navwin » Discussion » The Alley » When Everything Old is New Again
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic When Everything Old is New Again Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

0 posted 2009-12-18 07:35 PM



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

© Copyright 2009 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

1 posted 2009-12-18 08:17 PM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
2 posted 2009-12-18 09:30 PM


I still got that place in the N.C. mountains. Don't think the ocean will get that high...
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
3 posted 2009-12-18 09:53 PM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
4 posted 2009-12-20 03:26 PM


No quiz results?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

5 posted 2009-12-20 03:53 PM


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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

6 posted 2009-12-20 04:16 PM


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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

7 posted 2009-12-20 04:24 PM


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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

8 posted 2009-12-20 04:29 PM


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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

9 posted 2009-12-20 05:05 PM


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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

10 posted 2009-12-20 10:23 PM


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 2000-10-29
Posts 19200
Between the Lines
11 posted 2009-12-21 08:42 AM


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 2000-10-29
Posts 19200
Between the Lines
12 posted 2009-12-21 08:51 AM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
13 posted 2009-12-21 11:04 AM


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 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
14 posted 2009-12-21 11:43 AM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
15 posted 2009-12-21 12:16 PM



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 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
16 posted 2009-12-21 11:55 PM


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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

17 posted 2009-12-22 04:27 AM




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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
18 posted 2009-12-22 02:14 PM


  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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
19 posted 2009-12-22 02:21 PM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
20 posted 2009-12-22 02:26 PM


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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
21 posted 2009-12-22 03:23 PM


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 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
22 posted 2009-12-22 08:00 PM



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 don’t 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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
23 posted 2009-12-22 08:19 PM


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 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
24 posted 2009-12-23 02:09 AM


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.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
25 posted 2009-12-23 08:02 AM


Ess, my "trying to delay it" would have little affect. No one thinks I'm that powerful, with the exception of my dog.

Interesting how the term "We need to do something" is used so much these days. It was used on the stimulus bill, cap and trade, health care and the environment.

I don't disagree that things can, and should, be done. As with health care, things can be done without a political takeover of the system. Things can also be done that do not cost billions of dollars and further tax an over-taxed world. When countries get together and talk about destruction of the planet, when they paint oceans swallowing up islands in the near future, when they show videos of a small child hanging on to a tree branch while the world is destroyed  beneath her, you are talking about a scam. You are talking about governments getting together with a gimmick to exercise more power over people and higher taxes. You are talking about individuals getting rich....right, Al? Grandpa used to say, "Never buy anything from anyone out of breath". These people, along with Obama and health care, are out of breath, setting up ficticious deadlines that must be met to avoid doom and destruction.

DOing something is fine as long as what you are doing makes sense. To just DO something for the sake of acting, doesn't. I haven't seen anything come out of these conferences that handle specifics or a plan. Yes, they come up with percentages of targets to lower the co2 levels by a specific date (which varies greatly). They don't really say how. Yes, they speak of throwing money to poorer or developing nations, who may or may not use the money on environmental issues and, if not, there is no enforcement. They exempt two of the three largest polluters by naming them developing countries which sets up the laughable scenario of the US borrowing money from China to give to China for environmental reasons.

If they were to say, "We need to get together to work on cleaning up the atmosphere, which will provide a better quality of life for all" or something along those lines, they would be believeable...but there's no power grab in that. Instead, they paint their scenarios of death and destruction, ice caps disintegrating, islands disappearing, polar bears wandering aimlessly  over small pieces of ice, and all of the horrendous events that will occur SOON - unless billions get thrown around, governmental controls get tightened and taxpayers pay more....and their chant is "Well, we gotta do something!"

Yep, they are doing something. So did Madoff..

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
26 posted 2009-12-23 07:46 PM


.


I’ve recently read an article about Greens urging that
people make their pet dogs either vegetarian or get
rid of them all together because a dog has the same
annual carbon footprint as an SUV, ( cats are
argued against as well but those being carnivores the choices
are even more limited.).  At the beginning of the twentieth
century there were some one and a half billion human beings
on the planet, (there were more people alive in the
twentieth century than in all the previous 10,000 years
combined), where as at the end there were six billion,
(most bigger than a dog or cat).  By 2050 there will be
an estimated nine billion, but the increases overwhelmingly
have and will be outside the West where were it not for
immigration populations would decline, (indeed in some
countries in Europe the decline will occur regardless).
So what does anyone suggest as a solution if the problem
really isn’t us, (meaning the West)?

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

27 posted 2009-12-23 11:36 PM




     The problem is us, meaning people, I do believe, John.  When we talk about global warming we are really only talking about half of the problem, which is the effect that this sort of climate change has on the human ability to support itself on this planet without going into a series of wars over food, water, land and scarce resources.  While China is being somewhat jerky about what they're doing about the climate change side of things, you really can't fault them for being willing to tackle the population side of the deal head on.  Eventually, they'll have to deal with the climate side of things too, but they've already got a very large lead on us overall and are better positioned for the coming century or two than I think we are.  At least they're not in total denial.

     Most of the rest of the world seems to be, including us.  I don't know that abortion needs to be part of the solution, but we need to do something about population and food and clear and available water.  The water stuff was never much of an issue for me when I lived in the east.  I mean that I never actually felt it.  Out here in Southern California, it's something that I've gotten to be pretty aware of.  I think it'll become a larger issue in the next ten years or so.

     Dealing with just half of the thing won't work by itself.  It's probably simply cosmetic, in my opinion; but there are HUGE cultural and religious problems in dealing with population.  I think it's a virtual political third rail.

     Anyway, that's what I think.

     Climate is half the problem.  We need to deal with the whole thing.  That means, of course, we need to deal with climate as well, which is not going to sound like good news, I'm afraid, to my friends on the right, but I think it's true as well.

    
All my best to all of you.  I'll be heading out of town for a week or so with Elaine.  I'll be here tomorrow, though.  

Best, Mr Bob

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
28 posted 2009-12-24 03:57 PM


Balladeer

I agree with much of what you say.  All I am pointing out is that the cause is still good, even if the work put into it still has yet to find much solid ground. Many revolutionary changes for the better begin with varying doubts,  difficulties, contraversy, mistakes, etc.   This is no exception.  But that doesn't make the cause no longer worth the care and effort.
 

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
29 posted 2009-12-24 04:24 PM


True enough, Ess, but what do they say the road to hell is paved with...?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
30 posted 2009-12-24 05:32 PM


.


What is the average number of children per family unit,
(if possible excluding first generation immigrants), in the United States
and countries of the West, (in which I include Japan), versus
other countries?  I think the numbers show that the West is already making its
contribution by not replacing itself.    I for example can say
I personally know of only one woman in my entire life that had more
than two children in a single marriage.


.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

31 posted 2009-12-24 06:14 PM




Dear Mike,

          Borrowing money from China to give to China is a telling point.  I say ouch! to you.

     The Chinese limiting population to one child per family and for the most part doing so successfully has helped them address the same set of problems from the other side, however:  less pressure on scarce resources such as food and water overall.  I think that in terms of negotiations with the Chinese, it's probably smart not to make a large thing of this, since we do want them to cut pollution and various other emissions that really need to be regulated.

     We do cough from Chinese sulfur, I think, and suffer from Chinese nitrous oxide, and have to deal with Chinese acid rain.   At the same time, we drown in a wave of cheap chinese goods that have put our own guys out of work.  We ought to insist that they at least pay to not kill us with chemicals so we can continue to pay them interest on the money we owe them on the jobs we exported in the first place.  

     If they paid the cost of the clean up, we'd have to pay a fair price for the goods.  Maybe we wouldn't buy so many of theirs and would buy more of our own.

     Confused enough for you?  My head's spinning.

     We do have to do things to change the ecological problems around.

     Your question about what, however, seems off the mark.  We are already doing things.  We have deregulated lots of stuff that should be regulated, and raised the levels of many pollutants that we already know to be harmful, including, if you'll remember from the early Bush years, levels of arsenic in drinking water.  We did these things at the behest of industries who felt they were being held back by what they felt were unnecessary regulation.

     Do you remember this the same way that I do?

     Perhaps your memory is different, and it would be useful to get your perception in here as well.  

     But in 2007 that noted singing group, The Supremes, decided that the EPA had the authority without congress to regulate the levels of these things without checking with congress.  There was not complaint at the time from congress that I recall, nor prom the presidency, though there is now from the GOP now that they are in the minority position and it appears that the EPA must act to restore the deregulated or poorly regulated levels of these toxic chemicals to safe levels.  It was the GOP's Supreme's, by and large, by the way, that seems to have set the rules, and now it's the GOP in congress that's doing the complaining.  

     The GOP, it seems, wants the industrial base to have the freedom to kill, poison and maim the population at large in what the GOP deems to be the best interests of . . . the population at large.  In the opinion of the GOP.

     So, here's my proposition:

     We take an environmental proposal that clearly did not work.

     In this case, that would be deregulating or underregulating stuff that is clearly poison to the population at large, and has be ajudged be so by a supreme court essentially chosen by the Republican party, who has given power to a government agency to use power to change the situation.

     We then re-regulate those poisons.

     We also establish benchmarks for seeing if the changes make any difference.

     We fight about the benchmarks after we do the regulation, so that they don't prevent the regulations from going in place.

     We make a list of other poisons we wish to regulate, and a set of dates they will be banned.  We offer the option of benchmarks to judge how successful those actions will be, and offer the option of them being put into place before the ban, though not having any affect on whether or not the ban actually takes place.

     The  objectivity of the benchmarks will be judged by scientists noted for their objectivity and indifference to politics.

     The continued ban of these chemicals will be decided by how well the chemicals do against the benchmarks.

     There you have at least a proposal.

     If the road to wherever is paved with good intentions, as you've pointed out, with all good intentions, in your last post, I would counter with the fact that in terms of the difficulties in my proposal, the road to heaven is paved with doubts and uncertainties.

     Your suggestion simply keeps people from budging at all.

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Merry Christmas, to you, and Happy New Year as well.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
32 posted 2009-12-24 06:37 PM


The GOP, it seems, wants the industrial base to have the freedom to kill, poison and maim the population at large in what the GOP deems to be the best interests of . . . the population at large.  In the opinion of the GOP.

Bob, you continue with the unparalled ability to kill a conversation with the most inane accusations imaginable.

I leave you to your thoughts. Since I am GOP-biased, I must be one of those eager to kill, poison and maim the population so there is little sense in trying to defend any position I support.

I shall now lace Christmas cookies with arsenic to teach those bothersome carolers a lesson.

Have a good Christmas, Bob....

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
33 posted 2009-12-24 09:12 PM


quote:
but what do they say the road to hell is paved with...?


...the means to over come it.   It is better to make an inroad on it, then it make an inroad on you.
 

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
34 posted 2009-12-24 09:23 PM


An appropriate thought on Christmas Eve...Merry Christmas to you, sir.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
35 posted 2009-12-24 10:54 PM


Best wishings Balladeer.  Have a great Christmas and New Year.  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

36 posted 2009-12-25 01:25 PM




     Merry Christmas, Everyone!

     Mike, I passed out those cookies to the orphans you designated.  They said they especially like the funny almond cookies, but the cookies were all gone by the time I got around to trying one, and the orphans had all taken an afternoon nap.  The teachers said the the kids usually had more energy than that, but nobody had the heart to wake them; they looked so peaceful and all.  

     I hadn't known that you enjoyed baking so much for charity events!

All my best, Bob Kaven

See you in a week or so.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
37 posted 2009-12-26 12:28 PM


Here is a good description from David Beerling's Emerald Planet:


"The long-term cycling of carbon dioxide between the Earth's rocky crust, the oceans, and the atmosphere operates as a thermostat to prevent the climate becoming too hot or too cold; analogous devices perform the same purpose in car engines and domestic central heating systems.  The planetary thermostat operates even in the absence of life and works because the weathering of silicate rocks, which consumes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, is strongly dependent on temperature.   Warmer climates accelerate weathering, lowering the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, while cooler climates decelerate it.  Imagine a situation reminiscent of early Earth, when excessive volcanic activity liberated enormous quantities of carbon dioxide from the mantle and released it into the atmosphere.  A carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere creates a warm greenhouse climate that promotes the weathering of rocks, consumes carbon dioxide from the air, and weakens the greenhouse effect.  The net effect is a cooler climate.  Because a warm climate can lead to a cooler one, and a cool climate to a warmer one, the feedback loop is said to be a negative or stabilizing feedback.  It has likely prevented runaway planetary warming on Earth for the last billion years or so.  Unfortunately, it takes from hundreds of thousands to millions of years and is far too slow to counteract human-induced global warming.

The thermostatic control of global climate by this slow cycling of rocks, oceans, and atmosphere operates in the absence of life, and so can explain what has gone "wrong" with the climate of other planets.  Consider, for example, our neighbouring planets Venus and Mars.  Surface temperatures on Venus are in excess of 460 °C  and on Mars typically -55 °C, occasionally dipping to -140°C.  Climate regulation on both planets has clearly failed.  What went wrong?   Why didn't their climate stabilize to be "just right"?  The reason appears to be that, because Venus is situated much closer to the Sun than Earth, whatever water it was originally endowed with simply boiled off.  Obviously, no water means no rain, and no rain halts rock weathering and prevents the removal of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes.  Consequently, Venus is a hot, dry planet with a carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere.  The situation on Mars is quite different because it is further away from the Sun, with a surface temperature far below the freezing point of water.  The answer to the question of what went wrong in this case is more speculative.  The main cause seems to be Mars' small size; it is half the diameter of Earth and its interior cooled off much more quickly.  Without being able to maintain a molten core, volcanoes on Mars soon went extinct, breaking the chain of carbon cycling as they ceased to act as conduits returning carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.   Eventually most of the carbon dioxide became locked up in the crust of the Red Planet, putting it out of commission in the job of climate regulation.

Mars and Venus hightlight the fragility of the carbon dioxide-weathering-climate thermostat."
 


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
38 posted 2009-12-26 07:05 PM


Beerling assumes no background in plant biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, or taxonomy, or in geochemistry, ecology, or the numerous other disciplines he draws on.

The professor seems to be an intelligent individual but, after reading some of his things, I think he works mainly by conjecture when he doesn't have facts. That's fine and will sell books but not an authority I would be willing to quote as being factual.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
39 posted 2009-12-26 11:03 PM


Balladeer,

Trying to write someone off based on some one-liner you found is a bit ignorant.  If you do a little research, you will find out what his academic background and honours actually are:    

From The Emerald Planet:

"David Beerling is Professor of Palaeoclimatology at the University of Sheffield and the 2008-2009 Edward P.Bass Distinguished Visiting Enviromental Scholar at the Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies.   Before this he held a Royal Society University Research Fellowship.  His work on the evolution of life and the physical enviroment was recognized by the award of a prestigious Philip Leverhulme Prize in Earth Sciences in 2001.  He has published many papers in scientific journals and is co-author of Vegetation and the Terrestrial Carbon Cycle: Modelling the first 400 years (Cambridge University Press, 2001). "


But none of that adresses the points he brings up.   If you disagree with something he says, you are as free as anyone else to argue it and show what you find faulty about it.
 

[This message has been edited by Essorant (12-27-2009 12:57 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
40 posted 2009-12-26 11:28 PM


I just found whence you got those words from:http://dannyreviews.com/h/Emerald_Planet.html

"Beerling assumes no background in plant biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, or taxonomy, or in geochemistry, ecology, or the numerous other disciplines he draws on. And he provides just enough background for the reader, without getting bogged down. If Emerald Planet is aimed at a general audience, however, it has documentation for the scientists: some sixty pages of endnotes, with references into the scientific literature. "

Are you sure this is trying to make a statement about the author's background instead of the author's assumptions about the background the readers have/don't have about such subjects?  
 

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
41 posted 2009-12-27 08:50 AM


Trying to write someone off based on some one-liner you found is a bit ignorant.

Enjoy your holidays, sir..

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » When Everything Old is New Again

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

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