How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 When Everything Old is New Again   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

When Everything Old is New Again

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 12-18-2009 07:35 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other.

Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20 C (68 F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12 C (54 F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

  There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm  or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

We are actually in an ice age climate today. However for the last 10,000 years or so we have enjoyed a warm but temporary interglacial vacation. We know from geological records like ocean sediments and ice cores from permanent glaciers that for at least the last 750,000 years interglacial periods happen at 100,000 year intervals, lasting about 15,000 to 20,000 years before returning to an icehouse climate. We are currently about 18,000 years into Earth's present interglacial cycle. These cycles have been occurring for at least the last 2-4 million years, although the Earth has been cooling gradually for the last 30 million years.

What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to currently. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

For anyone interested, this is an excellent quiz on global warming...http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/Q1.html
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


1 posted 12-18-2009 08:17 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Now, now, just to prove to you that I'm not Henny Penny running around screaming that the sky is falling.    

And if the following proves nothing else, it proves that I can copy and paste also. *chuckle*

From www.sciencedaily.com--

"A new analysis of the geological record of the Earth's sea level, carried out by scientists at Princeton and Harvard universities and published in the Dec. 16 issue of Nature, employs a novel statistical approach that reveals the planet's polar ice sheets are vulnerable to large-scale melting even under moderate global warming scenarios. Such melting would lead to a large and relatively rapid rise in global sea level."

Fairly recent data (Dec. 17, 2009) suggests:

"According to the analysis, an additional 2 degrees of global warming could commit the planet to 6 to 9 meters (20 to 30 feet) of long-term sea level rise. This rise would inundate low-lying coastal areas where hundreds of millions of people now reside. It would permanently submerge New Orleans and other parts of southern Louisiana, much of southern Florida and other parts of the U.S. East Coast, much of Bangladesh, and most of the Netherlands, unless unprecedented and expensive coastal protection were undertaken. And while the researchers' findings indicate that such a rise would likely take centuries to complete, if emissions of greenhouse gases are not abated, the planet could be committed during this century to a level of warming sufficient to trigger this outcome."

And credit to the author, with a finer mind than mine:

"The study was written by Robert Kopp", (um, I put his name in bold, just because...and oooh, ow, yes I read the whole thing, and I understand that this could be read to either support your post, or deny it. But I find myself distracted by the memory of a comedian's diatribe scoffing about the difference of a "mere" two degrees.

I didn't think it was that amusing. I thought that perhaps while he was scratching his scrotum, he might want to have an imaginary interview with a viable sperm cell--which could not survive body temperature without the aforementioned, um...danglies.

Since your home and my own home were both mentioned, I thought perhaps we could find some ... common ground?

*laughing*

In other words? Got wood?

(Gopher wood, of course!)

Merry Christmas to you, sir.



And btw? It flooded here five times in the past seven days. We were under a "boil" order for a day and half before we were informed of the fact that our local water treatment plant had lost power. Tsk...so do you blame me for wishing to err on the side of caution?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


2 posted 12-18-2009 09:30 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I still got that place in the N.C. mountains. Don't think the ocean will get that high...
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Caelestus
since 06-25-99
Posts 67715
Listening to every heart


3 posted 12-18-2009 09:53 PM       View Profile for Sunshine   Email Sunshine   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Sunshine's Home Page   View IP for Sunshine

Well, before googling same, I have thought lately "what if" the earth's axis is actually shifting?

Apparently it is.

Google "earth axis shift" and you'll be deluged with sites supporting same, going back into history and forward into the future.

What I found amazing on my slight reading of this real possibility [anyone every try to keep an egg on a counter without its going somewhere beyond your control?] is that some of those wiser folk agree that yes, the earth is shifting, and they are seemingly counter-measuring for just that fact.

Why is it that we believe we can control everything, when simply most everything is outside of our control?

Not that I'm giving up, but I will try to be smart on some decisions as will most of you will be, too.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


4 posted 12-20-2009 03:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No quiz results?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


5 posted 12-20-2009 03:53 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I've been running my own tests.

For example, and I warn you, the following is not for the squeamish:

I just blew my nose for fifteen minutes, succeeding in clearing one half of my sinus cavity, and Rorschach like product/proof on my kleenex is equivilant to say, a gram, give or take a blow. My equilibrium is off, I still have tinnitus in my right ear, and yet I can hear perfectly out of my left ear, which is kind of sad, because I haven't been able to look over that shoulder since the car accident that produced the whiplash, and all I can think of is that I have certainly succeeded in trashing my delicate inner eco-system.

sigh

Anybody seen my thermometer?

And nope, I ain't drunk and I ain't on meds--not yet. I just woke up. I may go back to bed, though. Somebody wake me up when the expletive holidays are over and wheel me down the street for the first parade, eh?

You guys have a good time, too.

Ho Ho Blows.  
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


6 posted 12-20-2009 04:16 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Now, now, I'm not done grumbling.

And I make about as much sense as others in here, so tolerate me, please.

It's the ALLEY.

And yeah, The Saints lost. ONE game, though. Still a neener statement.

Now, as I refilled my coffee cup, I was grousing my way through the kitchen (slough-slough-sloth)<--sound effects of Karen's slippers--and yes, they talk to me, but I was grousing all poetical about how every flipping year, we start the year with the flu, because New Orleans, da toilet bowl of da nation, had this great idea to have the world's largest free party and invite everybody. So now, here we are, eating advil and drinking nyquil ALREADY, and what are we gonna do? That's right. We're gonna fly in people from all around the world, kiss strangers on the street, share plastic beads made by poor children in China for two bucks a month, and we'll share each other's liquids via plastic cups also thrown from the floats, resurrecting the swine flu pandemic "peak". Heh.

Am I in a bad mood or what?

I told my daughter we should invest in a few bulk shipments of surgical masks and gloves, paint them purple, green and gold, offer antibiotic hand-washes, and catheters. We could string them up on one of those little carts and make um...a killing? OY.

Maybe we could sell pig ears and tails, too.

There.

Now I put it out there.

Someone can steal my idea and I won't have to do a blasted thing.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


7 posted 12-20-2009 04:24 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

OH. AND Patron Jello Shots.

We can call 'em..."The Vaccine".

blech

I'm gonna go sloth my way back to the kitchen and poor my coffee down the drain.

I'm nauseated now.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


8 posted 12-20-2009 04:29 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

ONE MORE THING--all of this is considerable evidence to prove my point that I ain't Karenoid--the hospital staff shoves tubes down my throat just to shut me up. Heh.

Peh. (What was that???)

*shudder*
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


9 posted 12-20-2009 05:05 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I know some of you think my rants are pointless, if not insane.

But some of you who know me a bit better might take it all contextually--do we just party on as usual?

Or are we gonna behave and take the meds?



Now, I'm just on a fever ramble, and I realize, with much sympathy that there are many members of Pip who are not well. They might not find my medical humor amusing. It's just how I deal with it, good people.

And other times, I don't. Deal with it, I mean.

Which reminds me of a story...

And since nobody is taping my fingers together to shut me up, I'm gonna keep typing.

Heh.

After my last surgery, I was paid a visit by my anesthesiologist. (That was hard to type, btw.) I have severe sleep apnea coupled with severe medical anxiety. He told me that I might consider seeing a "sleep specialist", as there are now machines that could help me.

*pause*

I listened to him. I looked at him:

"Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that as soon as my incision heals, you'd like me, a notoriously nervous insomniac to go see a group of strangers who would like me to pack a bag AGAIN, and allow them to observe me TRY To sleep, so they can assess the severity of this condition so I can buy a machine that would minimize my chances of dying a peaceful death?"

My OBGYN was standing in the doorway at that point, smiling smugly. He said nothing to me but told the anesthesiologist:

"Don't say I didn't warn you."



Don't mind me, I'm just visiting.

But aren't we all?

Pity the poor grandchildren though...
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


10 posted 12-20-2009 10:23 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

That's right. Ignore me and I'll go away...

*pout*

NOT!!!

May you find serenity in your dreams!

I exit, dragging my IV behind me, cackling...
nakdthoughts
Member Laureate
since 10-29-2000
Posts 19275
Between the Lines


11 posted 12-21-2009 08:42 AM       View Profile for nakdthoughts   Email nakdthoughts   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for nakdthoughts

Karen, this was the best "read"  in days! First of all I want to agree with so much you have said. Then I want to commiserate with you since I am dealing with that same sinus "crap" for almost 4 weeks now  and 3  visits to the Drs with the last visit ONLY giving me some comfort, although it has changed slightly from the gagging aspect of it  to the head draining side to side, so I understand where you are coming from.
And the sleeplessness? Well I wonder if some of that comes with age and worry, although you are much younger than I.

I also would have enjoyed seeing and hearing this in person since it really did give me a  big smile despite feeling so crummy after shoveling 2 ft of snow all day yesterday and having plenty more to go to even see my sidewalk.

Think I may get out of here eventually and buy myself some of those slippers like yours It might be the only sound I can hear out of one ear also.


Guess I better get moving even though  my body says no, maybe I can find a snowblower somewhere in this state!

Hugs and I do hope you have a Merrier Christmas and  a Happy New Year.

M
nakdthoughts
Member Laureate
since 10-29-2000
Posts 19275
Between the Lines


12 posted 12-21-2009 08:51 AM       View Profile for nakdthoughts   Email nakdthoughts   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for nakdthoughts

Mike, I didn't forget you, I just wanted to reply to Karen's words.

I took the quiz and I only got question 4 wrong because I believed what was  written everywhere and in the news about carbon dioxide when the right answer was water vapor... so it was 9/10 correct. Very interesting quiz.

M
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


13 posted 12-21-2009 11:04 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thanks for taking it, Maureen. At least you had the desire to do it. Funny how other "fair-minded" people in their quest for truth ignore anything that doesn't fall into their way of thinking. Glad you're not one....

Shovel? Snow? I don't know what those are!
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


14 posted 12-21-2009 11:43 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable.



This approach is faulty.  It would be like saying just because extinction is a natural part of evolution and change in habitat is a natural part of larger changes of the earth, that man's actions directly or indirectly never contributed to animals becoming endangered or extinct, or habitats becoming changed, endangered, or destroyed.  

We know much better than that.  Extinction, changes in habitat, and climage change, all happen naturally.  That doesn't however stop them from being caused, influenced, or precipitated directly or indirectly by what humans do.  

          
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


15 posted 12-21-2009 12:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


Interesting, Essorant. You picked the one sentence that I thought made the most sense. We must be looking at it differently. I believe what they are referring to is global warming, ozone layer, or effects on the atmosphere....things like that. For example, if charts showed a certain pattern or constant throughout the history of the earth, before mankind, and that pattern has not changed after mankind has  made the scene, then mankind would have a negligible effect on that pattern. If that pattern were to change, then a good argument could be made that mankind has made the difference. The authors of this site, with their charts, graphs and studies, see no such variation up  to now.

That doesn't however stop them from being caused, influenced, or precipitated directly or indirectly by what humans do.  

True enough but that is not the point being addressed. The important thing is how much influence?

If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable

So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.


You may not care for their findings but I don't see where you can find their premise faulty.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


16 posted 12-21-2009 11:55 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
If that pattern were to change, then a good argument could be made that mankind has made the difference.


But many do show a change Balladeer.  They show a unique rise in the average heat in the form of recent generations, decades, and years, (not eons and eras), times corresponding with the rise and use of the fossil fuels.

But can you find that on the scale of geological eons and eras?  Probably not.  It would be like trying to look at a microbe through a telescope.  


[This message has been edited by Essorant (12-22-2009 12:02 AM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


17 posted 12-22-2009 04:27 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          Simply because the quiz and the research appear to have been put together by folks representing the coal industry, does not mean that they and their information are wrong.  The information needs to be dealt with on its own, and I think you have a point there.  Even people I don't agree with in general can bring real information to the table; my animus shouldn't automatically keep me from considering what they have to say.

     My understanding of what they have to say comes down to this: use of coal isn't such a bad thing.  The reason use of coal isn't such a bad thing is because our atmosphere can tolerate a lot more Carbon Dioxide than we're dumping into it now and the earth will survive because the earth has done that before.

     Sure has.

     The last time we spiked a temperature rise and an increase in CO2 levels such as the ones that the friendly folks at the coal company web site were talking about was during the cycle in the middle ages, if I remember correctly.  It's on the late side now, so my capacity for detail work isn't good.  But I do remember that the Thames froze during Shakespeare's time and they could and did skate across it.  Food was difficult because the growing seasons were affected and starvation was not uncommon.  If you'll remember the historical record, the initial settlement of the new work by the vikings took place in Nova Scotia or thereabouts and it was called Vineland the Good because of the extended, warm growing season.  Getting there was simple because Greenland really was green and not covered by glaciers and could support a farming population and a sea-going population from the trees that grew there.  With the climate change, of course, most of the folks on Greenland died, as did most of the colonists in America.  Iceland was OK because there was a lot of geothermal warmth and it was a fishing stop from ireland and Norway.  That was not a large climate change, mind you; it was a small one, and the populations concerned were small, but they were human populations that depended on farming and fishing  for food.  The overall temperature shift wasn't very large, but it killed a lot of people, it wiped out a lot of farm-land, and the overall population was not very large.

     The total world population was a billion or likely somewhat under.

     A global climate change approaching the sort that we had at that time would hit a world with six to eight times the population, and with the food supplies heavily dependent on long transportation chains.  We are in a situation that is considerably more fragile in terms of the species than we were at that time.  If you look at standard j-curves of population densities, you find that population die offs tend to happen higher on the neck of the curve, where we are now, and not so much on the lower slopes of the j-curve, where the population density is scattered.

     A more industrial, more civilized society seems to be more vulnerable to large die-offs.  The coal industry doesn't mention the increased vulnerability of the population in question.  They only speak about the regularity of the CO2 cycle.

     Nor do they mention that CO2 is not the only result of the use of fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels produces other pollutants than CO2.  Among them are the constituents of acid rain, which attacks vegetation, but also attacks, housing, sidewalks, paint and tissue such as lungs.  It also tends to change the ph levels of the soil and means that the plants that can be grown there alter, and with that alteration the ecosystems that have over centuries adapted to human presence, become productive at times when we need just the opposite.  The water itself changes.  Streams and lakes become more acidic, sometimes to the point where they can no longer support life.  While we may be able to tolerate a higher level of CO2, we do need a regular supply of oxygen, and we need to have our soil be able to work things out with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, otherwise plants won't grow.

     All these things are tied together.

     The coal company web-site an quiz is quick to point out the number of not climate scientists who signed petitions urging action against climate change.  This was a fair and straightforward sort of thing to do.  Then, in mentioning their own petition, they mention the total number of signatories as well.  After making such a big deal about the number of non climate scientists who'd signed the petition demanding action on global climate change, you'd think they be even more quick to crown over their own, yet they did not.

     If it were me, and I had even as many, I'd have said so.  I'd have said, Gee willickers, Guys, we're the Coal Copmpany, and we got, Hey, (to pick a number out of a hat) 25% of that number of actual climate scientists to sign up with us.  If we could get 25% of the Climate scientists to sign up with us of all people, can't you imagine what a real debate is going on behind closed door over there in the Climate Science Community!  

     Heck, If I were one of those Coal Guys, I'd make a big deal about 10%!  I'd say, 10%!  That's more than reasonable doubt, don't you think folks?  Don't we deserve even a reasonable doubt about all this?  Sure we do.

     Silence.  In the middle of their article and their quiz, on friendly territory, they drop a little poison in the water about the people who want to do something about what they see is a threat to human life on the planet, and then stay absolutely silent about their own survey and the percentage of actual Climate experts who signed on to their point of view.  

     This must clearly be an accidental oversight.

     As must be the omission of any discussion of any other potentially dangerous gasses from the discussion.  Gasses that have contributed to a fair number of deaths of the years, such as sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide that come from the burning of softer coals.  It would also be interesting to hear an explanation of exactly what this new scientific breakthrough might be that they've been calling "The New Clean Coal" that we've been hearing about for the last several years.  All us asthmatic want to know about that, and the people with COPD are lining up with curiosity writ large as well.

     Nor is it clear, for that matter, that all the CO2 being tossed into the atmosphere NOW is the same as the CO2 that was tossed into the atmosphere way back THEN, simply because the mixture is different.  We know that CO2 is going in both NOW and did go in back THEN, yes, but exactly what went in with it and in what proportions are certainly not addressed in this article, and the issue is ignored as though it was a matter of no importance.

     You can pour oil into two bowls, and into one bowl pour water and into the other pour ammonium nitrate, and the nature of what you're going to get out of them may be quite different.  We've got a very complex soup or chemicals laying around today, and exactly how it's the same and how it's different may make a very big difference in the outcome.  This article pretends there is no difference.  

     I think that's just one of the mistakes that you're overlooking here.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


18 posted 12-22-2009 02:14 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

  They show a unique rise in the average heat in the form of recent generations, decades, and years

And that is the right way to view it? A decade is a split-second of history. That's what you want to base your premises on? In a decade, or a generation, there will be a multitude of variations...but what will be the bottom line at the end of it? When you are dealing with millions of years, analyzing a year or ten doesn't make a lot of sense. Analyzing large blocks of time does.  As one of our more illustrious posters pointed out, "I guess it's the word average that some people have a problem with.

In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

That's quite a statement. 600 million years and only two periods have had CO2 emmissions as low as ours, including ours. Does that mean the Earth was destroyed during those other periods when the CO2 levels were 25% higher than ours, and even more? Obviously not. Why, then, do people claim we are destroying earth with our puny levels? A reality check is in order, I think.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


19 posted 12-22-2009 02:21 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

From an historical perspective, global warming has saved us, at least temporarily, from an Icehouse Climate, although humans can hardly take the credit.

Science is clear on what controls cycles of climate change. Global warming (and cooling) cycles are controlled primarily by:

    * 1) Cyclical variations in the sun's energy output
    * 2) Eccentricities in Earth's orbit
    * 3) The influence of plate tectonics on the distribution of continents and oceans
    * 4) The so-called "greenhouse effect," caused by atmospheric gases such as gaseous water vapor (not droplets), carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides, which help to trap radiant heat which might otherwise escape into space.

The "greenhouse effect" actually is a bit player in global climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of the Earth would be minus 18° C). Human's did not cause the greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise too much.

Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor. Of the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact in a global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have an undetectable effect on global climate. However, significant efforts to limit the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States are currently underway.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


20 posted 12-22-2009 02:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob...folks representing the coal industry? Where, pray tell, did you come up with that conclusion? I can understand that it could be good "shoot the messenger" material or used to try to invalidate claims you may not agree with but it needs to be factual.

The coal company web-site an quiz is quick to point out....
the friendly folks at the coal company web site...
Heck, If I were one of those Coal Guys, I'd make a big deal about 10%!...
In the middle of their article and their quiz, on friendly territory, they drop a little poison in the water...




The Northern Virginia Mineral Club was begun in the mid 1950's with the aim of promoting members' shared fascination with and learning about minerals, geology, and related topics. The club has organized countless field trips to mines and quarries over the years, organized mineral shows, educational activities, various interesting speakers, and much more.

If you see anything there to validate your claim, I'd be interested in hearing it. It would be wise to check your accusations more carefully before posting them as fact...
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


21 posted 12-22-2009 03:23 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
That's what you want to base your premises on? In a decade, or a generation, there will be a multitude of variations...but what will be the bottom line at the end of it? When you are dealing with millions of years, analyzing a year or ten doesn't make a lot of sense.

It does, Mike, if your lifespan is measured in decades.

What will be the bottom line at the end of it? I have little doubt the planet will adjust and right itself. The hope, of course, is that mankind is still around to see that bottom line.

I think your argument that Earth is more robust than we give it credit for it is spot on the money, Mike. I also think, as do you, that the "life" of this planet must be examined only in terms of millennia, not years, decades, or even centuries. If we're talking about the survival of the planet, those are important points. If we're talking about the survival of humanity, however, I don't think they're greatly relevant.

quote:
Of the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources.

Mike, I think it would be fair to speculate that the Kool-Aid Jim Jones gave to his followers in 1978 was also a very small percentage of what they ingested that week. The ratio, however, was far less important than the effect.

How much potassium cyanide is too much?


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


22 posted 12-22-2009 08:00 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I tried the quiz Monte got the facts behind question one and two right then, unfortunately, went all smoke and mirrors on question three.

Is the guy who created the quiz connected to the mining industry? Why dont you ask him yourself Mike.

Name: Monte Hieb
Email: mhieb@mines.state.wv.us
Title: Chief Engineer
Organization: WV Office of Miners Health Safety and Training
Address: 142 Industrial Drive
Oak Hill, WV 25901
Phone: (304) 469-8100

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


23 posted 12-22-2009 08:19 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If we're talking about the survival of the planet, those are important points. If we're talking about the survival of humanity, however, I don't think they're greatly relevant.

You win the kewpie doll, Ron. That's exactly the difference. They can take all of the "Save the Planet" posters and shove them where the sun don't shine. "Save Humanity's Butt" would be more accurate. Mother Nature can take care of herself.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


24 posted 12-23-2009 02:09 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Balladeer

We already know you don't agree with the "doomsday" extremism .  I don't agree with it either.  This is not a threat to the planet or a threat to all.  Nor should it need to be. It is part of a compound negative impact humans have on parts of the enviroment and certain animals (including humans).  That is enough to know we ought to do something.  

Adjusting our humanity to prevent or lessen such things is a worthy direction and I have confidence the direction will continue.  You can raise as many complaints and try to delay it all you want, focusing on the doomsday-like extremes,  political misadventures, or the weather in the Carboniferous period, but the urge and direction for something better is the right direction and will not likely be stopped by Global Warming or Balladeer's pessimism.

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> When Everything Old is New Again   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors