 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Earth Science / Oceanography / February 2007increasing sea level
Hi all, CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing change in our climate (increasing temperatures), they say. As a newbie here I have a question. Early this year I heared on the radio of a research team heading for Antarctic to measure the CO2 pollution by the earth itself, since Antarctic is the only place to get reliable figures on that (not mixed up by pollution produced by people). Also, I heard of considerable CO2 production in Borneo caused by the moores because of heavy tree cutting. I'm curious about the ratio of CO2 production by nature on the one hand and that by people on the other. I'm also curious whether these climate and sea leve changes could be caused by in- or de-clination of the earth axis, because they also say that the ice East of Arctic is melting and the ice West of Arctic is growing. I learned from Cuchlaine King's Oceanography that the sea level is increasing for more than 100.000 years (proved) and probably much longer. Do we need to feel guilty as humanity or do we need to seek for solar or even galactic causes? > Hi all, > CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Antarctic is the only place to get reliable figures on that (not mixed > up by pollution produced by people). There's a lot of man-made pollution in the Antarctic also. > Also, I heard of considerable CO2 production in Borneo caused by > the moores because of heavy tree cutting. The moores? Tree burning causes CO2 to be released though, but that is recaptured if the forests are allowed to regrow. > I'm curious about the ratio of CO2 production by nature on the one > hand and that by people on the other. There's a natural inherent CO2 concentration, people seem to have increased that by about 50% burning fossil fuels, and the increase is continuing. The main culprits are the US citizens. > I'm also curious whether these climate and sea leve changes could > be caused by in- or de-clination of the earth axis, because they also > say that the ice East of Arctic is melting and the ice West of Arctic > is growing. Look at the topography of the bedrock. > I learned from Cuchlaine King's Oceanography that the sea level is > increasing for more than 100.000 years (proved) and probably much > longer. Very wrong. Sea level goes up and down depending on how much water is captured as ice. Sea level since last global maximum about 20,000 years ago has gone up about 120-130 m to about what it was 100,000 years ago. Its been fairly constant for the last 6,000 years or so. Now its going up about 3 mm/year, mainly due to expansion of sea water due to temperature increase. Ice melting mainly on Greenland and the Antarctic will be main contributors to sea level rise in about 100 years time. > Do we need to feel guilty as humanity or do we need to seek for solar > or even galactic causes? Humanity - and especially the USA - should feel very guilty. China and India should also be starting to feel guilty. Europeans at least are starting to do something to constrain their contribution (but not yet enough). thanks Erik for your fast response. (not a slow newsgroup as somebody suggested). In fact your reply raises more questions than answers, at least to me. I'll be back with 'em soon. jk >> Hi all, >> CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > should also be starting to feel guilty. Europeans at least are starting to do > something to constrain their contribution (but not yet enough). > There's a lot of man-made pollution in the Antarctic also. but far less than in the developed world > The moores? Tree burning causes CO2 to be released though, but that is > recaptured if the forests are allowed to regrow. apart from the tree burning the peat-moors seem to produce huge amounts of CO2 *after* the tree burnings > is continuing. The main culprits are the US citizens. seems a bit unfair to me >> say that the ice East of Arctic is melting and the ice West of Arctic >> is growing. > > Look at the topography of the bedrock. there was a clear map in a recent newspaper (few weeks ago) > years or so. Now its going up about 3 mm/year, mainly due to expansion of sea > water due to temperature increase. Ice melting mainly on Greenland and the > Antarctic will be main contributors to sea level rise in about 100 years time. how do they measure that? it seems very difficult to me. Are we certain that sea level rising is being caused by melting ice (yes) <= higher temperature in atmosphere (yes) <= burning fossile fuels by mankind, especially in the US (??) > Humanity - and especially the USA - should feel very guilty. China and India > should also be starting to feel guilty. Europeans at least are starting to do > something to constrain their contribution (but not yet enough). seems a bit unfair to me. Once the developing countries, especially China and India because of their volume, come to share in prosperity they are pointed to as guilty? What about e.g. France (80% nuclear energy), Iran, &c.? jk >> There's a lot of man-made pollution in the Antarctic also. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > apart from the tree burning the peat-moors seem to produce huge > amounts of CO2 *after* the tree burnings All burning of biological material releases CO2 >> is continuing. The main culprits are the US citizens. > seems a bit unfair to me Why? The US is the country with the largest release of CO2, both in total and per capita. >>> say that the ice East of Arctic is melting and the ice West of Arctic >>> is growing. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > how do they measure that? it seems very difficult to me. Difficult but not impossible. Tide gauge records corrected foe any landrise and correlated over the globe recently augmented by GPS height measurements are the principal methods AFAIR. > Are we certain that sea level rising is being caused by melting ice (yes) > <= higher temperature in atmosphere (yes) <= burning fossile fuels by > mankind, especially in the US (??) We are certain that the main cause of sea level rise today is caused by the expansion of water due to it getting warmer. Melting ice has been the major factor before, and if CO2 release continues to rise will be the major factor again when the ice melting on Greenland and in the Antarctic increases enough. >> Humanity - and especially the USA - should feel very guilty. China and India >> should also be starting to feel guilty. Europeans at least are starting to do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they are pointed to as guilty? > What about e.g. France (80% nuclear energy), Iran, &c.? Nuclear energy does not release CO2 directly. If China and India don't do anything to decrease their CO2 release as they become more prosperous (which in itself is positive), our descendants will see hard times. AFAIR the Stern report estimates the cost of continued global warming at something like 20% of GDP, so Bush is terribly wrong, the cost of not doing anything is much higher than the cost of active prevention. >>> There's a lot of man-made pollution in the Antarctic also. [snipped] > Nuclear energy does not release CO2 directly. If China and India don't do > anything to decrease their CO2 release as they become more prosperous (which > in itself is positive), our descendants will see hard times. AFAIR the Stern > report estimates the cost of continued global warming at something like 20% of > GDP, so Bush is terribly wrong, the cost of not doing anything is much higher > than the cost of active prevention. Being pretty much aware of the nature of extrapolation I'm a bit suspicious about the Stern report, and similarly for things like the Gore-film or the Clinton-foundation, though, I agree in general we need to take care of our environment as "a good housefather". Technology exists for making cars that run 100 km to the liter. Is it just the cars, or the ships (pushing out a multiple of that from cars)? So, is it just a matter of geopolitics? Small countries like Norway, and for that matter The Netherlands have easy talking: huge resources, and a quite easily controllable surface. jk : "Erik Hammerstad" <egeha.is.all.you.need@start.no> wrote in message :> Nuclear energy does not release CO2 directly. If China and India don't do :> anything to decrease their CO2 release as they become more prosperous (which :> in itself is positive), our descendants will see hard times. AFAIR the Stern :> report estimates the cost of continued global warming at something like 20% of :> GDP, so Bush is terribly wrong, the cost of not doing anything is much higher :> than the cost of active prevention. : Being pretty much aware of the nature of extrapolation I'm a bit : suspicious about the Stern report, and similarly for things like the : Gore-film or the Clinton-foundation, are you equally suspicious about the numbers used by the people claiming "it's not us"? : though, I agree in general we need to take care of our environment as "a : good housefather". the path to hell is paved with generalities : Technology exists for making cars that run 100 km to the liter. Is it : just the cars, or the ships (pushing out a multiple of that from cars)? : So, is it just a matter of geopolitics? Small countries like Norway, and : for that matter The Netherlands have easy talking: huge resources, and : a quite easily controllable surface. Huh? What the size has to do with it? The Kyoto targets have been set in relation to the 1990 emissions of A GIVEN COUNTRY, thus the size and the "controllable surface" have been already implicitely accounted for. (Norway or Netherlands DIDN'T shrink dramatically since 1990). If anything, the Kyoto made it EASIER for the countries like US or Canada, because it rewarded the northAmerican wasteful way of life, by setting the emission bar more forgiving than that for the Europeans. But you are right that the geopolitic may have something to do with it - there have been a certain country which has used its geopolitical power to systematically sabotage the international efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions. (Hint, I do not mean the Netherlands). Piotr Trela [...] >> how do they measure that? it seems very difficult to me. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > factor before, and if CO2 release continues to rise will be the major factor > again when the ice melting on Greenland and in the Antarctic increases enough. Now I'm reading that sea level rising is not the first threat anymore, only 30 cm in the next 100 years (The Netherlands can handle 150 cm easily, and if they can Bangladesh, New Orleans and Yorkshire can). But winters will get wetter, while summers are getting dryer (recent ICC report), so, all of a sudden, the threat comes from the landside. (And Bush joins Clinton & Gore). What will the next turn be? Why do those people seek for a threat anyway? Life is harmful in the first place - everybody will die from it. A Dutch author once tallied all kinds of doomsayers (a hype in the sixties and seventies too): without exception they were in their fifties and sixties, and without exception they were predicting the apocalypsis not earlier than after 30 or 40 years ... that figures! jk >+ A Dutch author once tallied all kinds of doomsayers (a hype in the sixties >+ and seventies too): without exception they were in their fifties and sixties, >+ and without exception they were predicting the apocalypsis not earlier than >+ after 30 or 40 years ... that figures! Heh. As seen on an American TV show (SciFi's Stargate SG-1): O'Neil: Don't be all doom and gloom, we've gotten out of some pretty tough scrapes! Jacob: What? and deprive myself of being right one last time?  SignatureConsulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good, either. I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated. > [...] >>> how do they measure that? it seems very difficult to me. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Now I'm reading that sea level rising is not the first threat anymore, only > 30 cm in the next 100 years sea level rise is about 3 mm/year presently but increasing. Largest contributor at present is thermal expansion of the ocean. Melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice will contribute much more. The big danger is if the temperature rises too much at the glacier surface (i.e. high up), which could start a melting unstoppable without a dramatic cooling. (The Netherlands can handle 150 cm easily, > and if they can Bangladesh, New Orleans and Yorkshire can). If the Dutch provide them with the same storm barriers as they have at home. > But winters will get wetter, while summers are getting dryer (recent ICC > report), > so, all of a sudden, the threat comes from the landside. > (And Bush joins Clinton & Gore). ??? Type of climate change (wetter/drier) would vary on the globe. > What will the next turn be? Why do those people seek for a threat anyway? ??? > Life is harmful in the first place - everybody will die from it. What is at stake is quality of life for our descendants, and how long their lives will be. > A Dutch author once tallied all kinds of doomsayers (a hype in the sixties > and seventies too): without exception they were in their fifties and sixties, > and without exception they were predicting the apocalypsis not earlier than > after 30 or 40 years ... that figures! Forget the apocalypses, the future may be bad enough without invoking such silliness. >> [...] >>>> how do they measure that? it seems very difficult to me. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Forget the apocalypses, the future may be bad enough without invoking such > silliness. Why? That's what they preach ... CO2 some 20.000 years ago was about 280 ppmv. 55 mln years ago it seemed to be around 1000 ppmv (serious estimates). Who were those spenders of fossile fuels? Now they measure 420 ppvm. Sea level is rising and falling. Once you could walk from Holland to England or from Java to Sumatra. The Dutch are on their way providing barriers for New Orleans and Bangladesh ... they have helped them for decades in building dikes (as they did in Vietnam) the Brits can take care for themselves I suppose ... jk >+ The Dutch are on their way providing barriers for New Orleans I am afraid that the famous Dutch dikes will be no match for the infamous Louisianan corruption. The levees as built prior to Katrina where *not* built to specification. The monies saved where siphoned off into several someone's hip pockets - they certainly didn't go back to the government. Until that's fixed, it matters not whose dike building expertise is called upon. SignatureConsulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good, either. I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated. [...] >CO2 some 20.000 years ago was about 280 ppmv. 55 mln years ago it >seemed to be around 1000 ppmv (serious estimates). Who were those >spenders of fossile fuels? Now they measure 420 ppvm. 20 kya atmospheric CO2 was about 200 ppmv, not 280. Now is about 380, not 420. 100-200 years ago was about 280 ppmv. SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Now is about 380, not 420. > 100-200 years ago was about 280 ppmv. thank you, Robert, for pointing me. you're quite correct. 