View Full Version : Arctic warmest in 2000 years
09-03-2009, 04:29 PM
Arctic reverses trend, is warmest in two millennia
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer
Thursday, September 3, 2009
(09-03) 12:35 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The Arctic is warmer than it's been in 2,000 years, even though it should be cooling because of changes in the Earth's orbit that cause the region to get less direct sunlight. Indeed, the Arctic had been cooling for nearly two millennia before reversing course in the last century and starting to warm as human activities added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said Bette Otto-Bliesner, a National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist and co-author of a study of Arctic temperatures published in Friday's edition of the journal Science.
The most recent 10-year interval, 1999-2008, was the warmest of the last 2,000 years in the Arctic, according to the researchers led by Darrell S. Kaufman, a professor of geology and environmental science at Northern Arizona University.
Summer temperatures in the Arctic averaged 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) warmer than would have been expected if the cooling had continued, the researchers said.
The finding adds fuel to the debate over a House-passed climate bill now pending in the Senate. The administration-backed measure would impose the first limits on greenhouse gases and eventually would lead to an 80 percent reduction by putting a price on each ton of climate-altering pollution.
It is the latest in a drumbeat of reports on warming conditions in the Arctic, including:
_ A marine scientist reports that Alaskan waters are turning acidic from absorbing greenhouse gases faster than tropical waters, potentially endangering the state's $4.6 billion fishing industry.
_ NASA satellite measurements show that sea ice in the Arctic is more than just shrinking in area, it is dramatically thinning. The volume of older crucial sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk by 57 percent from the winter of 2004 to 2008.
_ Global warming effects in Alaska also include shrinking glaciers, coastal erosion and the march north of destructive forest beetles formerly held in check by cold winters.
And with the melting of land-based ice, such as the massive Greenland ice cap, sea levels could rise across the world, threatening millions who live in coastal cities.
The new report is based on a decade-by-decade reconstruction of temperatures over the past 2,000 years developed using information from ancient lake sediments, ice cores, tree rings and other samples. The findings were then compared with complex computer climate model simulations created at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
"This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system," commented NCAR scientist David Schneider, a co-author on the study.
Added Jonathan T. Overpeck, a University of Arizona professor of geosciences: "The Arctic should be very sensitive to human-caused climate change, and our results suggest that indeed it is."
In addition, he pointed out, as the Arctic warms there is less snow and ice to reflect solar energy back into space and the newly exposed dark soil and dark ocean surfaces absorb solar energy and warm further, accelerating the warming process.
The Arctic cooling had been the result of a 21,000-year cycle in the Earth's movement that caused the far north to get progressively less summertime energy from the sun for the last 8,000 years. That process won't reverse for another several thousand years.
The research was funded by the National Science Foundation.
I'm curious, who logged temps in the arctic 2000 years ago?
Conserve the resource, the future of musky fishing starts today.
09-04-2009, 05:33 AM
Come to think of it, Yellowknife was pretty toasty last week. I almost wore shorts.
09-04-2009, 05:46 AM
I dunno, people on this board say it isn't so.
It must be a liberal scam.
09-04-2009, 06:20 AM
>I dunno, people on this board say it isn't so.
>It must be a liberal scam.
What caused the temps to change that got the Earth out of the last ice Age John? There were no big bad evil factories and SUVs back then.
I know I know...it "feels good" to pretend you care about the planet more than the next person.
Gotta go...heading up North...I'll be the one throwing garbage out the window the entire way and laughing as I run over cute little bunnies in the road.
I'm not up to the challenge anymore. I can play, but I'm not up to the challenge. Believe me, I've questioned my decision. I believe it's the right decision. AND THERE'S NOTHING THEY CAN DO OR SAY TO CHANGE THAT.
Brett Favre Retirement Press Conference #1 Transcript - March 6, 2008
We'll never forget you Brent.
09-04-2009, 07:01 AM
I don't doubt the accuracy, and I think we should do what we can as long as it is a world wide effort and not exclusive to this country. I can not support any regulation or change that puts the USA at a disadvantage. While we are regulating our emissions and increasing production costs, other countries do as they please, when they please. It not only puts the USA at an economic disadvantage, but until all countries abide by the same rules, our changes at home are waste of time.
If other countries are drilling offshore-then we better get to it. Our policies, while popular and ethically sound in some cases, continue to put us at a disadvantage.
