EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:56 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming
PostPosted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:57 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
Too many people sticking their heads in the sand and doing nothing has brought on environmental chaos that has started, years ago. The North Sea fishery collapse from fertilizer runoff in Europe, from diminishing returns in trying to feed their overpopulation. That was in the 1980s. Now we have 7 ocean trash gyres the size of countries, and climate change already playing havoc.
No the chaos started in the 1980s and has gotten worse, and will intensify to where it is common all over the world. Some more remote areas may seem like there is "room" for overpopulation, but that is not how it works. Some are glad their growing season is longer, and don't care that other, even greater areas, have desertified or gotten flooded. Climate fluctuation beyond historic forecast in 1992 is here now. :-({|=
Here's a good site for denialists to watch!!! Great learning for others, too!
http://www.climatecrocks.com

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Last edited by Johhny Electriglide on Sun Jul 24, 2011 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Global Warming Project?
PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:33 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:04 am
Posts: 4
Solar power is burning bright all around southern California and Nevada. The nation's only concentrated solar power station, owned by eSolar in Lancaster CA, focuses the sun on central towers with 20,000 ordinary mirrors, boiling water for a standard GE turbine. The 5 mW plant is a demonstration that this technology, used frequently in Spain and being demonstrated also now in India, is feasible for wide application. A new set of three similar solar plants is just beginning on BLM land near the Nevada-California border -- and already employs hundreds. The BrightSource Energy installation to provide about 400 mW of power, is on land that is habitat for the California desert tortoise, Federally listed as threatened. So besides 50 fence installers, along with road builders, engineers and security staff being employed, the BLM and the company have 40 biologists patrolling the site to keep tortoises from being killed or injured. Eventually the project will put an average 650 to work in construction over the coming few years. The animals -- an estimated 32 of them live on the solar site -- will be relocated to nearby habitat. During the planning and public comment phase of the project, with input by BLM and NGO endangered species advocates, Bright Source reduced the size of the plant and its footprint to lessen its impact on the land and the tortoises. =D>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming
PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:49 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
One of the last hopes and unknowns was that increasing clouds from AGW would have a negative feedback effect. The more clouds, the cooler it would get and the Earth would self regulate back to cooler. Instead, the net effect is one of positive feedback where increasing AGW is increased by the net effect of more clouds.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... _things_up

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:58 am 
Offline
New User
New User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:15 am
Posts: 5
Fosgate wrote:
aiyana wrote:
The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to this human-induced increase. :D


How do you know there haven't been warming trends of the same magnitude, over the same amount of time, at some point in the past? Given the relative insignificance of 50 years with respect to climate change and the sheer level of noise in temperature observations, how do you arrive at this conclusion?


I have to agree with Aiyana. There has been several changes in the world climate, including ice formation in tropical areas.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:20 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Here is an article with some explanation of methane release from the tundras. What it doesn't say is that atmospheric heat warms the oceans and they have much more methane hydrate.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 06484.html

There's your "thermageddon" for you. Read it, people. Comment if you've got the guts---

>>>>>Using human produced methane from ever increasing dumps and from various agricultural operations (incl. cows) is a good thing,>>> but not nearly enough.<<<< Coal and oil burning must be reduced 90% within 5 years, and the temperatures will still rise another 1*C by 2050. The real challenge is to massively use bacteria that eats methane and collectors to gather it---enough that the warmth for self release cools. Some have called for a world mobilization greater than the efforts of WWII to use every possible method to reduce atmospheric CO2 and CH4, along with NO2 and other HGHGs. A total change in the way people do almost everything, and quickly!
However, with the world economy and agriculture dependent on fossil fuels, stopping their use would cause world depression economically with massive food production and distribution decreases. The population would collapse. The massive mitigation effort would collapse.
Letting nature take its course, the same thing will happen, a little worse, a little later, and probably ending in an extinction level "geologic event".
In MLK's 1966 speech given by his wife, the solutions were within our means. All that time wasted until the "Juggernaut" formed from human lust, greed, and stupidity. ](*,) :x :cry:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:20 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
More proof of AGW's negative effects well underway;
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... n_to_krill

Of course the krill population is directly tied to the phytoplankton population which gives us half our oxygen and is killed off by warmer temperatures. This is in the Antarctic region, while most of AGW's effects are in the northern hemisphere and Arctic regions especially. :-({|=

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:14 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Letting nature take its course, the same thing will happen, a little worse, a little later, and probably ending in an extinction level "geologic event".


So be it.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:10 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Here is an article with some explanation of methane release from the tundras. What it doesn't say is that atmospheric heat warms the oceans and they have much more methane hydrate.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 06484.html

There's your "thermageddon" for you. Read it, people. Comment if you've got the guts---

>>>>>Using human produced methane from ever increasing dumps and from various agricultural operations (incl. cows) is a good thing,>>> but not nearly enough.<<<< Coal and oil burning must be reduced 90% within 5 years, and the temperatures will still rise another 1*C by 2050. The real challenge is to massively use bacteria that eats methane and collectors to gather it---enough that the warmth for self release cools. Some have called for a world mobilization greater than the efforts of WWII to use every possible method to reduce atmospheric CO2 and CH4, along with NO2 and other HGHGs. A total change in the way people do almost everything, and quickly!
However, with the world economy and agriculture dependent on fossil fuels, stopping their use would cause world depression economically with massive food production and distribution decreases. The population would collapse. The massive mitigation effort would collapse.
Letting nature take its course, the same thing will happen, a little worse, a little later, and probably ending in an extinction level "geologic event".
In MLK's 1966 speech given by his wife, the solutions were within our means. All that time wasted until the "Juggernaut" formed from human lust, greed, and stupidity. ](*,) :x :cry:

What is better, losing half the population and saving the biosphere, or losing all of the population and causing a mass extinction of 87% of all species???? What would a loving God want??(our Creator, the Great Spirit). It is a no-brainer that He would want us to stop fossil fuel use, reduce population, even though painful, go to a sustainable steady state ecological world economy. It is a no-brainer that He would want us to clean up the mess as well as we can.
The "so be it" burn up more fossil fuels and keep over-breeding until collapse, followed by extinctions, is not what He would want or does want. Those that tried will gain everlasting life, those that didn't, won't. It is that simple.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:15 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
I'm not sufficiently confident that it's one way or the other, but I do understand what a loving God would want. My faith there isn't shaken. I know what I want too. Faith in my fellow man, on the other hand, is rather lacking. I do all I can and can be optimistic, but that doesn't detract from my perception of what's eventually going to happen. I'll never forget Bill Paxton's quote in the 1986 movie Aliens--"We're on an express elevator to hell, going down..."

It's not just a matter of how many listen, but how many are able to and actually do anything to slow or stop the descent. Take a good look around the world and tell me if you really think we're going to turn things around. There's no questioning we can. I'm asking if you honestly think we will.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:49 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
No, "The Sixth Extinction", caused by the ignorant, greedy majority of humanity in this Anthropocene Epoch, will continue through the human population crash to thermageddon.
I think that on other planets in the Universe, beings similar to humans also started on a path of destruction, recognized it, and acted in time to prevent a crash and thermageddon or other eco-collapse for themselves. They were smarter on average........and not over-tolerant.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:48 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
aiyana wrote:
Human activities have led to large increases in heat-trapping gases over the past century. The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to this human-induced increase. Global average temperature and sea level have increased, and precipitation patterns have changed. Human “fingerprints” also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, plant and animal health and location, and Arctic sea ice.
:D

Well, you are not telling us something that we don't already know, and know in a lot more detail.
For example; the ice and ocean sediment core data going back over a million years shows an average of 230 PPM of CO2 with variations plus or minus 50 PPM (look it up yourself!!). Then in the last century this has ACCELERATED upward to the present 386 PPM and still accelerating upward. The "hockey stick" so hated by denialists was proven to be true. Mann and others have shown the latest round of denialism and stolen emails are bunk toward debunking AGW. }}} http://climateprogress.or/2009/11/28/cl ... diagnosis/ {{{
You are right dalani, the alarm isn't over the few degrees of now(actually more than a "few" degrees in the Arctic), but what will happen in the next several hundred years to the biosphere. Oceanic warming from atmospheric warming could explosively release methane(with as little as 1.5*F rise--look it up yourself) from the various depths in a self sustained global warming beyond life adaptability abilities of most species. All from the start of global warming caused by human activities. :-({|=

Peruse to your heart's content:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

^^^^^

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
One of the last hopes and unknowns was that increasing clouds from AGW would have a negative feedback effect. The more clouds, the cooler it would get and the Earth would self regulate back to cooler. Instead, the net effect is one of positive feedback where increasing AGW is increased by the net effect of more clouds.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... _things_up

^^^^^

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:08 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
Here is one about too much time given to AGW skeptics (known as "flat Earthers"):
http://climatecrocks.com/2011/07/22/bbc ... -earthers/
#-o :mrgreen: :razz: 8)
and more recent:

"States, setting a mountain of new records

By Janet Raloff
Web edition : Tuesday, April 10th, 2012
People may argue about why Earth is warming, how long its fever will last and whether any of this warrants immediate corrective action. But whether Earth is warming is no longer open to debate. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just published domestic examples to reinforce what Americans witnessed last month — either on TV or in their own backyards.

Let's start with the heat: March 2012 temperatures averaged 10.6° Celsius (51° Fahrenheit) — or 5.5 °C warmer than the 20th century average across the contiguous United States. Throughout the more than 115 years that national U.S. weather data have been compiled, only one other month (January 2006) surpassed this past March in its departure from the average.

In all, U.S. weather stations logged almost 15,300 all-time highs, last month, roughly half of them for nighttime temps. “There were 21 instances of the nighttime temperatures being as warm, or warmer, than the existing record daytime temperature for a given date,” NOAA’s new analysis finds. Only Alaska bucked the trend; its temperatures were the tenth coolest for March.

Nor was last month the only anomalous period. The first three months of 2012 also set a record for toastiness across the contiguous United States, with an average temperature throughout the period of some 5.6 degrees above the long-term average. Sixteen states had temperatures ranking among their 10 warmest for the quarter. None of the contiguous states posted a quarterly composite for January through March that fell below its long-term average.

In many regions, March weather anomalies sparked conversations. At the Society of Toxicology meeting in San Francisco, for instance, I ran into three researchers who remarked on needing sweaters. All said it was warmer at home than at the meeting — home being Michigan, Maine and Indiana. In the DC area, people ogled earlier-than-normal blooms in their yards and on century-old cherry trees lining the Tidal Basin.

Nationally, the entire 2011-to-2012 cold season (October through March) proved especially mild. It was the second-warmest on record across the 48 states.

Accompanying the heat came a diminished rainfall. Nationally, the 2012 precipitation average is somewhat more than 0.7 centimeters (0.29 inches) below average. As of last week, one-third of the lower 48 states were experiencing drought — up from 18.8 percent this time last year.

The heat stirred up weather systems, driving plenty of big storms. March 2012 saw more than 220 tornadoes — or almost 2.8 times the long-term average for that month. One particularly severe spell on March 2-3 caused 40 deaths and racked up an estimated $1.5 billion in commercial and property losses.

The “Climate Extremes Index” — a scale introduced 16 years ago — attempts to quantify trends in extreme weather by identifying the percent of the contiguous states that fall outside the norm of temperature, precipitation, severe drought and hurricanes (or tropical storms) making landfall. So far, the 2012 index rating is 39 percent, or about twice the expected value.

Weather records are just one quantifiable measure of warming. Many others can be harder to eyeball. For instance, the annual mean sea surface temperature for last year was the 9th warmest for the period that started in 1880. (The 10 warmest years have all occurred since January 2000.)

We reported a wealth of analyses last year pointing to the Arctic having evolved “to a new normal,” with warmer, drier weather. Last July, researchers announced that relatively deep coastal waters off Greenland are now expected to warm considerably faster than elsewhere by the year 2100, exaggerating the risk of ice sheet melting and global sea-level rise.

Many people won't complain about a somewhat balmier winter or marginally early spring. But warming isn't a cold-weather phenomenon. It's a 24/7 event occurring year-round. And at least here in the nation's capital, an increase in the normal summer-long muggy heat is not something I can imagine anyone welcoming."
The global warming isn't as much, however, what was forecast back in 1992 was climate fluctuation beyond historic with AGW. Denialists and the people making money off of fossil fuels had to stop progress in reducing CO2 emissions all this time, until it is blatantly obvious and near too late to stop it. =; ](*,) [-X #-o :mrgreen:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Last edited by Johhny Electriglide on Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:30 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Here is one about too much time given to AGW skeptics (known as "flat Earthers"):
http://climatecrocks.com/2011/07/22/bbc ... -earthers/
#-o :mrgreen: :razz: 8)


I have to agree the coverage provided for the alternative views on this issue outweigh the scientific agreement ratio, thereby giving it a perception of equality in position.

If every situation were given the same treatment every article on smoking and health would have an equal reference to how there is not a heath issue. The same experts could be used for either type of reply in this case.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Global Warming
PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:02 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
You are probably right in that maybe 97% of doctors are against smoking because it causes cancer, emphysema, and other health problems, and is proven so, like 97% of climatologists are of the opinion that anthropogenic global warming is a proven fact with a lot of documentation to prove it. It was this way in 2005 and is STILL this way. Allowing a denialist to come here and spout garbage, as if there is any argument at all, is BS.
The time for action is now, not debate. We have been at the tipping point of tundra methane self release since 2009, and there is another 1*F warming "in the can" even if fossil fuel use is totally stopped today. We were told in 2006 that we needed to reduce fossil fuel burning 90% within 10 years. Denialists have caused NOTHING to be done while time is running out on future consequences that will go beyond our ability to mitigate.
Send the denialists to this site instead;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
We definitely don't need or want them here because the debate is OVER!!!
http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content ... l-rev2.pdf

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Last edited by Johhny Electriglide on Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group