You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.


Topic HomeTopicsForum HomeForumsHomeSearchSettingsHelpExit

Global Climate Change


{Nature_and_Environment.7.507}: Tonu Aun {tonu} Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:00:47 CDT (HTML)

"But do you realize that more greenhouse gases were released into the atmosphere by Mt. St. Helen in a week than people have put there since the Industrial Revolution?" -- Kathleen


Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.


{Nature_and_Environment.7.508}: Kathleen Martin {kam1953f} Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:59:55 CDT (HTML)

I stand corrected about the volcanoes, Tonu. Thanks for the San Diego State University site.


{Nature_and_Environment.7.509}: Tom Elliot {telliot} Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:08:58 CDT (HTML)

Kathleen, you are making an incorrect assumption in your criticism of the global warming issue when you say we only have a few decades of data. This is about weather, it is about climate, and we have data going back hundreds of thousands of years about climate and atmospheric makeup that illustrates clearly that what is happening now, especially involving CO2, is unprecedented in scope and speed of change. You need to look at this from a climatological standpoint, not a meteorological one.


{Nature_and_Environment.7.510}: Chris Chalmer {chris} Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:47:20 CDT (3 lines)

fine little series


{Nature_and_Environment.7.511}: Tom Elliot {telliot} Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:06:07 CDT (HTML)

Fascinating. Watched the first segment and realized that it is the finest movie making Exxon/Mobil can provide. This is the basic phony science climate change debunker nonsense that misstates the global warming argument in order to "prove" that what they misstate is not true. Wow, they make up their own lies and then disprove them. This actually opens up huge opportunities for scientific research.

Imagine being able to misstate Einstein's theory of relativity so that one can make one's bones by "disproving" it.


{Nature_and_Environment.7.512}: Chris Chalmer {chris} Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:17:48 CDT (18 lines)

Lol ... well,  I apologize for  the perceived attack on your religion.
  Let me point out an error in one of your ealier posts, if you will.

CO2 is not abnormally high, but more than likely abnormally low.  I
doubt you would get much of an argument from anyone,  fundmentalist
christians excluded of course,  that dinosaurs lived in an era both
warmer and higher in CO2 than the current.  In fact, we're currently
in an  Ice era,  seen in earth having two polar caps in stead of the
usual one,  and presumably we'll emerge once again to nicely higher
temperatures.- and higher CO2 levels.

Exxon/Mobil, Tom?   What kind of argument is that?

"To  capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some  scary
scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little  mention of
any doubts one might have."  Now who would say a thing like that?
Suggestive of something a warmonger in Bush's circle might mumble
behind closed curtains, no?


{Nature_and_Environment.7.513}: Tom Elliot {telliot} Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:28:50 CDT (HTML)

CO2 is abnormally low Chris? Got data for that?


{Nature_and_Environment.7.514}: Tom Elliot {telliot} Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:12:23 CDT (HTML)


{Nature_and_Environment.7.515}: Chris Chalmer {chris} Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:30:44 CDT (30 lines)

Myopic in extremis, Tom!

I only noted that CO2 was "more than likely"  abnormally low, because
science being what it is it's subject to revision.  In fact, the
earth's atmosphere can be most accurately described as CO2 impoverished.

Note that  CO2 is once again at historic lows, and in particular note
the relationship between CO2 and average global termparatures.  There
is no relationship whatsoever.

As for global termpartures - it would be  a transgression of the
probabilistic law of regression to the mean if global termpartures
didn't revert to the mean adding ca 5% over the next 100 million years
or so.  I have to point out that even if the rise were relatively
sudden it would "more than likely", lol, not give credence to the
religion of global warming.

And now you know what why I might call global warming a religion.  It
is however worse than a religion, because the faithful in this case
have actual facts to contradict their faith.   You now also know why I
posed this teaser::

"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary
scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of
any doubts one might have."

Not a neo-commie warmonger, but an IPCCer.  Shame on him, and shame on
the gullible and they are legion, as usual.


{Nature_and_Environment.7.516}: William Lynn {billcorno} Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:39:27 CDT (18 lines)

Without knowing if global warming is actually human-caused, if we do
nothing and it IS true, we are totally screwed.

    If it isn't, what's the harm in stopping our dependence on foreign
oil, in effect giving our money to sheiks and despots instead of
developing our independence here?  We have the technology.

     To me, the thought that we could possibly be missing a chance to
preserve the world as we know it is worth the effort.

     People who don't want to make the effort are going for the
comfortable and easy way, I think.  They like the way they are living.
Why worry about 20, 30 years from now?

     Well, the younger generation shouldn't forgive us for at least
giving it a shot.

      My take on this dilemma...


{Nature_and_Environment.7.517}: Kathleen Martin {kam1953f} Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:22:41 CST (HTML)

Bill, You make excellent sense.

I love nature and our environment and living in one of the most heavily-industrialized places in the country (Northern Indiana), I have deep feelings about it. A day at the Dunes National Lakeshore restores me to sanity like nothing else. This does not mean I am anxious to jump on every single tree-hugger's bandwagon.

I like for people to have jobs and feel they have the right to protect their livelihood. Unlike some people, I believe that human beings are more important than animals. Once I heard a schoolkid respond to a Weekly Reader picture of a wolf dead at a farmer's hand this way: "Somebody should have shot the farmer." It made me cringe. Does something not seem to be, uh, disproportionate there?

Moreover, I'd like to see better science applied before some of the more marginal new regulations are applied by government regulation.

That said, whoever has caused the trouble, it could be time to stop arguing about that and work on our common goal - Keeping the planet inhabitable for our grandchildren and their grandchildren.

I think maybe it's time we find a way to get politics out of the discussion.


{Nature_and_Environment.7.518}: Suzanne Griffith {sggriffith} Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:04:44 CDT (14 lines)

Here's an interesting article about reducing carbon emissions through

<<Tests show microbe-rich soils produced by the new methods can store
between five to 10 tonnes a hectare of carbon a year, compared with
less than 1.5 using traditional farming systems.

''We are talking about a quantum difference,'' Mr Wiley said.

Under the new system, currently being tested in WA and north-west NSW,
farmers increase soil carbon by planting sub-tropical grasses with
cereal crops or rows of the fodder shrub, tagasaste.>>


{Nature_and_Environment.7.519}: {bshmr} Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:03:05 CST (16 lines)

McClathy extended feature on coal field fires

China's coal fires belch fumes, worsening global warming By Tim
Johnson; McClatchy Newspapers; Sunday, November 16, 2008

RUJIGOU, China — The barren hillsides give a hint of the inferno
underfoot. White smoke billows from cracks in the earth, venting a
sulfurous rotten smell into the air. The rocky ground is hot to the
touch, and heat penetrates the soles of shoes.

Beneath some rocks, an eerie red glow betrays an unseen hell: the
epicenter of a severe underground coal fire.



{Nature_and_Environment.7.520}: Tonu Aun {tonu} Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:25:34 CST (2 lines)

Interesting article -- Thanx. I was aware of underground coal fires
but completely ignorant of their size, number, and significance.


{Nature_and_Environment.7.521}: Richard Basham {bshmr} Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:57:40 CST (15 lines)

Record Highs Beating Record Lows in US by 2-to-1, Redux by Matthew
McDermott, New York, NY on 01.13.10; Science & Technology (science)
[quote] Back in November scientists from the National Center for
Atmospheric Research and other equally prestigious organizations
informed us that since the 1980s record highs have been outpacing
record lows. And last year the ratio was more than 3:2--a normal ratio
over time is about 1:1. Well, since the recent snows across Europe and
cold snaps across much of the United States have brought the "it's
cold today so global warming must be a scam" crowd out in droves, I
thought (through Joe Romm's inspiration) that bringing back the
graphic above is appropriate.



{Nature_and_Environment.7.522}: James Files {riverrat} Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:51:13 CST (1 line)

good hit Richard.


{Nature_and_Environment.7.523}: Julien Peter Benney {taite} Sun, 25 Apr 2010 07:28:11 CDT (27 lines)

Chris, when you say that the dinosaurs lived in an era of musch higher
CO2, you are on one side understating it, and on another overlooking
the costs of higher CO2 in extremely low soil fertility.

During the period when the dinosaurs lived, there were no polar ice
caps at all. The climate in the polar regions was pleasantly cool,
whilst the arid zone covered latitudes from around 30&#730; to 55&#730;
from the equator, and the areas from the equator to 30&#730; north and
south were mainly seasonally dry tropical climates. There was less east-
west variation in climate than today.