09-04-2009, 07:31 AM
"summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century,"
Based on what? These kind of statements slip by way too often. It's the most important statement in the article. If Bette knows a reason why the Arctic should have been cooling, she should trumpeting that to give her theory credibility. It wouldn't surprise me if there is no backing at all for that statement, but it's dropped in there to make the rest of it more frightening.
09-04-2009, 07:47 AM
Once again repete you dumb down everything to character assasination.
It seems you thrive on causing conflict between people with different beliefs, shoving what you think they feel down thier throats without having a clue. The only one in any of these discussions that insights class or belief warfare is you.
Who is pretending to care more about the planet than others?
Nobody said that. But of course you believe that anyone who takes stock in studies and opinions like this feels that way.
Who said that people who disagree with a study are bad people that want to pollute and damage our planet.
Nobody did, but you say they all feel that way.
You constantly yell and scream about "class warfare" and how liberals think everyone else is "evil", yet the only one fixating on those thoughts and ideas is you.
The observations in this study are not refutable. The condtion of the arctic ice is measurable. Do you have evidence otherwise?
The temps there are increasing. Care to refute that?
The only hypothesis that could be argued is causation, and how much of a factor pollution has in that.
To that end the argument comes down to what an individual deems as an O.K. amount of pollution. Even if you don't think pollution has any affect on climate change, at some point you have to realize that posinous gasses and substances in our atmosphere and our waters probably aren't a good thing.
The notion that because somebody else is a bigger polluter than we are so cleaning up our act doesn't matter is moronic.
If your neighbor threw all his garbage in his front yard would you then say "oh well, guess I will too"??
09-04-2009, 07:53 AM
i pledge alliegance to barack obama
09-04-2009, 08:04 AM
i see a great place for a condo!
I was watching a show about the 10th mountain division and how they got trained in Colorado in the 40's and how they built Camp Hail to train the troops in the mountains to prepare for mountain fighting in WW2. These were sportsman, hunters, skiers, mountain climbers, hikers, etc...
They said the town was built in between two mountains and a train went thru their on the ridge every couple of days. They said eventually everybody staying at the camp got a bad cough.
They said a haze sat over the town all the time. Just imagine how much crap is in the air nowadays even with the standards they have now. Countries like China have sh!t for environmental protection.
They said a lot of soldiers of the 10th mountain division came back from the war and moved back to the Rocky Mountains in the U.S.A.
They showed how most of them were into trying to save the Rockies as they did not want the Rocky Mountains to become like the over developed mountains in Europe especially Italy and Switzerland.
I would think Sportsmans would be bigger environmentalists than the average city slicker.
BTW- I heard a report on the evening news that global warming is causing a slow but serious drought in southern Asia. They said it could effect an estimated 1.8 Billion people.
Too many people and not enough resources!
09-04-2009, 08:52 AM
>What caused the temps to change that got the Earth out of
>the last ice Age? There were no big bad evil factories
>and SUVs back then.
So what do you guys think caused the earth to get out of the last ice age since when know it was not influenced by man???
09-04-2009, 08:57 AM
Wow... after seeing the data in MRobert's post... I'm buying stock in Coppertone and Exxon!!!!
09-04-2009, 09:08 AM
J, don't forget solar panels
Nail A Pig!
09-04-2009, 09:13 AM
We all know that picture of Greenland was photo shopped by Al Gore.
09-04-2009, 09:21 AM
Coldfront - do you have a source for that for that statement?
***I wish I had my own NFL draftboard.***
09-04-2009, 09:21 AM
>Once again repete you dumb down everything to character
>It seems you thrive on causing conflict between people with
>different beliefs, shoving what you think they feel down
>thier throats without having a clue. The only one in any of
>these discussions that insights class or belief warfare is
>Who is pretending to care more about the planet than others?
>Nobody said that. But of course you believe that anyone who
>takes stock in studies and opinions like this feels that
>Who said that people who disagree with a study are bad
>people that want to pollute and damage our planet.
>Nobody did, but you say they all feel that way.
>You constantly yell and scream about "class warfare" and how
>liberals think everyone else is "evil", yet the only one
>fixating on those thoughts and ideas is you.
>The observations in this study are not refutable. The
>condtion of the arctic ice is measurable. Do you have
>The temps there are increasing. Care to refute that?
