38. To: Elliott Jackalope (#3)
At this point these professors can take their research and jam it sideways where the sun doesn't shine. If they are saying the ice caps are melting that probably means they're thicker than ever. They're a bunch of liars and scammers and I'll never listen to their garbage again for as long as I live. I'd rather drown under a ocean risen five hundred feet than kick myself yet again for being fooled yet one more time by these lying scumbags Hey, I think I like that idea...~!! You go guy~!!
You know, I've heard the tales of doomsters my whole freakin' life. "There's going to be another ice age", "There's going to be a runaway greenhouse and we'll die of the heat!", "Chernobyl is going to poison the Earth and we'll all die of cancer", "We're going to run out of all fossil fuels by 1985", "AIDS is going to kill every sexually active person on the planet", woe, woe, woe, doom, doom, doom, we're all gonna die....
I'm not a terrorist just because I think GWB may very well be the greatest threat to America right now.
#39. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Elliot Jackalope (#6)
They're a bunch of liars and scammers and I'll never listen to their garbage again for as long as I live. Nuke Buzzcut aka KJ?...The thing to note is that they always follow up with their political agenda of legislation that they'd like to pass that would force other people to live they way they think we all ought to, according to their personal value system. It's all about regulation, control and the subjugation of liberty. Always. Actually, I don't believe anyone mentioned ANYTHING about regulation, control, or the subjugation of liberty... In fact, I do believe that all anyone mentioned was that A PROBLEM EXISTS... You two clowns are free to jam your heads in the sand (or drown if you insist) but the REST of us consider the environment to be a tad important and intend to LISTEN TO THE EARTH'S COMPLAINTS before it is too late... I know, I know... You're scared to admit that our planet isn't invincible. Plus you STILL think Bush is all that and that we're winning in Iraq too... Also, Coal & Oil are LIMITLESS if only we could just drill more in the Artic... but someday, I'm sure that you'll be strong enough to face reality... if you don't drown first... (laughing out loud at myself for wasting my time responding to either of you)
To: Elliott Jackalope aka Otis?
I'm not a terrorist just because I think GWB may very well be the greatest threat to America right now.
#40. To: siagiah (#39)
Don't laugh too hard.. I'm wondering why I wasted time reading your reply. At least Mister Virus put on a case, while you just sound like jazzfan.
(laughing out loud at myself for wasting my time responding to either of you)
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
#41. To: Jhoffa_ (#40)
whatevah... I presented the article in the first place and already SAID my piece there... The two I addressed my remarks to didn't "make their case"... they made ridiculous remarks about preferring to DROWN than to listen to another word about global warming... TYPICAL RUSHIES... but then, you knew that... (ooops, did we both just waste more time? tee hee... LIGHTEN UP jhoffa... )
I'm not a terrorist just because I think GWB may very well be the greatest threat to America right now.
#42. To: avian virus (#28)
Exactly!!! If we don't listen up to what mother EARTH is telling us, the world as we know it will change in the not too distant future... Most likely, NOT FOR THE BETTER from our POV. We have time NOW to study and plan for what might happen; to avoid making it all worse; and to HOPEFULLY put into effect plans and ideas for how to PREVENT some of the potential changes. Those who refuse to heed the smell of smoke while they can still escape, will die in the fire that rages around them later. Let's not forget that a few short months ago there were those who INSISTED and who BELIEVED that the paid whores telling Terri Shiavo's parents that she wasn't brain dead were right. Our feckless misLEADER was amongst them... An indisputable autopsy PROVES them all wholly wrong (no surprise, the medical world told them EIGHT YEARS AGO). There were those who predicted the Iraq invasion to be a "walk in the park"... I think we all can see who was full of crap now? There were those who were SURE that WMD were sitting in Bagdhad and would PROVE Bush right... Some dope said we didn't NEED large numbers of ground forces... UMMM,, wrong... and so on and so on... Those people REFUSED to listen to the experts IN THEIR FIELD who tried to advise them. This administration doesn't CARE what's true and what's not... they care about their own agenda and will pay to hear what they WANT TO HEAR....
