NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, the argument often does come up here about people's minds not changing, just the changing of the guard, and yet the issues remain the same.
I feel that way myself about a few issues, to the point that i often tell people to just punch my name up on the archives on a given issue ... but some issues do need to be updated, and this one is indeed quite current.

I live in a "canary" state and new information on this issue is a weekly-update scenario. So, in doing my part (and noting no similar threads so far ...)

http://www.adn.com/life/story/7503876p-7415107c.html

Old ice wedges on Slope turn into water pits
NED ROZELL

Published: March 5, 2006
Last Modified: March 5, 2006 at 05:33 AM


Truck-sized wedges of underground ice that have remained in place for thousands of years on Alaska's North Slope seem to be thawing, according to a scientist doing work for an oil company there.

Permafrost scientist Torre Jorgenson of Alaska Biological Research, Inc. was checking out an area west of the Colville River recently when he noticed water-filled pits that weren't in Navy photographs of the area from 1945.

"We were doing baseline studies on permafrost stability for Conoco Phillips and were looking at lake erosion, but when we saw the historical photos we said, 'Wow, there's a lot going on here,' " Jorgenson said.

Walking in hip boots on the tundra surface of the North Slope, Jorgenson and his colleagues, Erik Pullman of Alaska Biological Research and Yuri Shur of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, saw many water-filled holes on the tundra. Some were new pits with bright green tussock heads nodding into them; the vibrant color indicated the tundra plants were getting a temporary blast of nutrients and water as the ice wedge beneath them thawed. Other older pits had drowned tussocks in them.

Ice wedges are underground chunks of ice about six to nine feet wide on top that extend nine to 12 feet to a tapered end that points downward. They exist only in places where the yearly average temperature is well below freezing. Ice wedges form just below the layer of soil that freezes every winter and thaws each summer, and they endure longer than civilizations.

"For these to have developed over thousands of years, there had to be relatively stable temperatures," Jorgenson said. "Their thawing shows that today's temperatures are beyond normal fluctuations."

The ice wedges that are thawing on the North Slope are special features of a cold landscape, Jorgenson said, and are not to be confused with the deep permafrost locked in the soil beneath them.

"We're not talking about (typical) permafrost disappearing up there; it's still pretty cold permafrost and it's 600 meters (about 1,968 feet) deep in places," Jorgenson said. "It's not going to disappear anytime soon."

The prehistoric ice wedges of the study area west of the Colville River, smaller and more vulnerable to warmer temperatures than the deep permafrost, are thawing so quickly that Jorgenson teamed with his co-workers to write "Abrupt increase in permafrost degradation in Arctic Alaska," published in the Jan. 24 issue of Geophysical Research Letters. They based their conclusions on the 1945 Navy photos and aerial photos taken in 1982 and 2001, along with their observations from the ground.

While working around the collapsed pits, Jorgenson, Shur and Pullman also noticed "a violent degassing of methane." Methane, a greenhouse gas four times as effective as carbon dioxide at trapping heat, is in large supply in the frozen areas of the world. The gas is a product of decomposition of plants, and frozen ground locks it in.

"When we were walking in these troughs and stirring things up, the water was roiling with (methane) bubbles," Jorgenson said.

Thawing ice wedges up north complicate what scientists think about greenhouse gases and the Arctic. Some think Arctic tundra has become a "carbon source" that releases more greenhouse gases than it takes in. The collapsing pits, which may someday cover up to 30 percent of the lowland landscape, appear to release methane when they first collapse but then accumulate carbon as the wedges become overgrown with sedges and peat, Jorgenson said.

While the carbon equation of thawing ice wedges is uncertain, the researchers think they have an idea why the ice wedges are collapsing. An unusually warm, wet period on the North Slope that started in the summer of 1989 followed by record-breaking temperatures in the 1990s may have pushed the ice past a threshold of warmth they hadn't experienced for thousands of years.
---

And for honourable mention ...

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=85&art_id=qw1140990843347B242

Snow causes chaos on Algerian roads
February 27 2006 at 01:54AM

Algeria - Heavy snow has cut off villages and clogged key arteries leading away from the Algerian capital Algiers for several days, national police said on Sunday.

Djelfa, which had 70cm, was "totally paralysed", the Algerian Press Agency reported.

At least 60cm of snow blanketed villages near Djelfa and Medea, respectively 270km and 80km south of Algiers.

An AFP reporter said only donkeys and mules could ply the roads around the villages.

Snow is unusual in the north African country, but last winter saw snowfalls of more than two metres in several parts of the north-east.

The main roads remained dangerous even after they were cleared, authorities warned.

The weather improved on Sunday but more snow was expected overnight at altitudes of over 700m, and rain elsewhere.

Melted snow caused flooding in the north-eastern Kabylie region where a 25-year-old man was swept away in a torrent, residents said.

Meanwhile state television showed images of sandstorms in the desert south of the vast country where roads were also cut off. - Sapa-AFP
------
http://www.earthgate.ucsb.edu/weekly_news/articles.html#iceberg
Ice-Free Winter
Unusually warm weather this winter across the northeastern United States and eastern Canada has left the Great Lakes mostly free of ice for the first time in living memory. The open waters have been disastrous for the ice-fishing industry in the region and have allowed ferries to operate even during the coldest month of January. Some fishing guides tried to use boats for their customers, but high winds clouded the waters, preventing fish from seeing the lures. A cold wave that spread across the Great Lakes region in mid-February promoted the formation of ice near shore, but it is unlikely that an extensive ice sheet will form over the bodies of water this season.
-
Drought Casualties
The ongoing severe drought across much of East Africa has killed tens of thousands of animals, and experts warn it will "decimate" livestock during the next few months. The British-based Society for the Protection of Animals Abroad said further deaths of cattle, camels and donkeys across Kenya and Somalia are likely to add to drought-related human fatalities and suffering. Parched conditions are also disrupting the annual migrations of wildebeests and zebras in Kenya and neighboring Tanzania. The Kenya Wildlife Service said the drought has so far killed at least 60 hippopotamuses in the country's wildlife sanctuaries.
-
Indian Ocean Outbreak
Health officials on the Indian Ocean island of Reunion say that four people have now died from a mosquito-borne disease that has infected more than 100,000 people on the French overseas territory. Hospital officials said the latest victim was a small child, who died from complications related to chikungunya, a crippling disease that causes painful swelling of body joints and leaves victims stooped with limited mobility. Victims usually recover from the symptoms over time. While the disease had not previously been known to be fatal, chikungunya is now being directly connected to the deaths of two adults and two children on the island. A massive mosquito-eradication project has been launched to combat the spread of the disease.
-
Bounterful Butterflies
Exceptionally wet weather across South Africa in recent months is responsible for the unprecedented numbers of white butterflies that have delighted residents of Johannesburg during February, according to wildlife experts. Zoologist Graham Alexander said wet conditions promoted plant growth, providing a home for more caterpillars. They eventually turned into millions of Belenois aurota, commonly known as "brown-veined white" butterflies. While the species is common across southern Africa, older residents of the city say they have never before seen them in such great numbers. Large migrations of Belenois aurota take place during the rainy season, with the winged insects flying up the east coast of Africa.
---

Feel free to discuss and dismember the post as y'all see fit.
There will be more, in all likelihood.


EDIT:For those of y'all wondering what the conspiracy would be, i'm inferring based on the nature of the persons testifying to the situation. *nods*

A normal fluctuation in normal flutuations then....(I only read about half...I might finish later.)

A normal fluctuation in normal flutuations then....(I only read about half...I might finish later.)
When do you deem that these fluctuations have ceased to be normal? At what point? After it's crossed that point? Then what is to be done?

When do you deem that these fluctuations have ceased to be normal? At what point? After it's crossed that point? Then what is to be done?

Only thing constant about climate is not staying the same. *nod*

Only thing constant about climate is not staying the same. *nod*
So you're using a relatively worthless axiom to qualify your stance? Or are you just waiting for some heavy hitters here?

Only thing constant about climate is not staying the same. *nod*
You do know what CO2 does to the Global Climate? And you do know that it is possible to seperate the CO2 in our atmosphere between that which is natural from that which is man-made, thereby giving us an exact measure of how much people since roughly 1850 have been altering global temperatures?

"Q. What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?

A. Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.

In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2."
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

So you're using a relatively worthless axiom to qualify your stance? Or are you just waiting for some heavy hitters here?
I think what he's really trying to do is simply use aphorisms to disguise the fact that he knows nothing at all.

I think what he's really trying to do is simply use aphorisms to disguise the fact that he knows nothing at all.

Disguise? I thought I made that pretty obvious.

Disguise? I thought I made that pretty obvious.
Good answer. *bows*
;)

You do know what CO2 does to the Global Climate? And you do know that it is possible to seperate the CO2 in our atmosphere between that which is natural from that which is man-made, thereby giving us an exact measure of how much people since roughly 1850 have been altering global temperatures?

"Q. What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?

A. Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.

In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2."
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
Excellent, as always. *bows*

I think what he's really trying to do is simply use aphorisms to disguise the fact that he knows nothing at all.
Well, there are a few who are good at setting the go-levels for argument, and to Dinaverg's credit, so far they're the only one. Could be that they don't even feel that way about it, either. ;)
Now, Greenlander, Honky in Black, and Deep Kimchi hit here and things'll get visceral, ya know. They owe Dinaverg for the first volley. *nods*

Good answer. *bows*
;)

Heh...My first response to DMs post was "Huh?" But this one sounded more psuedo-intellectual, but still didn't make any sense...Maybe I should finish reading the article now.

Excellent, as always. *bows*


Well, there are a few who are good at setting the go-levels for argument, and to Dinaverg's credit, so far they're the only one. Could be that they don't even feel that way about it, either. ;)
Now, Greenlander, Honky in Black, and Deep Kimchi hit here and things'll get visceral, ya know. They owe Dinaverg for the first volley. *nods*

WOOHOO! I'm in a list! Well.....actually I'm slightly disconnected from the list, but I'm still a related factor! Wheee!

P.S. Wait a minute, that first part is confusing, are you refering to me with the word "they"?

Heh...My first response to DMs post was "Huh?" But this one sounded more psuedo-intellectual, but still didn't make any sense...Maybe I should finish reading the article now.
Oh, i have more .... if more "articular" context is desired.

Oh, i have more .... if more "articular" context is desired.

...I assume that by putting "articular" in quotes you realize it's actually a kind of cartilage, right?


P.S.
ar·tic·u·lar (är-tĭk'yə-lər)
adj.
Of or relating to a joint or joints: the articular surfaces of bones.

[Middle English articuler, from Latin articulāris, from articulus, small joint.]

Yeah....something like that i guess...

...I assume that by putting "articular" in quotes you realize it's actually a kind of cartilage, right?


P.S.
ar·tic·u·lar (är-tĭk'yə-lər)
adj.
Of or relating to a joint or joints: the articular surfaces of bones.

[Middle English articuler, from Latin articulāris, from articulus, small joint.]

Yeah....something like that i guess...
actually, I'm pretty sure Straughn was saying that he has more text based sources if they are needed, and realized that "articular" wasn't the proper word...although, I think it works since it sounds like "articulate"

I'll stop talking how.

...I assume that by putting "articular" in quotes you realize it's actually a kind of cartilage, right?


P.S.
ar·tic·u·lar (är-tĭk'yə-lər)
adj.
Of or relating to a joint or joints: the articular surfaces of bones.

[Middle English articuler, from Latin articulāris, from articulus, small joint.]

Yeah....something like that i guess...
No, i was being deliberate in my punishment. Hence the quotes.
BTW, until i possess incontrovertable proof/acceptance (ha, good luck with that one) about anyone's professed gender here, i tend to stick with the safe declaration of "they" ... also, sometimes more than one person gets on under a poster name (possession). No slight intended.

actually, I'm pretty sure Straughn was saying that he has more text based sources if they are needed, and realized that "articular" wasn't the proper word...although, I think it works since it sounds like "articulate"

I'll stop talking how.

Yeah I know what he meant, but it just sounded weird, like "I have more joint based information if you need it." And then I started thinking about joints like marijuana, and my train of thought just sorta deteriorated from there...

Heh...My first response to DMs post was "Huh?" But this one sounded more psuedo-intellectual, but still didn't make any sense...Maybe I should finish reading the article now.
Just because Math is hard, that doesn't make it pseudo-intellectual.

actually, I'm pretty sure Straughn was saying that he has more text based sources if they are needed, and realized that "articular" wasn't the proper word...although, I think it works since it sounds like "articulate"

Astute as always. *bows* You got it right on the head.
So Verdigroth, btw, has a new nick as well ...
High Lord Inquesitor ... declared here ...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10526612&postcount=147
I'll stop talking how.
No, it's quite alright. Just, if we can, not 'jack my own thread too much as i usually tend to do. ;)

No, i was being deliberate in my punishment. Hence the quotes.
BTW, until i possess incontrovertable proof/acceptance (ha, good luck with that one) about anyone's professed gender here, i tend to stick with the safe declaration of "they" ... also, sometimes more than one person gets on under a poster name (possession). No slight intended.

Ah...Technically, it's gender safe, but you start getting confusion considering it's a plural pronoun...Things like "Could be that they don't even feel that way" tend to not make sense...I thought you were talking about some other people...and then you had the names and stuff.....Eh, whatever, you get the idea. Besides, everyone knows there are no girls on teh interwebs.

Just because Math is hard, that doesn't make it pseudo-intellectual.

Huh? Where was hard=psuedo-intellectual introduced into the conversation?

Ah...Technically, it's gender safe, but you start getting confusion considering it's a plural pronoun...Things like "Could be that they don't even feel that way" tend to not make sense...I thought you were talking about some other people...and then you had the names and stuff.....Eh, whatever, you get the idea. Besides, everyone knows there are no girls on teh interwebs.
Ah well, i'm not insecure about it. If nothing else it often prompts people to clarify.
What about Peechland and Cabra West?

Oh, and btw, i don't think "pumpkin" is so flattering a hue for Kari Byron. :(

Astute as always. *bows* You got it right on the head.
So Verdigroth, btw, has a new nick as well ...
High Lord Inquesitor ... declared here ...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10526612&postcount=147

No, it's quite alright. Just, if we can, not 'jack my own thread too much as i usually tend to do. ;)
huh...you're just a source of good ol' nicknames, aren't ya?

But if we don't hijack the thread, what are we supposed to talk about?


oh. right. global warming. I think we need more. My toes are cold.

Ah well, i'm not insecure about it. If nothing else it often prompts people to clarify.
What about Peechland and Cabra West?

Technically, they're either supernatural beings, or they don't exist.

Oh, and btw, i don't think "pumpkin" is so flattering a hue for Kari Byron. :(

Who?

oh. right. global warming. I think we need more. My toes are cold.


Mine too, but that might be born of a lack of blood vessels and distance from my heart...

Huh? Where was hard=psuedo-intellectual introduced into the conversation?
I thought you were referring to the equations.

I thought you were referring to the equations.

Equations?

Technically, they're either supernatural beings, or they don't exist.
Well, there's a good argument for them to be supernatural. *nods*


Kari Byron
Who?WhatwhatWHAT?
Grrr. Kari from Mythbusters. You're on notice.

Equations?
On the CO2 in the atmosphere in my post... really though, nevermind.

Well, there's a good argument for them to be supernatural. *nods*

A new cult, perhaps?


WhatwhatWHAT?
Grrr. Kari from Mythbusters. You're on notice.

Did you just quote yourself as StraughnJohn Silver?

No, i was being deliberate in my punishment. Hence the quotes.
BTW, until i possess incontrovertable proof/acceptance (ha, good luck with that one) about anyone's professed gender here, i tend to stick with the safe declaration of "they" ... also, sometimes more than one person gets on under a poster name (possession). No slight intended.
Just so you know, I'm a guy. Good to see others keeping the Climate Change posts alive.

On the CO2 in the atmosphere in my post... really though, nevermind.

Oh right, that thing....Exactly how much effect does CO2 have on the temperature again?

I think this needs honky to get things back on track. I could try, but I would probably fail, since I tend to agree with the articles.


None the less, yes, global warming is happening, and it is atleast a little bit influenced by humans. And it isn't the fault of the illuminati or Jewish Media Conspiracy.

Taken from Scientific American:

The glaciers in southern Greenland are melting and moving. In fact,
Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier went from standing still in 1996 to flowing at a
rate of 14 kilometers a year by 2005, making it one of the fastest moving
glaciers in the world. According to a new study, all of Greenland's coastal
glaciers are already experiencing or may soon experience such speedups,
meaning that Greenland's ice will contribute even more than expected to the
world's rising seas.

"It takes a long time to build and melt an ice sheet, but glaciers can react
quickly to temperature changes," notes Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's
Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "Greenland is probably going to contribute more
and faster to sea level rise than predicted by current models."

Rignot partnered with Pannir Kanagaratnam of the University of Kansas to
look at satellite data on Greenland's glaciers. New satellites and new
techniques allowed the two to figure out how fast the glaciers were moving,
thinning and even what the bedrock beneath them looked like. Based on this
data, the researchers found that the glaciers were traveling faster than
anyone had predicted. They also determined that even more northerly glaciers
were on the move and that in just 10 years the amount of fresh water lost by
all the glaciers had more than doubled from 90 cubic kilometers of ice loss
a year to 224 cubic kilometers. "The amount of water Los Angeles uses over
one year is about one cubic kilometer," Rignot points out. "Two hundred
cubic kilometers is a lot of fresh water."

Current climate models do not take into account glacial flow and therefore
underestimate the impact of glacial melt and the calving of ice flows, the
researchers argue in a paper detailing the findings in today's
Science. According to climate records stretching back a century,
southern Greenland
has warmed three degrees Celsius in just the past 20 years, driving melting
that may help lubricate glacial flow along the bedrock, the two speculate.
With the higher glacier speeds in mind, they calculate that Greenland
currently contributes 0.57 millimeter of ocean level rise every year out of
a total of three millimeters.

But Greenland contains an ice sheet that covers 1.7 million square
kilometers--an area nearly the size of Mexico--and is as much as three
kilometers thick in places. If it all melted, it would raise the world's
oceans by seven meters, though that is not likely to happen anytime soon.
"The southern half of Greenland is reacting to what we think is climate
warming," Rignot adds. "The northern half is waiting, but I don't think it's
going to take long." --*David Biello*

I think this needs honky to get things back on track. I could try, but I would probably fail, since I tend to agree with the articles.


None the less, yes, global warming is happening, and it is atleast a little bit influenced by humans. And it isn't the fault of the illuminati or Jewish Media Conspiracy.

Bah! Now I twitch whenever someone says that. Stupid over-association and mental imblances...

*Quack*

Clearly we should be collecting all this fresh water and dumping it on the Sahara Desert till it becomes fertile farmland, thus removing the starving children in Africa problem.

By the way, I don't mean anything by quack, I just use the word a lot.

P.S. You think if they get even farther below sea level, people will figure out living in New Orleans isn't a good idea?

Just so you know, I'm a guy.
Righto!
Good to see others keeping the Climate Change posts alive.Endeavour. *bows*

Clearly we should be collecting all this fresh water and dumping it on the Sahara Desert till it becomes fertile farmland, thus removing the starving children in Africa problem.

By the way, I don't mean anything by quack, I just use the word a lot.
I need you to understand that I don't use smilies and have never used the smilie which depicts the annoying animated yellow glob bashing it's head against the wall.

But you made me come close. And for that, I'll never forgive you.

I need you to understand that I don't use smilies and have never used the smilie which depicts the annoying animated yellow glob bashing it's head against the wall.

But you made me come close. And for that, I'll never forgive you.

Actually it's red.

Actually it's red.
Further proof I've never used it.

Clearly we should be collecting all this fresh water and dumping it on the Sahara Desert till it becomes fertile farmland, thus removing the starving children in Africa problem.
Uhm, dirt isn't "soil" isn't sand ...


By the way, I don't mean anything by quack, I just use the word a lot.Well, given my nick, "arr" might be more appropriate.

P.S. You think if they get even farther below sea level, people will figure out living in New Orleans isn't a good idea?
I'm not so keen on anyone filling up a delta or alluvial plain as part of a housing commitment. I.E., see "Bangladesh" and "annual deaths".


BTW, this episode has Kari doing the breathalyer test *AND* proving she's not a lightweight. Mmmmm.

Further proof I've never used it.

Well, it still doesn't make sense, considering it's there every time you make a post, not to mention other people using it, it really just makes you unobservant, perhaps willfully so. *shrug* :P

I think this needs honky to get things back on track. I could try, but I would probably fail, since I tend to agree with the articles.


None the less, yes, global warming is happening, and it is atleast a little bit influenced by humans. And it isn't the fault of the illuminati or Jewish Media Conspiracy.
I don't know where Honky is ... perhaps he took his bell off ... ;)
CTTOI, i haven't seen Greenlander in MONTHS now. Greener pastures, perhaps? :eek:

Well, it still doesn't make sense, considering it's there every time you make a post, not to mention other people using it, it really just makes you unobservant, perhaps willfully so. *shrug* :P
I think you're right.
But at least I'm not willfully unobservant to things which matter in the global scheme of things.

Uhm, dirt isn't "soil" isn't sand ...

I propose it would be with wnough water and earthworms.....and dead plants, have everyone pull up their weeds and dump them on the desert, they'll decay and provide good material.


Well, given my nick, "arr" might be more appropriate.

Pehaps....but....Could you beat a ninja?

I'm not so keen on anyone filling up a delta or alluvial plain as part of a housing commitment. I.E., see "Bangladesh" and "annual deaths".

Aye....

BTW, this episode has Kari doing the breathalyer test *AND* proving she's not a lightweight. Mmmmm.
...Kay.

I think you're right.
But at least I'm not willfully unobservant to things which matter in the global scheme of things.
Amen to that. *bows*

More .... since Crichton is likely to come up, as well as his vacuous arguments ...

(from Scientific American)
*The Journalistic Triumph of Michael Crichton*

In these days of James Frey's phony
memoirs http://www.thesmokinggun.com/jamesfrey/0104061jamesfrey1.html becoming
best-selling nonfiction, why shouldn't a novel full of half-truths
and misleading nonsense win a journalism award? And so in that spirit of
"reality sucker-punching irony into submission," let's have a round of
applause for Michael Crichton, whom the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists has honored with its Journalism Award for those hard-hitting
journalistic classics *State of Fear* and *Jurassic Park*. (See *Editor &
Publisher* for its note on
this http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001994538
.)

We all know *Jurassic Park*, which blew the lid off the secret dinosaur
cloning activities of that billionaire industrialist operating an unlicensed
theme park. Thanks to Crichton's enterprising reporting on that scandal, the
incidence of velociraptor attacks has plummeted to an historic low. *State
of Fear* didn't sell quite as well, but it is a best-seller, and I wrote
about
it http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=michael_crichton_s_wages_of_fear&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 back
in December 2004. Or as the
*New York Times* put it
recently http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/national/09prize.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
:

"State of Fear," dismisses global warming as a largely imaginary threat
embraced by malignant scientists for their own ends.

"It is fiction," conceded Larry Nation, communications director for the
association. "But it has the absolute ring of truth."

"Absolute" except for the made-up and wrong parts, that is.

(More:)

That is not the way leading climate scientists see it. When the book was
published in 2004, climate experts condemned it as dangerously divorced from
reality. Most of these scientists believe human activity, chiefly the
burning of fossil fuels, is changing the atmosphere's chemistry in ways that
threaten unpredictable, potentially damaging effects.

See substantial debunkings of the book by the RealClimate.org gang
here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74#more-74 and
here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76 .

A cynic might assume that this award is something that the AAPG hands out
regularly to global warming deniers, but a look at the past
winners http://www.aapg.org/business/awards/journalism.cfm suggests
that's not the case. Yet it's hard to reconcile the specious
science of *State of Fear* with the association's stated purpose for the
award http://www.aapg.org/business/honors_awards/journalism.cfm , which is
"in recognition of notable journalistic achievement in any medium which
contributes to public understanding of geology, energy resources, or the
technology of oil and gas exploration." It's further doubtful that the book
met this listed guideline ("Therefore, if at all possible, documentation as
to the degree of improvement in public understanding would be quite
important and useful") given the number of reviews and comments on the book
demonstrating that it's hokum.

No, it seems likely that *State of Fear* won just for presenting a plot that
involved geology and the environment to millions of readers, irrespective of
its misinforming them about geology and the environment in the process. By
those criteria, Immanuel Velikovsky http://skepdic.com/velikov.html should
have won a prize from the American Astronomical Society, Erich von
Daniken http://skepdic.com/vondanik.html ought to have been feted by
the Archaeological Institute of America and the
*Weekly World News* http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/ should be eligible for
a Pulitzer. In the words of Stephen
Colbert http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml,
they are all chock full of
"truthiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
."

And it's unfortunate for the AAPG that this award will probably make a
number of people assume that it is in fact just shilling for industry:

Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for
the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said
"reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on
the association's part. (NY
Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/national/09prize.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin)


Kudos, AAPG! And for next year's award, may I bring this
book http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?searchurl=y=9&bi=515170750&isbn=9780517307939 to
your attention?

*Update (2/13):* It looks like I've given the AAPG too much credit. Reader
Larry Mewhort points out to me:

I beg to differ with your assumption that the AAPG gave
Crichton his award because "it seems likely that State of Fear won just for
presenting a plot that involved geology and the environment to millions of
readers, irrespective of its misinforming them about geology and the
environment in the process."

I believe that the AAPG executive thinks that Crichton is right. Have a look
at their statement on climate
change http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change.cfm .
There is also a very favorable review of "State of
Fear" http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/02feb/crichton.cfm in the
February AAPG
*Explorer*.

It makes me want to agree with what Luis Alvarez is reputed to have said
about some geologists: "they are not really scientists--more like stamp
collectors."

That quote made me wince, but not as much as this twaddle from the AAPG's
climate change position statement:

Human-induced global temperature influence is a supposition that can be
neither proved nor disproved. It is unwise policy to base stringent controls
on energy consumption through taxation to support a supposition that cannot
be substantiated.

And then there's this from the review:

First, much of what passes for science is actually fiction.

...[The character] Kenner's repeated exposition of scientific studies shows
that there is a substantial amount of evidence that the planet is not
warming at all. In spite of the dire pronouncements we hear from the mouths
of reporters, musicians, actors and fellow scientists, the science of
climate change is not nearly as clear as could be wished. In fact, a case
might be made that the earth is actually cooling.

As judges of journalistic merit, these petroleum geologists are just
bubbling black crude.

-

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74#more-74

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76

Then, for Crichton ....

http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change.cfm

---


BTW, Kari's in handcuffs on this one! WooT!!!!
*looks deseperately for "slobber" smilie*

I think you're right.
But at least I'm not willfully unobservant to things which matter in the global scheme of things.

True...Unless the smilies revolted and took over the world and....umm...interrogated you...and stuff...*shrug* I dunno.

*If you're blue and you don't know where to go to why don't you go where fashion sits...Puttin' on the Ritz*


And on that note, what does CTTOI mean?

Come To Think Of It

*what's the sound of a pirate duck?*

Well...yeah, global warming is happening, but we're relatively insignificant, in both what we've done and what we can do about it. *nods sagely*

Come To Think Of It

Ah, got it.....We should make an alphabetic list...

AFAIK
BTW
CTTOI
etc....

quick people we can still turn this around everyone open your freezers and refrigerators we can still cool this planet down!!!

Well...yeah, global warming is happening, but we're relatively insignificant, in both what we've done and what we can do about it. *nods sagely*
What about what we did regarding CFCs?

What about what we did regarding CFCs?

Was there something else affecting the ozone layer?

Well...yeah, global warming is happening, but we're relatively insignificant, in both what we've done and what we can do about it. *nods sagely*
What? :confused:
Shhh, i think the OP'r is beginning to suspect some kind of fowl play / trolling behaviour
Well it's a good thing you have all that evidence backing up that idea, there. So did The Nazz have you pegged? Ante up.

What? :confused:
Shhh, i think the OP'r is beginning to suspect some kind of fowl play / trolling behaviour
Well it's a good thing you have all that evidence backing up that idea, there. So did The Nazz have you pegged? Ante up.

Huh? Oh right....umm...Well, according to DMs post we're responsible for like...14% of the CO2 right?

quick people we can still turn this around everyone open your freezers and refrigerators we can still cool this planet down!!!
Just keep your legs closed, and that already will significantly help the slowing of global warming. *nods*

I don't know where Honky is ... perhaps he took his bell off ... ;)
CTTOI, i haven't seen Greenlander in MONTHS now. Greener pastures, perhaps? :eek:
haha...I think Honky is helping his sister move right now (driving across the country) and making a stopoff in Texas for some stuff (I think you might know what "stuff")...hopefully all goes well:(

I haven't seen greenlander in a long time...maybe he got a life.

But I think the Greener pastures concept is more realistic

Huh? Oh right....umm...Well, according to DMs post we're responsible for like...14% of the CO2 right?
Context.
'sides, would rather prefer it was more like 80%?
You should post a little about carbon sinks or something.

Context.
'sides, would rather prefer it was more like 80%?
You should post a little about carbon sinks or something.

Well, if it were 80% maybe it'd be more our fault, assuming CO2 is responsible for the entire warming.

I was thinking more urban heat islands raising the overall average....How do they get an average anyways? Measure the temp at every point on earth at once?

Huh? Oh right....umm...Well, according to DMs post we're responsible for like...14% of the CO2 right?The problem is those 14% packs one hell of a punch. Not that it'll translate directly into a 14% increase in the average global temperature, but even minute increases in that average will cause a lot of bad things to happen. It's sort of like a cascade failure in the entire global environment. Pretty much everything you can think of, is affected & will affect other stuff, escalating an already damaging development.

The end result, by all current projections by the IPCC, is a global climate unfit or uninhabitable for pretty much any eco system you care to mention, ourselves included.

Well, if it were 80% maybe it'd be more our fault, assuming CO2 is responsible for the entire warming.

I was thinking more urban heat islands raising the overall average....How do they get an average anyways? Measure the temp at every point on earth at once?
Well my archives have that somewhere, but i'll just post this ref (although it's old)
http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings99/ESTES/ESTES.HTM

The problem is those 14% packs one hell of a punch. Not that it'll translate directly into a 14% increase in the average global temperature, but even minute increases in that average will cause a lot of bad things to happen. It's sort of like a cascade failure in the entire global environment. Pretty much everything you can think of, is affected & will affect other stuff, escalating an already damaging development.

The end result, by all current projections by the IPCC, is a global climate unfit or uninhabitable for pretty much any eco system you care to mention, ourselves included.

Well then....I recommend mid-air gardens for make-shift CO2 scrubbers, if that's truly the problem, considering we're talking about 14% of 1% of the atmosphere.

Our planet supposedly started as a giant lava ball, I doubt every living thing is screwed over...There's life (bacterial generally) everywhere. Us being screwed over? Well....I figure Peak Oil will get to do that first. (:P)

Our planet supposedly started as a giant lava ball, I doubt every living thing is screwed over...There's life (bacterial generally) everywhere. Us being screwed over? Well....I figure Peak Oil will get to do that first. (:P)

Running out of oil won't finish us off ... it'll just be the end of industrial civilization.

Climate change, on the other hand, might. It certainly won't finish off life on this planet though. Nature has survived 5 mass extinctions and it will survive this 6th one.

Well my archives have that somewhere, but i'll just post this ref (although it's old)
http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings99/ESTES/ESTES.HTM

So...We should be doing the things the article mentions for mitigating the effects?

Running out of oil won't finish us off ... it'll just be the end of industrial civilization.

Climate change, on the other hand, might. It certainly won't finish off life on this planet though. Nature has survived 5 mass extinctions and it will survive this 6th one.

End of industrial civilization means end of industrial farming and other food realated processes. We'd lose a few billion likely, but meh...

Climate change...Can we really alter the course of climate so much as to make the difference between being wiped out or not?

So...We should be doing the things the article mentions for mitigating the effects?
As i said, a little dated. Obviously we've moved on somewhat. It was more for mention of method of measure and issue.

Well then....I recommend mid-air gardens for make-shift CO2 scrubbers, if that's truly the problem, considering we're talking about 14% of 1% of the atmosphere.

Our planet supposedly started as a giant lava ball, I doubt every living thing is screwed over...There's life (bacterial generally) everywhere. Us being screwed over? Well....I figure Peak Oil will get to do that first. (:P)
bad news for the peak oil thought the japanese can now extract gas from cow dung. Hmm looks like texas is going to have another rennaissance of gas exploration.

End of industrial civilization means end of industrial farming and other food realated processes. We'd lose a few billion likely, but meh...

Climate change...Can we really alter the course of climate so much as to make the difference between being wiped out or not?

Without industrialization ... population of about a billion, give or take?

I think we could wipe ourselves out if we trigger another Younger-Dryas event ... rapid warming that shuts off the upwelling in the North Atlantic and triggers another ice age. I'm not sure we would survive that kind of rapid change.

The other thing would be with the current rate of extinction we might eventually wipe out some keystone species (i.e. those that support most of the life in a given ecosystem) and that would be a real problem in terms of our survival, being near the top of the food chain and all.

bad news for the peak oil thought the japanese can now extract gas from cow dung. Hmm looks like texas is going to have another rennaissance of gas exploration.
A few other posters have also provided the CA pursuit of dog dung for similar results. *nods*

The other thing would be with the current rate of extinction we might eventually wipe out some keystone species (i.e. those that support most of the life in a given ecosystem) and that would be a real problem in terms of our survival, being near the top of the food chain and all.

As in, the plants?

Without industrialization ... population of about a billion, give or take?

I think we could wipe ourselves out if we trigger another Younger-Dryas event ... rapid warming that shuts off the upwelling in the North Atlantic and triggers another ice age. I'm not sure we would survive that kind of rapid change.
Ah, that reminds me ...

(again from Scientific American)

Much of Yellowstone National Park is a giant collapsed volcano, or a
caldera. In an enormous eruption roughly 640,000 years ago, this volcano
spit out around 240 cubic miles of rock, dirt, magma and other material.
Around 70,000 years ago its last eruption filled in that gaping hole with
flows of lava. The area has enjoyed an uneasy peace since then, the land
alternately rising and falling with the passing decades. New satellite data
indicate that this uplift and subsidence is caused by the movement of magma
beneath the surface and may explain why the northern edge of the park
continues to rise while the southern part of the caldera is falling.

Charles Wicks, Daniel Dzurisin and their colleagues at the U.S. Geological
Survey studied radar images of the caldera captured by the European Space
Agency's ERS-2 satellite during two passes over the park. Using a technique
called interferometry--whereby radar measurements from two different vantage
points are combined to give a measure of height--the scientists confirmed
measurements on the ground that showed the land rising. But the images also
revealed that a roughly 12-mile-wide circle of land centered at the northern
rim of the caldera is still rising while land to its south is sinking. The
source of that uplift, according to data revealed in today's *Nature,* lies
more than seven miles underground.

Therefore, magma movement must be the cause of the rise and fall, Dzurisin
explains. "It's just too deep to be caused by pressurization of the
hydrothermal system," he says. "A small amount of magma has either moved up
or been intruded to a depth of [seven miles] or perhaps it was already there
and it's been pressurized."

Although previous studies had hinted at new magma moving beneath
Yellowstone, this represents the first compelling evidence, according to
Dzurisin. Such magma movement would also explain recent surface phenomena
including new cracks and hot springs as well as the more frequent eruption
of Steamboat Geyser. "If you do pressurize or increase the volume of a
source [seven miles] deep, you put the ground in tension and that would be
conducive to new fractures giving access to the surface for hot waters that
previously hadn't had that access," he adds.

This new magma does not mean that Yellowstone will erupt again in the near
future; much more significant signs such as more earthquakes, more focused
ground deformations and the escape of volcanic gases would point to that.
But it does point to continued activity at one of the world's largest
volcanic systems. "We don't know if the next event will be a continuation of
the series of lava flows that filled in the caldera or the beginning of a
new cycle that will create a new caldera," Dzurisin says. "Eruptions are far
enough apart that there is a very low probability of the next eruption
happening in our lifetimes or anytime soon. The flipside is: the system has
been active for millions of years and it's going to erupt again sometime."
--*David Biello*

And yes i'm aware of the cable special on it.

As in, the plants?

Can be plants, can be animals. It depends.

They did some really interesting experiments with biodiversity in tidal pools on the West Coast. You can remove certain species without much effect, but once you remove a certain species (i.e. the keystone), you pretty much wipe out life in that tidal pool, because all of the other species die off. It's not always the biggest and most colorful species in the pool ... usually its a very innocuous creature that seems unimportant.

The other thing would be with the current rate of extinction we might eventually wipe out some keystone species (i.e. those that support most of the life in a given ecosystem) and that would be a real problem in terms of our survival, being near the top of the food chain and all.
This garners mention of the acidity variance in the water now ...

http://www.bbsr.edu/pubs/cdi04/cdi04acid/cdi04acid.html

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2682

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html

I hope you know that the whole secret society of Straughn was a joke. I am never sure about your grasp on reality. I mean for awhile there you were convinced that the spleen was the repository of all punnage..oh wait...wrong john straughn;)

This garners mention of the acidity variance in the water now ...

http://www.bbsr.edu/pubs/cdi04/cdi04acid/cdi04acid.html

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2682

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html

Okay, hold on. Is this basically a "everything of remote intrest going on in nature" thread for you now?

I hope you know that the whole secret society of Straughn was a joke. I am never sure about your grasp on reality. I mean for awhile there you were convinced that the spleen was the repository of all punnage..oh wait...wrong john straughn;)
Oh sure, now begins the disinformation campaign. "Nothing to see here, move along ..."
And it's Straughn John Silver, remember? Arrr.

Okay, hold on. Is this basically a "everything of remote intrest going on in nature" thread for you now?
As i said, you should be more inclined towards actually providing something useful to the thread other than unsubstantiated adversarial stances.
If you understand the nature of this issue, you'd understand how truly vast a scenario it really is.

If you mean about Kari Byron, ah, ya got me.

Was there something else affecting the ozone layer?
"It is the chlorine in CFCs that is so destructive to the ozone - just a single atom can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules - and it's destructive capacities are maximized at temperatures below -45F. (which is why it the hole first appeared over the South Pole) .... By 1985 global use of CFCs stood at 1,800,000 tons." -Tim Flannery

If it were not for the Montreal Protocol, we would have lost a significant amount of ultra violet screening. In America, the chances of getting Melanoma was 1 in 250, 25 years ago. Today it is 1 in 84. For every 1 percent decrease in ozone, anything with eyes will experience a 0.5 increase in cataracts. Something needed to be done and it was.

At the time, the Montreal Protocol was seen as a toothless tiger by it's critics. Without it, there would have been a strong chance you wouldn't be able to read what I'm writing today.

Oh sure, now begins the disinformation campaign. "Nothing to see here, move along ..."
And it's Straughn John Silver, remember? Arrr.
just wanted to make sure..not sure the Lord High Inquisitioner would help out as a nickname on the boards. after all I think some people already think I am a right wing hate monger instead of a left wing smart ass

"It is the chlorine in CFCs that is so destructive to the ozone - just a single atom can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules - and it's destructive capacities are maximized at temperatures below -45F. (which is why it the hole first appeared over the South Pole) .... By 1985 global use of CFCs stood at 1,800,000 tons." -Tim Flannery

If it were not for the Montreal Protocol, we would have lost a significant amount of ultra violet screening. In America, the chances of getting Melanoma was 1 in 250, 25 years ago. Today it is 1 in 84. For every 1 percent decrease in ozone, anything with eyes will experience a 0.5 increase in cataracts. Something needed to be done and it was.

At the time, the Montreal Protocol was seen as a toothless tiger by it's critics. Without it, there would have been a strong chance you wouldn't be able to read what I'm writing today.
Excellent point. *bows*

As i said, you should be more inclined towards actually providing something useful to the thread other than unsubstantiated adversarial stances.
If you understand the nature of this issue, you'd understand how truly vast a scenario it really is.

If you mean about Kari Byron, ah, ya got me.

Just wondering, lots of articles coming from you...*somewhat bastardized hippy/surfer voice* Mellow out man...feel the love...I don't mean no adversial-ness....

just wanted to make sure..not sure the Lord High Inquisitioner would help out as a nickname on the boards. after all I think some people already think I am a right wing hate monger instead of a left wing smart ass
Yeah, well, Colbert you ain't. :D
Besides, you declared it, and that's why included the link.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10526612&postcount=147
Welcome to your bigger world! :eek: Whaddya have to be afraid of?
If ya don't want it, i'll cease-and-desist. :(

"It is the chlorine in CFCs that is so destructive to the ozone - just a single atom can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules - and it's destructive capacities are maximized at temperatures below -45F. (which is why it the hole first appeared over the South Pole) .... By 1985 global use of CFCs stood at 1,800,000 tons." -Tim Flannery

If it were not for the Montreal Protocol, we would have lost a significant amount of ultra violet screening. In America, the chances of getting Melanoma was 1 in 250, 25 years ago. Today it is 1 in 84. For every 1 percent decrease in ozone, anything with eyes will experience a 0.5 increase in cataracts. Something needed to be done and it was.

At the time, the Montreal Protocol was seen as a toothless tiger by it's critics. Without it, there would have been a strong chance you wouldn't be able to read what I'm writing today.

...I know....That's why simply controlling CFCs worked, doesn't seem as specific when it comes to CO2 and global warming.

Just wondering, lots of articles coming from you...*somewhat bastardized hippy/surfer voice* Mellow out man...feel the love...I don't mean no adversial-ness....
Well, Desperate Measures, Gymoor II:the Return and a few others have QUITE A BIT of experience arguing this issue, and as i was stating in my OP, there's new information that has to be formulated in. The disingenuous nature of a lot of posters who don't think there's any problem is that they tend to take one article out of context and argue it (like the hockey-stick) as if it was the only piece of veracity, whereas the very nature of investigation and culmination requires updating and corroboration/correlation.
Besides, it really isn't that hard to find this stuff out - and it's a topic that requires confirmation of a scientific nature, not just off-the-cuff catch phrases/talking points and that kind of thing. So it helps to consider that qualifying posts are not only welcome but somewhat par-for-course on this topic.
*nods*

Oh, oh, a conspiracy, a conspiracy!

Well, Desperate Measures[B], [B]Gymoor II:the Return and a few others have QUITE A BIT of experience arguing this issue, and as i was stating in my OP, there's new information that has to be formulated in. The disingenuous nature of a lot of posters who don't think there's any problem is that they tend to take one article out of context and argue it (like the hockey-stick) as if it was the only piece of veracity, whereas the very nature of investigation and culmination requires updating and corroboration/correlation.
Besides, it really isn't that hard to find this stuff out - and it's a topic that requires confirmation of a scientific nature, not just off-the-cuff catch phrases/talking points and that kind of thing. So it helps to consider that qualifying posts are not only welcome but somewhat par-for-course on this topic.
*nods*

I always sucked a golf anyways...Besides, I thought up those talking points all by myself so :P. (Incase it's been hard to otice, anything with a *nod* or :P that I post can probably be ignored...

Wait, hockey stick?

...I know....That's why simply controlling CFCs worked, doesn't seem as specific when it comes to CO2 and global warming.

CFC's were relatively cheap and easy to control compared to C02

Well, Desperate Measures, Gymoor II:the Return and a few others have QUITE A BIT of experience arguing this issue, and as i was stating in my OP, there's new information that has to be formulated in. The disingenuous nature of a lot of posters who don't think there's any problem is that they tend to take one article out of context and argue it (like the hockey-stick) as if it was the only piece of veracity, whereas the very nature of investigation and culmination requires updating and corroboration/correlation.
Besides, it really isn't that hard to find this stuff out - and it's a topic that requires confirmation of a scientific nature, not just off-the-cuff catch phrases/talking points and that kind of thing. So it helps to consider that qualifying posts are not only welcome but somewhat par-for-course on this topic.
*nods*

Well Bush is my president and he says their isn't a problem so just like Britney Spears told me to I will believe what he tells me as he is the end point of all information and knowledge in the world. Therefore it doesn't matter how much proof you have that points to a problem. Jesus voted for Bush so he can't be wrong. After all God talks to him if there was a problem God would tell him...or Jesus would.

Oh, oh, a conspiracy, a conspiracy!

Well, share! Divulge! Show the $ trail, yo!

CFC's were relatively cheap and easy to control compared to C02

...Yes.

Well Bush is my president and he says their isn't a problem so just like Britney Spears told me to I will believe what he tells me as he is the end point of all information and knowledge in the world. Therefore it doesn't matter how much proof you have that points to a problem. Jesus voted for Bush so he can't be wrong. After all God talks to him if there was a problem God would tell him...or Jesus would.

Good point ... what would Jesus do?

Well Bush is my president and he says their isn't a problem so just like Britney Spears told me to I will believe what he tells me as he is the end point of all information and knowledge in the world. Therefore it doesn't matter how much proof you have that points to a problem. Jesus voted for Bush so he can't be wrong. After all God talks to him if there was a problem God would tell him...or Jesus would.
Doesn't that trinity include Pat Robertson?
http://datelinehollywood.com/archives/2005/09/05/robertson-blames-hurricane-on-choice-of-ellen-deneres-to-host-emmys/

and..

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050919/blumenthal
Robertson recently ignited a media firestorm when he called for the assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez during a broadcast of The 700 Club. He has also blamed the 9/11 attacks on America's tolerance of abortion and homosexuality and declared the Supreme Court a greater threat to the United States than Al Qaeda. Robertson assiduously cultivates his celebrity with remarks like these, casting himself as a divisive bigot to his foes and a righteous prophet to his allies in Christian right circles. But there is much more to Robertson than the headline-grabbing hothead he plays on TV.

Far from the media's gaze, Robertson has used the tax-exempt, nonprofit Operation Blessing as a front for his shadowy financial schemes, while exerting his influence within the GOP to cover his tracks. In 1994 he made an emotional plea on The 700 Club for cash donations to Operation Blessing to support airlifts of refugees from the Rwandan civil war to Zaire (now Congo). Reporter Bill Sizemore of The Virginian Pilot later discovered that Operation Blessing's planes were transporting diamond-mining equipment for the African Development Corporation, a Robertson-owned venture initiated with the cooperation of Zaire's then-dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.


After a lengthy investigation, Virginia's Office of Consumer Affairs determined that Robertson "willfully induced contributions from the public through the use of misleading statements and other implications." Yet when the office called for legal action against Robertson in 1999, Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley, a Republican, intervened with his own report, agreeing that Robertson had made deceptive appeals but overruling the recommendation for his prosecution. Two years earlier, while Virginia's investigation was gathering steam, Robertson donated $35,000 to Earley's campaign--Earley's largest contribution. With Earley's report came a sense of vindication. "From the very beginning," Robertson claimed, "we were trying to provide help and assistance to those who were facing disease and death in the war-torn, chaotic nation of Zaire."

(Earley is now president of Prison Fellowship Ministries, an evangelical social-work organization founded by born-again, former Nixon dirty-trickster Charles Colson. PFM has accepted White House faith-based-initiative money and is currently engaged in hurricane relief efforts in Louisiana. Earley remains a close ally of Robertson.)

Absolved of his sins, Robertson dug his heels back in African soil. In 1999 he signed an $8 million agreement with Liberian tyrant Charles Taylor that guaranteed Robertson's Freedom Gold Ltd.--an offshore company registered to the same address as his Christian Broadcasting Network--mining rights in Liberia, and gave Taylor a 10 percent stake in the company. When the United States intervened in Liberia in 2003, forcing Taylor and the Al Qaeda operatives he was harboring to flee, Robertson accused President Bush of "undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country."

Robertson's scheming hasn't abated one bit. He is accused of violating his ministry's tax-exempt, nonprofit status by using it to market a diet shake he licensed this August to the health chain General Nutrition Corp. (Robertson continues to advertise the shake on his personal website.) He has withstood criticism from fellow evangelicals for investing $520,000 in a racehorse named Mr. Pat, violating biblical admonitions against gambling. He was even accused of "Jim Crow-style racial discrimination" by black employees who successfully sued his Christian Coalition in 2001 for forcing them enter its offices through a back door and eat in a segregated area (Robertson has since resigned).

The Bush Administration has studiously overlooked Robertson's misdeeds. In October 2002, just months after he denounced the White House's faith-based initiative as "a real Pandora's box"--and one month before midterm elections--Robertson pocketed $500,000 in government grants to Operation Blessing. Since then, with the sole exception of his criticism of the US intervention in Liberia, Robertson has served as a willing surrogate for the Administration. His Regent University gave John Ashcroft a cushy professorship to cool his heels after his contentious tenure as US Attorney General. And Robertson's legal foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice, is spearheading the effort to rally right-wing Christian support for Judge John G. Roberts Jr.'s confirmation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Now, as fallout from the President's handling of Hurricane Katrina threatens to derail the GOP's long-term agenda, Robertson is back at the plate for Bush, echoing the White House's line that state and local authorities--and even the disaster victims themselves--are to blame for the tragedy engulfing New Orleans.

The September 5 edition of The 700 Club included a report by Christian Broadcasting Network correspondent Gary Lane from outside the ruined New Orleans Convention Center, which had housed mostly impoverished black disaster victims throughout the weekend. "A number of possessions left behind suggest the mindset of some of the evacuees," Lane said. "They include this voodoo cup with the saying, 'May the curse be with you.' " A shot of a plastic souvenir cup from one of New Orleans's countless trinket shops appeared on the screen. "Also music CDs with the titles Guerrilla Warfare and Thugs 'R' Us," Lane stated, pointing out a pile of rap CDs strewn on the ground.

The 700 Club's featured guest was Wellington Boone, a black minister invited by Robertson to provide a counterpoint to the ubiquitous Rev. Jesse Jackson. Boone is a member of the Coalition on Revival, a Christian Reconstructionist organization that advocates replacing the US Constitution with biblical law. Throughout his career, he has distinguished himself from his black clerical colleagues with such remarks as "I believe that slavery, and the understanding of it when you see it God's way, was redemptive" and "The black community must stop criticizing Uncle Tom. He is a role model."

Though Boone's appearance on The 700 Club consisted mostly of benign appeals for "laser-beam prayer," CBN featured a separate interview with Boone on its website in which he declared, "We need to consider the culture of those people still stranded in New Orleans. The looting of property, the trashing of property, et cetera, speaks to the basic character of the people." He added, "These people who have gone through slavery, segregation and the Voting Rights Act are doing this to themselves."

Boone's appearance on The 700 Club had been preceded by an interview with Operation Blessing President Bill Horan. Horan discussed his group's activities in Biloxi, Mississippi, where it plans to set up a mobile kitchen, and in Houston, Dallas and Beaumont, Texas, where it is disbursing cash grants to numerous, mostly unspecified mega-churches, purportedly to support their work with evacuated hurricane victims.

As for the people still stranded in New Orleans who "are doing this to themselves," as Boone said, Operation Blessing has a special plan: avoid them like the plague.

"I've actually heard reports that they [the people of Mississippi] were in worse trouble" than those in New Orleans, claimed Gordon Robertson, the son of Pat Robertson and vice president of The 700 Club. "They were actually harder hit."

"Oh, absolutely," agreed Horan.

At the segment's conclusion, Gordon Robertson asked Horan, "What can people do today? If you were asking for help today, what's the number-one need?"

"It's cash. Cash is what we need more than anything," Horan pleaded. "The more cash we get, the more good we can do." And the Bush Administration, through FEMA, is doing its best to insure that Pat Robertson is getting that cash just as quickly as humanly possible.

Good point ... what would Jesus do?

After convincing his dad that blowing up the fossil fuel burning plants isn't the answer, he'd cause the Sahara to become a rainforest, an use up the extra CO2. (b^_^)b

I always sucked a golf anyways...Besides, I thought up those talking points all by myself so :P. (Incase it's been hard to otice, anything with a *nod* or :P that I post can probably be ignored...

Wait, hockey stick?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3569604.stm

Well, as for <sarcasm>, that's why i posted as i did when The Nazz replied.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3569604.stm

Well, as for <sarcasm>, that's why i posted as i did when The Nazz replied.

Ah right, that...Well...t'would be coincidental for a major climate change to coincide with the industrial revolution...but there's a lot of things industrialization increased besides CO2 levels right?

After convincing his dad that blowing up the fossil fuel burning plants isn't the answer, he'd cause the Sahara to become a rainforest, an use up the extra CO2. (b^_^)b

His dad would say ... "It seems to me that the Sahara was a forest once ... or at least savannah. Stupid humans ... I'm not going to bail them out of another one of their messes." Or something to that effect.

His dad would say ... "It seems to me that the Sahara was a forest once ... or at least savannah. Stupid humans ... I'm not going to bail them out of another one of their messes." Or something to that effect.

Then Jesus, does the rebellious hippy teenager thing and forests it anyways...then there's a shouting match...If there was some kind of better suited mom figure in there maybe...

Ah right, that...Well...t'would be coincidental for a major climate change to coincide with the industrial revolution...but there's a lot of things industrialization increased besides CO2 levels right?
Well... productivity.

Ah right, that...Well...t'would be coincidental for a major climate change to coincide with the industrial revolution...but there's a lot of things industrialization increased besides CO2 levels right?

The impact of human activity on the ecosystem?

Then Jesus, does the rebellious hippy teenager thing and forests it anyways...then there's a shouting match...If there was some kind of better suited mom figure in there maybe...

Good ... no need to worry about CO2 levels because Jesus will save us!

CFC's were relatively cheap and easy to control compared to C02
True. Luckily it turned out that way. But the difficulty of a problem that affects every living creature should not be a block towards attempting to find a solution.

True. Luckily it turned out that way. But the difficulty of a problem that affects every living creature should not be a block towards attempting to find a solution.

I agree. One could justify dealing with CO2 emmissions purely based simply on the economic costs and uncertainty created by climate change. But most governments, corporations, and individuals don't take a long enough time horizon on their cost-benefit analysis to bother tackling it.

I agree. One could justify dealing with CO2 emmissions purely based simply on the economic costs and uncertainty created by climate change. But most governments, corporations, and individuals don't take a long enough time horizon on their cost-benefit analysis to bother tackling it.
You know, it's funny you should put it quite that way. The last thread i started was about how the oil industry is going to attempt to qualify an industry-funded report as to pad their "estimates" for which they report to their shareholders/SEC.
:
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/5490933/c_5490134?f=home_todayinfinance
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06038/651623.stm
--

Also, i should mention ...


http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35435/story.htm
WASHINGTON - In a move that could boost much-needed US ethanol supplies for
blending into gasoline, the government is proposing to allow corn milling
facilities that make ethanol for fuel to spew more pollution before certain
clean air rules are triggered.


Ethanol is produced at corn milling plants for use as a fuel additive in
gasoline or for human consumption in liquors. However, the facilities have
different emission rules depending on the type of ethanol they produce.
The Environmental Protection Agency wants to treat the different ethanol
producing plants the same when it comes to air pollution.

Corn milling facilities that make ethanol for human consumption can emit up
to 250 tons of emissions a year before clean air regulations that restrict
production kick in. The threshold for plants that make ethanol for fuel is
much lower, at 100 tons a year.

The difference between ethanol for fuel and ethanol for human consumption is
that a small amount of gasoline or solvent is added to the fuel ethanol to
make it undrinkable and the process does not use food-grade equipment.

"EPA's proposal would provide equal treatment for corn milling facilities,
regardless of whether they produce ethanol for fuel or human consumption,"
the agency said.

Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota had asked the EPA for the policy
change. He said the agency's proposal "seeks to remove stifling regulatory
barriers so ethanol production can increase and we can make significant
progress toward our goal of achieving energy independence in the US"

The EPA's proposal, which would be open for public comment for 60 days,
comes as US oil refineries are scrambling to secure ethanol supplies for
blending into gasoline.

Refiners will need more ethanol this year to mix with their gasoline as they
stop using the fuel additive MTBE, which has been banned by many states and
resulted in lawsuits for polluting drinking water supplies.

However, the Energy Department says domestic ethanol producers will not make
enough of the product to meet demand for most of this year, and more ethanol
imports, particularly from Brazil, will be needed to close the supply gap.

The current transition to ethanol caught some oil companies that were
planning to eliminate MTBE at a later date off-guard.

US ethanol production now averages 275,000 barrels per day, but another
130,000 barrels a day of ethanol may be needed this year to replace MTBE,
according to the Energy Department.
:(

*Arrquack*

Hmm...ethanol production does give more oil than it takes right? I forget...and you seem to have an article for everything...

Hmm...ethanol production does give more oil than it takes right? I forget...and you seem to have an article for everything...
Well, a quick skirting ...
For the process, try here:
http://westernplainsenergy.biz/ethanol.html
For a complaint about input vs. output (since you might be angling that), try here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm
Posted: April 1, 2005

Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One
In 2004, approximately 3.57 billion gallons of ethanol were used as a gas additive in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). During the February State of the Union address, President George Bush urged Congress to pass an energy bill that would pump up the amount to 5 billion gallons by 2012. UC Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek thinks that's a very bad idea.

For two years, Patzek has analyzed the environmental ramifications of ethanol, a renewable fuel that many believe could significantly reduce our dependence on petroleum-based fossil fuels. According to Patzek though, ethanol may do more harm than good.

"In terms of renewable fuels, ethanol is the worst solution," Patzek says. "It has the highest energy cost with the least benefit."

Ethanol is produced by fermenting renewable crops like corn or sugarcane. It may sound green, Patzek says, but that's because many scientists are not looking at the whole picture. According to his research, more fossil energy is used to produce ethanol than the energy contained within it.

Patzek's ethanol critique began during a freshman seminar he taught in which he and his students calculated the energy balance of the biofuel. Taking into account the energy required to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol, they determined that burning the biofuel as a gasoline additive actually results in a net energy loss of 65 percent. Later, Patzek says he realized the loss is much more than that even.

"Limiting yourself to the energy balance, and within that balance, just the fossil fuel used, is just scraping the surface of the problem," he says. "Corn is not 'free energy.'"

Recently, Patzek published a fifty-page study on the subject in the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Science. This time, he factored in the myriad energy inputs required by industrial agriculture, from the amount of fuel used to produce fertilizers and corn seeds to the transportation and wastewater disposal costs. All told, he believes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than what the end product provides your car engine in terms of power.

Patzek is also concerned about the sustainability of industrial farming in developing nations where surgarcane and trees are grown as feedstock for ethanol and other biofuels. Using United Nations data, he examined the production cycles of plantations hundreds of billions of tons of raw material.

"One farm for the local village probably makes sense," he says. "But if you have a 100,000 acre plantation exporting biomass on contract to Europe , that's a completely different story. From one square meter of land, you can get roughly one watt of energy. The price you pay is that in Brazil alone you annually damage a jungle the size of Greece ."

If ethanol is as much of an environmental Trojan horse as Patzek's data suggests, what is the solution? The researcher sees several possibilities, all of which can be explored in tandem. First, he says, is to divert funds earmarked for ethanol to improve the efficiency of fuel cells and hybrid electric cars.

"Can engineers double the mileage of these cars?" he asks. "If so, we can cut down the petroleum consumption in the US by one-third."

For generating electricity on the grid, Patzek's "favorite renewable energy" to replace coal is solar. Unfortunately, he says that solar cell technology is still too immature for use in large power stations. Until it's ready for prime time, he has a suggestion that could raise even more controversy than his criticisms of ethanol additives.

"I've come to the conclusion that if we're smart about it, nuclear power plants may be the lesser of the evils when we compare them with coal-fired plants and their impact on global warming," he says. "We're going to pay now or later. The question is what's the smallest price we'll have to pay?"

Editor's Note: The original news release can be found here :
http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/labnotes/0305/patzek.html
----

So, Dinaverg, perhaps you have a link or something by now?

So, Dinaverg, perhaps you have a link or something by now?

Link for what? You've answered my question...If you mean other stuff I've said, it's mostly speculative, industry does more than make CO2, yes?

Link for what? You've answered my question...If you mean other stuff I've said, it's mostly speculative, industry does more than make CO2, yes?
I mean, so far you haven't posted any links. I figured you would have by now.

I mean, so far you haven't posted any links. I figured you would have by now.

Ah...What would they be about? An article on other things industry does? I suppose were I truly worried on the back up a point I've made has...But as of now, It's hardly more than idle speculation....although mostly idle from lack of...stimulation...No, wait...that's not the word I want...*shrug* Meh, I'd like to avoid an article in every post.

Ah...What would they be about? An article on other things industry does? I suppose were I truly worried on the back up a point I've made has...But as of now, It's hardly more than idle speculation....although mostly idle from lack of...stimulation...No, wait...that's not the word I want...*shrug* Meh, I'd like to avoid an article in every post.
Hmm, perhaps you've come to the wrong thread, then, methinks. Arrr.

Also, there's MANY, MANY factors about global warming and its consequences, so there's plenty of related material that may have come up. Obviously that's been the case so far in this thread.

Hmm, perhaps you've come to the wrong thread, then, methinks. Arrr.

Also, there's MANY, MANY factors about global warming and its consequences, so there's plenty of related material that may have come up. Obviously that's been the case so far in this thread.

...Wasn't one of your things about Yellowstone?

...Wasn't one of your things about Yellowstone?
It was correspondant to the post i was replying to about certain types of events. You might consider the consequences of that thing putting out, which in a global warming sense, is a very serious situation. The current news about it is magma displacement/shift, which is a little concerning but nothing looks bad at the moment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7789918/

http://www.rense.com/general12/dwarf.htm

http://interactive2.usgs.gov/faq/list_faq_by_category/get_answer.asp?id=921

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/faqs.html

Arrr.
And as for "quack" you should adjust that to "squawk", per parrot. *nods*

It was correspondant to the post i was replying to about certain types of events. You might consider the consequences of that thing putting out, which in a global warming sense, is a very serious situation. The current news about it is magma displacement/shift, which is a little concerning but nothing looks bad at the moment.

True....but couldn't you have just said that?

True....but couldn't you have just said that?
Have you noted that there aren't many other posters involving themselves in this thread? Look what page we're on!
The thread itself isn't just a post, it's a thread, and my feelings of personal responsibility to the nature of said thread is to indulge whomever on the thread brings up reasonable points for discussion.
And, since i also indulge a few acquaintanceships here, Kari Byron might get mentioned. Arrr.

Have you noted that there aren't many other posters involving themselves in this thread? Look what page we're on!
The thread itself isn't just a post, it's a thread, and my feelings of personal responsibility to the nature of said thread is to indulge whomever on the thread brings up reasonable points for discussion.
And, since i also indulge a few acquaintanceships here, Kari Byron might get mentioned. Arrr.

...Huh?

I meant, couldn't you have posted that paragraph instead of the entire article, as that was your main point, yes?

...Huh?

I meant, couldn't you have posted that paragraph instead of the entire article, as that was your main point, yes?
At times.
I'm not entirely convinced that people really do a lot of homework on a plethora of issues, and this SPECIFIC issue i've noticed garners more requirement for elaboration than some others.
For example, the last posting of links i gave is all-inclusive and not just one in the random sense. Specifically on the Yellowstone topic. Did you read them?

At times.
I'm not entirely convinced that people really do a lot of homework on a plethora of issues, and this SPECIFIC issue i've noticed garners more requirement for elaboration than some others.
For example, the last posting of links i gave is all-inclusive and not just one in the random sense. Specifically on the Yellowstone topic. Did you read them?

...
The last time you posted a link was answering my question on ethanol, which made sense...although you could've said "No, it takes aboout six times more than it gives" and perhaps I could've looked it up if I didn't trust you knew what you were talking about.

P.S. Woah, wait a minute, you edited your post, nevermind, didn't catch those.

*squawk*

Okay...so, hypothetically, everyone knows about the threat of Yellowstone now....then what?

...
The last time you posted a link was answering my question on ethanol, which made sense...although you could've said "No, it takes aboout six times more than it gives" and perhaps I could've looked it up if I didn't trust you knew what you were talking about.

P.S. Woah, wait a minute, you edited your post, nevermind, didn't catch those.
Ah, well, you can't really trust that anyone really knows what they're talking about these days. That's the nice thing about ref's.

Okay...so, hypothetically, everyone knows about the threat of Yellowstone now....then what?
Did you know before i ref'd it to you, then? Was it common knowledge?

Did you know before i ref'd it to you, then? Was it common knowledge?

I had heard of a sort of super volcano under yellowstone before...But if it becomes common knowledge, then what?

I had heard of a sort of super volcano under yellowstone before...But if it becomes common knowledge, then what?
What do you mean, "then what"?
There's two ways i'm inferring that question at this point ... one is a defeatist/obstinate perspective, and the other is the activist/motivational perspective.
Am i wrong in having the field limited to those two views?
And which one are you espousing?

EDIT: and btw, just where did you actually answer your POV on the title of the thread?

What do you mean, "then what"?
There's two ways i'm inferring that question at this point ... one is a defeatist/obstinate perspective, and the other is the activist/motivational perspective.
Am i wrong in having the field limited to those two views?
And which one are you espousing?

EDIT: and btw, just where did you actually answer your POV on the title of the thread?

Well, what are we gonna do about this volcano the populus is now aware of?

For the thread? Well, I suppose right now I'm just trying to defend the honor of carbon dioxide.

Well, what are we gonna do about this volcano the populus is now aware of?
Easy. Sacrifice the majority of virgins that permeate NS General, and there shall be appeasement. *nods*

For the thread? Well, I suppose right now I'm just trying to defend the honor of carbon dioxide.
Sigworthy, really. :D

Hey, CO2's mama! Booyaa! I saw someone spraypainting something about CO2 on the water tower. You're not gonna stand for that, are you?

Easy. Sacrifice the majority of virgins that permeate NS General, and there shall be appeasement. *nods*

...Darn. Can't we just give them some cookies? Everyone loves cookies...but they might like virgins more....Well, just make sure they don't find out we have any virgins....


Sigworthy, really. :D

Hey, CO2's mama! Booyaa! I saw someone spraypainting something about CO2 on the water tower. You're not gonna stand for that, are you?

XD. Woohoo! I've done something sig worthy! I should probably figure out how to display sigs....

...Darn. Can't we just give them some cookies? Everyone loves cookies...but they might like virgins more....Well, just make sure they don't find out we have any virgins....
I think the only safe ones are the ones who don't post. *nods*



XD. Woohoo! I've done something sig worthy! I should probably figure out how to display sigs....
Yeah, me too.
Well, enjoy the thread, i got IRL issues for a while.

...Darn. Can't we just give them some cookies? Everyone loves cookies...but they might like virgins more....Well, just make sure they don't find out we have any virgins....




We have virgins? Say it aint so....

We have virgins? Say it aint so....
haha...sorry, I've been slacking.;)

You know, it's funny you should put it quite that way. The last thread i started was about how the oil industry is going to attempt to qualify an industry-funded report as to pad their "estimates" for which they report to their shareholders/SEC.
:
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/5490933/c_5490134?f=home_todayinfinance
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06038/651623.stm
--



Well, most executives are all about maximizing short term results ... that's about all the capital markets give them incentive to do. GE is extremely unusual among corporation in having a 10 year strategic plan ... probably something to do with the fact that Welch was in there for the long-term. But 10 years is not nearly the kind of time-frame we need to be thinking on.

Hmm...ethanol production does give more oil than it takes right? I forget...and you seem to have an article for everything...

Does it? I thougt it was still a net energy loss?

Does it? I thougt it was still a net energy loss?
From what I understand a lot of the waste in energy comes from transporting the ethanol.

From what I understand a lot of the waste in energy comes from transporting the ethanol.

I thought some of it came from harvesting it too ... the oil in the fertilizers, the oil in the combine, etc. Have they sorted out the transport problem yet?

I thought some of it came from harvesting it too ... the oil in the fertilizers, the oil in the combine, etc. Have they sorted out the transport problem yet?
I'm really rough on this because I only read a few pages about it recently. The gist I got, was for ethanol to be useful as an alternative to gas in terms of climate change, we'd have to go with ethanol for everything down to it replacing gas lines. It would be impossibly expensive and there are better alternatives to go for if we were to phase out gas.

But I'm no expert.

I'm really rough on this because I only read a few pages about it recently. The gist I got, was for ethanol to be useful as an alternative to gas in terms of climate change, we'd have to go with ethanol for everything down to it replacing gas lines. It would be impossibly expensive and there are better alternatives to go for if we were to phase out gas.

But I'm no expert.

It's hard to keep on top of this stuff.

It's hard to keep on top of this stuff.
Really, it is. It'd be nice if special interest groups would stop throwing faulty arguments around. It would make everything much, much easier to grasp.

Really, it is. It'd be nice if special interest groups would stop throwing faulty arguments around. It would make everything much, much easier to grasp.

Well no-one has a monopoloy on the truth ... and most people probably think that their perspective is the right one. But it would help if some interests would stop deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

Well no-one has a monopoloy on the truth ... and most people probably think that their perspective is the right one. But it would help if some interests would stop deliberately misrepresenting the facts.
That's what I meant. Being mistaken is much different.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

I think they go a little over the top in a Mother Jones sort of way but still good to take a look through.

That's what I meant. Being mistaken is much different.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

I think they go a little over the top in a Mother Jones sort of way but still good to take a look through.

I heard Exxon/Mobil was running ads during the Olympics saying no-one is doing more about renewable energy. As a friend (who is an energy buff, and totally not an environmentalist) said ... I thought no-one was doing less?

I heard Exxon/Mobil was running ads during the Olympics saying no-one is doing more about renewable energy. As a friend (who is an energy buff, and totally not an environmentalist) said ... I thought no-one was doing less?
That's probably a sign of the apocolypse.

I heard Exxon/Mobil was running ads during the Olympics saying no-one is doing more about renewable energy. As a friend (who is an energy buff, and totally not an environmentalist) said ... I thought no-one was doing less?
Hey, thanks for keeping the "faith". I've been busy.

This might garner some interest, especially given the amount that they just reported for their quarterly ...:

http://www.kodiakdailymirror.com/?pid=19&id=2659
Exxon needs to be held accountable for long-term oil spill damages

Citizens from around the state and country, including scientists, fishermen, conservationists, and Native and non-Native residents, want Gov. Murkowski and President Bush to hold ExxonMobil Corporation accountable for longterm harm and unanticipated injury from the 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS).

On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez ran aground spilling at least 11 million gallons of crude oil in the Alaska ocean ecosystem. This spill killed more wildlife than any other spill and blackened approximately 1,300 miles of coastline — much of which was publicly owned wildlife refuges, forests, parks and other public lands from Prince William Sound to Kodiak.

On Oct. 9, 1991, the State of Alaska, the United States and Exxon settled the governments’ claims against Exxon for natural resource damages from the spill. As part of this settlement, Exxon agreed to a provision titled the “Reopener for Unknown Injury” that required Exxon to pay up to $100 million between September 2002 and September 2006 to restore populations, habitats or species suffering injuries that could not reasonably have been known or anticipated at the time of settlement. The governments, to date, have yet to seek these funds from Exxon.

“Scientists could not have anticipated the harm to the ecosystem in 1991. At the time of the settlement, oil toxicity studies predicted only short-term ecological harm from the spill,” said Dr. Riki Ott of Cordova and author of “Sound Truth and Corporate Myths.”

“Thanks to the work of scientists studying the spill and its aftermath, we now know that oil is more toxic and persistent in the environment than anyone knew in 1991.”

According to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, only seven of the 30 resources and services injured by the Spill have recovered. There is clear evidence of unanticipated injury in the spill region. I am presently the vice chair of the Public Advisory Committee to the Trustee Council and have been a member for 10 years. Exxon caused undeniable longterm harm to coastal resources, economies, and subsistence use, and lingering oil from the Exxon Valdez continues to prevent repair.

“In 1991, no one anticipated that pools of oil would remain under the surface of Prince William Sound in 2006,” said R. J. Kopchak, a commercial fisherman from Cordova. “No one anticipated longterm injury to fish or fish-dependent populations from the spill, but herring fishers lost 11 of the last 13 years to spill-related die-off and killer whales, loons, ducks, sea otters and other wildlife continue to suffer. Exxon owes all of us, and we expect Gov. Murkowski and President Bush to invoke the Reopener by the June 1, 2006, deadline to collect the debt.”

Rep. Eric Croft and Sen. Hollis French have introduced resolutions in the Alaska Legislature to encourage the state and federal governments to pursue a claim under the reopener. I greatly appreciat that our local legislators, Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux and Sen. Gary Stevens, have weighed in as co-sponsors. Hearings in the House Fisheries Committee and the Senate Resources Committee are expected soon. In addition, both our City Council and Borough Assembly passed similar resolutions.

...
----

So anyone have any updates on that too?

off topic...see you thursday Straughn

off topic...see you thursday Straughn
With bells on. 20:30, right?

So anyone have any updates on that too?
Still looking for updates on that but found this:

"The International Labor Rights Fund sued in 2001 on behalf of eleven villagers. It said Exxon's Indonesian subsidiary allowed soldiers to use its facilities to torture locals and commit other human rights abuses."
http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=4602221

Not related to climate change but.... DAMN.

This article has some more information, along with this tidbit:

"Bush’s latest budget slashed $40 billion from health, education and welfare programs while keeping in place $56 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy and giving $10.7 billion in tax breaks to those same oil and gas companies that are making record-breaking profits."

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/2/ARTICLE/6609/2006-03-02.html

There is no such thing as a conspiracy. Why the hell would the government spent millions of dollars making some ice into slush? They have nothing to gain. Nothing tangible, anyway. Sure a bunch of retards might go "MOFG THE GLOBAL WARMING SHE COMES", but who cares?

There is no such thing as a conspiracy. Why the hell would the government spent millions of dollars making some ice into slush? They have nothing to gain. Nothing tangible, anyway. Sure a bunch of retards might go "MOFG THE GLOBAL WARMING SHE COMES", but who cares?
It's not a conspiracy to turn the ice into slush. What the hell are you talking about?

It's not a conspiracy to turn the ice into slush. What the hell are you talking about?

Topic: North Slope ice turning slush ... global warming or conspiracy?

With some words cut out: ice turning slush ... conspiracy?

Topic: North Slope ice turning slush ... global warming or conspiracy?

With some words cut out: ice turning slush ... conspiracy?
It's a conspiracy not to do anything about it. Nobody gains anything by destroying the earth's climate... but they gain a hell of a lot by not being blamed for it.

It's a conspiracy not to do anything about it. Nobody gains anything by destroying the earth's climate... but they gain a hell of a lot by not being blamed for it.

So the title SHOULD have been "Ice CONTINUING to turn to slush, etc etc". In that case, if it's a conspiracy I don't really care. I'll be long dead before it matters.

So the title SHOULD have been "Ice CONTINUING to turn to slush, etc etc". In that case, if it's a conspiracy I don't really care. I'll be long dead before it matters.
You'll be dead by 2050?

You'll be dead by 2050?

Who's to say I'm not already 70?

I'm not, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Who's to say I'm not already 70?

I'm not, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
That's true.
Either way, it's selfish to think of only your own existence.

Somebody once said that the time we have is time we have borrowed from future generations.

Here is the quote:

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. ~Native American Proverb

With bells on. 20:30, right?
22:35

Topic: North Slope ice turning slush ... global warming or conspiracy?

With some words cut out: ice turning slush ... conspiracy?
So how long did you read my OP before you got distractOed by whatever?
Read the bottom line. I think that's what the question was about.
Don't be embarassed, i watch Mythbusters. *nods emphatically*
For example, tonight's episode has Kari drinking a bunch of soda to measure an increase in flatulence. It's totally worth the $ for cable. Totally. Slobberingly.

So the title SHOULD have been "Ice CONTINUING to turn to slush, etc etc". In that case, if it's a conspiracy I don't really care. I'll be long dead before it matters.
Perhaps you should start your own thread. Don't try and correct mine. Read it harder first.

22:35
Five more minutes?
I don't have that kind of time. I feel used.

Still looking for updates on that but found this:

"The International Labor Rights Fund sued in 2001 on behalf of eleven villagers. It said Exxon's Indonesian subsidiary allowed soldiers to use its facilities to torture locals and commit other human rights abuses."
http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=4602221

Not related to climate change but.... DAMN.
I have some, as Fass puts it, VERY regional news that ties this post and your follow-up post in a scrutinizing light :

http://www.adn.com/money/story/7490827p-7400918c.html
Oil giants deliver warning
TAX PLAN: The testimony of BP and Exxon angers some in the Legislature.

By RICHARD RICHTMYER
Anchorage Daily News

Published: March 1, 2006
Last Modified: March 1, 2006 at 09:28 PM


JUNEAU -- Executives of Exxon Mobil and BP told state lawmakers Tuesday that Gov. Frank Murkowski's proposed revamping of the oil and gas tax system could squelch future development. They warned that imposing a higher tax than the governor has proposed might undo a tentative deal they struck with the administration for a natural gas pipeline project.


Their testimony before the House and Senate Resources committees drew fire from some lawmakers concerned about the tax plan's connection to the pipeline talks.

Murkowski's legislation would replace the state's production-based tax on oil and gas with a tax tied to oil company profits. It proposes a 20 percent tax on companies' in-state profits while allowing them to deduct from their taxes 20 percent of the amount they invest in Alaska oil field development.

The bill also includes a series of other tax credits and write-offs.

The governor's plan is part of a package deal his administration struck with the three major oil companies -- Exxon, BP and Conoco Phillips -- on a contract for tax and other state terms if they build a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to the Lower 48.

The idea is for the new oil-tax system to be locked into a long-term gas pipeline contract, giving the producers certainty on future oil taxes before they pursue the $20 billion to $25 billion gas project.

Richard Owen, Exxon's Alaska production manager, said that even with all the credits and write-offs, the 20 percent tax rate could hinder further development in Alaska's high-cost oil fields.

Much of the oil remaining on the North Slope is viscous or heavy crude that is more costly to get out of the ground. A higher tax on top of the already-high cost could make development of those resources less likely, Owen said.

"Given our view of the resources, we would not support a higher tax rate or lower credits than proposed in this bill," Owen said.

The most important reason Exxon supports the governor's bill is that it could enable a gas pipeline project, Owen said, warning lawmakers that they should avoid significantly changing it "to avoid upsetting the balance" it strikes.

Ken Konrad, BP's vice president for gas in Alaska, said that while they were negotiating the tax change with Murkowski's gas line contract team, the oil companies had proposed a 12.5 percent tax rate. They thought that would increase the state's take by hundreds of millions of dollars while encouraging further oil-field investment.

His company agreed to the governor's proposed tax plan to get closer to a gas pipeline deal, Konrad said.

"BP has agreed with the governor that we will not oppose the rates and figures in the legislation before you today," he told lawmakers. "Our chief executive and others have made the extremely difficult decision to accept the governor's terms as a means to finalize a (gas pipeline) contract."

The oil executives' remarks frustrated some lawmakers, who said they felt pressured and disadvantaged because they were being asked to consider a change in an extremely important tax policy that is linked to a gas pipeline contract that they have not even seen. Most of the details of the state's accord with the oil company are being kept confidential until a deal is made.

Murkowski's chief of staff, Jim Clark, has said lawmakers must approve the oil-tax change as a standalone policy first, because oil taxes cannot be negotiated behind closed doors as part of the gas line deal. The governor then would ask the Legislature, in a separate bill, to allow the oil tax terms to be folded into the gas pipeline contract.

"The only people who are unaware of what's in this proposed gas pipeline deal are those of us around this table, the Legislature," Rep. Ethan Berkowitz said at a House Resources hearing Tuesday.

"You're asking us to craft a tax without having seen a pipeline deal, and that's going to be a difficult thing for us to do," said Berkowitz, an Anchorage Democrat who is seeking his party's nomination for governor.

"I'd feel much more comfortable if someone would produce this gas pipeline deal so we can do an analysis of what that is and how that fits into an oil and gas tax."

He was expressing a sentiment heard from legislators of both parties.

Rep. Ralph Samuels, R-Anchorage, the committee co-chairman, became frustrated while running the meeting, trying to keep the discussion on the proposed legislation and off of the gas pipeline contract. He said the tax legislation will stand on its own even if a pipeline deal never materializes.

Fairbanks Republican Rep. Jay Ramras, the other Resources co-chair, said they are doing all they can to keep the two issues separate.

"It may be a consideration for the producers in the context in which they came to the table, but as far as the House Resources Committee is concerned, we've built a long, tall brick wall between the gas pipeline legislation, which we may or may not get, and (the oil tax legislation), which will stand on its own," Ramras said.

Executives from the big three producers are expected to appear before lawmakers again today, along with smaller producers and exploration outfits.

-
This relates with this current effort, of course .... and a certain other post about being able to "fudge the numbers":

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-03-06T225927Z_01_N06303723_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENERGY-CONGRESS-OIL.xml&archived=False

By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic lawmakers on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee said on Monday they opposed putting in the 2007 budget bill language assuming the government will raise billions of dollars in oil drilling leasing fees from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In its budget proposal to Congress, the Bush administration said it expected $7 billion would be raised by allowing oil drilling in the Alaskan refuge, and the Congressional Budget Office puts the figure at $6 billion.

No matter what the number, most Senate and House Democrats are against opening the refuge to oil companies.

"It is irresponsible to base the country's budget on highly speculative and dubious projections of lease revenues for the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," all nine Democrats on the budget panel said in a letter to the committee's Republican chairman, Judd Gregg.

Putting the ANWR leasing revenues in the budget bill is a way to get around a threatened filibuster of any legislation that would open to refuge to oil drilling, because budget bills can't be filibustered.

"We encourage you to reject any requests that are intended to misuse the budget process to open the refuge to oil and gas drilling and exploration," the Democratic lawmakers said.

The Senate Budget Committee is scheduled to vote Wednesday on whether to include the ANWR leasing revenue in the government's 2007 budget.

Last week, 24 House Republicans sent a letter to House Budget Committee chairman, Republican Rep. Jim Nussle, urging him to keep Arctic refuge drilling out of the 2007 budget bill.

The administration has failed every year to convince Congress to give energy companies access to the refuge, which is a key part of the White House's national energy plan.

The refuge, which is home to a variety of wildlife such as polar bears and migratory birds, stretches across 19 million acres in the northeast corner of Alaska. But the White House only wants to offer 1.5 million acres

in the refuge's coastal plain for oil and natural gas exploration leases.

The Interior Department estimates the refuge could hold between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
If the refuge was opened to drilling, it would take about eight years before the area reached full production of around 800,000 to 1 million barrels per day, according to the Energy Department.
----

Desperate Measures, i want to say i appreciate your integrity on this thread. *bows*

Desperate Measures, i want to say i appreciate your integrity on this thread. *bows*
It's amazing to me that what needs to be done and what is being done are so far removed from one another. Going back to the CFCs, it was shown that it actually increased the revenue of the businesses, such as DuPont, which were first to adopt to the restrictions. BP, though still a gas company with it's own interests, appears to be one of the only oil companies doing anything to embrace the threat of climate change.

It's amazing to me that what needs to be done and what is being done are so far removed from one another. Going back to the CFCs, it was shown that it actually increased the revenue of the businesses, such as DuPont, which were first to adopt to the restrictions. BP, though still a gas company with it's own interests, appears to be one of the only oil companies doing anything to embrace the threat of climate change.
IIRC, BP seriously surprised me a few years back by their main man announcing his intent to do something about it.
I'll probably post that announcement later. Gotsa few things to do.

There's more, and current:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0309_060309_bering_sea.html
Climate Change Harming Bering Sea Mammals, Birds, Study Shows
Adrianne Appel
for National Geographic News

March 9, 2006
The north Bering Sea, one of the world's richest feeding grounds for whales, walruses, and sea birds, is warming to the point where animals are being forced to adapt or suffer the consequences.

The Bering Sea sits between Siberia and Alaska above the Aleutian Islands (see map
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/atlas/index.html?Parent=usofam&Rootmap=usak&Mode=d&SubMode=w
). Its northern half was typically covered in solid ice for seven months of the year. But now there is less ice in general, and the seasonal melt is starting earlier in the spring, said Jacqueline Grebmeier, a marine ecology expert at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.

Some animals, like gray whales, are moving farther north to follow the cold water. Meanwhile, pink salmon and pollock, fish typically found in the southeast Bering Sea, are moving into northern waters.

Other animals of the north Bering Sea may not be adapting enough to survive. Bearded seals and walruses, which feast on the sea's bottom-dwellers, are struggling with a reduced food source.

Also in trouble are diving Eider ducks, a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

"[The ducks'] population is going down, and their food supply is going down," Grebmeier said. Her team's results are published in today's issue of the online journal Science Express.

Meals on Ice

Warming of the Bering Sea is likely due to global climate change and to a weakening of the cold north winds that blow across the sea, affecting its temperature.

The sea is usually teeming with wildlife thanks to phytoplankton, the starting link in the region's food chain.

The tiny sea plants start to grow under the ice each spring until their population reaches a massive, nutrient-packed overgrowth by June.

As the overcrowded plants suffocate and die, their remains fall to the muddy bottom, creating a carbon-rich food layer for worms, shrimp, and clams.
These bottom-feeders then support populations of birds and marine mammals.

But the current trend of earlier ice melt and warming water is interfering with the life cycle of the phytoplankton. Now there are fewer clams and worms growing on the seafloor, Grebmeier said.

Spring ice cover in the region is melting about three weeks earlier compared to 1997, said Grebmeier, who has been tracking the impact of climate changes on the north Bering Sea ecosystem since the 1980s.

Her team's data show that the temperature at the bottom of the sea increased from about 29° F (-1.6° C) in the early 1990s to 32° F (0° C) in 1998.

In short, Grebmeier said, the region is shifting from an Arctic ecosystem to one that looks more like the subarctic.

Whales at Risk

Large pods of gray whales typically travel to the Bering Sea's northern waters each spring from Baja California. They make the return trip in autumn, and the total migration is the longest known of any marine mammal.

But now the animals are heading even farther northward into the Chukchi Sea, above the Arctic Circle, seeking colder waters and the food they are accustomed to—amphipods.

These tiny shrimplike creatures live in the muck at the bottom of the shallow sea.

The whales feed voraciously all spring and summer in preparation for a three- to five-month fast during their 12,000-mile (19,000-kilometer) journey back to Baja California.

Now some whales are so comfortable in the north that they are foregoing their full autumn migration, going no further south than Kodiak, Alaska.

As the gray whales shift northward, they are moving closer to the territory of the bowhead whale, which feeds offshore on krill.

Alaskan natives hunt the bowhead and are concerned that the more aggressive gray whale may interfere with the quieter bowhead.

"There is the potential for space competition," Grebmeier said.

The elusive and nearly extinct north Pacific right whale also swims to the north Bering Sea to feed.

These animals number as few as two dozen, said John Hildebrand, a professor at the University of California, San Diego, and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who studies whale song.

"We need to make every effort possible to give them a chance to survive," Hildebrand said.

"I can't predict at all how climate change would play into the lives of right whales. It definitely will play into their lives but how, we don't know."

--
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article350361.ece
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-beringsea10mar10,1,5899731.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
--
Also ....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11233308/
Native Alaskans list warming impacts
From more fires and brush, to shore erosion and melting permafrost
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Fire breaks protecting homes were never part of the traditional culture in Huslia, an Athabascan village on the Koyukuk River.

But recent forest fires have burned hotter and more frequently, a change most people blame on global warming, and Huslia has had to adapt, said William Derendoff, 61, the traditional chief.

A day after scientists presented research findings on how warming is melting sea ice and changing marine ecosystems in the Arctic, Derendoff and other village leaders at the Alaska Forum on the Environment on Tuesday told how climate change is hitting their rural communities.

"These changes are going to impact Native people probably more than any other group," said Larry Merculieff, an Aleut who grew up in the Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea.

"We're facing really big changes," Merculieff said. "The villages have to start thinking about it now."

Town eroded by storms
Some changes have been spectacular. Edwin Weyiouanna of the Inupiat Eskimo village of Shishmaref presented the latest on well-documented changes to his island community of about 600 people in the Chukchi Sea just north of Bering Strait.

No longer protected by early winter sea ice or ground that's permanently frozen, the community has been pounded and eroded by storms. Villagers in 2002 voted to relocate to the mainland and hope to obtain millions in federal dollars money to make the move.

Changes at Huslia are more subtle.

"Unfortunately, out knowledge is not documented," Derendoff said. "We don't go by percentages. We go by what we see."

Hotter summers have stressed area spruce forests, making them susceptible to forest fires, Derendoff said.

"A lot of the spruce trees are kind of brown, not green," Derendoff said. "When we have a fire, it really goes."

A 30-acre fire last summer threatened the village. Though trees and brush had been cleared from around the landfill, a flame from burning trash lit caribou moss and fire spread to forest.

"Fortunately, we caught it in time," he said.

Permafrost melting
As in Shishmaref, permafrost — ground that stays below freezing for a minimum of two years — has melted and no longer provides a barrier against Koyukuk River erosion, Derendoff said.

Lakes that traditionally flooded with river water no longer are doing so, Derendoff said, changing where villagers fish.

Huslia residents traditionally use gillnets in winter to catch pike, whitefish and sheefish through river ice. Thinner ice and unpredictable snow conditions have made winter travel across ice less predictable.

"A lot of places, it's kind of unsafe," he said.

Short-term adaptation to warming even is showing up in recreation. Sled dogs, now mostly used for racing, are bred with short-hair hounds that render dogs able to run better in higher temperatures, Derendoff said.

More villagers than ever are gardening, growing potatoes, cabbage, turnips and peas, Derendoff said. So far, they have not embraced growing domestic animals for meat, he said.

"It's pretty hard to go to domestic animals," he said. "We live on wild animals for a lot of different reasons. We grew up killing wild animals."

‘Weather not predictable anymore’
Mike Zacharoff, a resident of St. Paul in the Pribilofs, said elders formerly could look south across 40 miles of Bering Sea toward St. George Island and accurately predict weather.

"The weather is not predictable anymore," he said.

Northern fur seals usually depart by December and don't return until May. His son spotted seals a few days ago, he said.

"The animals are confused," he said.

Halibut that should be showing up in June are arriving in March and April.

"Our season is wrong to catch our quota," he said. "We're starting too late."

The Pribilofs routinely see storms with winds of 75-80 mph winds but they used to end after 12 hours, he said. Now they're lasting two or three days.

"I am concerned," he said. "But I'm more concerned about our future generation."

----
A member of our bands' wife has a personal anecdote about one of her cousins' caskets being washed back up on shore after the encroaching tide pulled away the cemetary. Joy.

I propose it would be with wnough water and earthworms.....and dead plants, have everyone pull up their weeds and dump them on the desert, they'll decay and provide good material.
But it's still a desert and it still won't get enough moisture to help. That would be mass murder, of a fashion.

Pehaps....but....Could you beat a ninja?Well that's the beauty of one of the new & improved, better and more logically consistent religions ... you SHOULD be both!
*FSM*

...Kay.Hey, you'd understand if you knew. RAmen.

Edgar Cayce said by the year 2050 Nebraska will be the new coastline

Edgar Cayce said by the year 2050 Nebraska will be the new coastline
Maybe I should invest in some beach front property.

Maybe I should invest in some beach front property.
THAT's certainly becoming a "speculative" market ...

But it's still a desert and it still won't get enough moisture to help. That would be mass murder, of a fashion.

Eh...If desertification was a completely irreversible process....welll...We be nothing but desert and artic (or "cold desert" if you like the name). Or at least a lot more...I imagine a ggood layer of topsoil at the very least....enough to start things....get some small growth maybe so I doesn't all get washed away....Although I'm not sure how that would happen without
rain...I wonder how much material that would actually take for a layer of topsoil a few inches thick on the entirety of the Sahara...Even though realistically it'd just be localized around the edges of the desert...

Well that's the beauty of one of the new & improved, better and more logically consistent religions ... you SHOULD be both!
*FSM*

(b^_^)b

Hey, you'd understand if you knew. RAmen.
Well...I do tend to understand things I know...

Eh...If desertification was a completely irreversible process....welll...We be nothing but desert and artic (or "cold desert" if you like the name). Or at least a lot more...I imagine a ggood layer of topsoil at the very least....enough to start things....get some small growth maybe so I doesn't all get washed away....Although I'm not sure how that would happen without
rain...I wonder how much material that would actually take for a layer of topsoil a few inches thick on the entirety of the Sahara...Even though realistically it'd just be localized around the edges of the desert...

(b^_^)b

Well...I do tend to understand things I know...
That wouldn't work. I'm... just sure that wouldn't work.

That wouldn't work. I'm... just sure that wouldn't work.

I bet they said that about the television. :P

I bet they said that about the television. :P
No, they said it would make us stupid.

How could you possibly do this in a way that wouldn't set us back by trillions of dollars? And even with the money taken care of, what sort of science is currently studying such a move?

No, they said it would make us stupid.

How could you possibly do this in a way that wouldn't set us back by trillions of dollars? And even with the money taken care of, what sort of science is currently studying such a move?

Ah right, I dunno, that's what reversing major climate changes gets you.

Ah right, I dunno, that's what reversing major climate changes get's you.
There are suitable steps to take that wouldn't be quite so... outrageous. And wouldn't affect our standard of living quite so much.

There are suitable steps to take that wouldn't be quite so... outrageous. And wouldn't affect our standard of living quite so much.

Such as? Something along the lines of "Less CO2" or is there more?

Such as? Something along the lines of "Less CO2" or is there more?
There is too much to even wrap my mind around it about what you can do. But yes... less CO2 is the object. If you use solar panels to provide electricity for your home, you get free electricity to power everything and it pays for itself within three years. Sunlight is not needed to shine everyday.



"Available to utility customers in California, the California Energy Commission is now offering solar power rebates in the amount of $2.80 per watt. In addition to this, you are entitled to a 7.5% tax credit on the cost of your system after rebates. Together, these incentives can pay for nearly half of the cost of a system. As a commercial customer, in addition to the state rebate and tax credit, you are entitled to an additional 10% federal tax credit, and can depreciate the net cost of your system on an accelerated 5 year schedule."
http://www.californiasolarco.com/power-systems-photo-gallery.html

"Within the next month, the Martin Luther King, Jr. student union may become a model of energy conservation and generation-what Tom Cordi, the Director of the ASUC Auxiliary, calls the "two-prong attack" against rising energy prices and global warming.
With a new roof already installed, officials expect the photovoltaic solar panels to be up and running within the next few weeks.

Cordi said the solar panels are the "most efficient photovoltaics on the market."

Over their lifetime, the panels could save energy equivalent to 4,500 barrels of oil, more than 2 million pounds of coal or about 26 million cubic feet of natural gas."

http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=12368

There is too much to even wrap my mind around it about what you can do. But yes... less CO2 is the object. If you use solar panels to provide electricity for your home, you get free electricity to power everything and it pays for itself within three years. Sunlight is not needed to shine everyday.

http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=12368

Okay, see, this is much better...now...What do we need now, an ad campaign for solar panels?

Okay, see, this is much better...now...What do we need now, an ad campaign for solar panels?
Probably. It's hard to get people excited about solar panels on the roof of your house. Just having it done yourself will probably be the best advertising you could do right now until it becomes more popular. I imagine that there is a lot of resistance among power companies to encourage this. Though I've heard that in some countries, people actually sell the surplus power they make to the energy companies and somehow that power is used in the community. I'm a bit sketchy on all that right now, though.

Probably. It's hard to get people excited about solar panels on the roof of your house. Just having it done yourself will probably be the best advertising you could do right now until it becomes more popular. I imagine that there is a lot of resistance among power companies to encourage this. Though I've heard that in some countries, people actually sell the surplus power they make to the energy companies and somehow that power is used in the community. I'm a bit sketchy on all that right now, though.

Now all I need to do is own a house...Hmm...

Now all I need to do is own a house...Hmm...
You know... get to it whenever.

Here's something you can check out in the meantime.

http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9006010&contentId=7012265

No, they said it would make us stupid.
:D

This is probably going to factor in considerably for the folks a little further south than myself ...
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-dryfire1106mar11,0,2696368.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-state
La Nina will boost Florida's wildfire risk, experts warn

Kevin Spear | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted March 11, 2006
For more than a decade, Florida has been at the mercy of a climate switch that arrives every four years, cycling from rain and flooding to drought and wildfires.

If the pattern holds -- and there are signs that it might -- the state has just entered a spell of wilting lawns, burning forests and smoky skies.
Drought has already sunk its teeth into much of the Southern United States and may be spreading to Georgia and Florida, raising the specter of more wildfires than in the past few years.

Experts say a "La Nina" shift in global weather is the chief reason Florida will see less rain than normal at least during the coming months.

"La Nina is here, and we are beginning to see a drying-out," state climatologist James O'Brien said in Tallahassee. "Drought is a danger."

During a La Nina event, Pacific Ocean waters cool in such a way that winds at high altitude carry significantly less moisture across the Southern United States to Florida. Arizona is coming off its driest winter on record, while New Mexico and Oklahoma have had their second-driest winters. Northeast Texas has been consumed by wildfires.

For Florida, late winter and early spring is normally a dry time, but not as rainless as it has been so far this year. South Florida is parched, and the Orlando area has enjoyed only half of the nearly 6 inches of rain that falls on average by this time of the year.

"It's still what we would consider a weak La Nina, but we expect conditions to continue at least three or four more months," said Vernon Kousky, research meteorologist at the national Climate Prediction Center in Maryland.

Deborah Hanley, forecaster at the Florida Division of Forestry in Tallahassee, said it's unlikely generous rains will arrive in the next several weeks.

For Florida and its fast-draining, sandy terrain, even a slightly prolonged dry period coupled with windy, low-humidity days can trigger an outbreak of wildfires.

Hanley warned that conditions taking shape now are likely to bring wildfires more frequently than during the past several years.

Those fires might not be as numerous or widespread as during the fiery four years from 1998 to 2001, when drought emptied lakes, drained wetlands and left forests explosively dry.

But blazes this spring and summer could give firefighters fits.

Florida's foresters and land stewards are chronically behind in igniting controlled burns to thin millions of acres of forest overgrown with shrubby plants and trees.

Now vast stretches of the state are even more likely to catch fire and then burn ferociously because hurricanes in recent years ravaged forests, knocking down limbs and trees, said Walt Thomson, a conservation director for the Florida Nature Conservancy chapter.

"That's tons more dead fuel, dried out, and it makes fire behavior a lot more aggressive," Thomson said. "It can be a little freaky."

Hurricane factor

A quirky and potentially worrisome factor about a La Nina is that although it can bring dry weather and wildfires, it can also quench a drought -- by bringing extra hurricanes.

William Gray and the Colorado State University tropical-storm-forecast team have predicted nine hurricanes this year. That's not as many as the record-setting 15 hurricanes last year but still up from the yearly average of about six.

La Nina conditions -- linked to a slightly warmed Atlantic Ocean and winds that are kinder to hurricanes -- might contribute to the higher number of hurricanes, according to forecasters.

Kousky, at the Climate Prediction Center, said La Nina events and their opposite, the often-rainier "El Nino" events, play into Florida's cycling between fire and floods.

"You tend to get these dry periods that last three, four or five years," Kousky said.
---
http://www.chronline.com/Main.asp?SectionID=16&SubSectionID=101&ArticleID=27925
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Our generally colder than normal weather since the first week in February may well be due in part to the influence of colder than usual ocean temperatures off South America caused by the La Nina effect.

GLOBAL WARMING? The noticeable decline in frequency of severe cold waves in Western Washington, including the Lewis County area, has a counterpart to our north in British Columbia, it turns out.
We’ve gone more than a decade, including this winter, without any low temperatures in the single digits. While always fairly unusual, this kind of cold did occur several times a decade on average before the early to mid 1990s. But nothing since.
Since the source of our coldest weather is Arctic fronts that push south from British Columbia, it is not surprising to learn that the same trend has occurred up there.
The central part of the province has not had any long, hard freezes of 20 below zero or colder for more than a decade. That explains why what Arctic air we have received hasn’t been cold enough to produce single-digit readings.
What’s so disturbing about this for our northern neighbors is the parallel British Columbia forest research scientists have detected between the warmer winters and the explosion in mountain pine beetles.
It hasn’t been cold enough to kill them and control their numbers. As a result, the beetle has been killing vast swaths of lodgepole pines in the province. The Canadian Forest Service says it’s the largest insect infestation ever known in North America.
The beetle has infested 21 million acres and killed 411 million cubic feet of trees, double the annual harvest by Canadian loggers. Estimates are that 80 percent of the pines in central British Columbia will be dead in at least seven years.
The province’s huge timber industry will take a big hit.
The absence of severe winter cold may well be an indication of global warming in our little corner of the world, whatever the cause.

I think that's why we should just stick to the phrase "Climate Change." It's hard to call it Global Warming when some parts of the world are actually getting colder. A lot of times you get into these discussions just trying to justify the name for the phenomenon.

global warming is a reality and the amount of it, of our collective human contribution to it, is the resault of using combustion to generate energy and propel transportation.

and it's not that there's anything wrong with generating energy or propelling mechanichal transportation. but there ARE more sustainable ways of doing both. it is the short sightedness of the circular illogic of little green pieces of paper that is motivating us to keep stabing ourselves in the back by kissing the backside of corporate oil.

of course our shere numbers are a serious part of the problem as well.

one could say something about hot air generated by politics but just as a guess, without looking, someone, if not some several, probably already have.

if ANY idiology actualy worked, we'd all be engineers, scientests and artists, and there would be no such thing as politicians, warriors or bussiness people.

=^^=
.../\...

This got brought up not very long ago, and this is current:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1725786&page=1
Ozone Spurs Arctic Warming, Scientists Find
March 15, 2006 — The Arctic has felt the impact from a pollutant normally associated with hot summers in big cities: ozone.

NASA researchers said they were surprised to discover that ozone is a much bigger contributor to Arctic warming than originally thought.

"We thought ozone was a minor player," said Drew Shindell, a climatologist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. But Shindell said his new findings show that in the Arctic, ozone is responsible for up to 50 percent of the warming. "It was a big surprise."

In the upper atmosphere, ozone helps shield Earth from damaging radiation from the sun, but close to the ground it can cause respiratory problems, harm crops and contribute to global warming.


Bad 'Feedback'

Shindell said the warming effect in the Arctic region occurs mostly in the winter and spring months, when winds carry the ozone from factories and cars in the Northern Hemisphere. The ozone doesn't have the same impact in the summer, Shindell said, when sunlilght normally breaks it down.

The ozone there contributes to "feedback loops," in which a change occurs and then amplifies the original problem. One such loop occurs as the climate warms, leaving less white sea ice and snow cover on land to reflect the sun's energy. The darker land and water then absorb more heat energy, contributing to more warming.

Of particular concern, Shindell said, is the effect the warming may have on places like Greenland, which recent studies show is melting twice as fast as originally believed. If the entire Greenland ice sheet were to melt, which scientists say could take centuries, sea level could rise 21 feet.

But there is a bright spot. Shindell says that ozone may be an easier problem to tackle than carbon dioxide. "Ozone is a short-lived gas, and if we make changes to control ozone pollution, changes will occur almost immediately," he said. "Maybe we could slow down some of that rapid acceleration."

Also, on Tuesday the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva said that average concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere "reached their highest-ever recorded levels in 2004."
Levels of carbon dioxide have risen 35 percent since the late 1700s, largely due to emissions from burning fossil fuels, according to the WMO.

This is further information on the above article ...

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-03-14T152536Z_01_L14557931_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-GREENHOUSE.xml&archived=False
Global warming gases at highest levels ever: UN
Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:25 AM ET
GENEVA (Reuters) - Greenhouse gases blamed for global warming and climate change have reached their highest ever levels in the atmosphere, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Tuesday.

A bulletin from the United Nations agency said the gases -- the main warming culprit carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide -- "all reached new highs in 2004."

WMO officials also indicated that a near record year-on-year rise in CO2 levels for 2005 recorded by U.S. monitors -- well above the average for the past 10 years -- would not come as a major surprise.

"Global observations coordinated by WMO show that levels of carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, continue to increase steadily and show no signs of leveling off," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.

Carbon dioxide, which the WMO says accounts for 90 percent of warming over the past decade, is largely generated by human activity involving the burning of fossil fuels -- including in industry, transport and domestic heating.

Scientists warn emissions must be slowed and reduced if the earth is to avoid climatic havoc with devastating heat waves, droughts, floods and rising sea-levels sinking low-lying island states and hitting seaboard cities like New York and London.

The U.N.'s 1992 Kyoto Protocol, which came into force last year after a decade of wrangling, obliges major industrial nations to cut emissions while granting exemptions to developing countries like India and China.

But it was weakened by the withdrawal in 2001 of the United States, whose President George W. Bush said that working to meet its targets would seriously damage the U.S. economy. He has also argued that warming is a natural, not man-made, process.

In its first Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, to be an annual publication, the WMO said that in 2004 carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere stood at 377.1 parts per million (ppm), 35 percent higher than in the pre-industrial age before 1750.

Methane, generated by intensive farming and landfills as well as the burning of fossil fuels like oil and coal and which accounts for around 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, has risen 155 percent in the modern age.

But its growth is slowing down, the WMO said, while nitrous oxide, which accounts for only 6 percent of the warming effect, is rising consistently.
The average annual increase in absolute amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past decade has been 1.9 ppm, slightly higher than the 1.8 ppm of 2004, WMO environment division chief Leonard Barrie told a news conference.

Barrie said a finding by the U.N. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, cited by the British Broadcasting Corporation, that carbon dioxide had grown last year by 2.6 ppm had to be viewed in perspective.

"It is important to take the long view. There can be fluctuations," he said. "The 2.6 ppm figure is within past experience. If it were to persist over several years, then we would have to start talking about what it means."

Hey SJS...first of all, damn, you're good at debating this.

Anyway, just curious if you saw this article:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article351135.ece
pretty interesting

Hey SJS...first of all, damn, you're good at debating this.Thank you. *bows* One of the few things i take seriously, apparently.

Anyway, just curious if you saw this article:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article351135.ece
pretty interesting
I have not. Thank you for providing it. I obviously do a lot of clip/pasting, but i always go through more trouble than it's worth with ONE of the Independent sources, so i usually skip them when i'm flipping through the topic bank. I imagine i'll find a way around it, at some point - the same info is gonna get out through someone else at some point. *nods*

EDIT:Actually, this one works fine.

From the article ....:
"Professor Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, who was the first Briton to monitor Arctic sea ice from nuclear submarines, said: "One of the big changes this winter is that a large area of the Barents Sea has remained ice-free for the first time. This is part of Europe's 'back yard'. Climate models did predict a retreat of sea ice in the Barents Sea but not for a few decades yet, so it is a sign that the changes that were predicted are indeed happening, but much faster than predicted." "

Thank you. *bows* One of the few things i take seriously, apparently.


I have not. Thank you for providing it. I obviously do a lot of clip/pasting, but i always go through more trouble than it's worth with ONE of the Independent sources, so i usually skip them when i'm flipping through the topic bank. I imagine i'll find a way around it, at some point - the same info is gonna get out through someone else at some point. *nods*

EDIT:Actually, this one works fine.

From the article ....:
"Professor Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, who was the first Briton to monitor Arctic sea ice from nuclear submarines, said: "One of the big changes this winter is that a large area of the Barents Sea has remained ice-free for the first time. This is part of Europe's 'back yard'. Climate models did predict a retreat of sea ice in the Barents Sea but not for a few decades yet, so it is a sign that the changes that were predicted are indeed happening, but much faster than predicted." "
yeah, I never use the independent on here because people just reject it outright, hence why I didn't throw it in as an argument...but you're obviously interested in the topic, as are the other people on the thread, so can't hurt.

yeah, I never use the independent on here because people just reject it outright, hence why I didn't throw it in as an argument...but you're obviously interested in the topic, as are the other people on the thread, so can't hurt.
I certainly encourage the material and the intent. *bows*
I think i was starting to notice seriously after doing some geographical research back in the early 90's, so it's something i'm somewhat familiar with at this point, even though i don't really need to be, seeing as how there's new news on the subject EVERY 4 days or so. :(

I certainly encourage the material and the intent. *bows*
I think i was starting to notice seriously after doing some geographical research back in the early 90's, so it's something i'm somewhat familiar with at this point, even though i don't really need to be, seeing as how there's new news on the subject EVERY 4 days or so. :(
I have a good friend who is very into it, so I can't help but hear about alot of it. Sadly, I just don't have the basis of knowledge to really get into a debate without doing massive research while I post. You have taught me alot with this thread tho *bows back*

I have a good friend who is very into it, so I can't help but hear about alot of it. Sadly, I just don't have the basis of knowledge to really get into a debate without doing massive research while I post. You have taught me alot with this thread tho *bows back*
Well, i hope so.
I hope this thread is useful for a lot of folks. I would also dig more posts everyone contributing on this thread so far, if it's in their interest. Although Dinaverg obviously inferred that it could be a "whatever interests me at the time" thread, i hope i haven't digressed too much. As is, there is much, MUCH more on the topic that hasn't been covered.

Well, i hope so.
I hope this thread is useful for a lot of folks. I would also dig more posts everyone contributing on this thread so far, if it's in their interest. Although Dinaverg obviously inferred that it could be a "whatever interests me at the time" thread, i hope i haven't digressed too much. As is, there is much, MUCH more on the topic that hasn't been covered.
haha...then I should probably bow out of the thread before we start talking about mod knows what...;)

haha...then I should probably bow out of the thread before we start talking about mod knows what...;)
Funny, you said the same thing earlier in the thread, IIRC. :D

It's amazing to me that what needs to be done and what is being done are so far removed from one another. Going back to the CFCs, it was shown that it actually increased the revenue of the businesses, such as DuPont, which were first to adopt to the restrictions. BP, though still a gas company with it's own interests, appears to be one of the only oil companies doing anything to embrace the threat of climate change.

But again, CFC's were relatively cheap to do away with. All companies needed was the economic certainty to provide the alternatives. Right now, there are no alternatives to burning fossil fuels that are anywhere near as cheap.

But again, CFC's were relatively cheap to do away with. All companies needed was the economic certainty to provide the alternatives. Right now, there are no alternatives to burning fossil fuels that are anywhere near as cheap.
It wasn't known then how cheap it was to replace them. There are many alternatives that we could begin on right now that would be much cheaper than relying on fossil fuels. For about $1,200 a shop in, I think, Maryland will convert your diesel engine to run on used corn oil. It would work out to 30 cents a gallon.

I read in "Fingerprints of the Gods" that although the north pole's ice is melting. The south pole's ice is freezing (growing) at almost the same rate that thenorth's is growing.

The books from 1998 though, so I dunno

I read in "Fingerprints of the Gods" that although the north pole's ice is melting. The south pole's ice is freezing (growing) at almost the same rate that thenorth's is growing.

The books from 1998 though, so I dunno
Both North and South are melting.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1678441&page=1

Both North and South are melting.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1678441&page=1
I like how that's the actual title of the article and all.

Well, infusium time ...

http://www.metronews.ca/reuters_business.asp?id=137041
Miners hampered by fragile Arctic ice road

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 4:26:21 PM ET

By Rachelle Younglai

TORONTO (Reuters) - For a small window of time, temperatures become cold enough to freeze some lakes in Canada's Arctic, creating an ice road that allows companies to send truckloads of crucial supplies to their remote mining sites.

But mild weather has thrown a wrench into the ice making process this year, slowing down the transportation of goods along the road, which runs some 568 kms (353 miles), and leaving miners racing against time to get supplies in before the winter road melts.

"The problem has been the speed at which the ice has thickened. In other winters when you have a lot of minus 40 or minus 35 (degrees Celsius), you get up to full capacity very fast," said Tom Hoefer, a spokesman for the Diavik diamond mine which along with BHP Billiton Ltd. <BHP.AX> and Kinross Gold Corp.<K.TO>, operates the road.

"But this year we have had such warm weather, that (the ice) has been slower at thickening and we just haven't reached that full thickness now."

The winter road opened later than expected this year and has not yet reached full capacity because the ice needs to be 42 inches thick and is currently only 38 inches thick.

This has been the warmest Canadian winter in nearly six decades with temperatures averaging 3.9 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit), warmer than normal from the end of November 2005 to the start of March 2006.

"Basically what the thinner ice means is that we will have to haul more loads than expected and reduce the size of shipments, which means more shipments," said Hoefer.

"Whether we can get them all in or not (depends on) if we have a late spring or if we have an early spring."

The ice road has become more traveled in recent years with Tahera Diamond Corp. <TAH.TO> bringing its diamond mine on stream in Nunavut. De Beers Canada is also getting ready to bring its first Canadian diamond mine -- Snap Lake in the Northwest Territories -- into production.

This is on top of the normal slate of supplies hauled along the ice road to two other operating diamond mines in the Northwest Territories, Aber Diamond Corp. <ABZ.TO> and Rio Tinto Plc's <RIO.L> Diavik and BHP Billiton's Ekati.

The winter road operators project that more than 9,000 truckloads of fuel, explosives, construction supplies and equipment and assorted freight will be traveling across the ice road.

"We have seen an increase in the number of trucks that we have to send," said Cathie Bolstad, with De Beers Canada.

De Beers had planned to send 2,000 truckloads to its Snap Lake project and now is forecasting 2,200 truckloads. As of Monday, it had transported 1,337 loads.

The company, part owned by Anglo American Plc <AAL.L>, has already managed to drive its cranes and generators to the project and Bolstad said she is "confident" that it will be able to transport all the heavy loads before the road closes.

"Our challenge is to get our fuel in," said Bolstad, who hopes that the winter road will be open till the end of March.

Tiny diamond explorer Peregrine Diamonds Ltd. <PGD.V> said costs are higher as the company was forced to send only partial loads of fuel to its Northwest Territories site.

The road typically allows around 200 trucks a day, with a truck leaving every 20 minutes.

Unusually warm weather has already forced the operators to issue one safety warning to snowmobilers due to the considerable amount of overflow and water alongside the road.

As soon as the road closes, companies will know if they have enough supplies to last until the next winter road opens in 2007.
----
And what kind of exhaust will be more prolific due the increase in traffic? :(

I should also add this post, since it is current and puts the timeframe into sharper perspective:

http://www.cbc.ca/north/story/arctic-ice-15022006.html
Arctic could be ice-free in summer in 15 years: scientists
Last updated Feb 15 2006 09:09 AM CST
CBC News
Scientists say dramatic recent melting of sea ice in the Arctic may lead to the lowest level yet of ocean ice cover in the Arctic this summer, and warn drastic changes to the northern ecosystem could result.

More than 120 scientists from nearly a dozen nations are attending the meeting of the Canadian Arctic Shelf Exchange Study in Winnipeg this week.

The group, which conducted research over the past three years in the High Arctic, is releasing its findings, including studies from a year spent on board the Amundsen research icebreaker.

-CBC PHOTOGALLERY: On board the Amundsen -

University of Manitoba sea-ice specialist Dr. David Barber estimates that the sea-ice cover in the Arctic is now decreasing by 74,000 square kilometres a year.

He says last year the extent of Arctic sea ice shrunk to the lowest level recorded by satellites, to a minimum he says that has never been seen before in modern times.

FROM JULY 29, 2005: Scientists sound alarm on Arctic ice cap
Barber says he's now worried that 2006 could be worse.

"That minimum extent is going to be surrounded by ocean and that surrounding ocean is all going to be absorbing short-wave radiation from the sun, and it's going to all warm up that surface layer and it's going to be harder to form the ice the next year."

Barber says he's most concerned about multi-year ice. He says the loss of this type of ice can affect the habitat of species such as ring seals.

He says the melting is happening too fast for them to adapt.

"So the ecosystems that have evolved to take advantage of that sea ice, you can imagine how do they adapt to such a change, it has happened so rapidly, how do they adapt to such a thing?" he says.

Scientists now say that in as little as 15 years, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer.

They say the last time that happened was more than a million years ago.

But Simon Prinsenberg, who's with the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Halifax, says less ice could be positive for northern economies.

"A lot of people think that with less ice we might see more fisheries up there and since there's less ice it's also easier to get up there," he says.
----
Now, this last guy kind of pisses me off. Perhaps he wasn't paying attention to information presented earlier in the article. :mad:
Even if he wasn't, more fisheries aren't looking to be particularly feasible, what with the 10% issue going on, and decimation of spawn habitat.

I like how that's the actual title of the article and all.


Just a little bit of Google answers a lot of questions.

Just a little bit of Google answers a lot of questions.
RAmen to that! *bows*

And, again, to show how it isn't an issue of "victimless crime" ....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11821542/

Warming added as an extinction factor
Some amphibian species appear very sensitive to changes

OSLO - Exotic frogs and toads are dying out in the jungles of Latin America, apparent victims of global warming in what might be a harbinger of one of the worst waves of extinction since the dinosaurs.

Accelerating extinctions would derail a United Nations goal of “a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss” by 2010. That target will be reviewed at a U.N. meeting of environment ministers in Curitiba, Brazil, on March 20-31.

“We are facing an extinction crisis,” said Anne Larigauderie, head of Paris-based Diversitas, a group that promotes research into life on the planet.

She estimated the rate of loss of all species was now 10-100 times faster than little-understood rates from fossil records. The task of gauging the exact rate is complicated by the fact that no one knows exactly how many species exist.

Many scientists say global warming -- widely blamed on burning fossil fuels in factories, power plants and vehicles -- is adding to other human threats including destruction of habitats from expanding cities, deforestation and pollution.

For now, amphibians such as frogs, toads, salamanders and newts are on the front-line -- they live both in water and on land and have a porous skin sensitive to changes in temperature and moisture. A skin fungus is also decimating amphibians.

In coming decades, threats could widen to creatures ranging from polar bears to tropical butterflies. A few species might benefit, such as forests expanding north to the Arctic.

“We’re probably looking at one of the worst spasms of extinction in millions of years, even without climate change,” said Lee Hannah, an expert at Conservation International. “But we have it in our ability to do something about it.”

“Many species are already moving right to the brink,” said Craig Hilton-Taylor, head of the “Red List” publication of endangered species at the World Conservation Union.

---

Well, the argument often does come up here about people's minds not changing, just the changing of the guard, and yet the issues remain the same.
I feel that way myself about a few issues, to the point that i often tell people to just punch my name up on the archives on a given issue ... but some issues do need to be updated, and this one is indeed quite current.

I live in a "canary" state and new information on this issue is a weekly-update scenario. So, in doing my part (and noting no similar threads so far ...)

http://www.adn.com/life/story/7503876p-7415107c.html

Old ice wedges on Slope turn into water pits
NED ROZELL

Published: March 5, 2006
Last Modified: March 5, 2006 at 05:33 AM


Truck-sized wedges of underground ice that have remained in place for thousands of years on Alaska's North Slope seem to be thawing, according to a scientist doing work for an oil company there.

Permafrost scientist Torre Jorgenson of Alaska Biological Research, Inc. was checking out an area west of the Colville River recently when he noticed water-filled pits that weren't in Navy photographs of the area from 1945.

"We were doing baseline studies on permafrost stability for Conoco Phillips and were looking at lake erosion, but when we saw the historical photos we said, 'Wow, there's a lot going on here,' " Jorgenson said.

Walking in hip boots on the tundra surface of the North Slope, Jorgenson and his colleagues, Erik Pullman of Alaska Biological Research and Yuri Shur of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, saw many water-filled holes on the tundra. Some were new pits with bright green tussock heads nodding into them; the vibrant color indicated the tundra plants were getting a temporary blast of nutrients and water as the ice wedge beneath them thawed. Other older pits had drowned tussocks in them.

Ice wedges are underground chunks of ice about six to nine feet wide on top that extend nine to 12 feet to a tapered end that points downward. They exist only in places where the yearly average temperature is well below freezing. Ice wedges form just below the layer of soil that freezes every winter and thaws each summer, and they endure longer than civilizations.

"For these to have developed over thousands of years, there had to be relatively stable temperatures," Jorgenson said. "Their thawing shows that today's temperatures are beyond normal fluctuations."

The ice wedges that are thawing on the North Slope are special features of a cold landscape, Jorgenson said, and are not to be confused with the deep permafrost locked in the soil beneath them.

"We're not talking about (typical) permafrost disappearing up there; it's still pretty cold permafrost and it's 600 meters (about 1,968 feet) deep in places," Jorgenson said. "It's not going to disappear anytime soon."

The prehistoric ice wedges of the study area west of the Colville River, smaller and more vulnerable to warmer temperatures than the deep permafrost, are thawing so quickly that Jorgenson teamed with his co-workers to write "Abrupt increase in permafrost degradation in Arctic Alaska," published in the Jan. 24 issue of Geophysical Research Letters. They based their conclusions on the 1945 Navy photos and aerial photos taken in 1982 and 2001, along with their observations from the ground.

While working around the collapsed pits, Jorgenson, Shur and Pullman also noticed "a violent degassing of methane." Methane, a greenhouse gas four times as effective as carbon dioxide at trapping heat, is in large supply in the frozen areas of the world. The gas is a product of decomposition of plants, and frozen ground locks it in.

"When we were walking in these troughs and stirring things up, the water was roiling with (methane) bubbles," Jorgenson said.

Thawing ice wedges up north complicate what scientists think about greenhouse gases and the Arctic. Some think Arctic tundra has become a "carbon source" that releases more greenhouse gases than it takes in. The collapsing pits, which may someday cover up to 30 percent of the lowland landscape, appear to release methane when they first collapse but then accumulate carbon as the wedges become overgrown with sedges and peat, Jorgenson said.

While the carbon equation of thawing ice wedges is uncertain, the researchers think they have an idea why the ice wedges are collapsing. An unusually warm, wet period on the North Slope that started in the summer of 1989 followed by record-breaking temperatures in the 1990s may have pushed the ice past a threshold of warmth they hadn't experienced for thousands of years.
---

And for honourable mention ...

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=85&art_id=qw1140990843347B242

Snow causes chaos on Algerian roads
February 27 2006 at 01:54AM

Algeria - Heavy snow has cut off villages and clogged key arteries leading away from the Algerian capital Algiers for several days, national police said on Sunday.

Djelfa, which had 70cm, was "totally paralysed", the Algerian Press Agency reported.

At least 60cm of snow blanketed villages near Djelfa and Medea, respectively 270km and 80km south of Algiers.

An AFP reporter said only donkeys and mules could ply the roads around the villages.

Snow is unusual in the north African country, but last winter saw snowfalls of more than two metres in several parts of the north-east.

The main roads remained dangerous even after they were cleared, authorities warned.

The weather improved on Sunday but more snow was expected overnight at altitudes of over 700m, and rain elsewhere.

Melted snow caused flooding in the north-eastern Kabylie region where a 25-year-old man was swept away in a torrent, residents said.

Meanwhile state television showed images of sandstorms in the desert south of the vast country where roads were also cut off. - Sapa-AFP
------
http://www.earthgate.ucsb.edu/weekly_news/articles.html#iceberg
Ice-Free Winter
Unusually warm weather this winter across the northeastern United States and eastern Canada has left the Great Lakes mostly free of ice for the first time in living memory. The open waters have been disastrous for the ice-fishing industry in the region and have allowed ferries to operate even during the coldest month of January. Some fishing guides tried to use boats for their customers, but high winds clouded the waters, preventing fish from seeing the lures. A cold wave that spread across the Great Lakes region in mid-February promoted the formation of ice near shore, but it is unlikely that an extensive ice sheet will form over the bodies of water this season.
-
Drought Casualties
The ongoing severe drought across much of East Africa has killed tens of thousands of animals, and experts warn it will "decimate" livestock during the next few months. The British-based Society for the Protection of Animals Abroad said further deaths of cattle, camels and donkeys across Kenya and Somalia are likely to add to drought-related human fatalities and suffering. Parched conditions are also disrupting the annual migrations of wildebeests and zebras in Kenya and neighboring Tanzania. The Kenya Wildlife Service said the drought has so far killed at least 60 hippopotamuses in the country's wildlife sanctuaries.
-
Indian Ocean Outbreak
Health officials on the Indian Ocean island of Reunion say that four people have now died from a mosquito-borne disease that has infected more than 100,000 people on the French overseas territory. Hospital officials said the latest victim was a small child, who died from complications related to chikungunya, a crippling disease that causes painful swelling of body joints and leaves victims stooped with limited mobility. Victims usually recover from the symptoms over time. While the disease had not previously been known to be fatal, chikungunya is now being directly connected to the deaths of two adults and two children on the island. A massive mosquito-eradication project has been launched to combat the spread of the disease.
-
Bounterful Butterflies
Exceptionally wet weather across South Africa in recent months is responsible for the unprecedented numbers of white butterflies that have delighted residents of Johannesburg during February, according to wildlife experts. Zoologist Graham Alexander said wet conditions promoted plant growth, providing a home for more caterpillars. They eventually turned into millions of Belenois aurota, commonly known as "brown-veined white" butterflies. While the species is common across southern Africa, older residents of the city say they have never before seen them in such great numbers. Large migrations of Belenois aurota take place during the rainy season, with the winged insects flying up the east coast of Africa.
---

Feel free to discuss and dismember the post as y'all see fit.
There will be more, in all likelihood.


EDIT:For those of y'all wondering what the conspiracy would be, i'm inferring based on the nature of the persons testifying to the situation. *nods*

i like snow cones...so i will have unlimited amounts of slush...coool...all i need is some root beer and voila...killer snow cone.maybe some captain morgans to spice it up a bit

i like snow cones...so i will have unlimited amounts of slush...coool...all i need is some root beer and voila...killer snow cone.maybe some captain morgans to spice it up a bit
Well, then you could have that in trade for the foundations of several buildings here in the state, seeing as how the permafrost is also getting compromised.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060220/permafrost_pla.html
Feb. 21, 2006 — A new study of the Arctic permafrost forecasts that global warming will thaw and shrink the total area of perennially frozen ground 60 to 90 percent by 2100.

If true, it will increase the freshwater run-off into the Arctic Ocean by 28 percent, lead to the release by soils of vast doses of greenhouse gases, and upset ecosystems over wide areas.

"This (projection) is definitely higher than other projections, both in area and depth," said David Lawrence, a climate modeler with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate and Global Dynamics Division.

Lawrence and Andrew Slater of the University of Colorado in Boulder published their permafrost projection in the February issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

Currently in the Northern Hemisphere there are about four million square miles (10 million square kilometers) of land surface that does not thaw, even in the summer, which comes to about 24 percent of the land north of the equator.
Lawrence and Slater incorporated into a computer climate model the current and projected rates of global warming, as well as the physical parameters of freezing and thawing of the upper 11 feet (3.5 meters) of permafrost ground.

They generated a broad-brush image of what might remain of the frozen ground by 2100. That image shows today's permafrost shrinking to between 400,000 and about two million square miles (one to four million square km).

Put another way, the area of permafrost lost by 2100 could match or exceed the total land area of Australia.

Thawing such a vast swath of northern lands means those soils will begin draining, moving more water to the sea, which raises sea levels and could wreak havoc with global weather patterns.

It also means carbon that was frozen in the soils will be free to move up into the atmosphere in the form of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, said Lawrence. This whole new source of greenhouse gases isn't something Earth needs right now.

Other thawing consequences that are likely to reinforce warming, at least locally, include the colonization of newly thawed ground by Arctic shrubs.

"Shrubs can deepen snow drifts and change in the timing of snow melting," said Lawrence. Generally, they speed-up the melting of snow, he said.

Other researchers studying changes to permafrost don't see a lot to argue about in Lawrence and Slater's projection.

"It's definitely an extreme (projection)," said Siberia permafrost expert Larry Smith of the University of California in Los Angeles. "But permafrost responds pretty quickly to thermal forcing. So I don't think it's out of line."
---

Also see:
http://planetsave.com/ps_mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6802&Itemid=72
---

And, VERY current, some people feel like not waiting around anymore (for Desperate Measures and Dinaverg):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4806146.stm

Huge polar initiative announced
By Rebecca Morelle
BBC News science reporter

Next year, thousands of scientists from around the world will begin the most intensive period of research on the polar regions in half a century.

International Polar Year (IPY) aims to provide a legacy of research into key environmental issues facing the Earth.

Those involved hope its progress will generate as much public interest as the 1969 Moon landings.

The last such initiative, in 1957, provided the foundation for much of the polar science knowledge we have today.
"Those old enough to remember will recall that the International Geophysical Year was not only a huge scientific enterprise with fantastically important outcomes, both scientific and geopolitical, but it also had huge penetration into the public consciousness," said Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, which is involved in IPY.

The International Geophysical Year saw the first satellite, Sputnik, launched into space, established the thickness of the Antarctic ice sheet, and paved the way for the Antarctic Treaty, designating Antarctica a zone for peace and science.

'Global impact'

Fifty years on, IPY hopes to build on this success.

Beginning in March 2007, it will involve over 50,000 participants, including scientists spanning many different disciplines, from more than 60 countries across the globe.
Professor Rapley described it as an "intensive burst" of scientific research and observations focusing on the Earth's polar regions.

Dr David Carlson, IPY's programme director, said the polar regions were an essential area on which to focus international science.

"If you want to understand the global carbon cycle, the global water cycle, the global weather cycle, or global economics, it requires an understanding of polar regions," he said.

"It's a polar science, but it has a global impact."

There will be hundreds of research projects running throughout the year looking at a diverse range of issues.

Indigenous communities

Proposals include new research into ice cores to further knowledge of the Earth's climate one million years ago; mapping and modelling of permafrost thawing; tracking reindeer herds as the climate alters; looking at oil and gas development; and satellite observations.

IPY will also focus on indigenous communities.

"These are our Northern neighbours," said Dr Carlson. "They are facing change very quickly, and it's inherent that we embrace and understand their view of these changes."
There will also be activities for the public to participate in, including exhibitions, films, blogs and podcasts. The team hopes to attain the same level of public interest in the programme as the Moon landings.

IPY is sponsored by the International Council of Science and the World Meteorological Organization. It estimated cost is about 2.5-3bn euros (£1.5-2bn), which will be spread across the countries taking part.

"We are addressing crucial issues at a critical time. I think we have the chance to build a very special programme; and there will be some dazzling science," said Dr Carlson.

Professor Rapley added: "Although this an intensive burst, we want to leave a legacy of new knowledge, new networks, new enthusiasm, new systems, and new understanding about the Polar Regions."

To ensure that researchers get the opportunity to work in both polar regions or work summer and winter if they wish, the polar year will actually run from March 2007 to March 2009.

I'm thinking that i should amend my statement about how soon this kind of information comes out. This one DEFINITELY has a political backlash to it, unfortunately - which is why i'm not USING political sources.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000051A6-DE14-1419-9E1483414B7F0000
Statistical Analysis Bolsters Theory Linking Warmer Oceans to Stronger Hurricanes
Since the 1970s, ocean surface temperatures around the globe have been on the rise--from one half to one degree Fahrenheit, depending on the region. Last summer, two studies linked this temperature rise to stronger and more frequent hurricanes. Skeptics called other factors into account, such as natural variability, but a new statistical analysis shows that only this sea surface temperature increase explains this trend.
Climate researcher Judith Curry and her colleagues at the Georgia Institute of Technology looked at the hurricane records for storms between 1970 and 2004 in all of the world's ocean basins, yielding a total sample of 210 seasons over the six regions. They subjected the records to a mathematical test derived from information theory--so-called mutual information, which measures the amount of information two variables share, so that if they do not overlap at all this measure would be zero.
The researchers then looked at sea surface temperature, specific humidity, wind shear and wind variation over longitude to see what, if anything, these variables shared with the increasing number of strong storms the world over. According to the analysis appearing online today in Science, this trend only depends on sea surface temperature. "If you examine the intensification of a single storm, or even the statistics on intensification for a particular season, factors like wind shear can play an important role," Curry says. "However, there is no global trend in wind shear or the other factors over the 35-year period."

The link between rising ocean temperatures and overall climate change remains murky because of the overlap between natural cycles and any global warming. "But if you buy the argument that global warming is causing the increase in sea surface temperatures--and everybody seems to be buying this--then it's a pretty small leap to say global warming is causing this increase ," Curry says. Her team will now focus on [I]clarifying the mechanisms at work in the North Atlantic by separating out the 75-year natural cycle and climate change. "The last peak was in 1950, the next is in 2025," she adds. "We're only halfway up [the cycle] and we're already 50 percent worse . To me, that's a compelling issue that needs to be confronted." --David Biello
---
Also:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0316_060316_hurricanes.html
Warming Oceans Are Fueling Stronger Hurricanes, Study Finds
[I]John Roach
for National Geographic News

March 16, 2006
Rising ocean surface temperatures are the primary factor fueling a 35-year trend of stronger, more intense hurricanes, scientists report in a new study.

The finding backs up the results of two controversial papers published last year that linked increasing hurricane intensity to rising sea-surface temperatures, said Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.
"Global warming is sending sea-surface temperatures up, so we're looking at an increase in hurricane intensity globally," Curry said.

She added that in the North Atlantic Ocean basin—where hurricanes that affect the U.S. form—the number of hurricanes may also increase.

"Other ocean basins don't show an increase in [the] number [of hurricanes], but the North Atlantic does," she said.

Curry is a co-author of the new study, which appears in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.

She also co-authored a study published last September in Science, that found the yearly number of hurricanes that reach Category Four and Five—the strongest storms on the hurricane intensity scale—has doubled since 1970.

This finding coincides with a 1°F (0.5°C) rise in global sea-surface temperature over the same time period.

Lingering Concerns

Not everyone is convinced by the new study.

For example, Christopher Landsea, a researcher with the National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida, is uncertain whether the global trend toward stronger hurricanes is real.

"We look at hurricanes a lot differently today than we did in the early 1970s," he said.
Storms that were recorded 30 years ago as weak may actually have been much stronger, according to Landsea.

The ocean basin with the best historical record, the North Atlantic, shows the smallest increase in stronger storms. And that increase, Landsea said, can be attributed to natural variability.
The Atlantic was stormy in the 1940s, '50s, and '60s; quieted down through the mid-1990s; and is now active again. The current study only looks at hurricane activity since 1970—a relatively quiet period.

Landsea also noted that an uptick in hurricane intensity due to warmer sea-surface temperatures does not match the predictions of scientific models.

According to those models, by the end of the 21st century sea-surface temperatures are expected to rise 3 to 4°F (1.7 to 2.2°C), corresponding with a 5 percent increase in hurricane intensity.

Today's 1°F (0.5°C) change in ocean temperatures should correspond to about a one percent increase in hurricane strength, which is too small for modern instruments to detect, according to Landsea.

"So either the theory is wrong, which is possible, or the data is poor or inaccurate, or some combination of the two," he said.

Curry said that although concerns about the data are valid, "in order for our conclusions to be wrong, 50 percent of the Category One and Two storms in the 1970s would have been misclassified and [actually] been Category Four. Nobody thinks the data is that bad."

Nitty-Gritty

According to Curry, the link between sea-surface temperature and increasing hurricane intensity was apparent in data from earlier studies.

But "we didn't do the nitty-gritty statistical and data analysis to really nail down the link," she said.

Some hurricane forecasters, including Landsea, questioned whether other factors, such as wind shear, might be driving the trend.

Decreased wind shear—upper-level winds that can disrupt hurricane formation—would lead to more and stronger hurricanes.

Using statistical analysis, the new study shows that even in ocean basins where reduced wind shear plays a role, warming sea-surface temperature is the dominant driver.

"This new study really nails down that link," Curry said.

But the lack of wind shear influence still troubles Landsea.

"That doesn't fit my physical concept of how these things work," he said. "If you really get that many more Category Four and Five [storms], wind shear would have to go down."

Roger Pielke, Jr., is the director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

He says the new study adds weight to findings of a link between warmer oceans and hurricane intensity.

He cautioned, however, that burning oil and coal to drive our cars and heat our homes—which releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere—is not to blame for an increase in the damage done by hurricanes.

"It's important to recognize that [storm] damage is going to increase going forward, no matter what happens to sea-surface temperatures or hurricanes, as more people move to vulnerable locations on the coastline," he said.

"If hurricanes do become more intense than they have in the past, then that would be an additional factor," he added.

---

I'm thinking that i should amend my statement about how soon this kind of information comes out. This one DEFINITELY has a political backlash to it, unfortunately - which is why i'm not USING political sources.




---
We need Greenlander for some opposition...

And, VERY current, some people feel like not waiting around anymore (for Desperate Measures and Dinaverg):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4806146.stm

Well now, that's nice, I'd been hearing lots of shouting and not a lot of motion.

This got brought up not very long ago, and this is current:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1725786&page=1
Ozone Spurs Arctic Warming, Scientists Find

Ha! I don't hear anyone shouting about O3 on the streets. :P

Meh....and then apparently CO2 is responsibly for 90%....and 35% higher...hmm....

We need Greenlander for some opposition...
Yeah! What happened to that dude? At least the guy brought up links on occasion and gave something to argue with other than POV. :(

Well now, that's nice, I'd been hearing lots of shouting and not a lot of motion.
In some ways, it's indicative of a larger condition of self-centeredness and a lack of understanding of how quickly and painfully things can change. People tend to control their environment (as a whole) in a way that doesn't change so fast that they have themselves in a disadvantage to themselves ... but this is where individual responsibility far outperforms social responsibility. If it was all about letting the society make the decisions ... well, we'd ALL be "conservatives". :eek:

Ha! I don't hear anyone shouting about O3 on the streets. :P
....
Well, what do people usually shout about in the streets?

Simpsons: Old man yells at cloud
*headline*

Uno mas ....

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=282544&ssid=26&sid=ENV

Global warming behind spread of diseases: Scientist
Lucknow, Mar 18:
Global warming due to the increased emission of greenhouse gases is one of the major factors behind the spread of several life threatening diseases, according to a Top Indian scientist.

''In the last 2,100 years, the average earth temperature has gone up by 0.6 per cent. Although, the rise appears miniscule, it has caused extensive damage vis-a-vis out health,'' Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Director General, Nirmal Kumar Ganguly said here.

Due to global warming, mosquitoes will breed in countries, which are free of the malaise today -- resulting in the spread of malaria, filaria, dengue and Japanese Encephalitis (JE), he claimed.

''Tsunami is just a trailer of the catastrophe, which may happen in the future,'' he reminded and referred to JE, that claimed over 1,000 lives in Uttar Pradesh last year.

Migratory birds also play a major role in spreading infectious diseases across boundaries.

Prof Ganguly also blamed increasing dense human localities in cities and water scarcity for ailments.

''Stored water may give opportunity to diseases like dengue to spread in the metros...Delhi is one example, where it is creating havoc every year,'' he claimed.

According to Prof Ganguly scientists are now utilising satellite imaging to ascertain water logged areas for controlling the mosquito menace.

Further, he stressed that foolproof strategies be planned to control mosquito, not only in urban areas but also in the rural hinterland.

However, Prof Ganguly maintained that India had adopted adequate safety measures, which recently resulted in the successful control on SARS -- a disease which originated from China.

The ICMR DG was here for the C R Krishnamurthy memorial oration organised by society of biological chemists at the Central Drug Research Institute (CDRI), Lucknow.

Commenting on use of insecticides, he said Indosulphan, a well known insecticide, was sprayed in North Kerala, which not only killed insects/pests, but it also caused blood cancer to 300 people.

Yet *again* is on topic.
Feel free to add or detract if there's something you've got to post.

http://www.d-silence.com/story.php?headline_id=22484&comment=1

The greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is accumulating in the Earth’s atmosphere at an ever faster rate, according to new data published this week by the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The finding has renewed concern that nature’s ability to absorb the gas – which is believed to be warming the atmosphere – may be waning.

NOAA said the average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 reached 381 parts per million, an increase of 2.6 ppm since 2004. The annual increase, which has been recorded since the 1950s, has now exceeded 2 ppm for three of the past four years – an unprecedented rate. Half a century ago, the annual increase was less than 1 ppm.

The increase is caused by manmade emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, which currently adds up to about 7 billion tonnes of carbon per year. But roughly half of those emissions are absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.

Researchers believe the year-on-year variability in the build-up of the gas is caused largely by fluctuations in nature’s ability to absorb the emissions.

From this source:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8850-atmospheric-cosub2sub-accumulating-faster-than-ever.html

The greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is accumulating in the Earth’s atmosphere at an ever faster rate, according to new data published this week by the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The finding has renewed concern that nature’s ability to absorb the gas – which is believed to be warming the atmosphere – may be waning.

NOAA said the average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 reached 381 parts per million, an increase of 2.6 ppm since 2004. The annual increase, which has been recorded since the 1950s, has now exceeded 2 ppm for three of the past four years – an unprecedented rate. Half a century ago, the annual increase was less than 1 ppm.

The increase is caused by manmade emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, which currently adds up to about 7 billion tonnes of carbon per year. But roughly half of those emissions are absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.

Researchers believe the year-on-year variability in the build-up of the gas is caused largely by fluctuations in nature’s ability to absorb the emissions.

No El Niño
Until recently the biggest increases in air concentrations of carbon dioxide had always occurred during El Niño years, when tropical vegetation grows less and dried-out rainforests burn uncontrollably either through natural or manmade causes. The largest ever recorded increase, at 2.7 ppm, occurred in the El Niño year of 1998.

But none of the past three years of near-record increases have coincided with an El Niño event. And this is causing alarm.

Peter Cox, an expert on interactions between plants and the atmosphere at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset in the UK, says the recent surge “may be the first evidence of a feedback from the carbon cycle, in which plants under heat stress from global warming start to absorb less carbon dioxide”.

The finding follows reports that 2005 was probably the warmest year on record, slightly exceeding the previous record-holder, 1998. And scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre, in Boulder, Colorado, report that Arctic sea ice failed to reform fully this winter following the record melting during summer 2005.