>The only hypothesis that could be argued is causation, and
>how much of a factor pollution has in that.
>To that end the argument comes down to what an individual
>deems as an O.K. amount of pollution. Even if you don't
>think pollution has any affect on climate change, at some
>point you have to realize that posinous gasses and
>substances in our atmosphere and our waters probably aren't
>a good thing.
>The notion that because somebody else is a bigger polluter
>than we are so cleaning up our act doesn't matter is
>If your neighbor threw all his garbage in his front yard
>would you then say "oh well, guess I will too"??
JS, You made a point directed at Repete, and then went ahead and did the very same thing. I am not a scientist, but I should be able to hold an opinion without being called moronic. You then went on to "dummy down" my opinion with your neighbors trash analogy. We don't have to agree on everything, but we can certainly disagree like gentlemen. The analogy is a stretch at best and really isn't relative to my point. My neighbor throwing garbage gives him no economic advantage. Chinese companies do however get an advantage by having little to no restriction on emissions. The point I was trying to make is:
This has to be a global effort, with an even playing field for all.
09-04-2009, 09:24 AM
It was a joke.
09-04-2009, 09:41 AM
>A picture is worth a thousand words! I see Greenland's ice
>cap melting, do you?
A picture isn't worth a 1000 words. Sometimes you need to read.
And all I really see is someone hopelessly blinded by dogma.
This picture is over two years old. And what's good for the goose is good for the gander. We're not allowed to give examples of record low temps across the US this summer as proof of Global Cooling, because those are simply local anecdotal examples. But you want to show a picture of Greenland ice melting. That's simply a local anecdotal example.
And I'm wonder why you don't have a satellite picture at the ready of Antarctic Ice, that is growing and expanding?
Instead of showing an old picture of localized anecdotal evidence of warming, just supply some proof. Prove that man is causing the Earth to warm. Show us the proof. There's only one problem: You can't. It doesn't exist.
Don't force your religion down my throat. Thanks!
09-04-2009, 09:50 AM
Got it. There's so much on the internet right now I didn't know if that was an actual claim or not.
***I wish I had my own NFL draftboard.***
09-04-2009, 09:59 AM
I think everyone now finally agrees that it is happening, now the argument is what exactly is causing it? Humans or just a natural cycle. I think anything we can do to help stop it will be a good thing. I personally have to believe that with the ever increasing world population and the pollution we are putting into our very thin breathable atmosphere is not good. I doubt it will affect me in my lifetime but I feel for my kids and future grandkids.
09-04-2009, 10:17 AM
At the risk of making your blood pressure rise. Please go to Google Maps or any other site where you can view an updated 2009 satellite image of Greenland. Please just go do it and pick whatever site you want. They typically use a composite image from multiple sources to provide the most accurate image. (Apparently I need to add that you can check the image credits and copyright DATE, they are indeed NOT from old russian spy satellites... sheesh)
Have a nice day and please ask youself how this discrepancy could be at all possible given all the "information" above in this thread.
09-04-2009, 10:39 AM
Moronic was a harsh choice of words, my apologies.
My anecdote was not dumbing anything down, it was making an apples to apples comparison on why we shouldn't look at our neighbors to an example as how to live.
Why in the world should our decisions on pollution be based on what others do??
It makes no more sense than basing all of our societies decisions on what other nations do or don't do.
Should we not allow women to vote, or not have public education?
Should we have no minimum wage or safety regs in industry, other countries don't so they are more profitable, so we should follow suit right?
Seriously, if our society is going to base our pollution policies on whether our not our neighbors do it and how it affects us money-wise than we are not being the leaders in this world and the great country we can be.
For the life of me I can't understand how people can be against cleaning up our world. Especially those that hunt, fish and enjoy the outdoors.
You can completely take away any conversation about global warming and it's causes and still find a multitude of reasons to quit polluting the way we do.
There are many "liberals" that don't believe in global warming, and many "conservatives" that do. Drawing a line in the sand and making this a black and white issue based on your stereotypical perceptions of others is dumbing it down. It has nothing to do with the issues at hand and does nothing to validate your argument.
Nobody is ever right or wrong just because they are a "liberal" or a "conservative".
09-04-2009, 10:56 AM
MNmatt most free satellite image pictures are at least 10 years or more old. Many are from the old Russian satellite Spudnick.