If you read some of the serious stuff on this, I think you'll see that nobody thinks we can suddenly get conservation conscious and stop it. We are now past the point of no return. We need to be sensible to keep the process for accerating, but most of the concern is about trying to figure out what is going to happen and what we are going to do about it. Some huge droughts and some very violent weather is expected. Also serious flooding in other areas. Good crop growing regions may dry up in the next thirty years and formerly arid regions my become very wet.
I'm not a terrorist just because I think GWB may very well be the greatest threat to America right now.
#43. To: siagiah (#39)
Bwahahaha!!! Thanks for making clear to all how utterly out of touch with reality you are. You save me the effort. Global warming? Yeah. Maybe. Human induced? Spare me the laughs. If there's anything guaranteed with our climate, it's that it changes. And, if there's anything guaranteed with politics, it's that there's always some crisis monger screaming about how we need to regulate and control and force people to live the way THEY want -- or the world will end. Give liberty a chance. Your way has had ample opportunity to demonstrate its utter failings.
Plus you STILL think Bush is all that and that we're winning in Iraq too...
- "Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie
#44. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, all (#43)
My way? Actually, ALL I DID WAS PRESENT SOME SCIENTIFFIC FINDINGS and state emphatically that we need to address the issues now rather than ignore them... OBVIOUSLY, you are an incredibly talented mindreader if you've come to the conclusions you have about me and my motives... I challenge you to provide all of us the proof of what you claim I have advocated... and puhleeze, SPARE ME THE DRAMA... the world will end? WHERE DID YOU SEE ME SUGGEST THAT? I believe my words were "the world will change"... Sorry pal, it's obvious to me that you aren't reading WHAT I said but are making it all up based on YOUR encounters with me in one of your previous incarnations. Do me a favor... don't respond to me. I don't like you any more now than I did then and CLEARLY you feel the same way. I was willing to LISTEN to you but you are not listening to me. You are just ASSUMING... as usual, I might add.
Bwahahaha!!! Thanks for making clear to all how utterly out of touch with reality you are. You save me the effort. Global warming? Yeah. Maybe. Human induced? Spare me the laughs. If there's anything guaranteed with our climate, it's that it changes. And, if there's anything guaranteed with politics, it's that there's always some crisis monger screaming about how we need to regulate and control and force people to live the way THEY want -- or the world will end. Give liberty a chance. Your way has had ample opportunity to demonstrate its utter failings.
I'm not a terrorist just because I think GWB may very well be the greatest threat to America right now.
#45. To: Nuke Buzzcut (#44)
btw, if I've got the wrong tag on the right fella, it's irrelevant. It's OBVIOUS that there's a history here and I don't believe in repeating bad karma or forgetting my history lessons... I ESPECIALLY don't enjoy talking to folks who just wanna sling tired, old muck while hiding behind clever new tags. Buzzcut? (snicker) The image you plastered all over the place is still vivid. If it's KJ, it FITS.
I'm not a terrorist just because I think GWB may very well be the greatest threat to America right now.
#46. To: siagiah (#42)
Just so you are clear on one thing: I think Bush is a liar. I think everything the Republicans have said about global warming and the environment has been arranged by paid liars who want to push their agenda. That having been said, I also belive that everything the Democrats and environmentalists have said about global warming and the environment has been arranged by paid liars who want to push their agenda. The one camp wants to push an agenda of unlimited environmental looting without regard for consequences, the other camp wants to push an agenda of unlimited governmental control without regard for consequences. As far as I'm concerned both camps can puke and die. If it's in the media being pushed as a "public interest story", you can bet money it was something put together by some think tank trying to push some garbage on the rest of us.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#47. To: Elliott Jackalope (#46)
Yea, a lot has been foisted on us "useless eaters" hasn't it?
If it's in the media being pushed as a "public interest story", you can bet money it was something put together by some think tank trying to push some garbage on the rest of us.
Are we but an organic computer influenced by our environment to desire one set of neuropeptides over another, equating into competition for self worth on a primitive level never realized by the shallow and self empowering.
#48. To: Elliott Jackalope (#46)
I took it directly off of UNH's website where the studies were actually done. It is NOT a media thing or a partisan agenda. It is in science journals, NOT the local papers. I agree with your view of BOTH sides of the POLITICAL ballgame. However, I don't think that the assaults on the environment are something to ignore. There is too much to lose if there is much truth in the science. A close friend is in the business of studying weather and the environment all over the world. In his 25 years in the business, he's seeing alarming things. We have a wake up call right now. Right now is the time to let the scientists DO their studies and to listen to their results when they are done. NOT to listen to paid liars on EITHER side. Thanks for clarifying.
I'm not a terrorist just because I think GWB may very well be the greatest threat to America right now.
#49. To: siagiah (#45)
Speaking in cryptic personal codes isn't making your drivel look any more intelligent. What the hell is a KJ? And what does that have to do with your humping the tired old environmentalist crisis mongering propaganda line?
- "Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie
#50. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#49)
Should I call you BOZO instead? I think so... Have a nice life Buzz... now buzz off, k?
I'm not a terrorist just because I think GWB may very well be the greatest threat to America right now.
#51. To: siagiah (#0)
I have a problem with this. 1. No mention of output from Sol. 2. No mention of relative impact of different gasses, in particular, water vapor. You might peruse this site. Keep in mind "latent heat."
Another Mogambo Day
#52. To: All (#51)
I should also mention, with respect to Sol output, that it was noticed in 2001 that Martian polar caps were melting at an unsual rate. Perhaps there is life on Mars? And Martian SUV's are causing an accelerated rate of polar icecap melting? Just some thoughts.
Another Mogambo Day
#53. To: rack42 (#51)
Wow,does this scholarly report blame the melting of the ice shelf in Antarctica on water vapor ? I wonder if water vapor is also responsible for the SMOG in the worlds large cities? I wonder how you get to see and control large amounts of water vapor? LOL
No mention of relative impact of different gasses, in particular, water vapor.
#54. To: Rack42 (#53)
Seriously,anthropogenic (caused by humans) water vapor, in addition to naturally caused water vapor, might indeed be contributing to global warming. http://www .espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html The contribution of water vapor to the anthropogenic (effect of humans on nature) greenhouse effect (i.e., that portion of greenhouse warming caused exclusively by humans) is still controversial. At numerous environmental conferences, greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and methane (CH4), are discussed primarily while many times the role of water vapor in both its natural and anthropogenic aspects remains unmentioned. Yet water vapor not only holds the pole position concerning the natural greenhouse effect, but also participates in the additional absorption of heat in the atmosphere which is exclusively caused by human activities. We're not speculating that we would blow enormous amounts of water vapor into the air and enhance the greenhouse effect. On the contrary, the concerns are for so-called "secondary effects". That is: if the average temperature of atmospheric layers near to the ground, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 and methane emissions, is rising, then the evaporation of water is increased. Henceforth more water vapor will get into the air, and this additional abundance of water vapor will also absorb more heat. It remains uncertain, though, which concentrations at which locations and at which altitudes in the troposphere will contribute the most to greenhouse warming. In addition, it is unclear how this surplus of water vapor will alter the warming process of the earth.
No mention of relative impact of different gasses, in particular, water vapor.
#55. To: rack42 (#52)
I'm sure that must be it. We need a law...
Perhaps there is life on Mars? And Martian SUV's are causing an accelerated rate of polar icecap melting?
- "Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie
#56. To: siagiah (#50)
ABSTRACT A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
- "Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie
#57. To: rack42 (#52)
Perhaps there is life on Mars? And Martian SUV's are causing an accelerated rate of polar icecap melting? Just some thoughts. I would have to ask this question. HOW would Earth scientists know what was normal or unusal melting rates for Martian polar caps to be able to judge that in the first place? Answer, they don't KNOW, they BELIEVE... So, for now, that is an APPLES and ORANGES argument and completely irrelevant to the original discussion. There is no serious argument in the science world against the fact that Earth's average temperature is rising or against the fact that the polar ice shelf is melting at a higher rate than normal. The argument is only WHY it is happening and HOW/WHAT will it matter to humans.
should also mention, with respect to Sol output, that it was noticed in 2001 that Martian polar caps were melting at an unsual rate.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest