71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 08:41 pm
To a secular liberal, not believing that government can solve any problem is a very serious sin. Of course, to the secular mind, who else is left to solve any problem? So it requires faith in government, which I don't have. I am a sinner with no redemption possible. I don't even believe in the U.N., or the hope of a one world government someday where all will live in peace and tranquility in harmony with "nature," oh excuse me, its "Mother Earth," which makes me an even worse ingrate.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 12:39 am
Of course you're right, okie. Only Gawd can halt global warming, or deliver us from its consequences. We better start prayin.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 03:08 am
ican711nm wrote:

This resolution should require all born persons to carry parasols to protect themswelves from global warming.
I only hope the UN resolution will be passed after my patent for a special AGW parasol is accepted Cool
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 08:30 am
Thomas wrote:
Of course you're right, okie. Only Gawd can halt global warming, or deliver us from its consequences. We better start prayin.


I didn't see anything in Okie's post that referenced God. I only saw in his post that he does not wish to assign godlike powers to government or the UN, in this case particularly referencing global warming.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 11:11 am
Thomas wrote:
Of course you're right, okie. Only Gawd can halt global warming, or deliver us from its consequences. We better start prayin.

There are a few things mankind has no control over, Thomas. Maybe God doesn't wish to halt global warming, and frankly a half degree does not strike me as something to wring my hands over. Any one of us should have more important things to pray about.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 12:45 pm
Ican wrote
Quote:
Debating either type can be fun as long as one does not take them too seriously.


Concurring with your other points in the post I took this one from, I think I'm getting a lot better at not taking things seriously. I had never experienced the kinds of self-righteous, personally directed judgment directed at people as we see from some on the left here on A2K, and I did feel hurt, especially when people I wanted to be friends with made it quite clear they were having none of that. I have not experienced any of that from some pretty ultra liberal friends and relatives I have in the real world.

I've toughened up though and can take your advice to not take it too seriously. Sometimes I leave a thread that becomes so assininely (is that a word?) stupid and nothing of substance is being discussed. I reserve the right to an opinion that some here do work especially hard at being obtuse. Smile

Anyhow, so far as AGW is concerned, I continue to keep an open mind and will go with the most persuasive arguments as I have no way of verifying the truth of any of it for myself. To date, I think the skeptics have by far the most persuasive and compelling arguments and this is reinforced that most people with particular expertise in paleoclimatology seem to be skeptical that global warming is significantly human caused or that humans have the ability to stop it short of triggering a nuclear winter.

And using that to arrive at a logical deduction, I think we will be prudent to KNOW what forces are driving global warming and/or what ability, if any, we have to significantly affect that one way or the other before we agree to submit to mandates for extreme lifestyle changes, restrictions on personal freedoms, and/or costly measures that will accomplish little.

Further, if there is nothing we can reasonably do to effect changes in the global climate, another logical deduction is that we would be wise to focus our collective wisdom, intelligence, creativity, and resources on ways to help people to adjust to and improve on what we know to be irrefutable fact.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 12:53 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Anyhow, so far as AGW is concerned, I continue to keep an open mind and will go with the most persuasive arguments as I have no way of verifying the truth of any of it for myself. To date, I think the skeptics have by far the most persuasive and compelling arguments and this is reinforced that most people with particular expertise in paleoclimatology seem to be skeptical that global warming is significantly human caused or that humans have the ability to stop it.


Quote:
Paleoclimatology as a discipline has expanded exponentially (as measured, for example, by the output of literature) in the last 25 years. The impetus for this has only partly been societal concerns about global change.
Source: Paleoclimatology in the 21st Century


Quote:
The study of past climate change also helps us understand how humans influence the Earth's climate system. The climatic record over the last thousand years clearly shows that global temperatures increased significantly in the 20th Century, and that this warming was likely to have been unprecedented in the last 1200 years. The paleoclimatic record allows us to examine the causes of past climate change, and to help unravel how much of the 20th century warming may be explained by natural causes and how much may be explained by human influences.
Source: noah research - Paleoclimatology
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 02:21 pm
one of the effects of climate change/global warming has been the survival and spreading of the pine beetles in western canada .
as the report points out , those beetles have been around for some time , but in the past most eggs would be killed off in the cold canadian winters . now the eggs survive and the beetles are multiplying at astonishing rates - killing the pine trees in western canada .
it is expected that when about 85% of the pine trees have been killed , the beetle population will stabilize - that's great news .

Quote:
From: Reuters
Published March 26, 2008 07:49 AM

Western Canadian pine beetle infestation spreads


VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - About half of the marketable pine trees in West Coast Canadian province of British Columbia have been ravaged by a nearly decade-long beetle infestation, according to new government statistics.

The outbreak of mountain pine beetles has affected trees over an area of 13.5 million hectares (33.4 million acres) in the Western Canadian province, which is a major source of softwood lumber exports to the United States.

The insects have infested and killed about 710 million cubic meters of timber as of this month, up from 582 million cubic meters at the same time last year, according to a news release posted on the province's Web site.

The tiny black beetles lay their eggs in the lodgepole and ponderosa pines with the hungry larvae killing the trees by destroying their ability to take in water and nutrients. They also carry a fungus that stains the wood blue.