09-04-2009, 10:57 AM
>We all know that picture of Greenland was photo shopped by
Of course it was a joke. Al Gore doesn't know anything about photoshopping pictures. However, he does know enough to invent the internet. :7 :7 :7 :7
09-04-2009, 10:57 AM
>Here are some melting alpine glaciers.
I wonder if we can get muskies stocked in that lake below the glacier...
09-04-2009, 12:38 PM
>At the risk of making your blood pressure rise. Please go to
>Google Maps or any other site where you can view an updated
>2009 satellite image of Greenland. Please just go do it and
>pick whatever site you want. They typically use a composite
>image from multiple sources to provide the most accurate
>Have a nice day and please ask youself how this discrepancy
>could be at all possible given all the "information" above
>in this thread.
Haha!! Excellent. I wish I had thought of that. It appears that upon further consideration it wouldn't make such a great place for a condo afterall. What, with all that ice and snow.
09-04-2009, 12:45 PM
>The whole global warming debate reminds me of the old SNL
>skit with Ed Asner retiring as the manager of a nuclear
>power plant. He makes the statement that "You can never add
>too much water to a nuclear reactor". While everyone
>debated whether it meant add a lot of water or don't put in
>too much water, the reactor blows up. We are doing the same
>thing with this. By the time we decide, it may be too
>Here are some melting alpine glaciers.
Again... what's with the pictures. Pictures aren't proof that man is responsible. You don't have any proof.
To play along with your game, I see your old outdated melting glacier pic, and raise you recent data pointing to glacial ice in the Himalayas that is expanding and growing.
May 5, 2009 -- Perched on the soaring Karakoram mountains in the Western Himalayas, a group of some 230 glaciers are bucking the global warming trend. They're growing.
Back to the drawing board.
09-04-2009, 01:26 PM
Coldfront I'm actually glad you brought that up AGAIN.
I like to get all my Global Warming images here:
"NEWSin3D is the one stop shop for 3D computer graphics (CGI) for news media: virtual sets, stock 3D animation clips, custom services and more."
Just incase you want to buy the computer animated version:
Greenland Ice Cap Melting NTSC / SD . Broadcast Quality Royalty Free Global Warming animation. Available in HDTV (1920 x 1080) and SDTV resolutions.
Source: Computer Generated"
(Thought I better point out the "Source" again because some of you don't seem to think that matters)
Not sure how you're able to "film" something like that without the sun moving... weird.
You can also buy "Asteroid Impacts Earth" while you're at it, maybe THAT one is real and I just didn't hear about it?
...or the "actual" 9-11 pilot view? Well, that future car and future city animation looks pretty cool but I haven't seen any signs of either one of those yet. Maybe I need to step outside and get some fresh air?
But I digress, sorry to shoot down your perfectly legit information to support your case. I was just bored taking a break while editing my newest "Earth Freezes Over" animation.
09-04-2009, 01:39 PM
Ken, In response to your pictures!!!!!!!
ALRIGHT, ANOTHER MUSKY LAKE IN THE MAKING!!!! WHOOO HOOOO
09-04-2009, 01:42 PM
I'm not sure what your talking about, all I said was most free satellite images are old, I have used them for years checking out my hunting area's. I don't think our national security likes having detailed current satellite photos floating around the internet for free like google do some reseach and you will find the images are old.
09-04-2009, 01:55 PM
And you have to throw this into the mix:
One good burp from Mt.St. Helens or any other volcano sends more CO-2(a lot more) into the atmosphere than man has in total, since he started walking the planet.
09-04-2009, 02:04 PM
We are not arguing the causes, just stating the fact that the ice is melting at the north arctic circle, not the Himalaya's or antarctic where they may have been making ice recently. We will be more affected by that melting to our north.
09-04-2009, 02:11 PM
I gotta call BS on that one.
Where did you find that info?
If that is correct, I'd be amazed, but you also have to realize that Co2 itself isn't the most serious (deadly) pollutant man puts into the air.
Industrial pollution and cars etc. put many posinous gasses into the air that do not occur in volcanic erruptions.
But what really is your point?
Do you think that we shouldn't care about how much pollution we cause because a volcano could cause more or as much or whatever you were getting at?
Wouldn't the logical thing to do is think we should be even more careful about our pollution levels because a volcano could increase it by two-fold or what ever you claim it to be??
There are more people alive today than have died in the history of our planet.
That fact alone should be alarming to anyone that has children or grandchildren.
Pollution will increase at startling levels if ingnored by those who have the ability to change it.
09-04-2009, 02:29 PM
I would agree that we should do everything we can not to polute the planet or the atmosphere.
R.E. the BS-I read it in some tech paper on the net! where else!
Point being man can do very little to affect climate change.
09-04-2009, 02:41 PM
Won't argue that we may not be able to do much to affect climate change.
Completely agree we should do all we can to have a cleaner planet!
A point many people seem to totally ingore in their fervor to argue about climate change/global warming.
09-04-2009, 03:11 PM
"NASA satellite measurements show that sea ice in the Arctic is more than just shrinking in area, it is dramatically thinning. The volume of older crucial sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk by 57 percent from the winter of 2004 to 2008".
This really is some alarming data they have collected and the study definitely looks at a very long period of time.
I'm not sure there is anything we can do about it but things are warming up.
09-04-2009, 04:04 PM
Ok the glacier is shrinking but can you please explain to me why it grew from 28 to 58?
09-04-2009, 07:25 PM
mount st. helens spewing a big belch ...
where do you think we get the industrial chemicals in the first place? ...
they are one in the same ...
i got that from being a chemical engineer ...
09-04-2009, 08:13 PM
We are in a warming cycle(my two cents before this gets locked down)
09-04-2009, 08:43 PM
I'm pretty sure there are a few things we put into the air that don't come out of volcanoes.
We've managed to put some pretty nasty stuff up there.
09-04-2009, 08:57 PM
>I'm pretty sure there are a few things we put into the air
>that don't come out of volcanoes.
>We've managed to put some pretty nasty stuff up there.
That I doubt. Volcanoes release a tremendous amount of pollutants. Why do enviromental whackos continue to act like this is the 50's and the 60's ? Companies have spent billions to reduce pollution and there are enough regulations to fill the library of Congress. I don't thin k they will ever be satisfied until we release zero pollutants and have a zero economy.
09-04-2009, 09:00 PM
how do you become "pretty sure" john ... ?? i must have missed something the last 30 years ... tell me the chemistry of volcanic gas or that which comes out of an earthquake?
09-04-2009, 09:05 PM
>how do you become "pretty sure" john ... ?? i must have
>missed something the last 30 years ... tell me the chemistry
>of volcanic gas or that which comes out of an earthquake?
I bet there's some sulfur. And other stuff.
How's the new job, Sled? You still down this way a couple/three times a week?
09-04-2009, 09:20 PM
kenosha monday - thursdays and alternating weeks in costa rica makin' chemicals outa the crap that comes outa the ground. we gotta meet up for a pizza or a bucket a balls sometime!
09-04-2009, 09:30 PM
Can you get off one of those days you're here? I have a free pass for Monday-Thursday at my club. My mother passed a week ago Monday after a summer of tough times so my life has changed a bit. Going to be really busy this coming week as I finally got some work in after a horrible August, in more ways than one, but could plan a day to play with a week's notice. The round is on me if you can swing it.
Tell 'em you want to play golf with a guy on a course built in an old quarry, to see what might be coming out of the ground.
09-04-2009, 11:20 PM
>how do you become "pretty sure" john ... ?? i must have
>missed something the last 30 years ... tell me the chemistry
>of volcanic gas or that which comes out of an earthquake?
From: Volcanic Gas Chemistry: VolGasEQ - A Computer Program to Calculate Thermodynamic Equilibrium
"The major gases found in volcanic gas compositions are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. Minor constituents of volcanic gases include hydrogen, sulfur, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen sulfide."
09-04-2009, 11:25 PM
>There are more people alive today than have died in the history of our planet.
a quote from the internet, so it must be true:
This is a common urban myth.
It doesn't take much math to prove it wrong. The current world population is estimated at about 6.9 billion. According to the Population Reference Bureau the total number of people who have ever lived is approximately 106 billion. So we still have a way to go.
09-04-2009, 11:30 PM
Sulfur. I was right.
09-05-2009, 06:15 AM
The population figure was not from the internet.
It was from a college professor while we were studying population dymanics.
Our population doesn't grow arithmatically (that might not be the right term, i.e. 1,2,3,4...), it grows 1,2,4,8,...
So eventually you have more people living then you ever have lived.
We have reached that point according to the math we did. The doubling time of the earth's population gets shorter and shorter.
The biggest factor there is how much longer people live now. We did the math, and it worked out.
Sled you may know what comes out of a volcano, but are you going to pretend to know every pollutant that comes out of a smokestack??
09-05-2009, 06:27 AM
>The population figure was not from the internet.
>It was from a college professor while we were studying
>Our population doesn't grow arithmatically (that might not
>be the right term, i.e. 1,2,3,4...), it grows 1,2,4,8,...
>So eventually you have more people living then you ever have
>We have reached that point according to the math we did.
>The doubling time of the earth's population gets shorter and
>The biggest factor there is how much longer people live now.
>We did the math, and it worked out.
>Sled you may know what comes out of a volcano, but are you
>going to pretend to know every pollutant that comes out of a
Thank God,uhmm I mean obama for the obama health care plan. It won't be cost effective to treat old people so they will take obama's "pain pill" and just die . That will lower your life expectancy and cut down the worlds population. Obama saves us again. I don't know how much more of his saving us that I can take.
09-05-2009, 07:27 AM
Yah, liberals want to kill old people. That's a core belief of being a liberal.
I admire many principles of conservatives, but do you guys have to be so gullable?
Wait a minute, I guess Liberals are the gullable ones 'cause we believe in global warming.
Newsflash, maybe everyone should realize that we're all capable of not thinking for ourselves at times!
Fear-mongering obviously is not as one-sided as some would believe.
09-05-2009, 08:56 AM
js ... i'm waiting for you to back your claim.
and, yes i'm pretty familiar with the chemistry that comes from hydrocarbons and elsewhere. b.s. chem e, mba and 23 years of making and using chemicals with the likes of 3M and Mobil Chemical Company, and now lots of time eliminating the bad stuff in places like china, cambodia, vietnam and now headed to central america to do the same thing based on what i've learned over the years ... cleaning up risks on behalf of medical and food companies who source themselves from the 2nd and 3rd world. i even hear there might be a few volcanos in costa rica so i'm interested in your expertise cause i'll be facing that very thing ... a place where packaging manufacture is exposed to ambient conditions during the time of a potential earthquake or volcanic disaster. was at the one in china and that's what triggered me getting sick with this thing called sarcoid ... apparently "something was in the air" and it hit me.
but, i wanna hear your version, cause what i'm learning must be missing out on something based on what you are claiming ... so, yeah ... tell me more.
09-05-2009, 09:13 AM
>>Wait a minute, I guess Liberals are the gullable ones 'cause
>we believe in global warming.
I don't think anybody here disputes the there is a trend in warming. The question is "is it totally man made?"
The problem with your argument is that you have no proof that it is not part of the cycle of the earth. We once had the ice age, but without man's help it warmed. We had a period in the 80s and 90s where it got real warm, but now we are on a cooling trend and I had a liberal tell me that because of global warming as well (I ain't figured that one out yet). A lot of things contribute to the ozone including natural things like the oceans and volcanoes. But to tell everyone it totally man made I believe it is false.
Just where am I wrong in my thinking?
09-05-2009, 09:15 AM
all this said ... if the pollution was drilled down to the most significant effect to our planet coming from industrial emissions, we'd be investing our "global dollars" into legislating the clean-up of china. we'd be black-balling places like walmart until they regulate the products they bring in and it wouldn't be always price driven ... it's beyond ridiculous, unregulated, and the engineers who have traveled there on behalf of u.s. companies have gotten away with the blame falling on china.
the true blame is consumerism that starts here, it then extends to regulatory avoidance that's been a convenience that has allowed u.s. companies have somehow avoided accountability to. the good news is that.
i got chemical burns from walking down the street, got sick with what was considered lymphoma until it was drilled down to pulmonary sarcoidosis and have seen what it means to not even be able to look across the street because of the toxic air. this was when i visited my "competitors" who were allowed to do it the wrong way.
3.5 billion people in China vs. our 300 million consumers who drive most of their emissions ... their output of industrial air makes working on ours seem silly in the grand scheme of things. the amount of progress made in the U.S. in the past 15 years has been dramatic, some for good reason and some conveniently eliminated by pushing the "problem" to other places around the globe.