280 was just before the Industrial Revolution 420 is an estimate in about 10 years from now. jk > Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur > activities notes and links. > Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much > evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they > would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences : "Erik Hammerstad" <egeha.is.all.you.need@start.no> wrote in message : [...] [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] :> factor before, and if CO2 release continues to rise will be the major factor :> again when the ice melting on Greenland and in the Antarctic increases enough. : Now I'm reading that sea level rising is not the first threat anymore, only : 30 cm in the next 100 years (The Netherlands can handle 150 cm easily, : and if they can Bangladesh, New Orleans and Yorkshire can). sure, because as everybody knows Bangladesh has the finacial and technological means as Netherlands And the good folks of New Orleans could use an extra 30cm ON TOP of every storm surge in the future ... : But winters will get wetter, while summers are getting dryer (recent ICC : report), so, all of a sudden, the threat comes from the landside. : (And Bush joins Clinton & Gore). : What will the next turn be? Why do those people seek for a threat anyway? : Life is harmful in the first place - everybody will die from it. platitudes signifying nothing. Drunk driving dangerous? Life is harmful in the first place. Sharing a syringe in a drug-house to inject yourself with a triple dose of heroine? Life is harmful in the first place. Playing Russian Roullette with your drunken friends? Heck, life is harmful in the first place, ain't it? Piotr Trela > : "Erik Hammerstad" <egeha.is.all.you.need@start.no> wrote in message > : [...] [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Piotr Trela Are you talking to me? I didn't touch any drug in all the 70 years of my life, I take at most one or two glasses of red wine a day, I never even saw a real revolver in all my life, let alone touched it ... At the end of the Paleoceen and the beginning of the Eoceen CO2 (upto 1000 ppmv - it's now 380 ppvm) and therefore temperatures were surging dramatically (deep sea temp up to 13,5°C). Tell me - where did the CO2 come from? Burning of fossile fuel by mankind? jk : "Piotr Trela" <ptrela@mun.ca> wrote in message :> : Now I'm reading that sea level rising is not the first threat anymore, only :> : 30 cm in the next 100 years (The Netherlands can handle 150 cm easily, :> : and if they can Bangladesh, New Orleans and Yorkshire can). :> sure, because as everybody knows Bangladesh has the finacial and :> technological means as Netherlands [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] :> :> Piotr Trela : Are you talking to me? I didn't touch any drug in all the 70 years of : my life, I take at most one or two glasses of red wine a day, I never : even saw a real revolver in all my life, let alone touched it ... Great. I can already see this discussion developing along the same line: I'll say: "What's good for a goose is good for a gander" You'll answer: "Are you talking to me? I am not, and I have never been, a goose, a gander, nor any other member of the Meat, Fish and Poultry Food Group" I: "You see a speck in the eye of your brother and cannot see a plank in your own" You: " Are you talking to me? My eyes are not big enough for a plank I have never had even a 2 by 4 in my eye, let alone a plank...." I: "Put your money where your mouth is" You: " Are you talking to me? I have never put any money, let alone my money in any nouth, let alone my mouth (in all the 70 year of my life - optional). ... and so on and on and on. : At the end of the Paleoceen and the beginning of the Eoceen CO2 : (upto 1000 ppmv - it's now 380 ppvm) and therefore temperatures were : surging dramatically (deep sea temp up to 13,5°C). : Tell me - where did the CO2 come from? Burning of fossile fuel by : mankind? would you hit yourself in the eye with a rusty nail, because you have heard that somebody lost his eye to cancer? According to your logic - nails cannot cause blindness. ("Tell me - was a nail responsible for this guys' blindness?") But, unwittingly, you hit may have the nail on the head. The last time there Earth has have highest levels than today's CO2 - there were no humans around to witness it. And the transition from small, isolated, groups of nomadic hunters and gatherers to civilizations building cities, pyramids and dicovering philosophy and technology happened in the last 10,000 years. The humans might have been biologically ready for this jump for a long time but it took a rare window of relatively stable climate to have it accomplished. The civilization became possible because of rise of the agriculture. The surplus of food it produced allowed creating cities, kings, cultures and technology. The only way agriculture could have survived was a stable, predictable climate. Take away this - as it happened locally many times in history - and the agriculture collapses and with it - the civilizations. Throughout the 10,000 years of the civilized era the atmospheric CO2 has changed, at most 30 ppm. Since the industrial revolution we are several times past it. And adding each year more and more. : jk Piotr > : "Piotr Trela" <ptrela@mun.ca> wrote in message [...] > The civilization became possible because of rise of the agriculture. > The surplus of food it produced allowed creating cities, kings, cultures [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > has changed, at most 30 ppm. Since the industrial revolution > we are several times past it. And adding each year more and more. Apart from your corny remarks on to whom you were talking, neither the earth itself, nor its lithosphere or biosphere or stratosphere is at threat, but society is. That is, THIS society. Should we stay or should we leave? Life is being made by the circumstances, call it evolution, so, this civilization only will adjust itself as necessary - but it won't happen before Easter. In fact, the pertinent delta's on this earth were formed precisely by what they now call a "threat" - Kura, Makaham, Rhine-Muese, Mississippi. Thus, let's invest in protection, help those areas like Bangladesh out, e.g by means of the technology as developed by the Dutch, rather than in expensive and uncertain programs like CO2-storage or so-called sustainible energy from windmills, &c. jk ps (in my view UN with their IPCC conclusion is way too early ...) : "Piotr Trela" <ptrela@mun.ca> wrote in message :> The civilization became possible because of rise of the agriculture. :> The surplus of food it produced allowed creating cities, kings, cultures [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :> has changed, at most 30 ppm. Since the industrial revolution :> we are several times past it. And adding each year more and more. : Apart from your corny remarks on to whom you were talking, complain to yourself. If you had got the point the first time around, there would be no need for those "corny remarks". : neither the : earth itself, nor its lithosphere or biosphere or stratosphere is at : threat, but: society is. What are talking about? NOBODY claimed that lithosphere is a threat or stratosphere is a threat, so there is no need to disprove the claim nobody have made. I have a radical idea - how about disproving arguments somebody actually have made? : That is, THIS society. Should we stay or should we leave? Ooooo, the tension grows. Which will he choose, which will he choose ??? : Life is being made by the circumstances, call it evolution, so, this : civilization only will adjust itself as necessary - but it won't happen : before Easter. for his we have only your assurances. Not enough for me. : In fact, the pertinent delta's on this earth were formed precisely by : what they now call a "threat" - Kura, Makaham, Rhine-Muese, Mississippi. pertinent to what? : Thus, let's : invest in protection, help those areas like Bangladesh out, e.g by : means of the technology as developed by the Dutch, rather than in : expensive and uncertain programs like CO2-storage or so-called : sustainible energy from windmills, &c. Do you have ANY idea how much applying the Dutch solution to all low-laying areas of the world would cost? And what about all other results of the climate change that are not cause by the sea level rise? : jk : ps (in my view UN with their IPCC conclusion is way too early ...) and you base your opinion on what ? Your vast knowledge of science? Piotr Trela :> : Life is harmful in the first place - everybody will die from it. :> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :> place, ain't it? :> Piotr Trela : Are you talking to me? I didn't touch any drug in all the 70 years of : my life, I take at most one or two glasses of red wine a day, I never : even saw a real revolver in all my life, let alone touched it ... Great. I can already see this discussion developing along the same line: I'll say: "What's good for a goose is good for a gander" You'll answer: "Are you talking to me? I am not, and I have never been, a goose, a gander, nor any other member of the Meat, Fish and Poultry Food Group" I: "You see a speck in the eye of your brother and cannot see a plank in your own" You: " Are you talking to me? I have rather small means eyes and as such I have never managed to put into them even a 2 by 4, let alone a plank...." I: "Put your money where your mouth is" You: " Are you talking to me? I have never put any money, let alone my money in any nouth, let alone my mouth (adding: in all the 70 year of my life - optional). ... and so on and on and on. > : "Piotr Trela" <ptrela@mun.ca> wrote in message [...] > Do you have ANY idea how much applying the Dutch solution to all > low-laying areas of the world would cost? that's what I'm saying: shall we stay or shall we leave? I guess we should "leave" ... people did that since mankind's remembrance (since "homo erectus" people had to put their seats and tables on legs) > And what about all other results of the climate change that are not cause > by the sea level rise? I thought it was a chicken-egg story, but I'm not a biologist > and you base your opinion on what ? Your vast knowledge of science? In one and the same article I read: 1) Climate change is caused by people. (*period*); 2) people are party in climate change; 3) 90% certain that people are involved; 4) people are for 90% responsible, and ... 5) it's now certain! ... bla bla bla Who's talking about science? (please, do mind my little chaps ...) I only see comments of politicians; so, they can say: "I told you!" jk > : "Piotr Trela" <ptrela@mun.ca> wrote in message > > Do you have ANY idea how much applying the Dutch solution to all > low-laying areas of the world would cost? 1% of all the nations GNPs would do. jk > : In fact, the pertinent delta's on this earth were formed precisely by > : what they now call a "threat" - Kura, Makaham, Rhine-Muese, Mississippi. > > pertinent to what? I'm sorry, but just like that genious Consulting Minister of Consultants (and my own GP for that matter) I can only answer one question at a time. ... pertaining to the rises and falls of sealevel through the thousands of ages. :> There's a lot of man-made pollution in the Antarctic also. :> : but far less than in the developed world :> The moores? Tree burning causes CO2 to be released though, but that is :> recaptured if the forests are allowed to regrow. :> : apart from the tree burning the peat-moors seem to produce huge : amounts of CO2 *after* the tree burnings :> is continuing. The main culprits are the US citizens. : seems a bit unfair to me Why? Do you think it is fair that 5% of the Earth populations produces, what, 25% of the greenhouse emissions? :> years or so. Now its going up about 3 mm/year, mainly due to expansion of sea :> water due to temperature increase. Ice melting mainly on Greenland and the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : <= higher temperature in atmosphere (yes) <= burning fossile fuels by : mankind, especially in the US (??) :> Humanity - and especially the USA - should feel very guilty. China and India :> should also be starting to feel guilty. Europeans at least are starting to do :> something to constrain their contribution (but not yet enough). : seems a bit unfair to me. Once the developing countries, especially : China and India because of their volume, come to share in prosperity : they are pointed to as guilty? First - most of the man-made CO2 that currently resides in the atmosphere (i.e. the difference between the current level and the preindustrial level) has been produced over last 3 centuries by the industrilaized countries, NOT by China and India. Second - since it was the industrialized countries who gained most of their wealth from polluting our common atmosphere - the onus on most actions is primarily on them, not on the developing nations who came to the table very recently. Third - even after the recent industralization in China and India an average person there still produces much less CO2 Per capita CO2 emissions in 2003 (in tons): - US - 20 - China - 3 - India - 1 So unless you assume that one American is worth more than 20 Indians or 8 Chinese - I'd not call this inequality - "fair". : What about e.g. France (80% nuclear energy), Iran, &c.? What about France? France: 6 tons per capita, USA: 20. : jk Piotr Trela > :> There's a lot of man-made pollution in the Antarctic also. > :> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Piotr Trela that's what about The Guardian's graph showed http://www.causeway.co.uk/demos/svg/carbon.htm I tend to believe that fossile fuel is way to cheap: there seems not to be a component in the cost price for cleaning the atmosphere - but we all like to keep driving our cars, don't we? Stockholders don't llike higher costs == lower profits, do they? jk "Hewhowouldbegodofearth" <ptrela@mun.ca> wrote in message news:enp7pb$jpm$1@coranto.ucs.mun.ca > jfuckeroffathominidsthatliveinthewesternworldsouthofCanadaandwestofEurope <*axy*@planet.nl> wrote: > : "HewhowouldbeThor" <egeha.is.all.you.need@start.no> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions. (Hint, I do not mean > the Netherlands). Never mind all that crap; someone get me a name that means "f.cker of w.nkers" in a Scandinavian tongue. In the meantime, no one -or body, has ever produced data that documents the production of carbon dioxide has increased lately due to the industrial revolution or what have we these days. On what grounds are they, that accept there has been a reason for global warming, that takes it out of the bounds of any cycle that has gone before? Increasing sea level? Are you serious? Over the centuries there has been a regular rise and fall in sea levels that has yet to receive a true explanation. And even if there should be a marked rise in the sea levels, wouldn't the appearance of an island the size of Greenland provide ample compensation? And if that's not enough for you; how about setting up a court to deal with the apportioning of a continent the size of Antarctica? Or do you think that a country with a monkey for a president will feel stymied by a mere disaster such as Iraq, from continuing to hold sway there? > "Hewhowouldbegodofearth" <ptrela@mun.ca> wrote in message > news:enp7pb$jpm$1@coranto.ucs.mun.ca [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> :> Nuclear energy does not release CO2 directly. If China and India don't do &c &c well said all, Weatherlawyer, I understand and subscribe everything you're saying, but what is a "fathom in ids"? jk :> "Hewhowouldbegodofearth" <ptrela@mun.ca> wrote in message :> news:enp7pb$jpm$1@coranto.ucs.mun.ca [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :>> :>> :> Nuclear energy does not release CO2 directly. If China and India don't do : &c &c : well said all, Weatherlawyer, I understand and subscribe : everything you're saying : jk get a room, will ya ? > :> "Hewhowouldbegodofearth" <ptrela@mun.ca> wrote in message > :> news:enp7pb$jpm$1@coranto.ucs.mun.ca [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > get a room, will ya ? "Excellent thinking is useless when based on the wrong assumptions" (E. de Bono) jk > well said all, Weatherlawyer, I understand and subscribe > everything you're saying, but what is a "fathom in ids"? No idea. Where did I mention it? Here is a complex problem. Ove the USSR and or North Western Europe in winter, there is a phenomenon that plonks cold air onto the UK. It is said to bring the conditions for snow here. How does it work? And why, with all this CO2, is it still a potent "force"? If you don't mind the loose use of that term. Piotr. You asked: >So you haven't disproved ANY of my points - merely slapped a disqualifying label. > >As Voltaire said: "Witty saying proves nothing". And yours is not even terribly witty. I think it might have been terribly drunk though. I can't really follow my train of thought from my earlier post. : In the meantime, no one -or body, has ever produced data that documents : the production of carbon dioxide has increased lately due to the : industrial revolution or what have we these days. > > it would be funny if it weren't sad. Ever heard about the ice cores? Yes. Ever heard of migration? What do glaciers sit on and what emanates from that? I really don't mean to be nasty. At least not when I am sobre but this junk science is a cache for journalists to use on days when there is no hard core news. >> well said all, Weatherlawyer, I understand and subscribe >> everything you're saying, but what is a "fathom in ids"? > > No idea. Where did I mention it? in this "sentence": jfuckeroffathominidsthatliveinthewesternworldsouthofCanadaandwestofEurope <*axy*@planet.nl> (btw, what follows is not the case) jk > >> well said all, Weatherlawyer, I understand and subscribe > >> everything you're saying, but what is a "fathom in ids"? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in this "sentence": > jexpletivedeletedof fat hominids that live in the western world south of Canada and west of Europe Oops. Did you see that other bit where I mentioned I don't mean to be nasty except when I am drunk? Well that works for forgetful too. If people let other people alone, the garden of Eden could be extended by now to all the regions god had in mind for it. And there would be no ban on the use of fuel as far as I can see; oil or nuclear. If there is a god he must have had some idea that we would use the stuff he gave us overall control of, to the only purpose that it seems likely to be put, all other options for it considered. What do you think? >> >> well said all, Weatherlawyer, I understand and subscribe >> >> everything you're saying, but what is a "fathom in ids"? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > What do you think? Weatherlawyer (even a better name than "Consulting Minister of Consultants"), As before, I'd like I'd said that ... Interesting stuff on Alaska tonight on tv - about that little village - some smarty said: co2 doesn't worry me to much, but the methane coming free from the frosted areas around Arctic - 1/10 of the entire land surface on this planet ... jk [snipped] > If people let other people alone, the garden of Eden could be extended > by now to all the regions god had in mind for it. And there would be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What do you think? let me put it this way: hibris! this mankind discovers something and they think they've made it ... [...] > What do you think? "The only certainty of climate is its ever changing nature." Department of Geotechnology TU Delft (The Netherlands) Read more at http://www.spiegelzee.nl/voorstel-eng.php (partly in Dutch, but a comprehensive English version will be available in due time) jk : "Hewhowouldbegodofearth" <ptrela@mun.ca> wrote in message : news:enp7pb$jpm$1@coranto.ucs.mun.ca [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] :> efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions. (Hint, I do not mean :> the Netherlands). : Never mind all that crap; someone get me a name that means "f.cker of : w.nkers" in a Scandinavian tongue. So you haven't disproved ANY of my points - merely slapped a disqualifying label. As Voltaire said: "Witty saying proves nothing". And yours is not even terribly witty. : In the meantime, no one -or body, has ever produced data that documents : the production of carbon dioxide has increased lately due to the : industrial revolution or what have we these days. it would be funny if it weren't sad. Ever heard about the ice cores? : On what grounds are they, that accept there has been a reason for : global warming, that takes it out of the bounds of any cycle that has : gone before? : Increasing sea level? : Are you serious? : Over the centuries there has been a regular rise and fall in sea levels : that has yet to receive a true explanation. could refer the peer revieved literature or you just make things up as you go? : And even if there should be : a marked rise in the sea levels, wouldn't the appearance of an island : the size of Greenland provide ample compensation? you must be some a real estate genius - to exchange a large part of Florida, New York, New Orlean, Venice, Copenhagen, Netherlands, large part of Bangladesh, Pacific islands, etc etc, for a piece of a rocky, bare land, with its soil scraped away by the glaciers. Some "ample compensation". Piotr Trela >> Do we need to feel guilty as humanity or do we need to seek for solar >> or even galactic causes? >> > Humanity - and especially the USA - should feel very guilty. China and India > should also be starting to feel guilty. Europeans at least are starting to do > something to constrain their contribution (but not yet enough). Erik Hammerstadt is probably right - please see http://www.causeway.co.uk/demos/svg/carbon.htm jk > Hi all, > CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing > change in our climate (increasing temperatures), they say. > As a newbie here I have a question. > > . . . 1) > Also, I heard of considerable CO2 production in Borneo caused by > the moores because of heavy tree cutting. 2)> I'm curious about the ratio of CO2 production by nature on the one > hand and that by people on the other. > I'm also curious whether these climate and sea leve changes could [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > increasing for more than 100.000 years (proved) and probably much > longer. 3) > Do we need to feel guilty as humanity or do we need to seek for solar > or even galactic causes? 1) Deforestation is the second greatest cause of INCREASE in atmospheric CO2. The trees of a "climax forest" absorbs a great deal of CO2. Part of that carbon is released in the dark; trees use their stored carbohydrates for energy, just like animals use the plants they eat for energy. Part of the carbohydrates is consumed by animals, who release CO2. Half adds to the loam on the floor of the forest. This loam then releases CO2 as it decays. The _total_ net flow of CO2 is zero. When the forest is cut (or burned) down, the absorption stops, but the release from the loam does not. CO2 release goes on for decades. 2) The carbon flow is much larger than the human contribution. Consider this simile: you deposit money into your checking account and write checks. If I took 1% of the money you deposit, it would be small compared to the cash flow. Sooner or later, however, it would bankrupt you. Similarly, the contribution from burning fossil fuels is a small fraction of the FLOW. It has to go somewher, though. Experience says that it goes mostly into increase in atmospheric CO2, and that causes problems. (another large fraction increases CO2 dissolved in sea water, which causes other problems. 3) Consider the actual historical sequence. The earth receives high-energy (visible light) radiation from the sun. It radiates out low energy (infrea red) radiation to space. It's an easy problem in undergraduate thermodynamics to calculate what the temperature of teh earth SHOULD be to balance this. The actual temperature of almost every portion of the earth is much higher. This contradiction was resolved about a century ago. The explanation was that atmospheric CO2 is rather opaque to the infra-red radiation and delays it from going out; it is relatively transparent to visible light, and lets it in. This explanation, with some later refinements, has been accepted by all scientifically-educated people for a hundred years. Well after the midpoint of the 20th centrury, a center was built on a peak in Hawaii to measure atmospheric CO2. The values fluctuate over the year, but they grew from one year to the next. "Hmm," said the researchers, "that should result in an increase in the earths temperature." The effect of atmmospheric CO2 on temperature was part of every scientist's general knowledge. (I'd heard it, and my major was math.) At the time, the actual temperatures were in a two-decade pause in the general rate of increase over the 20th century. So the publicists asked: "If that's going to cause temperature increase, where's the increase?" Well, the increase resumed when (shortly before, actually) the question was asked. Global temperature increase was predicted; global temperature increase occured. The publicists now say that there could be _many_ explanations for the temperature increse. You cite some of them. In the third place, many of the possible explanations you cite would be observed if they were occuring. (The earth's orbit does change over centuries, but astronomers know where we are now.) In the second place, the change in temperature during the 20th century is much greater than in any other century as far back as the calculations can be made. In the FIRST place, the change is what was predicted from the increase in CO2. It's not a matter of contrasting explanations of an observed phenomenon. It's a matter of predictions from one observed change being confirmed by other predictions. >> Hi all, >> CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing >> change in our climate (increasing temperatures), they say. >> As a newbie here I have a question. [snipped] > In the FIRST place, the change is what was predicted from the increase > in CO2. It's not a matter of contrasting explanations of an observed > phenomenon. It's a matter of predictions from one observed change being > confirmed by other predictions. you mean, this is in fact Bayesan occurence? (my major was actuarial) jk |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.