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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Trump Flipped Single Most Hispanic County in America, Beat Kamala in Walloping Landslide Consequences of Mild, Moderate & Severe Plagiarism Plagiarism: 5 Potential Legal Consequences When Philadelphia’s Foul-Mouthed Cop-Turned-Mayor Invented White Identity Politics Trump Wanted to Pardon Assange and Snowden. Blocked by RINOs. What The Pentagon Is Planning Against Trump Will Make Your Blood Run Cold Once Revealed How Trump won the Amish vote in Pennsylvania FEC Filings Show Kamala Harris Team Blew Funds On Hollywood Stars, Private Jets Israel’s Third Lebanon War is underway: What you need to know LEAK: First Behind-The-Scenes Photos Of Kamala After Getting DESTROYED By Trump | Guzzling Wine!🍷 Scott Ritter Says: Netanyahu's PAINFUL Stumble Pushes Tel Aviv Into Its WORST NIGHTMARE These Are Trump's X-Men | Dr. Jordan B. Peterson Houthis (Yemen) Breached THAAD. Israel Given a Dud Defense!! Yuma County Arizona Doubles Its Outstanding Votes Overnight They're Stealing the Race from Kari Lake Trump to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria Trump and RFK created websites for the people to voice their opinion on people the government is hiring Woke Georgia DA Deborah Gonzalez pummeled in re-election bid after refusing Laken Riley murder case Trump has a choice: Obliterate Palestine or end the war Rod Blagojevich: Kamala’s Corruption, & the Real Cause of the Democrat Party’s Spiral Into Insanity Israel's Defense Shattered by Hezbollah's New Iranian Super Missiles | Prof. Mohammad Marandi Trump Wins Arizona in Clean Sweep of Swing States in US Election TikTok Harlots Pledge in Droves: No More Pussy For MAGA Fascists! Colonel Douglas Macgregor:: Honoring Veteran's Day Low-Wage Nations? Trump to pull US out of Paris climate agreement NYT Pixar And Disney Animator Bolhem Bouchiba Sentenced To 25 Years In Prison Six C-17s, C-130s deploy US military assets to Northeastern Syria SNL cast members unveil new "hot jacked" Trump character in MAGA-friendly cold open Here's Why These Geopolitical And Financial Chokepoints Need Your Attention... Former Army Chief Moshe Ya'alon Calls for Civil Disobedience to Protest Netanyahu Government

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: 1291
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  

why dont they drill in the suburbs of houston?

They do. They are drilling for gas there.

The reason that companies drill in 200 feet of water miles offshore is that there are hot resevoirs out there that they know how to get at with technology well developed for the purpose.

The deep drilling that the Russians do is a specialized technology that they are working on to reach areas way down in the lithosphere.

randge  posted on  2009-10-11   16:41:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

american media and politics is solidly zionist, apparently... unless jews are being set up as scapegoats for the impending catastrophe... it could be that zionists are being given enough rope to hang themselves...

it seems likely that zionists are gonna take it in the shorts no matter what, seeing as how the really big players seem to be preoccupied with looting, which is harmful to israel's protector... although it's hard to say how much of the loot finds its way to israel...

but those who are able are obliged to prey on those who are unable to prevent it.

those who choose to be neither prey nor predator are cast out.

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   16:42:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The reason that companies drill in 200 feet of water miles offshore...

...is because the shareholders think it's a good idea to waste billions of dollars that could have been paid to them as dividends.

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   16:44:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

His assumptions that AGW is real, unavoidable

Why do you think flickervertigo has made assumptions? Can you counter his arguments, at all?

“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   16:46:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

People tend to equate scarcity with extraction difficulty. They are not the same things.

Why? Are you saying there is a gold mine two miles below the Earth's surface and the cost of extraction is only $2K/ounce while on the open market we can only fetch $1K/ounce?

Are you a proponent of snake oil, too?

“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   16:49:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Can you counter his arguments, at all?

Yes I can, I've done it many time, but I'm not going to. What would be the point? I have too much to do today and can't waist my time on someone who is that far behind in the argument.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   16:51:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Are you a proponent of snake oil, too?

Don't be insulting.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-10-11   16:52:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It is your thread. I was just trying to be intimidating ... not insulting. Sorry you feel that way.

But, there are serious issues presented on your thread. I want to hear about them.

“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   16:56:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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

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

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

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

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.

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

you cant dispute the fact that PNAC said it needed a new pearl harbor to kick start the land and oil acquisition project.

flickervertigo  posted on  2009-10-11   16:58:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

buckeroo: Can you counter his [flickervertigo] arguments, at all?

farmfriend: Yes I can, I've done it many time, but I'm not going to.

It is YOUR thread. And you can't defend it? Are you throwing in the towel?

“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   17:02:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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

One should not commit the fallacy the that correlation equates to causation. One should also bear in mind that whatever cooling or warming that has been recorded in modern time bear little relationship with levels of CO2.

Let's also not forget that the most significant greenhouse gas of all, H2O, outweighs CO2 by several orders of magnitude.

randge  posted on  2009-10-11   17:08:25 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.

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

Let's also not forget that the most significant greenhouse gas of all, H2O

Set on the political stage is the following:

State leaders fail to reach water accord If there is no deal by Sunday, governor says, he will veto many of the 700 legislative bills awaiting his signature. By Michael Rothfeld and Bettina Boxall

October 9, 2009 | 9:49 p.m.

Reporting from Los Angeles and Sacramento - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislative leaders broke off talks Friday evening without a deal on upgrading California's water supply and with a looming threat by the governor to veto many of the bills sitting on his desk if there is no agreement by Sunday.

Even as the leaders debated asking voters to approve billions of dollars in new debt to strengthen the state's water resources, a top finance official warned that government revenue is already $1 billion short of the amount needed to balance the budget that was passed in the face of a significant deficit less than three months ago.

Those complications arose as the governor maintained a threat to veto 700 bills that lawmakers approved near the end of the legislative session last month. Schwarzenegger and his aides made the threat in an attempt to use bills as leverage in the water talks.

The governor has until midnight Sunday to sign or veto the measures, or they automatically become law.

When negotiations broke up early Friday evening, Assembly GOP leader Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo said that "a dozen or more major issues" were unresolved.

Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said there had been progress, but he told reporters that disagreements persisted over how much would need to be borrowed to implement any water plan and about the makeup and funding of a council to address management of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Schwarzenegger's spokesman, Aaron McLear, said that negotiations would continue this afternoon and that the governor would carry out his veto threat if meetings did not produce a deal or something close to one.

Schwarzenegger had continued to pressure the legislators Friday, appearing on the Capitol steps with the Latino Water Coalition, an advocacy group. The governor said he and the lawmakers were "on the verge of a historic breakthrough on water" but were not there yet.

"I thank that all of you are here today to give the legislators this extra little push that they need to get across the finish line," Schwarzenegger said. "And if they need a little bit more, then you are even ready to give them that hard shove to get across the finish line."

As the ralliers cheered, the governor yelled, "We are going to get it done today!"

Lawmakers taking part in the talks said there was consensus that the $12 billion in general obligation bonds proposed by Democratic leaders in September was too much to win the two-thirds approval needed in the Legislature.

But trimming the borrowing back to $8 billion, as some participants have suggested, for delta restoration and new water storage would cut funding for regional projects such as recycling and groundwater cleanup. That could whittle support for the measure.

Borrowing would also need approval from voters, who may be wary if state finances do not improve. Controller John Chiang reported Friday that income tax receipts have fallen 11% below what lawmakers and Schwarzenegger expected when they agreed to a patchwork budget plan during the summer. Sales and corporate taxes have also slid below expectations.

"The recession continues to drag state revenues down," Chiang said in a statement.

Policymakers were already bracing for a big budget deficit next year. The Department of Finance has projected a $7.4-billion deficit in 2010-11 -- a conservative estimate, as lawsuits have either tied up or reversed some planned budget cuts.

Finances are not the only sticking point in a water deal. Bay Area water agencies are seeking protections -- opposed by environmentalists -- against the loss of some of their delta supplies. Protecting the delta ecosystem could require keeping more water there.

And an agreement could help pave the way for a canal to divert water from the Sacramento River around the delta to pumps that would send it to San Joaquin Valley farms and Southern California cities.

"Northern California is going to be served as the turkey at the celebratory dinner" if the water legislation passes as written, complained Randy Kanouse of the East Bay Municipal Utility District.

Agricultural interests that pump groundwater don't like a proposed requirement for statewide monitoring of groundwater usage. And Central Valley lawmakers representing areas with some of the highest urban water use in California are trying to weaken a mandate to cut the state's per capita water use by 20%.

Environmentalists have warned that if those provisions are weakened too much, they will balk.

State lawmakers, meanwhile, anxiously awaited the fate of their legislation. Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico (D-Newark) accused the governor on Thursday of "coming perilously close to extortion" and committing a crime by linking his review of pending bills to a water deal.

But on Friday, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, also a Democrat, largely dismissed that claim in a letter to Torrico and state Sen. Jeff Denham (R-Atwater).

Brown, a former governor of California who is campaigning to get that job back, did not offer an official legal opinion. He suggested, however, that horse-trading is normal in the governing process and called the veto "a powerful weapon for shaping policy."

"Compromise in the rough-and-tumble legislative process," Brown said, "is not achieved by doilies and tea."

michael.rothfeld@latimes.com

bettina.boxall@latimes.com

Times staff writers Shane Goldmacher and Patrick McGreevy contributed to this report.

The once mighty Central Valley of California has no water, pal.

“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   17:14:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

What's that got to do with the subject of this thread?

And who says I'm your pal??

randge  posted on  2009-10-11   17:19:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

H20 ... is about to go into government wars over private property rights, pal. It all about over consumption and ignorance of and about the environment around us. Natural resources are declining, pal.

“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   17:24:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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  

Comments (140 - 155) not displayed.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

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