British Columbia has about 1.35 billion cubic meters (4.8 billion cubic feet) of salable pine lumber in its public and private forests, and the province estimates about 76 percent of it will have been killed by 2015.

A provincial report last fall predicted the infestation rate will return to pre-outbreak levels after 2015 because most of susceptible trees will be dead by then, although there are fears the insects will spread into the neighboring province of Alberta (they have already arrived in alberta) .

The insects have lived in Western Canada for thousands of years, but nature has controlled major outbreaks by killing the beetles through extreme winter cold and forest fires.

Much of the infected area has not had the required cold snap in recent years and British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell has cited the outbreak as evidence Canada needs to take aggressive steps to address global warming.

The outbreak is contributing to the lumber industry's woes.

Sawmills have rushed to process the dead trees before the wood deteriorates, but are selling the lumber into a market hit hard by reduced demand because of the collapse of the U.S. housing market.

(Reporting Allan Dowd, Editing Peter Galloway)





source :
PINE BEETLE INFESTATION

this map dates from 2006 and the pine beetles have marched further east in the meantime

http://www.pc.gc.ca/apprendre-learn/prof/sub/mpb-ddp/images/1-5.jpg


these trees are not showing fall colours - they hae been killed by the beetles

http://www.gordonoconnor.ca/media/20070731-feature-MOD.jpg

Quote:
Beetles and Cold Weather
Cold weather kills the mountain pine beetle. Mountain pine beetle eggs, pupae and young larvae are the most susceptible to freezing temperatures.
In the winter, temperatures must consistently be below -35 Celsius or -40 Celsius for several straight days to kill off large portions of mountain pine beetle populations.
In the early fall or late spring, sustained temperatures of -25 Celsius can freeze mountain pine beetle populations to death.
A sudden cold snap is more lethal in the fall, before the mountain pine beetles are able to build up their natural anti-freeze (glycerol) levels.
Cold weather is also more effective before it snows. A deep layer of snow on the ground can help insulate mountain pine beetles in the lower part of the tree against outside temperatures.
Wind chill affects mountain pine beetles, but is usually not sustained long enough to significantly increase winter mortality.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 02:47 pm
"Over the next few decades in the United States, climate change is likely to have a significant impact on health."

Howard Frumkin, Director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testimony to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, April 9, 2008 (Source)
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 03:13 pm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority--from more than two dozen countries voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS
Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

5. Climatologist Dr. John Maunder, past president of the Commission for Climatology who has spent over 50 years in the "weather business" all around the globe, and who has written four books on weather and climate, says "the science of climate change will probably never be fully understood." "It is not always true that the climate we have now (wherever we live) is the best one ... some people (and animals and crops) may prefer it to be wetter, drier, colder, or warmer," Maunder wrote on his website updated on November 27, 2007. "Climatic variations and climatic changes from WHATEVER cause (i.e. human induced or natural) clearly create risks, but also provide real opportunities. (For example, the 2007 IPCC report - see below - shows that from 1900 to 2005, significantly increased precipitation has been observed in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe, and northern and central Asia)," he explained. (LINK) Maunder also was one of the signatories of a December 13, 2007 open letter critical of the UN IPCC process. "Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998," the letter Maunder signed stated. "That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling," the letter added.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 03:55 pm
Hamburger and Walter, the main debate here is not about whether or not the globe has been warming. The main debate here is about what has been causing the globe to warm.

Let's all assume for now that the globe has been unusually, rapidly warming 1975 to 2005. Future measurements will tell us whether or not that warming will continue. If it does continue whether or not humans are causing it, we still have to find ways to cope with its consequences. If pine beetle and/or other bug investations are the only consequences, those are relatively easy to cope with. Insecticides (e.g., DDT) have worked in the past; they will most probably work in future. Any far worse consequences, will require us to find ways to cope with them as well.

One thing we must keep in mind, the consequences of drastically reducing our energy production to reduce CO2 production will probably cause far greater human health problems and other suffering, than will any continuing increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 06:04 pm
hamburger wrote:
one of the effects of climate change/global warming has been the survival and spreading of the pine beetles in western canada .

You can add that to the list of several hundred things to wring your hands over, hamburger.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 08:15 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Here is an interesting article about untapped oil in the US...

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html?fark

Quote:
America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America's Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC's short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349728,00.html



