It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam



Congratulations! You just discovered why we have summer and winter seasons.




[edit on 2-3-2007 by loam]


Oh, the "rolly eyes" were just a good natured response to these, which I can assume were only meant as a put down because I disagreed with you. Standard demo response when you've got nothing ...


[edit on 3/2/2007 by centurion1211]




posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Standard demo response when you've got nothing ...




Striking out on all fronts, today, aren't you?

I'm not a "demo"-crat




I also notice you still avoid the questions.


Originally posted by centurion1211
Oh, the "rolly eyes" were just a good natured response to these, which I can assume were only meant as a put down because I disagreed with you.


Not because I disagreed with you, but because you were wrong and passing those errors off as truth...

EDIT: I just also feel compelled to say:

My hair is cut short... I make a very, very comfortable capitalist living... And...

I hate the taste of gronola bars!


EDIT, Again: Oh, and I voted for Ronald Reagan...twice!!



[edit on 2-3-2007 by loam]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
No.

I've just proved that I still retain an open mind on this subject, and therefore have not made a political choice to cast any blame (yet), nor am I trying to force changes on my fellow humans for something they may not be responsible for.

Hint: open mind = good, closed mind = bad.



No, you have shown that you keep repeating the same thing over and over again and only looking for small scraps of info, or a few handfuls of scientists that support your position.

That being said, I dont believe that anyone is still claiming mankind is 100% responsible. You nay sayers constantly berate the mountains of data that does point to mans affect. Ice core samples, for one, among dozens of other studies and YEARS of research into this have led our worlds most prominent scientists to conclude that man does play a role.

You have evidence from roughly 3 years of study that mars climate is changing and that is your rock solid evidence that earths warming is 100% natural and not affected by man. You dont have ice core samples from Mars, you dont have dozens and dozens of studies on mars climate over the years, and you certainly dont have the level of research nor the availability of data to come to the conclusion that what is happening on Mars is also happening here - to do so goes against everything that science is.

I dont think that man is the sole cause of global warming. I do believe we are tilting it in an unnatural direction however and making a bad thing far worse. The problem is, people who dont want to accept this truth and figure out a way to change our habits are resisting with everything they have because they are too wrapped up in their lives to be worried about anything else. Unfortunately, their apathy is going to affect the rest of us in a very bad way. I for one will not allow my world to be turned to manure simply because a few people who refuse to accept the truth are too selfish to care.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I found this part interesting


In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.


Let's say a tiny eccentricity in Mars' orbit, or precession of it's rotation, caused a tiny bit of warming. Which in turn, caused a tiny reduction of the Polar caps.
Which contain lots of CO2. The CO2 has to go somewhere. Like, say.....the atmosphere of the planet. Which would enhance the tiny preceding effect.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by KCJONES
Looks like you spin doctors didn't bother to view page two.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."
Just about the whole second page of that article debunks the Russian scientist.



That is frikin hillarious. I posted on another couple of threads this week using the OP's own article to debunk the very point they were trying to make with it. I dont mind people trying to find the truth in this, but this debate has been raging for YEARS. Fist GW didn't exist. Then, ok, GW exists but there is no way man is the cause. Now, most everyone agrees that man IS contributing, but there are the few stragglers that refuse to accept the truth.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt


Let's say a tiny eccentricity in Mars' orbit, or precession of it's rotation, caused a tiny bit of warming. Which in turn, caused a tiny reduction of the Polar caps.
Which contain lots of CO2. The CO2 has to go somewhere. Like, say.....the atmosphere of the planet. Which would enhance the tiny preceding effect.


That is very interesting. CO2 levels rise with temperature, kind of like what is happening here on earth - except our CO2 isn't being relased from polar ice caps, rather from our tail pipes and smoke stacks - in the millions of tons. The earth releases an enormous amount of CO2 naturally and I believe the earth is balanced out to be able to deal with those amounts. When you throw our contributions of CO2 into the mix, AS WELL AS our constant destruction of the environment and the various systems that natrually remove CO2 from the atmosphere, we begin to see that we are overloading the earth and its ability to heal itself - or at least the circle of life that exists on the surface.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Let's say a tiny eccentricity in Mars' orbit, or precession of it's rotation, caused a tiny bit of warming. Which in turn, caused a tiny reduction of the Polar caps.
Which contain lots of CO2. The CO2 has to go somewhere. Like, say.....the atmosphere of the planet. Which would enhance the tiny preceding effect.