09-05-2009, 09:45 AM
I can't "tell" you anything. I just find it very had to believe the claim that volcanoes put out every kind of pollutant that man does.
We have rivers with high levels of mercury from pollution. Do volcanoes spew mercury similar to when you burn coal or make paper in paper mills?
When we manufactur chemicals or metals or energy the by-products put into the air are all found in volcanic eruptions??
You made the claim that they are, I'm just saying I don't believe it, and nobody has shown proof that those claims are true.
I'm not claiming to be an expert in this area, or to know more than you do. I just can't see how that is true without proof shown.
If I burn a pile of tires the emmisions would not be the same as if I burn a pile of wood.
That may be a simplified scenario but that is how I look at this comparison of volcanic erruptions vs. man-made emmisions.
I'm not saying you are wrong as much as I'm saying nobody has put up the proof that nothing man creates as pollution isn't found in a volcanic eruption.
09-05-2009, 09:48 AM
Nobody is disclaiming natural warming and cooling trends.
Where did you find that argument?
The claim is being made by some that those trends are influenced by pollution.
Do you have any more proof they aren't than others that say they are?
09-05-2009, 12:11 PM
hydrocarbons contain most of the chemistry to make the emissions that are argued against most heavily. heavy metals are contained in these streams too ... density and refined final state are pretty important when you consider either what stays up and potentially becomes a hazard to the atmosphere and what comes back down to pollute either groundwater, rivers, streams etc... but, yeah, the farts that come from mother earth are volatile when considered as emmissions and can be pretty much considered "fallout"
here's another claim to ponder ... consider the low molecular weight volatiles and free monomer that are in the paint and the plastics that are in the bait industry. don't sniff your soft plastcs after you melt em especially if they're made in China ... LOL. maybe i could coin the word "invasive chemistry" ... lead gets a bad rep but nobody even thinks about the other "stuff".
save me the company line b.s. too whomever responds ... unless you've been there you have no clue what's really happening and what's being used to make those products ...
if you really want to do the "right" left thing you'll stop living ... until then laying claims while wearing, driving and supporting life on this planet will include the use and emission of matter.
i believe the first natural resource crisis will be water and not air ... and that it might be seen by our children.
09-05-2009, 12:49 PM
So if I'm hearing you right, you're saying the building blocks for whatever we can come up with as far as pollutants are derived from what you can find in a volcanic eruption.
Interesting that you think water pollution will be our 1st crisis.
Do you see that happening abroad or here first?
You can already see water emergencies happening with supply right here in the good ole USA.
Too many people need golf courses and swimming pools in places where water is scarce.
California is losing farmers left and right due to a water supply that they can't count on. Short-sighted planning on thier part, irrigating crops is a grossly inefficient means of using water, most of it is lost to evaporation.
09-05-2009, 02:43 PM
i saw the water situation in asia and yeah, it's dismal in comparisson to what we have here. when you consider the industrialization of that region and its timing, there's an argument that suggests we haven't yet seen the consequences. i believe that the consequences will start showing up and yes, the primary abuse and shortage will be in water-supply.
if i were sending a kid off to school or buying stock ... i'd lean toward something that's prepared to clean up the mess and/or control the future of water.
the yangtze river when i was last there is known as "the cancer river" and is polluted beyond the ability to use. most water for drinking is imported ... and there are 3.5 billion of them in need and gaining economic power exponentially each year not to mention more and more of our debt.
water is fundamentally the most valuable of all resources coupled only by air.
09-05-2009, 02:51 PM
oh ... and you are correct that the building blocks are there ... you are also correct in-that the ability to make them into even nastier and more aggressive chemistry exists now vs. anytime in the history of man. most of this through synthetic or further processing that wasn't known or available during the north-american industrialization.
so, you're right john that burps and farts of the earth are volatile and an apple when compared to the orange that is industrial chemicals. volume = don't know ...
but then we could also all light our farts and be more of an impact on the environment too.
the rest of the world has a larger influence in our future than we do and that is why our national defense and the control of the alliance of chavez, putin, kim jong il and china is so critical.
world peace is just fine as long as we have power and influence over our enemies.
09-05-2009, 03:06 PM
Arctic Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Rate
in Recorded History
7 Nov 08 - An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels. The total amount of ice, which set a record low last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979, bringing ice back to levels from the 1980s.
