What Do We Think About Climate Change

Oh to be so wise!!!!. If they had not --I strongly suspect they would have got nothing. They were probably aware of that, after all the kid was not staying in the hotel but lived nearby, if he was a poor swimmer where were the parents.

Its a cruel world you gotta look after your own stuff as Beanz would say.

 

This one is better.... http://www.wasm.curtin.edu.au/about/ - - - - - - - - - I, - - went to Curtin before it was called "Curtin".....

 

Yeah nice NEW mines! Camborne sent the instructors to teach your instructors! (just because we didn't have a school didn't mean we knew how to mine!)

When we first started mining in Cornwall the year ended in BC not AD like now and was counted downwards ('course us didn't know it then or care, still don't all that much!!)

 

Back to the core of the thread, I see Queensland is a touch chilly.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24085970-952,00.html

Other parts of Australia have their nether regions frozen.
http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/general/icy-wings-delay-planes/1228504.aspx

It has not, repeat not, snowed in Sydney.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...-felt-like-snow/2008/07/27/1217097051268.html

Further afield last winter, 950 inches of snow fell in Mt. Ranier National Park.
http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2008/07/snow_greets_visiting_hikers_at.html

Climate sensitivity reconsidered.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_rebutted.pdf
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/chuck_it_again_schmidt.pdf

Enjoy,

Perry

 

So you are posting localized events and stating that this is a good reason to reconsider the long term research of mainstream science....Oh Puh-leez. Arguing CO2 sensitivity and bringing up short-term spike CO2 release events is the usual method of attempting to invalidate studies of the observed effects of CO2 emissions. Notice that this rebuttal is NOT itself a reviewed scientific paper. It is just the spew of one dude. It also does not successfully refute ANY ONE validated point. It also does not have any independent field data in context.

Enjoy THIS:
Increased snowfall has been seen EVERYWHERE. Precipitation increases have been seen everywhere. This is a result of a WARMER CLIMATE and associated evaporation rates. The problem is, you get snowfall, but that does not mean that it is hanging out as ice. Snow is usually found in your warmer climates. Antartica is basically a desert, but has been receiving more precipitation (killing birds there) of late. That does not mean that the environment is not warming...in fact, the EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE. Permafrost is melting. Methane and decomposing material that has been trapped in the tundra for millenia is melting and burping out a wicked rate.

Back to CO2 and spike events:

Which is worse, having a single smoke bomb going off in the house, or having a perpetual burning cigarette in a livingroom ashtray? Vocanoes do release CO2 continuously, but that is part of the pretty much stabilized environment. The ground and animals release CO2, and the plants scrub it out. Volcanoes are the smokebomb in this statement when speaking about spike events. The CO2 is washed out of the atmosphere by precipitation, and the respiration of plants and (to a lesser degree) other processes. In a spike event, This happens rather rapidly. With a continuous source of CO2 emissions, such as our cigarette example, you may be scrubbing it out, but there is always some THERE. This keeps a more steady amount in the atmosphere for long time periods.
Is the CO2 from Mona Loa still insulating the Planet? No, it has been scrubbed out. The lesser volume of CO2 we are emitting continuously is ALWAYS PRESENT in our atmosphere, at slight but ever increasing levels. This lets it work at trapping heat EVERY DAY, not just for a couple of years. Another corrolary would be "which keeps you warmer on a cold day, wearing a parka for 5 minutes and then going naked the whole day, or wearing thermal underwear all day?" Slight continuous increases allow the sun to work on the planet continuously....thus slowly raising the temperature without ever having a chance to equalize.
When you have a volcano erupt, Plants have a growth spurt, they start assimilating CO2 more rapidly, the levels drop, and plant growth slows as everything sort of levels out to equilibrium (equalibrium to our current ecosystem). With a slight continuous increase, combined with humans removing everythig green they lay their eyes on, you have a non-elastic situation.

Are there any online tutorials on recognising psuedoscience that I can remit folks to?

 

If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

eny wun caled Aethelwulffe hoo lives if=n floridda an cant spel .Oh Puh-leez iZ wot we calls a 'big girls blouse' dU U LIKE SEX 'N' TRAVEL? u AR NUFINK. NO WOT I MEAN JON? dU us orl a flavor an dont cum 'ere again. U dont no nuffink. Bleedin navel oranges. 'e finks e,' n arkitect, but i aint see 'is boats sailin. Eny wun else seen 'is vesels?

Dyslexia ruls ko

 

Ok,

So I like to edit my posts for typos. So sue me. I also borrow plenty of grammer from my 14 Y/O. So slay me.
It is true that I don't know anything...makes me more cautious.

As for my boats, You used to be able to find them at the Corpus Christi Sailing school (I think they sold them all off, they only use big boats now), Florida Parks and wildlife (fisheries skiffs, sea sled type). Aransas Pass ferry, Universal Studios (big picnic boats that transport you from the resorts to the park) a number of one-offs (lots of dinghies, several larger wooden sailboats), and many bits and pieces of the US Navy Avenger Class mine countermeasures ships (MCM-1 class). My first project of any fame was the 1991-92 Texas A&M human powered submarine entry. Though we lost to the MIT thingamajig that could not even move (it was an artificial fish...a tuna I believe) we were the only entry to complete the course, and the best on the track. Performance was not being graded even though they DID say it was supposed to be a race.....NOT MY FAULT. It's also not my fault about the typos. You see, I am not dyslexic...it's my FINGERS. THEY are dyslexic.... Wathch thsi. See em tpye!

 

ya the bbc just got sued because the put out a film on the "hoax" of global warming
useing pericope's ,statements out of context and pseudo-science in an attempt to refute the theory of human influenced global warming
course on the other hand
All Gore got sued by the weather channel for misrepresenting the carbon relationship to temperature
Ill try to look up the name of the film
and the article about the complaint lodged by the scientists involved
B

 

Talk to my lawyers. They are Sue, Grabbit & Leggit, 10, Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AJ

http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp

 

ya every body is sue happy
course the last Sue I was involved with was tall and had long blond hair
ah memories

hows england today friend
its on my destination list once I get back on the water

 

Another point of view from a guy named Russ George:

"I have read some of the many news reports on the ocean acidification and reef crisis that are presently extant. I beg to differ with the position that reducing our global carbon footprint will help save our ocean bathing beauties, the reefs.

It's not that I don't fully support reducing our carbon footprint, I am rather more concerned about the role of the present deadly dose of anthropogenic CO2 already in the air on its way to our surface ocean waters.

Those hundreds of billions of tonnes of anthropogenic CO2, the bulk of which we've prescribed and put en route in the past 75 years, are slowly dissolving into the surface ocean.

By most accounts CO2 in the atmosphere takes on the order of 200 years to equilibrate with the surface ocean. Hence the pH drop we've been recording is just the proverbial tip of the dry-iceberg.

As the surface ocean absorbs the rest of this deadly dose, regardless of whether we emit more which we surely are doing, the acidification process already destined to occur is more than sufficient to change ocean ecology in far wider and disastrous fashion than merely scalding the bathing beauties at the shore.

In fact the devastating effects CO2 has on the ocean is not proceeding only via H2O+CO2=H2CO3 (carbonic acid), there is a secondary reaction wherein CO2 is enhancing the greeness of the planets dry lands. There is is a major benefit our high and rising CO2 delivers to droughty grasses who are losing less water via evapotranspiration, remaining green and growing bushier each spring, and as such are superior ground cover thus reducing topsoil loss in the wind. Tragically that dust in the wind is the major source of vital mineral micronutrients for the open ocean. Prophetically it seems, all we really are is dust in the wind.

So as our reef beauties cry out and dissolve like Dorothy's wicked witch in our acidifying oceans, the acidification will certainly continue for at least another century unabated even if we never emit another molecule of fossil CO2 into the air.

At the same time as the oceans suffer this chemical shock treatment, like those we give our swimming pools, they will continue as well to lose their photosynthetic capacity to counter this onslaught. The loss of net primary productivity, NPP, is reportedly 17% in the North Atlantic, 26% in the North Pacific, and 50% in the sub-tropical tropical oceans.

We can find the fundamental proof of the depth of this problem by considering it from the point of view of basic chemical thermodynamics. Indeed we have expended a hundred terrawatts or so burning fossil carbon to put that deadly dose of CO2 into our atmosphere and ocean. No trivial energy savings will serve to counter its certain first principals chemical effects. We can still trust in what the Second Law of Thermodynamics teaches us in that one must balance equations energetically. If we are to address a problem created by terrawatts of energy we must devote
terrawatts of energy. In this case those curative terrawatts better be emission free or we are lost.

So where is there a source of emission free terrawatts of curative power we can devote to saving the oceans and help restore the balance of Nature?

It is of course ONLY available from photosynthesis and therein lies the course we must chart to restore our oceans as we must surely not simply imagine the damage we've prescribed can simply be ignored and start from the present mortally wounded state. No mere conservation ethic or effort will suffice, we are far to far over the tipping point for that to work.

We must replenish and restore ocean photosynthesis for there in the vast living ocean expanse the terrawatts of power, solar power, can be found and used to compete with the H2O+CO2=H2CO3 reaction. There in lies hope if
we act now to assist the ocean plants, phyto-plankton, to convert CO2 in the ocean to life instead of death.

Without replenished mineral micronutrients, without our determined efforts to administer the antidote, life in the oceans, and on this small blue planet, will surely revert to the cyanobacteroa; state from whence it came.

How do we do that?

We must take on stewardship of the oceans and restore the dust that is missing.

This will be a long challenging task but one ship load at a time it has to happen. Planktos Science has been working on this for about a decade having taken the baton pass from the late great John Martin of Moss Landing Marine Labs here in California.

What Martin showed was that we could take iron, in the natural form of mineral dust, to the oceans where with infinitesimal amounts the imbalance of Nature can be balanced. For each tonne of iron ore dust - you know the red stuff that makes dirt red, hematite - hundreds of thousands of tonnes of phyto-plankton will grow.

For more information about the work of Planktos Science and about their programmes , go to their website"

Russ George is the founder and current President of Planktos Science, a privately held San Francisco-based eco-restoration and ocean eco-technology company, whose mission is the restoration of damaged habitats.

---------------------------------

Now, CO2 acidificates the oceans while increases the greenish of the planet which on its side avoids iron dust reaching the oceans, which inhibits phytoplancton growing, which sustains less superior sealife....so, why are the whales populations improving?

More seriously: how matches this with the ongoing desertification...? do we really know something...? do we know enough about the nature's equilibriums to take such measures as feeding the ocean with iron? what the negative consequences of this? have they been equated? could an increased ocean productivity increase desertification on land...? Again: do we know all terms in Earth's biosphera equilibrium equation (and our share in it) to happily play with it?

In this line of thinking: do we know enough about athmospheric CO2's sources, equilibrium and real impacts, to risk to take what perhaps are dangerous measures to reduce it, some of them rather highly speculative and even ecoimperialist?

Cheers.

 

Can't see what all this stuff about CO2 being bad for you - last time I talked to a tree it told me how much he loved the stuff - couldn't live without it in fact! Lots of bushes (no not that lot! He'd want to burn it) nearby backed him up completely!

 

co2 and trees are like ants and anteaters,,,,,,we dont like ants,,, so we let the millions of anteaters eat em,,,,well,,, then we start killing anteaters for their fur, to keep our feetsies warm,,,,well,,,20 years pass and we only got 100 anteaters left,,,,,,,,,,,,,what does that do to the ant population that we hate so bad?

 

hey G
great article
Ive got something I wrote on this a while back
takes a slightly different tack but
its in a similar light
soonest Ill dig it up and drop it in the thread
basically its on the rise of the microbial sea
and the stratification of the oceans
both going to happen in conjunction with the rise in ph
( although the ph issue will not be the triger )
so easily observed today
in a nut shell
the stratification of the oceans is what lead to the permian triasic boundry great extinction
one of the two really huge extinction events
90% of life in the oceans
70% of life on land
100% of life over five kg
died because of an ocean anaerobic event
i.e. stratification

I would cite a lecture by Dr Jeremy Jackson
prof. em. of ocean sciences at scripts

 

I find it positively amazing that a puny creature like a human thinks that it can actually alter anything that will happen in the world - it ain't our fault and anybody who thinks so is either a complete fool or is part of the biggest con to be played in the world since some bloke called God took some bloke called Adam and made a woman out of his rib!!

Now rubbish - there's a different thing - we can and do effect that! Most all of the rubbish is down to that wasteful little creature, man! the more technocally adavanced the greater the output of rubbish! Not just verbally either!