MM, remember this post and conversation, the story linked indicates more on the order of 4.3 billion barrels recoverable, a far cry from 200 billion. 4.3 billion is less than half of the estimate for ANWR, which is estimated to hold 10.3 billion barrels recoverable. 4.3 billion barrels would run the country at 20 million barrels per day for about 7 months. Of course, if you only produce a million barrels per day, it would last for about 12 years if I did the math right. In contrast, ANWR would produce a million per day for about 25 years. Either one is crucial and important. At a million barrels per day and $100 per barrel, that is a billion dollars every 10 days that doesn't leave the country. The Democrats will tell us this is all miniscule and not worth anything at all, while the price of oil continues to skyrocket.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:48 pm
I suppose it's marginally preferable to have some fatcat in Dallas buy his third private island in the Caribbean with oil money, rather than have a Saudi prince buy the same island, but the kicker there is "recoverable at $90 a barrel". That's still more than three times the price of oil before our idiot president came into office and succeeded in destabilizing the Middle East and the oil market. And it's oil at $90 (and more) a barrel now that's screwing the economy, of the US and the world. The US economy was built on cheap oil, which is why we use disproportionately high amounts of energy to produce what the rest of the G8 do with much less. Lots of very expensive oil isn't going to help. It's just going to enable us to limp along longer.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:53 pm
If you haven't read okie's cite about huge new reserves in the Bakken Formation, they're the ones that are potentially recoverable for $90 a barrel. For reference, when Bush came into office the price of oil was somewhere around $28 a barrel. Now oil is bouncing around between the $90's and $104 a barrel. That's a huge hobble on the American economy. $90 a barrel oil is not going to help us a whole lot, even if there's a lot of it.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 11:11 pm
Solar panel manufacturers say prices of the panels have fallen 90% since the 1980s, and thin-film manufacturers say they have the tech to build solargenerating plants for $1.19 a watt now, versus $1.00 per watt for conventional plants, and they expect to reach parity inside five years

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-08-26-solar_N.htm

And fuel costs are one heck of a lot less, since the sun has shown no interest so far in charging us anything. Not so the oil and coal companies. Looks like tripling the price of oil is changing the whole dynamic of what's affordable and what's not in energy production.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2008 08:59 am
okie..

Maybe you didn't read your source... Let me quote it for you..

In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951.

Anwar doesn't come close to the Bakken Oil formation. You can't trust Fox news to get anything right it seems.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2008 12:47 pm
unless we want more arctic ice to disappear and more insect infestations ,
i do NOT think we need cheaper ( MORE ) oil .
hbg

Quote:
New cracks suggest largest remaining Arctic ice shelf destined to disappear"These changes are happening in concert with other indicators of climate change."

Mr. Mueller and his fellow researchers were expected to release their findings on Saturday. But a patrol of Canadian Rangers travelling west last week from CFB Alert at the northern tip of Ellesmere Island saw the cracks first-hand.

"We're looking at the possible demise of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf," said Doug Stern, a Ranger and Parks Canada employee, who was on the patrol and has been helping Mueller with his research.

Formed by accumulating snow and freezing meltwater, ice shelves are large platforms of thick, ancient sea ice that float on the ocean's surface. Ellesmere Island was once ringed by one, but that enormous shelf broke up in the early 1900s.



The Ward Hunt shelf's characteristic corrugated surface, described by Mr. Mueller "like a giant Ruffles potato chip," is now fractured by dozens of deep cracks in the 3,000-year-old, 40-metre thick ice.

Mr. Mueller found evidence of one of the new cracks in satellite images. Then he and Mr. Stern followed up with an aerial survey earlier this year.

"We were expecting to see one new crack," said Mr. Stern. "But when we flew over, all of a sudden...there's one, there's another one.

"There are not just a couple of parallel cracks. It's multifaceted cracking going on. I was just totally amazed to see them all."

The Rangers found even more, and as part of their patrol they measured and documented as many of the new cracks as they could. One was 10 kilometres long and up to 40 metres wide.

The cracks, easily large enough to swallow a snowmobile, presented an extra hazard for the patrol's scouts as they picked a route across the ice between CFB Alert and Ward Hunt Island.

The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, one of the last five remaining in Canada, has been shrinking since the 1930s. But after a period of stability during the '80s, that deterioration seems to picking up, said Mr. Mueller.

That suggests climate change in the area has crossed some kind of threshold, he added.

Other data on the shelf is also not encouraging.



source :
ARCTIC ICE DISAPPEARS
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2008 12:56 pm
"The main debate here is about what has been causing the globe to warm."

Are the smokers are responsible?
Are those whonderful drivers of cars?
Are those tax evaders who enjoy all and deprive the need-based minimum wage for others reponsible?
Why the hell we ( irrespective of our education) are one sided?
This subject is my childhood subject.


The answer is this.
!0 rich Indians can consume more than 90 poor indians.
One chinese can make havoc to china than the 9 Chinese.

Take care of your environments and wage not verbal wars.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2008 01:39 pm
hamburger wrote:
unless we want more arctic ice to disappear and more insect infestations ,
i do NOT think we need cheaper ( MORE ) oil .
hbg


Would you feel that way if it turns out that something OTHER than use of fossil fuels is causing the ice to melt?

I was reading just yesterday I think the opinion of somebody that said it is likely, at the current rate of melt of arctic ice that within 15 years a permanent northwest passage will be open to shipping. The danger of this, so said the writer, is that ships will use the passage. And, because there will also likely be iceburgs in the water, it is likely that the ships will hit the burgs and sink. And that will cause oil spills and other pollution of the arctic ocean. And that will be devastating to the wildlife and ecology of the region.

I suppose the message of this is that we need to stop global warming no matter what is causing it so that ships don't sink in the arctic ocean.

Sometimes I think all this stuff depends on just that kind of logic when forecasting doom and gloom scenarios.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/11/2024 at 04:23:29