The trouble was that the absence of ice caps led to dreadfully
impoverished soils of types extant only in the humid tropics,
Australia and Southern Africa today. The major agricultural soils of
Europe, Asia, and southern South America - chernozems, kastanozems and
brown soils - were utterly unknown. South African soil scientist
Michael Laker says (effectively) that the difference between Mesozoic
soils and present-day ones outside the tropics, Australia and Southern
Africa is probably understated by the paleopedological record, too,
because soils of Australia and Southern Africa are extremely
distinctive and difficult to classify effectively using
classifications developed for the very young soils of Eurasia, north
America, New Zealand and the Southern Cone.

For this reason, highly intelligent life forms like humans could not
develop in the Mesozoic environment. It is unlikely that civilisation
could survive forever in a much hotter climate than exists today.


{Nature_and_Environment.7.524}: Nancy Davison {nmdavison} Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:59:29 CDT (3 lines)

Newsweek's latest article on how prepared are we for climate change.


{Nature_and_Environment.7.525}: Julien Peter Benney {taite} Sat, 04 Jun 2011 08:41:24 CDT (27 lines)

The way rainfall has changed in Australia, especially Western
Australia, since 1967 (look at the decline at
and the increase at
I have always been aware of the problems of climate change.

However, besides deliberately refusing to be taught to drive, I know
there is little I can do personally to deal with Australia’s utterly
appalling greenhouse gas emissions. What I can do, and try my best to
do given my problematic temper that is very prone to rant both in
speech and writing, is to try to convince people, especially people
abroad, that there are exceedingly sound reasons why Australia’s per
capita carbon emissions should not be the highest in the world, but
the lowest by a very, very large margin. I am well aware that present
cultural and political trends are likely to mean that Australia
retains environmentally-unfriendly technology even as countries in
Europe and Asia switch to carbon-neutral technology, and that because
of its peoples’ greater hospitality and generosity migrants and
workers will still prefer to go to Australia rather than a much more
sustainable country like Denmark or Sweden. My knowledge of how
ecologically absurd such a situation is makes me think a completely
new strategy has to be developed by countries whose people have
greater environmental awareness (actually reflecting far more
selfishness and less empathy) to really reduce emissions where
reductions are needed rather than where cultural and demographic costs
are very high.


{Nature_and_Environment.7.526}: Nancy Davison {nmdavison} Sat, 04 Jun 2011 15:20:44 CDT (2 lines)

Is it really the highest in the world? Higher than the US? that's


{Nature_and_Environment.7.527}: Julien Peter Benney {taite} Sun, 05 Jun 2011 01:42:29 CDT (15 lines)

It is: about forty percent higher than in the US. In reality,
Australia’s per capita carbon emissions should be, I have calculated,
about 1 to 4 percent those of Eurasia, the Americas and New Zealand.

The root of the trouble is that Australia’s surfeit of natural
resources leaves it politicians powerless and its well-financed and
ultra-comfortable suburban population totally passive. What is needed
- and has been proposed - is a total cap on income of mining companies
put totally to dismantling the car and coal industries of Australia
and replacing it with an absolutely first rate mass transit system to
cater for every single journey in Australia without a single molecule
of greenhouse gas emissions. This is something that should have been
achieved by 1990, but never will be as things stand unless Australia
is made into the kind of pariah state we associate with Cuba, Iran,
Libya or Sudan.


{Nature_and_Environment.7.528}: Nancy Davison {nmdavison} Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:04:06 CDT (1 line)

So the spoilers are everywhere, aren't they?


{Nature_and_Environment.7.529}: Glen Marks {wotan} Sat, 30 Nov 2019 02:55:39 CST (2 lines)



{Nature_and_Environment.7.530}: Glen Marks {wotan} Sun, 01 Dec 2019 09:35:43 CST (2 lines)



{Nature_and_Environment.7.531}: Glen Marks {wotan} Sun, 08 Dec 2019 00:45:52 CST (1 line)


Topic HomeTopicsForum HomeForumsHomeSearchSettingsHelpExit
Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

The New Café  Home | Your Hotlist and Directory | Independent Partner Forums |
FAQ | User Guidelines | Privacy Policy