I have no clue what you are asserting...

But in case you are interested in more information about the polar caps of Mars:




Mars, polar caps

Mars has ice caps at both its north and south poles. The perennial or permanent portion of the north polar cap consists almost entirely of water ice. In the northern hemisphere winter, this gains a seasonal coating of frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice) about one meter (three feet) thick.

The south polar cap also aquires a thin frozen carbon dioxide coating in the southern hemisphere winter. Beneath this is the perennial south polar cap, which is in two layers. The top layer consists of frozen carbon dioxide and about 8 meters (27 feet) thick. The bottom layer is very much deeper and is made of water ice. This knowledge that both martian polar caps consist almost entirely of water ice goes back only a few years.

More...



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

I have no clue what you are asserting...



Sure you do!
I'm saying the a reduction in the South Polar cap could cause an increase in
atmosperic CO2. Mars is a small planet, with a thin atmosphere. Small changes in atmopheric content could be significant.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Sure you do!
I'm saying the a reduction in the South Polar cap could cause an increase in
atmosperic CO2. Mars is a small planet, with a thin atmosphere. Small changes in atmopheric content could be significant.


Ok, but as I understood it, existing CO2 in the atmosphere deposits on the polar caps, and sublimes from them, each season. Net, net, there appears to be no substantial increase in atmospheric CO2 beyond the seasonal fluctuations.

Moreover, even assuming all of the polar CO2 (and remember, there doesn't appear to be much of it) sublimes into the atmosphere, how impactful could that be to an atmosphere that is already 95% CO2?


[edit on 2-3-2007 by loam]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
All I am saying is that there is some evidence for other factors other than just humanity factoring into GW. Is it beyond the pale that a number of events could be contributing to GW? I am assuming there has been a way to measure the Sun's output that have been measured since probably at least the 60's haven't there? I am also assuming there is geologic and or fossil records that would give insight into the Sun's more distant history. What do those records indicate regarding the Sun's output?[/qupte]

Indeed, the Sun has been looked at quite heavily as a source of climate change.

It is considered very seriously by climatologists, and not dismissed. The investigations and data collected over the last 30 years, as analyzed by most, do not point to solar changes of sufficient magnitude to explain the Earth's warming, whereas when you do the physics with man-enhanced greenhouse effect, it does explain the observations. All scientists recognize that if the Sun's output were to increase then we would have global warming as well.

At present the Sun's output appears to be fluctuating normally with the sunspot cycle, perhaps with a small upward trend (controversial, but not one big enough to compare to human-enhanced greenhouse.

There could be additional exotic solar factors, but none of them turn off the known physics of the greenhouse effect. So the Sun will add a future uncertainty to the known certainty of what will happen with more greenhouse gases.

For more information on solar forcing and Mars from a good scientific perspective:

www.realclimate.org...
www.realclimate.org...





I am not above ruling out humans as a cause of GW, just as I am not above ruling out other mechanisms along with it.


[edit on 2-3-2007 by pavil]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Loam,

but there is that 27 foot layer at the South pole.
Not sure of the square miles, but perhaps it could be contributing to the
content of the atmosphere.

Also, what do you think about a slight thickening of the atmosphere, rather than a percentage?



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Well it would be nice to know if Venus is any hotter as well.

Even if it is mostly a result of the Sun heating up Earth and Mars, surely all the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere and all the deforestation that is happening isn't helping the situation at all?

To me it just sounds like they don't want to take responsibility for GW and will just dismiss human activity so we can get on with our lives without worrying because hey, we're not the cause so it's all fine.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I have a simple explanation as to why, Mars is becoming progressively hotter!! Haha, its okay if I'm wrong, I just use logic, maybe my logic is bad and maybe im ignorant, but hey thats why I have you guys, so feel loved!!

Mars has a lot of volcanos and little pores that are constantly active and spewing out heat, methane gas and probably carbon gasses.

As time progresses, these methane and carbon gasses fills up Mars' atmosphere, this gases are then constantly being heated by the sun rays and natural occurance.

I think a counter to my theory is the fact that scientists has proposed that the reason why Mars' has no oxygen or that much water, was because it has a very week atmosphere, and thats why oxygen or necessary water component escape, thus leaving the planet barren and dry. If this were the case, I would think certain atoms such as carbon would escape from the atmosphere as well.

