Climate change is getting downright frightening

86 posts / 0 new

NASA scientists were left stunned after analyzing data showing that Greenland’s ice sheet is melting at an unprecedented rate. Three independent satellites confirmed that in less than a week, the amount of ice melting in Greenland jumped from 40% to 97%.

As one NASA scientist wrote in a press release, “This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: Was this real or was it due to a data error?” Unfortunately, it’s very much real – and in 30 years of observations, never has this much ice melted away from Greenland so fast. Of course – oil industry funded scientists will tell us everything is just fine – and it’s just a really hot summer.

Meanwhile, they’re the ones most likely looking for mountaintop real estate – away from soon-to-be rising oceans.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 10:59 am

Comments

You do realize, of course, that the greatly accelerated melting of the world's ice sheets is just a scam to make Al Gore money, don't you? Ask any right wing nut.

It's nice of Mother nature to be so co-operative in his venture. Global warming and its consequences are accelerating.

In figuring out the timeline for global warming, they left methane gas out of the equation. It's being released in huge quantities by melting permafrost...and is a greater atmospheric warming gas than hydro-carbons.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well if its Climate Change, its changing back to how it was in the late 1800's. yes truly Frightening!

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote stwo:

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

Priceless....

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm

Melting 150 years ago when there was still enough trees absorbing CO2 meant a recovery was possible. With the Koch bros clear cutting for their timber, and the drought fueled wild fires destroying more carbon sinks, and perennial drought this is not your great-great-grandfather's melting. Methane released from Greenland will increase the temps and keep it increased longer. Oh well, just increase defense budget so we can rape and pillage other lesser nations, and lesser peoples that are not VIPs.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Read "The Deep Hot Biosphere", by Thomas Gold, before you make any more idiot statements about the Earth, methane, geology, or climate Scilence.

It's like watching monkeys type, you might be close, but it's still not language, much less Shakespeare, that you are engaged in.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

The data is coming in fast now!! The understanding that humans are a part of nature and that there are consequences to our actions is undeniable ,the law of cause and effect is a universal one.

What we really have to do is keep the temperature stable so that the Earth continues to be the paradise that it is -what happens to your body when your temperature rises by a few degrees? Nature is an interconnected web created for life to thrive nothing is more cruel to nature than mankind !

We are a primitive species and we are asked by life to evolve to now consciously choose to make an adaption ,if we do not do this life will adapt and my friend,s we may not like the consequences of this indeed it is happening now.

I live in Scotland we have just had the wettest four months ever it rained for thirty two day,s in a row.The cloud cover was constant for months.The patterns are a-changing to deny is to allow the illusion to continue to accept is a sign of maturity as a species, and to take responsibility is divine .

namaste

humanitys team's picture
humanitys team
Joined:
Dec. 24, 2010 4:53 am

One question I have, and realize I am asking because I don't know, not that I am mocking anyone here.

Supposedly we have evidence that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were around 280 ppm from the year 1000 to 1750, and has increased to 330 ppm now. See the link below for the source of this data.

Is that increase really enough to make any difference? Sorry I have a hard time with that, but I am not a biologist, so perhaps someone has done a study to show that this increase is enough to effect the weather is a measurable way.

Here is the link:

http://www.john-daly.com/bull120.htm

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Weather events are not climate. You folks are clearly not look at the Met office or NOAA data trends which do not indicate in increased trend of drought, storms, heat waves, floods, wildfires or any other catastrophic weather phenomena. If I win the lottery that would not be indicative of a steadily rising annual income of hunderds of millions to trillions in my future- a spike is not a trend. I believe that exaggeration and hyperbole has and will continue to turn average people off to the whole idea of human influence on climate- which is clearly real, but lacks the catastrophic doom that so many seem obsessed with injecting into outlying weather events.

There are widely available data beyond the headlines to view if one was serioulsy interested in understanding the ambiguity that exists in our understanding of the state of the climate. I spend quite a bit of time doing so and it shows me that there are no detectable catastrophic trends in the data and I keep comparing the data to the headlines because things change and I could be wrong.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Empirical evidence can only support the Empire, in America's tiny philosophy, which used to be quite deep and wide, before idiots took the helm and raised a nation of idiot Manchurian Americans.

Data? Give me a freaking break.

The only 'data' available to you is filtered through the sand surrounding your heads, and was a lie to begin with.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote mauiman58:

One question I have, and realize I am asking because I don't know, not that I am mocking anyone here.

Supposedly we have evidence that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were around 280 ppm from the year 1000 to 1750, and has increased to 330 ppm now. See the link below for the source of this data.

Is that increase really enough to make any difference? Sorry I have a hard time with that, but I am not a biologist, so perhaps someone has done a study to show that this increase is enough to effect the weather is a measurable way.

Here is the link:

http://www.john-daly.com/bull120.htm

Here's a link Maui. It's very informative and most of it is pretty comprehensable.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote mauiman58:

One question I have, and realize I am asking because I don't know, not that I am mocking anyone here.

Supposedly we have evidence that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were around 280 ppm from the year 1000 to 1750, and has increased to 330 ppm now. See the link below for the source of this data.

Is that increase really enough to make any difference? Sorry I have a hard time with that, but I am not a biologist, so perhaps someone has done a study to show that this increase is enough to effect the weather is a measurable way.

Here is the link:

http://www.john-daly.com/bull120.htm

Here's a link Maui. It's very informative and most of it is pretty comprehensable.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

Interesting stuff BW, thanks. If the data is correct (I have to asume it is), then that increase in CO2 will hold up radiant heat coming up from the earth but will not block the sun's energy going to the earth.

Two questions beg to be asked at this point.

Is the heat hold up significant enough to actually raise the earth's temperature? I did not see that discussed, and sent a message to the author of the paper that you cite here. Hopefully they will answer. Again, I am not trying to be difficult here, but I would be very interested in that discussion.

Also, best I can tell, the increase in CO2 did not start until sometime in the 1970's. The industrial revolution had been in full swing for at least 100 years by that point, so why wasn't there an increase between say 1900-1970? The one article I saw stated that the jury was still out as to why the increase started in the 1970s and not before that. Are buring fossil fuels really the reason for the increase based on that fact? I do understand the chemistry of the situation that has methane (or any hydrocarbon) plus oxygen going to water and CO2 plus heat. It's the heat that man is after, and whether we use that heat to heat our homes or drive our cars really does not matter. So the more fossil fuels that get burned, the more CO2 is thown into the atmosphere. So why was there no increase in CO2 levels before 1970? It seems no one can answer that question.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm
Quote douglaslee:

Melting 150 years ago when there was still enough trees absorbing CO2 meant a recovery was possible. With the Koch bros clear cutting for their timber, and the drought fueled wild fires destroying more carbon sinks, and perennial drought this is not your great-great-grandfather's melting. Methane released from Greenland will increase the temps and keep it increased longer. Oh well, just increase defense budget so we can rape and pillage other lesser nations, and lesser peoples that are not VIPs.

All Hot air... No actual science....

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm

So easy to be a parrot, "no actual science, no actual science..." If "actual" means absolute conclusive proof of knowing exactly how and why what is happening is happening, you can even be "correct."

Congrats Cap, but people who are watching the earth a bit more closely than you are are singing a very different song.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote mauiman58:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote mauiman58:

One question I have, and realize I am asking because I don't know, not that I am mocking anyone here.

Supposedly we have evidence that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were around 280 ppm from the year 1000 to 1750, and has increased to 330 ppm now. See the link below for the source of this data.

Is that increase really enough to make any difference? Sorry I have a hard time with that, but I am not a biologist, so perhaps someone has done a study to show that this increase is enough to effect the weather is a measurable way.

Here is the link:

http://www.john-daly.com/bull120.htm

Here's a link Maui. It's very informative and most of it is pretty comprehensable.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

Interesting stuff BW, thanks. If the data is correct (I have to asume it is), then that increase in CO2 will hold up radiant heat coming up from the earth but will not block the sun's energy going to the earth.

Two questions beg to be asked at this point.

Is the heat hold up significant enough to actually raise the earth's temperature? I did not see that discussed, and sent a message to the author of the paper that you cite here. Hopefully they will answer. Again, I am not trying to be difficult here, but I would be very interested in that discussion.

Also, best I can tell, the increase in CO2 did not start until sometime in the 1970's. The industrial revolution had been in full swing for at least 100 years by that point, so why wasn't there an increase between say 1900-1970? The one article I saw stated that the jury was still out as to why the increase started in the 1970s and not before that. Are buring fossil fuels really the reason for the increase based on that fact? I do understand the chemistry of the situation that has methane (or any hydrocarbon) plus oxygen going to water and CO2 plus heat. It's the heat that man is after, and whether we use that heat to heat our homes or drive our cars really does not matter. So the more fossil fuels that get burned, the more CO2 is thown into the atmosphere. So why was there no increase in CO2 levels before 1970? It seems no one can answer that question.

Where did you get the 1970's? You may have missed this.

Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.

In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.

That shows a fairly large change from 1850 to now vs. 1000 to 1850.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote mauiman58:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote mauiman58:

One question I have, and realize I am asking because I don't know, not that I am mocking anyone here.

Supposedly we have evidence that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were around 280 ppm from the year 1000 to 1750, and has increased to 330 ppm now. See the link below for the source of this data.

Is that increase really enough to make any difference? Sorry I have a hard time with that, but I am not a biologist, so perhaps someone has done a study to show that this increase is enough to effect the weather is a measurable way.

Here is the link:

http://www.john-daly.com/bull120.htm

Here's a link Maui. It's very informative and most of it is pretty comprehensable.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

Interesting stuff BW, thanks. If the data is correct (I have to asume it is), then that increase in CO2 will hold up radiant heat coming up from the earth but will not block the sun's energy going to the earth.

Two questions beg to be asked at this point.

Is the heat hold up significant enough to actually raise the earth's temperature? I did not see that discussed, and sent a message to the author of the paper that you cite here. Hopefully they will answer. Again, I am not trying to be difficult here, but I would be very interested in that discussion.

Also, best I can tell, the increase in CO2 did not start until sometime in the 1970's. The industrial revolution had been in full swing for at least 100 years by that point, so why wasn't there an increase between say 1900-1970? The one article I saw stated that the jury was still out as to why the increase started in the 1970s and not before that. Are buring fossil fuels really the reason for the increase based on that fact? I do understand the chemistry of the situation that has methane (or any hydrocarbon) plus oxygen going to water and CO2 plus heat. It's the heat that man is after, and whether we use that heat to heat our homes or drive our cars really does not matter. So the more fossil fuels that get burned, the more CO2 is thown into the atmosphere. So why was there no increase in CO2 levels before 1970? It seems no one can answer that question.

Where did you get the 1970's? You may have missed this.

Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.

In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.

That shows a fairly large change from 1850 to now vs. 1000 to 1850.

OOOOPS BW, I may have mis read something, remember I am a right wing idiot just trying to get it right. However a few points to add.

The period 1935-1945 had no increase in CO2 in the atmopsphere, no one can explain.

We are increasing the amount of CO2 that we put into the atmosphere, yet the rate of increase of CO2 does not seem to be going up in recent years.

I'll bet a half decent volcano eruption pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere than anything man can do. And I think I have heard that volcanic activity has increased the last 100-150 years or so compared to previous time periods.

And if I am understanding one table right, the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased the heat hold up by 1.79 w/m2. That is 6 BTUs/hr for every square meter of atmosphere. My gut feel tells me that is not enough heat for the earth's atmosphere to see any difference, but I just do not know how much air we are heating up here, or how many square meters we are talking about. And perhaps the arguement is that once the heat gets trapped, it stays in the system and builds up. I'll have to think about that one, but I would love to see a discussion on that point.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm
Quote drc2:

So easy to be a parrot, "no actual science, no actual science..." If "actual" means absolute conclusive proof of knowing exactly how and why what is happening is happening, you can even be "correct."

Congrats Cap, but people who are watching the earth a bit more closely than you are are singing a very different song.

Great job, I was wondering if posts regarding the climate could get anymore vacuous... then BAM!!! you ride to the rescue.

As this story proves the Song they are singing is that of alarmist contradiction.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.

LMAO... "safely assumed"

define ASSume: "Suppose to be the case, without proof"

God I love the Climate debates.... All those bullshit out of context number mean nothing when figured into Total global atmosphere composition. Manmade co2 accounts for .117% of the atmosphere. 1 10th of 1%.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm

Here is some food for thought here. If you assume our atmosphere is 20 miles deep, it would take 17,553 BTUs of energy to heat a one square meter column of the atmosphere one degree F. If I read some of the information correctly, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will slow the heat release from the earth down by 6 BTUs/Hr for every square meter of atmosphere.

That's 0.03% of the heat needed to heat the atmosphere up 1 degree F. Am I missing something here? It's hard for me to see how CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming, so if I am missing something here, please let me know.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm
Quote mauiman58:

That's 0.03% of the heat needed to heat the atmosphere up 1 degree F. Am I missing something here? It's hard for me to see how CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming, so if I am missing something here, please let me know.

95% of the atmoshpere is water vapour. Only 3.6% CO2. Of that 3.6% it's a mere fraction that is Man Made. That is why it's called Parts per MILLION.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote mauiman58:

That's 0.03% of the heat needed to heat the atmosphere up 1 degree F. Am I missing something here? It's hard for me to see how CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming, so if I am missing something here, please let me know.

95% of the atmoshpere is water vapour. Only 3.6% CO2. Of that 3.6% it's a mere fraction that is Man Made. That is why it's called Parts per MILLION.

Actually I was assuming the atmosphere is 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen just to keep the calculations simple. The atmosphere cannot be 95% water vapor or we would all die. We need around 20% O2 to be able to breathe.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm
Quote humanitys team:

The data is coming in fast now!! The understanding that humans are a part of nature and that there are consequences to our actions is undeniable ,the law of cause and effect is a universal one.

What we really have to do is keep the temperature stable so that the Earth continues to be the paradise that it is -what happens to your body when your temperature rises by a few degrees? Nature is an interconnected web created for life to thrive nothing is more cruel to nature than mankind !

We are a primitive species and we are asked by life to evolve to now consciously choose to make an adaption ,if we do not do this life will adapt and my friend,s we may not like the consequences of this indeed it is happening now.

I live in Scotland we have just had the wettest four months ever it rained for thirty two day,s in a row.The cloud cover was constant for months.The patterns are a-changing to deny is to allow the illusion to continue to accept is a sign of maturity as a species, and to take responsibility is divine .

namaste

Well, the far right who post on this board can't get that rainfall patterns are switching north....where it's cool enough to finally release atmospheric moisture in buckets. Ideology always trumps what's actually so with those folks. They'll nit pic over and over in attempt to support ideolgical beliefs. Note that all ideologies are based on beliefs...not truths. It's a huge distinction.

After doing that for awhile, they abruptly disppear. I've a feeling we are coming close to that point.

A lot of moisture that should have fallen further south couldn't. The warmer the air, the more water the atmosphere can hold before releasing it as rain. Northern countries in our hemisphere will be getting more than their usual share of atmospheric percipitation.More mositure will reach northern latitudes than was the norm. Your country is one of them that will get drenched from time to time..

The on-going trend? It's warming up. More percipitation will fall in the northern latitudes of our hemisphere. Less in the more southerly ones..

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mauiman58:

Actually I was assuming the atmosphere is 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen just to keep the calculations simple. The atmosphere cannot be 95% water vapor or we would all die. We need around 20% O2 to be able to breathe.

I should have qualified my statement as Greenhouse gases. So noted..

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Well, the far right who post on this board can't get that rainfall patterns are switching north....where it's cool enough to finally release atmospheric moisture in buckets. Ideology always trumps what's actually so with those folks. They'll nit pic forever in attempt to support ideolgical beliefs. Note that all ideologies are based on beliefs...not truths. It's a huge distinction.

A lot of moisture that should have fallen further south couldn't. The warmer the air, the more water the atmosphere can hold before releasing it as rain. Northern countries in our hemisphere will be getting more than their usual share of atmospheric percipitation.More mositure will reach northern latitudes than was the norm. Your country is one of them that will get drenched from time to time..

The on-going trend? It's warming up. More percipitation will fall in the northern latitudes of our hemisphere. Less in the more southerly ones..

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

So what your saying is that the Climate is Changing... WOW.. Hold the presses. Those damn righty's.. Now all you need do to complete your moment of awesome...... Point to someone that claimed the Climate stays the same.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm

Mauiman, there is actually significant disagreement and long ongoing debate among physicists as to precisely how CO2 functions in terms of absorbing and re-radiating heat in the atmosphere. But in general, your recognition that CO2 alone is inadequate to cause the levels of warming projected by climate models is a valid observation. Climate models attribute only a portion of their projected warming directly to CO2. They then triple that warming through multiplier effects referred to as climate sensitivity. There is also signficant debate as to the climate's actual versus modeled sensitivity. Interestingly, the models have depicted almost 4 times the increase in temperature than has actually been observed. I am personally swayed to the belief that the climate is less sensitive to CO2 than the models describe-

of course, I could be wrong.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

lol @ "the Koch brothers are killing all the trees"....

just.........wow.

The thing I love about "Progressives" is their consistency to blame everyone else for the things they so vehemently hate.

I love how they whine about outsourcing jobs from their Asian built Iphones.

I love how they whine about global warming while driving their cars that give off the emissions that run on the "blood oil" they hate.

I love how they whine about violation of Constitutional rights while demanding an end to the 2nd Amendment.

I love how they cry about killing while supporting people who've had 5 abortions.

...and so on.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

CapitolO wrote:So what your saying is that the Climate is Changing... WOW.. Hold the presses. Those damn righty's.. Now all you need do to complete your moment of awesome...... Point to someone that claimed the Climate stays the same.

In reply to: The on-going trend? It's warming up. More percipitation will fall in the northern latitudes of our hemisphere. Less in the more southerly ones..

poly replies: Try to get the context. The globe is warming. That effects regional climate. When the ocean flows into New York City, that too will have a regional climate effect.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Wow! I didn't realize that we had so many scientists among our little community here. Not only that but they know more about climate change than the thousands of scientists who actually get paid for their expertise. I am humbled by your presence.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote polycarp2: ... rainfall patterns are switching north...
I am intrigued by your assertion that rainfal patterns have shifted north and also the widening of the easterly Trade Winds. Can you kindly share some of your sources for that? Iv'e been scouring for published research the past couple days trying to learn more and can not find anything on that area of climate research. Thanks in advance.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Have you no deductional skills?

Take a basic course in meteorology...then one in Climate Science, one in Botony , one in Geology and one in World Geography. .

Then put them all together and come up with what's actually so about how the easterly develops and functions.. I'm not going to present college courses here...just summaries.

If it takes becoming a monk so you can do all of that in a short time...go for it. A life of prayer and continual study may benefit you. A monk's higher education never ends. When did yours stop?

You may even learn to deduce that since methane is held by permafrost, when permafrost melts, methane is released into the atmosphere. If you need a study for that, you probably need a study to prove ice melts when it's heated on a stove. Simply think.

Thinking isn't that difficult. . At some point in time, you may even figure out that when an area even just 100 x 100 miles is grazed to the point where there are no plants left to produce seed for the following years ground cover....there won't be any. You'll have barren desert reflecting all of the heat energy from the sun back into the atmosphere rather than converting some of it into plant material..

Millions more square miles on this planet are now doing that.

Thinking is simple. Try it.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

.

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'm a professional geologist Polycarp2. I understand this stuff just fine, including the math. Asking for a citation or source is a far cry from asking for an education. You gave your source. You deduced it.

As long as we are suggesting courses, I think you'd benefit from a couple statistics courses. Anyone seeking to understand climate would do well to learn statistics.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Ahhhhhh.... Did anyone want to consider the super-volcano that resides under Greenland?

Naaaaahhhhh.

Never mind, you monkeys just keep typing the data they feed you.

Pretty soon you'll have a new play, King Edward Lear.

Or, read the Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold. It will save a lot of the digital paper you're all consuming trying to solve a problem with the wrong data, supplied to you by oil geologists: The Fossil Fool Theory.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote stwo:

I'm a professional geologist Polycarp2. I understand this stuff just fine, including the math. Asking for a citation or source is a far cry from asking for an education. You gave your source. You deduced it.

As long as we are suggesting courses, I think you'd benefit from a couple statistics courses. Anyone seeking to understand climate would do well to learn statistics.

Not entirely. Take data from one science, add it to the science of another and yet another...and there is the fact. Pretty simple..

If you don't deduce things from your geological training and apply them, you must be a lousy geologist. A Dr. deduces from symptoms based upon accumulated knowledge. . Einstein deduced the theory of relativity in the same manner. It's called "thinking".

I do fine with statistics, thank you. Part of my college education....and statistical results have a direct relationship to the data used to compile the result. One error or oversight in the compilation makes the whole result useless. or a pre-determined farce.

Statistically, the average person in Missouri makes $32,000 a year. Funny. Statistically it's true. in Main Street reality, it's a farce.

As a geologist, you should be familiar with the works of one of the top scientists in modern physics, Niels Henrik Bhor.... who also made contributions to geology. He also made contributions to botony and delved into use of the sun's heat energy in the photosynthesis of plants....and the relationship between ground cover or its lack and conversions of the sun's heat energy into plant energy...or re-direction of heat energy back into the atmosphere. A direct relationship to the desertification of the Sahel where the easterly picks up a lot of its heat. . Ditto the burned-out forests turned into caliche in Brazil. Heat expands Start with Bohr if you're so insistent., unless, of course, a Nobel Prize winner isn't good enough for you..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Just for the record, humans put approximately 150 times more co2 into the atmosphere than all of the volcanic activity on the planet. At least that is what the scientists tell me. Carry on.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Well, let's see if he delves into the works of the famed scientist Niels Bohr. I somehow doubt it. He'd have to buy the books or scour Univ. libraries for them.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease":

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It was very refreshing to see 2 people (Maui & Bush) from different political perspectives having a civil dialogue about possibly the single most important subject we could be discussing ..... global climate change. Sadly, some people insist on not allowing that discussion to be civil.

It appears that increasing CO2 levels is not disputed, but the cause and effects of that increase are disputed. For something as important as the future of our shared environment and ecological health of our planet, you would think that a civil dialogue would be mandatory.

Are rising CO2 levels bad for our planet? If so, are we able to do anything about it. Putting fossil fuels, volcanoes and methane aside, what about the explosion in human population alone. Wouldn't a drastic increase in a species that exhales CO2 be something to factor into the equation? What is the equivalent number of breathing humans that equals one fossil fuel power plant.

This discussion must not be sabotaged by those that simply don't want to have it. Anyone straying off the reservation of civility should be ashamed of themselves. This discussion cannot just devolve into a typical ideological agree-to-disagree political stalemate with the stakes involved. I have hope that it can.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Laborisgood:

It was very refreshing to see 2 people (Maui & Bush) from different political perspectives having a civil dialogue about possibly the single most important subject we could be discussing ..... global climate change. Sadly, some people insist on not allowing that discussion to be civil.

It appears that increasing CO2 levels is not disputed, but the cause and effects of that increase are disputed. For something as important as the future of our shared environment and ecological health of our planet, you would think that a civil dialogue would be mandatory.

Are rising CO2 levels bad for our planet? If so, are we able to do anything about it. Putting fossil fuels, volcanoes and methane aside, what about the explosion in human population alone. Wouldn't a drastic increase in a species that exhales CO2 be something to factor into the equation? What is the equivalent number of breathing humans that equals one fossil fuel power plant.

This discussion must not be sabotaged by those that simply don't want to have it. Anyone straying off the reservation of civility should be ashamed of themselves. This discussion cannot just devolve into a typical ideological agree-to-disagree political stalemate with the stakes involved. I have hope that it can.

Thank you Laborisgood for seeing that this is a scientific discussion, not political. The fact that most people posting here disagee with my politics has no bearing on this discussion.

You will notice my new user name. Apparantly someone objected to something I said here yesterday and got me kicked off this board. OK, I'll leave, but hopefully I can at least keep this thread going because it is interesting to me. Again, I am trying to learn here, and we are discussing scientific facts, not political opinions here.

So let's agree on two things here. Global warming is real and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppmv to 380 ppmv in the last 300 years or so. Not everyone agrees with those two statements, but seeing that I am in no position to argue against them, we'll take them at face value for the sake of arguement here.

The question is, so what? Is that enough of a increase in CO2 to actually make a difference? I am a Chemical Engineer, and my first guess is no, that is not enough of an increase to make any difference. Do I have any data to support that last statement, no I don't. So if you do have some data, I would love to see it. I am capable of coming to a new conclusion based on new information. Honest.

BW set me a link that seemed to say that the increase in CO2 will slow the heat realease from the earth down by 1.7W/M2. That's not a whole lot of heat. From that number, I can calculate that if the atmosphere is 20 miles deep, the amount of heat that gets held up every hour will heat the atmosphere up by a whopping 0.0003 degrees F. It's hard for me to see how that much heat would make any difference. And I do have the background to make that calculation, I am not just making that number up.

Am I missing something here? Is that 1.7W/M2 number wrong? The only thing I can think of is that the heat accumulates, but my understanding of heat transfer says that this much insolation will never raise the temperature more than 0.01 degrees F, no where close to the 2-3 degrees that those who study global warming say we have heated up.

BTW, in the link that BW sent me, they make the arguement that population explosion has nothing to do with the increase in CO2 levels. I'm not sure I buy their explanation, but read it for yourself and see what you think.

So hopefully the person that got me kicked off this board yesterday will allow me to continue in this discussion. Again, we are discussing scientific facts here, not political opinions. I have given you my thoughts on the subject and why I feel that way, if I am wrong on anything, please be kind enough to point out my errors.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am

Mauiman wrote: From that number, I can calculate that if the atmosphere is 20 miles deep, the amount of heat that gets held up every hour will heat the atmosphere up by a whopping 0.0003 degrees F.

poly replies: Over what time frame? Continue on with your calculations. How many hours are there in a year,.in a century, in three centuries?

Does heat build up over time when it can't escape? Roll up your car windows, turn off the A/C and find out. Let some escape and it builds up slower.

How does water in a pot come to boil? The heat is retained and built up quicker than it escapes from the pan. It will boil quicker if you put a lid on the pan. Turn the heat down, and you can find a relationship of heat retention/heat escape that simply maintains a lukewarm temperature. Little variation.

Our little planet is perfect. Just the right amount of heat input/heat escape to maintain life. It's a lot different than boiling Mercury, with too much input or frigid Mars with too little, isn't it?

The atmosphere was in a very fine balance. Heat retention/heat escape were in the relationship to maintain life as we know it on this planet. That balance will be altered at a rate faster than we can relocate agricultural areas. and populations.

Outside of CO2 emmissions, if Nobel Laureate Bohr's calculations are correct, desertification and chopping down of forests adds a 5% increase of solar heat back into the atmosphere from those areas. Areas of destroyed ground cover (for profit) are expanding. A million+ sq. miles is nothing to sneeze at, is it?

In our own country, let's blow up a few more mountains for cheap, CO2 emmiting coal. and by all means don't replant the dead/dying forests of Colorado with species that can survive the warming trend. We can't afford it. Heat reflected back into the atmosphere from barren mountainsides will lower heating bills in that state. I guess it isn't all bad. LOL

.Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Mauiman wrote: From that number, I can calculate that if the atmosphere is 20 miles deep, the amount of heat that gets held up every hour will heat the atmosphere up by a whopping 0.0003 degrees F.

poly replies: Over what time frame? Continue on with your calculations. How many hours are there in a year,.in a century, in three centuries?

Does heat build up over time when it can't escape? Roll up your car windows, turn off the A/C and find out. Let some escape and it builds up slower.

How does water in a pot come to boil? The heat is retained and built up quicker than it escapes from the pan. It will boil quicker if you put a lid on the pan. Turn the heat down, and you can find a relationship of heat retention/heat escape that simply maintains a lukewarm temperatrue. Little variation.

Our little planet is perfect. Just the right amount of heat input/escape to maintain life. It's a lot different than boiling Mercury, or frigid Mars, isn't it?

The atmosphere was in a very fine balance. Heat retention/heat escape were in the relationship to maintain life as we know it on this planet. That balance will be altered at a rate faster than we can relocate agricultural areas. and populations.

Outside of CO2 emmissions, if Nobel Laureate Bohr's calculations are correct, desertification and chopping down of forests adds a 5% increase of solar heat back into the atmosphere over those areas. Areas of destroyed ground cover (for profit) are expanding. Nothing to sneeze at, is it?

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Heat transfer is not constant. As the temperature difference increases, the amount of heat that moves increases. This is not a situation where you are throwing heat into a closed system with no way out. To me, this is like buying an uninsolated house in Chicago, putting a half inch of insolation in your attic and expecting that to make difference in 20 degree weather. It will hold up some heat, but you'll never see the difference.

Love to see a discussion from someone who has estimated exactly how much of a temperature difference this CO2 will make. Not a simple calculation believe me or I would do it myself.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am

Lke I said, lower the windows in the car or take the lid off the pot, and heat retention isn't as great. Same with the planet.

Put a lid of a CO2 emmisions over the planet and it's like putting lid over a pan. What you're wanting to know is, how tight-fitting is the lid. That will give you a time frame of when the accumulated heat retention will make the planet incapable of supporting human life. That knowledge doesn't stop the accumulation of heat, does it?

Heat retention/heat escape of the planet is a very finely tuned one. There isn't a whole lot of room for much variation in it. Slow change finds accomodation in the biological species inhabiting the planet. Quick change doesn't. Extinctions become the norm. First plant species quickly followed by animal species.

Every species on the planet relies on other species for its very survival. Most agricultural species have less tolerance for quick change than most animate species do.. They have less tolerance , less adaptability for rapid change. They grow within clearly defined, pretty narrow limits for each species. Relocate a Colo. native, an Aspen tree, to Denver, and you'll kill it. Relocate a marmmot to Denver, and it will do just fine if you feed it.

Dying forests in Colo. and forest/tundra species in the far north show just how little tolerance plant species have to rapid change, doesn't it?.

You can grow a corn plant in the Mojave Desert, if you water and fertilize it, but you won't get anything edible from it. The heat kills the silk...necessary for pollination to fill the cob. Just a few degrees of lower temps., and it would do just fine.

We don't eat rocks. and cattle don't graze on sand.

Put a lid of a CO2 emmisions over the planet and it's like putting lid over a pan. A question you are asking is... how tight-fitting is the lid. That will give you a time frame of when the accumulated heat retention will make the planet incapable of supporting human life. That knowledge doesn't stop the accumulation of heat, does it?

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes but we need to concern ourselves with things that really matter, that will really affect us. What is the 100 ppm increase in CO2 raises the overall temperature 0.01 degrees F? That is a possibility here. Do we really want to spend our time and effort worrying about that, or something that really can make a difference?

If you accept that global warming is a reality, then we need to find the main drivers for that and see if we can do something about them. At first glance, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere does not look like main driver. If anyone has any data to show me that I am wrong, I would love to see it.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am

CO2 is a contributing driver. Melting of permafrost and release of methane is a contributing driver. De-forestation is a contributing driver. Heat reflection of cities is a contributing driver. Desertification is a contributing driver.

Put them all together, and you'll find that humanity is the driver.

"Only when you've poisoned the last stream. cut down the last tree and eaten the last fish will you understand that you can't eat your money" - Cree Prophesy.

They left out, "altered the atmosphere".

Sustainability is a word often used now-a-days. It means that what you are doing can go on forever. It can't.

"That which can't be sustained, won't be". Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate.

You might find this NASA link interesting:There others with data from the Chinese and Russia, but I didn't bookmark them.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

CO2 is a contributing driver. Melting of permafrost and release of methane is a contributing driver. De-forestation is a contributing driver. Heat reflection of cities is a contributing driver. Desertification is a contributing driver.

Put them all together, and you'll find that humanity is the driver.

"Only when you've poisoned the last stream. cut down the last tree and eaten the last fish will you understand that you can't eat your money" - Cree Prophesy.

They left out, "altered the atmosphere".

Sustainability is a word often used now-a-days. It means that what you are doing can go on forever. It can't.

"That which can't be sustained, won't be". Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate.

You might find this NASA link interesting:There others with data from the Chinese and Russia, but I didn't bookmark them.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Notice in your link that they state that CO2 has gone up 100 ppm in 100 years and then come to the conclusion that this is why the earth's temperature has gone up 1 degree F during that time. Is there cause and effect here? Maybe they have data to prove that point, but they did not show it in your link.

I'm still looking for that data. Until then, call me a doubting Thomas on this one. And sorry, environmentalists have raised alarm bells over things in the past based on bad science. And they have gotten the politicians in bed with them based on that bad science. The ban on Freon is exhibit A on that front. And that ban is costing us all money and is not improving the environment one little bit.

Hopefully there is data somewhere that shows that a 100 ppm increase in CO2 is something to be concerned about. I certainly hope this is not yet another example of the environmentalists crying wolf over nothing!

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote Mauiman2:

I'm still looking for that data. Until then, call me a doubting Thomas on this one. And sorry, environmentalists have raised alarm bells over things in the past based on bad science. And they have gotten the politicians in bed with them based on that bad science. The ban on Freon is exhibit A on that front. And that ban is costing us all money and is not improving the environment one little bit.

Spotted owl to cite another. They blamed man for a natural predator. Destroyed lives, entire communities and a whole industry on bad science.

Capital.1's picture
Capital.1
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 8:07 am

Just to show you how fair a guy I really am, I went looking on the web looking for someone to make the arguement that CO2 really does cause global warming, and I found one. Give me time to digest it, but if you are interested, here it is:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

I still have a tough time with an increase of 100 pm CO2 causing problems, and this article is very technical so it may take me a while to really understand what they are saying here.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am

Assuming the following data is correct:

A. We are currently within an extended rising global temperature that is not within normal cyclical temperature fluctuations as understood by modern science.

B. The past 150 years has increased our CO2 from 280ppm to 380ppm.

C. The 850 years previous to the 150 year period mentioned showed no appreciable increase in CO2 levels.

I would say that a 35% increase in CO2 levels over the past 150 years is nothing to just shrug off. Climate change aside, what about pollution and the concept of long term sustainability? I see our acute climate issues of recent years as a wake-up call that we would be wise to acknowledge.

Even if a large amount of our CO2 increase is NOT man made, wouldn’t it make sense to err on the side of caution by minimizing the man made portion which we have some control over? What is the downside of reducing our pollution and increasing sustainability? Money is of course the only reason to not do so. I say, fuck the money and save the planet.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Laborisgood:

Even if a large amount of our CO2 increase is NOT man made, wouldn’t it make sense to err on the side of caution by minimizing the man made portion which we have some control over? What is the downside of reducing our pollution and increasing sustainability? Money is of course the only reason to not do so. I say, fuck the money and save the planet.

What else... That is easy to say ... "Fuck the money" being I bet you don't have any, certainly not to the scale you are referring to.

What else are you Willing to give up to "save the Planet" that quite frankly doesn't need saving. It is Humans you want to save.... The planet does care what you do...

What else are you willin to give up? You willing to kill people for it... Being that over population is the root cause of all the other symptoms....

Capital.1's picture
Capital.1
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 8:07 am

The Tesla Motors electric car is the only such vehcile that is feasible for people who have to drive any appreciable distance because it will go a fairly long distance on the battery alone before having to be recharged, but it is way to expensive for anyone other than someone like Mitt Romney to afford.

Robindell's picture
Robindell
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Capital.1:
Quote Laborisgood:

Even if a large amount of our CO2 increase is NOT man made, wouldn’t it make sense to err on the side of caution by minimizing the man made portion which we have some control over? What is the downside of reducing our pollution and increasing sustainability? Money is of course the only reason to not do so. I say, fuck the money and save the planet.

What else... That is easy to say ... "Fuck the money" being I bet you don't have any, certainly not to the scale you are referring to.

What else are you Willing to give up to "save the Planet" that quite frankly doesn't need saving. It is Humans you want to save.... The planet does care what you do...

What else are you willin to give up? You willing to kill people for it... Being that over population is the root cause of all the other symptoms....

Right, the amount of money it would take to sequester the CO2 or eliminate the increase in the CO2 would be ASTRONOMICAL!! Way beyond what anyone is willing to spend.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote polycarp2:

CO2 is a contributing driver. Melting of permafrost and release of methane is a contributing driver. De-forestation is a contributing driver. Heat reflection of cities is a contributing driver. Desertification is a contributing driver.

Put them all together, and you'll find that humanity is the driver.

"Only when you've poisoned the last stream. cut down the last tree and eaten the last fish will you understand that you can't eat your money" - Cree Prophesy.

They left out, "altered the atmosphere".

Sustainability is a word often used now-a-days. It means that what you are doing can go on forever. It can't.

"That which can't be sustained, won't be". Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate.

You might find this NASA link interesting:There others with data from the Chinese and Russia, but I didn't bookmark them.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

Notice in your link that they state that CO2 has gone up 100 ppm in 100 years and then come to the conclusion that this is why the earth's temperature has gone up 1 degree F during that time. Is there cause and effect here? Maybe they have data to prove that point, but they did not show it in your link.

I'm still looking for that data. Until then, call me a doubting Thomas on this one. And sorry, environmentalists have raised alarm bells over things in the past based on bad science. And they have gotten the politicians in bed with them based on that bad science. The ban on Freon is exhibit A on that front. And that ban is costing us all money and is not improving the environment one little bit.

Hopefully there is data somewhere that shows that a 100 ppm increase in CO2 is something to be concerned about. I certainly hope this is not yet another example of the environmentalists crying wolf over nothing!

The data shows a pretty steady warming trend.

However, if scientists are correct, we have about 3 years left to reduce emissions by 50% or the whole debate is moot. It will be irreversable and will accelerate. We'll be stuck with worsening consequences for centuries..

Many years ago, when I became interested in Chad, I quickly developed an interest in desertification in that country. Changing weather, causes, and the like ...and began to notice patterns. I began forecasting trends for the African Continent, and then the globe. It was heating up even then. Bohr's work verified some of my own "warming" conclusions and the effects.. I ran across it entirely by accident, spurred by a footnote in an agricultural journal..

My niece reminded me of that when I went to Denver last week. She said she thought I was a little wacky at the time. when some of my forecasting was a bit dire. Now she reminded me that after twenty years, nearly all of it has come to pass....and I wasn't even considering CO2 emissions in my calculations...though I've no doubt they are now contributing heavily to the warming.

3 years to do something, or pass the window of opportunity is about right. After that, I could care less about debating it. The future will be set in stone. What would be the point? There will be no winners. Both sides lose with the consequences if the concensus reached by the majority of scientiists in the field is correct..

It's really kind of senseless to debate the issue now. If global warming is really on track, and if we only have 3 years left to address it in a major way....I think time is already up. Still, hope lives on until the final point of no return.

Note that the ban on Freon and other ozone depleting chemicals has stabilized the ozone loss in the atmosphere. It's now expected to fully recover in about another 60 years. In the meantime,put on your UV sun screen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole

.Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Has it been hot his year? Over the 9 NOAA climate regions of the US, for 6 of the 9 it has been the hottest Jan thru June ever and here in the Southwest it was the second hottest and the second driest Jan thru June ever. It hasn't just been hot, it's been hottest and it's not a fluke.

Quote "Nat'l Climatic Data Center of NOAA": The globally-averaged temperature for June 2012 marked the fourth warmest June since record keeping began in 1880. June 2012 also marks the 36th consecutive June and 328th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average.

The Clean Air Act made the air safer to breathe and reduced acid rain by removing much of the NOx and SOx aerosols produced by cars and coal plants. Turns out the aerosols were masking the greenhouse effects of the CO2 and CHx emissions and so now the temperature is clearly rising over much of the globe.

LeMoyne's picture
LeMoyne
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

A Carbon Tax is Absolutely Essential

So, what do a major investment from Verizon Wireless and the melting of our polar ice caps have in common? A lot more than you may think. On Monday, America’s largest wireless provider announced that it will be making a $40 million investment in solar power at eight of its facilities across the United States.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system