Some researchers, not surprisingly, say the rapid increase is "no big deal". While admitting that the Arctic has certainly been colder in recent months, they say the long-term decrease is still ongoing and see nothing in the recent data to contradict predictions of global warming.
Others aren't so sure. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, says he sees some "very odd" things occurring in recent years. The Southern Hemisphere can't be explained by current theory, says Michaels. "The models predict a warming ocean around Antarctica, so why would we see more sea ice?" Large areas of the Southern Pacific are showing cooling trends, an occurrence not anticipated by any current climate model, Michaels adds.
On average, ice covers roughly 7% of the ocean surface of the planet. Sea ice is floating and therefore doesn't affect sea level like the ice anchored on bedrock in Antarctica or Greenland. However, research has indicated that the Antarctic continent -- which is on a long-term cooling trend -- has also been gaining ice in recent years. (See Antarctic Ice Sheet growing enough to lower sea levels)
Did you catch that?
09-05-2009, 03:55 PM
>Yah, liberals want to kill old people. That's a core belief
>of being a liberal.
>I admire many principles of conservatives, but do you guys
>have to be so gullable?
>Wait a minute, I guess Liberals are the gullable ones 'cause
>we believe in global warming.
>Newsflash, maybe everyone should realize that we're all
>capable of not thinking for ourselves at times!
>Fear-mongering obviously is not as one-sided as some would
Obama himself said it. I repeat Obama himself said it. Give the old people the "pain pill" . Do you understand the words that are coming out of his mouth? That is when he's not telling bold face lies.
Global warming,global cooling , climate change. It's never been proven how much of it is our fault or how much is just part of a natural cycle but liberals are arrogant enough to think that they can change the climate of the planet because they are ........well liberals and smarter than everybody else.
There is reason to fear obama and his policies.
09-05-2009, 04:50 PM
>Obama himself said it. I repeat Obama himself said it.
>Give the old people the "pain pill" . Do you understand the
>words that are coming out of his mouth? That is when he's
>not telling bold face lies.
This quote is how those internet lies start - probably got it from listenting to Beck. Do the homework and look for the transcript before saying assuming anyone said anything. Here's the link to the ACTUAL transcript from what Obama said - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/Story?id=7920012&page=2.
What he said was "But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."
***I wish I had my own NFL draftboard.***
09-05-2009, 06:27 PM
>Global warming,global cooling , climate change. It's never
>been proven how much of it is our fault or how much is just
>part of a natural cycle but liberals are arrogant enough to
>think that they can change the climate of the planet because
>they are ........well liberals and smarter than everybody
09-05-2009, 07:00 PM
>>Obama himself said it. I repeat Obama himself said it.
>>Give the old people the "pain pill" . Do you understand the
>>words that are coming out of his mouth? That is when he's
>>not telling bold face lies.
>This quote is how those internet lies start - probably got
>it from listenting to Beck. Do the homework and look for
>the transcript before saying assuming anyone said anything.
>Here's the link to the ACTUAL transcript from what Obama
>What he said was "But what we can do is make sure that at
>least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not
>making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on
>additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows
>is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we
>can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what?
>Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not
>having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."
>***I wish I had my own NFL draftboard.***
You are so naive.Just what is it that you think he's saying? I don't want some bureaucrat who's only concern is cost saving having the final say as to what happens in that point in my life or any of my family members. That is between my family and my doctor . Those types of discussions already take place and the government has no business sticking their nose in it. Of course if you believe like obama that doctors perform all kinds of unnecessary operations just for the payday then I feel as sorry for you as I do for him. But I suppose he doesn't mean that when he says it either.
09-05-2009, 07:46 PM
> I don't want some bureaucrat who's only concern is cost
>saving having the final say as to what happens in that point
>in my life or any of my family members.
Isn't that the current system?
A picture is worth a thousand words! I see Greenland's ice cap melting, do you?
The whole global warming debate reminds me of the old SNL skit with Ed Asner retiring as the manager of a nuclear power plant. He makes the statement that "You can never add too much water to a nuclear reactor". While everyone debated whether it meant add a lot of water or don't put in too much water, the reactor blows up. We are doing the same thing with this. By the time we decide, it may be too late!!
Here are some melting alpine glaciers.
11-16-2009, 07:47 AM