THEN AGAIN, I could be wrong about Mars' atmosphere, I pulled out of my memory, so hey support or disprove my theory, I would like to know as well.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   
To the above poster, is Mars not geologically dead? Ie; it doesn't have any active Volcanoes.

As for the atmosphere, it is thin because of the weaker gravity. It is still quite a substantial atmosphere though and the polar caps are evidence that CO2 is in abundance on Mars.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Let's say a tiny eccentricity in Mars' orbit, or precession of it's rotation, caused a tiny bit of warming. Which in turn, caused a tiny reduction of the Polar caps.

Which contain lots of CO2. The CO2 has to go somewhere. Like, say.....the atmosphere of the planet. Which would enhance the tiny preceding effect.


An astute deduction. I had not even thought of that.


Since everyone is cherry picking today, I though I'd join in.

All quotes below are from the original article.

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.


That's a big stumbling block.


"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."


Well, at least his theory is falsifiable. I dunno if we should all wait 15 to 20 years to see if his theory actually pans out. Seems kinda risky don't you think?



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   
As far as i know, there is quite a bit of evidence to show that the solar system is undergoing changes, not just earth.....





More than just Earth Changes So, all in all, what we're seeing is a lot more than just what they call Earth Changes. Some people get into the idea that there is an interaction between the Earth and the Sun that's going on here. Very, very few people are aware oft he work that is being done in the Russian National Academy of Sciences in Siberia, specifically in Novosibirsk, where they are doing this research. They've come to the conclusion that the only possible thing that could be causing this energetic change all throughout the Solar System is that we are moving into an area of energy that is different - that is higher.

The glowing plasma at the leading edge of our Solar System has recently increased 1000 percent Now, check this out. The Sun itself has a magnetic field, of course, and that magnetic field creates an egg around the Solar System, which is known as the heliosphere. The heliosphere is shaped like a teardrop, with the long and thin end of the drop pointing in the opposite direction from the direction that we're travelling. It's just like a comet, where the tail is always pointing away from the Sun.

The Russians have looked at the leading edge of this heliosphere, and they have observed glowing ,excited plasma energy there. This plasma energy used to be 10 astronomical units deep (an astronomical unit is the distance from the Earth to the Sun, 93,000,000 miles). So ten astronomical units represents the normal thickness of this glowing energy that we used to see at the front end of the Solar System.

Today, that glowing plasma has gone to 100 astronomical units deep. Although Dmitriev's paper does not give an exact timeline, we can assume that this increase happened in the same 1963 to 1993 period as the increase he found in natural disasters. Whenever it happened, that's a 1,000 percent increase in the overall brightness of the energy at the front end of the Solar System.

And this means that the Solar System itself is moving into an area where the energy is more highly charged.

That higher-charged energy is in turn exciting the plasma and causing more of it to form, so you see more luminosity, more brightness. This energy is then flowing into the Sun, which in turn emits the energy and spreads it out along its equatorial plane, which is called the Ecliptic.

This in turn is saturating interplanetary space, which causes the solar emissions to travel more quickly and charge up the energy on the planets.


I couldnt find the origional site i saw this on, so you have to make do with this dodgey one, that uses (almost word for word has if it was "cut n pasted") the article as proof of consciousness evolution, or something along those lines.

Dodgey page, but these are real studies, as far as i know

Just my 2 and a bit cents there, i dont see why it has to be one or the other though.

YES the solar system is heating up, changing etc. and YES we are pumping loads of rubbish into the atmosphere.

No reason why it cant be a colmination of these effects,rather than denying one just to prove the other.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
www.amnh.org...
first let me say i hope this link works if not just googel earths primitive atmosphere.
So heres my take or better yet the take on earths atmosphere dynamicks.
go back in time apx 5 billion yaers agaio earth had just formed and it was hot . the atmosphere consting mainly of methaine amonia and carbian dioxicide. with a presser 7 to 10 x greater then todays .
earths sea leave presser is 14.5pounds per square inch now . so just x that by even 7 and be astounded.
anyway after the earth cooled enough the valcanios that had been putting water vaper into the air for apx 500million years it finly cooled enough to condence and the first rain came . over time this created oceans .
At this point earth still had no oxgyen in the air it was still pretty much the same as from at first .
it was when life its self came into play that this changed .
the first life was singial celled algel typ or plant life in the main part .
Ovesly plants take co2 and store the C and relse the o back into the air .
this had a 2 prong effect 1 it started bringing down the air presser by storing the carbon 2 it added oxgyen to the air.
now skipping all the funkey transions that earth went through over the next billion years .
the co2 was being stored in massive amounts buy the life cycels of ocean plankton wich eventuly turned into the oil we use today .
so bascily 80 pounds of air presser was stored in the now dead bodys of untold amounts of ocean plant life .
once life got to the ground (non ocean) the same thing happened there
in the swamps and forest as the plants died and were buried creating massive coal deposites .
so now here we are 4 billion years later humans get ( i hestated to say)
smart . and we start burning the oil and coal as power sources for one thing or another .
Rember this coal and oil is nothing more the stored atmosphere .
so in effect by burning it were relising the co2 that was stored for billions of years back into the air .
now this eventuly will do 2 things 1 bring the co2 leavels back to closer to what they were thous billion of years agaio. 2 bring the air pressure back up as more gasses are relised back into the air .
science 101 people . higher air presser = more heat traped regardless the the co2 amount . The dinos enjoyed a averge temp of 76% f back in that day the atmospher was still 5x as dense and the oxgean count was 2x as high alowing the 3 foot dragon flys to live .
so were putting all these gasses back a million years worth in just weeks ever year for the last 100 years we been doing this .
Of corse we stick our heads in the sand, and even though I know these FACTS i still drive my car use my air run my electricty bill up.
Why dont we just change every one ask over and over.
Well face the FACT we cant change every thing we have created with our so called civilation requires POWER in one form or another and short of living like indians 200 years agaio theres nothing that can change that .
You have use a different power sorce it only changes the places we get the power from it doesent change the FACT that in the prosses were relising more gasses of any type back into the air .
I got news for u even if our cars put out o insytead of o2 we would still eventaly creat a warmer atmospher as the presser rises traping and able to asorbe more heat .
in conclusion the only real solution to human created problems is no humans to creat problems .
Ps u think if it would have been wolfs that evolved intellegence instead of apes the world would be different?



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
No reason why it cant be a combination of these effects,rather than denying one just to prove the other.


That logic would be too complicated for the naysayers...



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
OK, OK guys and girls, please listen;

WHAT IF everybody is Right?

That the entire Solar System is Warming up

AND

That we - the Human Race - have been warming up our planet for decades?

Now that is some SERIOUS problem then.

Means that we are warming up twice the speed.

Just admit already, that we as a Human Race are responsible for warming up our planet - but the Universal forces are way above us. So if people start thinking that Universe is against us, they shall keep on doing what they were doing before and say - "Ah Screw it! We can not do anything anyway, since the Solar system is warming up!" Now that is a wrong approach to the problem. We can still reduce CO2 emissions if we want to, even if our Solar system is warming up - maybe that buys us some more time to figure out what to do, because if you did not notice the Weather these days is going WACKO - if you belive in Global Warming caused by Human race or not. We are ALL still going to pay the price.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by KCJONES
Looks like you spin doctors didn't bother to view page two.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."
Just about the whole second page of that article debunks the Russian scientist.


Oh, i see, so the IPCC summary which was agreed upon by the policymakers and which only 30 scientists reviewed, a few of them who said they were not asked their opinion on the summary, and that's the proof the Russian scientist was debunked?.....


............
According to official IPCC procedures, the main science report shall be modified after publication of the summary, so as to "ensure consistency with" the summary. But surely it is the summary that should be edited to reflect the contents of the science report it is supposedly summarizing.
................
IPCC lead author and NRSP Allied Scientist Prof. Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains: The summary "represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists."

Lindzen also reveals that the summary had the input of not hundreds of IPCC scientists, but only about 30. The creation of the final version was conducted by a plenary session composed primarily of bureaucrats and representatives of environmental and industrial organizations.
.................
The fact many scientists were involved in reviewing the science report to be released in the spring does not necessarily mean these scientists agree with the report. NRSP Allied Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar was an official reviewer of parts of the document that related to his specialty (extreme weather) and has revealed the IPCC ignored his comments entirely.

NRSP Science Advisory Committee member, Dr. Vincent Gray, also an official IPCC reviewer, speaks about his own experience: "They sometimes take notice of your comments. They don't take much notice of mine because most of the time I don't agree with what they are saying. It is not like the scientific press, where you are supposed to answer objections; they don't bother to answer objections; they go their own way."

www.ottawasun.com...


Open Kyoto to debate
Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming
Special to the Financial Post
Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
.....................
When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."

www.canada.com...


A group of leading New Zealand climate scientists has announced today the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about anthropogenic (man-made)global warming.

The coalition includes such well-known climate scientists as:

- Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China.

- Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen, of Christchurch, geologist/paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, former director GRAINZ (Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand).

- Prof. August H. ("Augie") Auer, of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.

- Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealander, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.

- Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Perth, who conducts a comprehensive website: www.warwickhughes.com

- Roger Dewhurst, of Katikati, consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This Russian scientist is not the only one who says that there are other more important factors which mankind has no control over which affect the climate, and what this Russian scientist is saying is the "scientific concensus of Russian scientists as well as scientists from other countries.


Cosmic rays set climate change on Earth, expert says
Scientist challenges greenhouse-gas theory
Tom Spears, Ottawa Citizen; CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, March 16, 2006
OTTAWA - Stars, not greenhouse gases, are heating up the Earth.

So says prominent University of Ottawa science professor Jan Veizer.

He knows challenging the accepted climate-change theory may lead to a nasty fight.

It's a politically and economically loaded topic. Yet, he is speaking out about his published research. "Look, maybe I'm wrong," he said. "But I'm saying, at least let's look at this and discuss it.

www.canada.com...

You don't even have to look too far to realize what is the extend of mankind's addition to greenhouse gases vs natural additions of greenhouse gases.




Evidence of sudden warming in Earth's geological record is found everywhere, and in fact it has happened repeatedly.


During the Ice Age, much of North America and Europe was covered by a sheet of ice. But the ice records the scientists reconstructed show repeated patterns of sudden warming, called Dansgaard-Oeschger Cycles, when temperatures in Greenland rose by 5 to 10 degrees Celsius over a few decades.

www.nsf.gov...


RELEASE OF CARBON DIOXIDE FROM THE EQUATORIAL PACIFIC OCEAN INTENSIFIED DURING THE 1990S
................
“The results of our study show that the intensity of CO2 release from the western equatorial Pacific has increased during the past decade. By 2001, this reduced the global ocean uptake – about 2 billion tons of carbon a year – by about 2.5 percent, ” said Takahashi who directed the study that provides a clearer picture of the importance of PDO events on the Earth’s carbon cycle. “This is on top of the CO2 emission and absorption fluctuations seen between El Niño and La Niña years, which occur on shorter timescales.”

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are dozens of research and articles which point to the fact that our oceans have been dramatically heating up for a while now. The above is only about the western part of the Equatorial Pacific Ocean.

Our oceans absorbtion and release of CO2 fluctuate from 10 to 100 times the amount of CO2 released by mankind, and several recent research papers have stipulated that our understanding and knowledge of the Oceans fluctuation on CO2 has been underestimated, and our oceans are not the only source which are releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases at "unprecedented levels".


September 7, 2006

SIBERIAN LAKES BURP "TIME-BOMB" GREENHOUSE GAS

Frozen bubbles in Siberian lakes are releasing methane, a greenhouse gas, at rates that appear to be “... five times higher than previously estimated” and acting as a positive feedback to climate warming, said Katey Walter, in a paper published today in the journal Nature.


Walter’s project is the first time this type of bubbling has been accurately quantified. “We realized that our previous estimates were missing a very large and important component of lake emissions - in these bubbles were the dominant source of methane from lakes,” said Walter, an International Polar Year post-doctoral fellow at the Institute of Arctic Biology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

According to Walter, her team’s calculations increase the present estimate of methane emissions from northern wetlands by between 10 and 63 percent.

Water studied a unique type of permafrost in Siberia, called yedoma, which contains an estimated 500 gigatons of carbon, largely in the form of ancient dead plant material. “This material has been locked up in permafrost since the end of the last ice age,” Walter said. “Now it is being released into the bottom of lakes, providing microbes a banquet from which they burp out methane as a byproduct of decomposition.”

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

Our oceans store 98.5% of all CO2 that exists on Earth. Anthropogenic CO2 is not "new CO2 we are puting in the atmosphere." Mankind tapped a low percentage of the 1.5% of CO2 that exists on the landmasses and atmosphere.

But some want to claim it is mankind who is causing the warming on Earth when all the evidence points to the contrary?

CO2 always lags temperatures, even in the current Climate Change we are undergoing this is exactly what has happened. Tempertatures increased first, and then CO2 levels increased.

[edit on 5-3-2007 by Muaddib]




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join