SCI/TECH: A Wildlife Catastrophe in the U.K.

Hundreds of thousands of birds in the U.K. refuse to breed. Scientists are blaming global warming for this catastrophe. A rise in sea temperature has caused sandeel stocks to completely disappear. Sandeel are what U.K. seabirds feed on, and this has caused mass starvation in the birds.



Tony Juniper, Director of Friends of the Earth states, "This is an incredible even. The catasrophe of these seabirds is just a foretaste of what lies ahead.

Obviously global warming is a big issue. Is there a way to reverse global warming or do humans have to adjust and evolve?

[edit on 30-7-2004 by deeprivergal]

[edit on 30-7-2004 by Zion Mainframe]

Maybe the birds realize that they are ove rpopulated and the available food supply won't support the increase in added births.

Originally posted by flycatch
Maybe the birds realize that they are ove rpopulated and the available food supply won't support the increase in added births.

I would agree that it is very possible the birds will not breed because of lack of food. However, I think that they are only "overpopulated" because humans are overpopulated. I would consider it our fault that the birds won't breed and I think we need to find ways to fix this. Fast.

I find it interesting that a lot of my friends seem to be heading in this "refuse to breed" direction. As a twenty-something a lot of people I know simply don't want children. Admitedly this could easily change, especially as they get older, but I think as humans we are feeling the crunch of rescources as well.

I think I saw an earlier thread about dying pelicans in the US. There was talk of starting a research project. Maybe this should be included, as well?

Originally posted by deeprivergal
Obviously global warming is a big issue. Is there a way to reverse global warming or do humans have to adjust and evolve?

Saying global warming is a big issue is an understatement.
It is the issue we are all facing.
This is after all, our one and only planet.
On a more pessimistic note, once the symptoms of a disease become obvious, it is usually too late for the patient.
People are still in denial though. . .

We can only reverse it by stopping all carbon fuel burning and replanting the worlds rainforests.
Not going to happen is it?

Check how fast the Sermilik glacier in Iceland has receded since the industrial age:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Notice that approximately 50% has thawed since 1985.

Here's some more bedtime stories for our children:

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

observer.guardian.co.uk...

Here's a link to the full report:

www.ems.org...

[edit on 30-7-2004 by shanti23]

Originally posted by shanti23:
"Saying global warming is a big issue is an understatement.
It is the issue we are all facing....People are still in denial though.."

That's a simplistic and misleading observation. While climate is changing (and always has and always will), the part that is in doubt for many (both scientific and not) is the degree, if any, of human contribution to it.

Despite what the IPCC and over hyped media have to say, there is not a true consensus on many factors (such as solar influence and the real effect of increased CO2) and numerous other factors are still poorly understood which is why climate models are still very much inaccurate (garbage in, garbage out).

shanti23 also said:
"We can only reverse it by stopping all carbon fuel burning and replanting the worlds rainforests. Not going to happen is it?"

Nope. Not anytime soon, thank goodness. Why do I say that?

Planting trees (carbon sinks):
It's already a known fact that at best, this solution has a short term minimal payback. Aside from the fact that the erosion in stripped areas makes it difficult for anything to grow again, the amount of carbon absorbed would be minimal compared to the current rate of increase. And after the trees and plants die, their decay releases the carbon again. Consider that due to the heightened CO2, plant life in almost every part of the world has accelerated and generally, crops are booming. Yet with all that added absorption of CO2, it's barely making a dent.

Stop fossil fuel use:
The result of that hasty decision is to sit in your unheated/non-air conditioned, unlit living quarters with no job and little to eat. Once again, despite all the hype, alternatives just aren't ready for prime time.

Don't mention hydrogen power. Making that economical enough to use is still some time away and the trade-offs don't diffuse the CO2 issue. As the technical guru of guru's, Don Lancaster, once said, "There is no terrestrial source of hydrogen that we can tap into"... or words to that effect. The current scheme is to get hydrogen by modifying natural gas. This wastes energy, increases the cost of both the natural gas and the hydrogen, and worse, leaves CO2 as a waste product! All that just to harness the comparatively lower power output of hydrogen over fossil fuels. And let's not even get into deriving hydrogen from water... a process that requires numerous times more energy than what you get from it.

No matter what the source of energy is, there will always be waste and some degree of unwanted side effects like pollution. Burn hydrogen and you get water (hey, that's a more potent "greenhouse gas" than CO2!) and even some nasty pollutants when hydrogen combines with nitrogen (the major component in our atmosphere). Burn anything else and at the very best, you will get CO2. Wind power? That won't get your car moving unless it's electric powered. And with a future of millions of electric cars on the roads and other demands on electricity, we would run out of land before we had enough windmills. Solar? At the very best, it's only 35% efficient which would place even more demands on land. And let's not overlook the toxic chemicals needed to manufacture those PV cells. Oh by the way, the electric motors used on electric cars (hybrids included) also generate the harmful version of ozone.

None of the above alternatives even address aviation. You could power a jet aircraft with hydrogen, but the risks involved, shortened range and high costs would stop the airline business dead. Wind and solar are useless here.

And whether you're building a windmill or a PV cell, fossil fuels are used all along the line for energy and transportation from mining, to refining, to fabrication, to transport and let's not forget those heated or air-conditioned factories where thousands of workers drive their SUV's to work.

If you really wanted to stop all human-caused CO2 in the atmosphere short of making breathing illegal, consider other CO2 contributing human activities that could be looked upon as being frivolous or a threat: farming, fermentation of beer & wine, baking bread, having a cookout with charcoal or propane, a burning log in your fireplace, carbonated soft drinks (yes, Coca-Cola contributes to "global warming"!), gasoline powered boats, motorcycles, scooters, lawn mowers, snow blowers, and weed whackers, landfills, yard trimmings, heating your home with natural gas/oil/wood burning or electricity derived from a fossil-fueled power plant. You would also need to stop the manufacture of most plastics and metals and plaster and concrete.

shanti23 also quoted the "secret report":

"A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas..."

Let's not forget that (1) the Pentagon report was not secret, (2) the Observer "obtained" the Pentagon report as anyone else could have because it was available over the Internet, (3) the Pentagon report was issued in October of 2003 and the Observer stumbled onto it in February of 2004, (4) the report never says that "European cities will be sunk" because the whole report is based on a "what if" (5) the document stresses a few times that the scenario is "not the most likely", "caution that the scenario depicted is extreme" (6) the document expresses and acknowledges a lack of certainty as opposed to a consensus: "we should prepare for the inevitable effects of abrupt climate change � which will likely come regardless of human activity", "Competing evidence suggests that climate change can occur, regardless of human activity", "Further research should be conducted so more confidence can be placed in predictions about climate change.", "There needs to be a deeper understanding of the relationship between ocean patterns and climate change.", (7) the report is based on IPCC findings in which some components thereof are now being questioned for accuracy, (8) the report also addresses a possible collapse of the thermohaline circulation of which the possibility as well as the potential impact is still a matter of debate (9) the document uses words like "may", "might", "could" and "apparent" instead of "is", "will" and "are". The document does not and was not intended to express a definite certainty about the events that it mentions.

I hear what you're saying Outland.
Interesting reply, despite the fact it was a little patronising.

'Regardless of human activity?'
Antarctic ice cores tell a different story (or are they simple and misleading too?):

Global climate patterns stretching back 740,000 years have been confirmed by a three-kilometre-long ice core drilled from the Antarctic, Nature reports.

Initial tests on gas trapped in the ice core show that current carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are higher than they have been in 440,000 years.

"There is great controversy as to whether human beings have changed the climate," said Professor McManus. "But there is no doubt about the fact that human beings have changed the Earth's atmosphere. The increased levels of greenhouse gases are geologically incredible."

news.bbc.co.uk...

Here's a chart of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere since 1959

www.grida.no...

Here's another chart from the same page, showing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere from the start of the industrial age (the steep increase since that time is a bit of a coincidence, wouldn't you agree?)

www.grida.no...

'Regardless of human activity?'
The scientific data would suggest otherwise. . .

There can be no doubt what-so-ever that human intervention has changed the chemical makeup of our atmosphere.
Whether or not that will have adverse effects on our climate remains to be seen, although there is a situation like the one mentioned at the start of this thread almost every week, that would suggest that our fragile and mis-understood ecology is undergoing changes that we are just starting to notice. Should we do anything about it? Is it our responsibility? Or are we performing 'naturally' because we are an intergral part of the planet?

Anyway, human intervention or not, it would seem that the Earth's safety valve is about to blow and I guess we will all have to just suffer the consequences.
But hey, we're not going to be around when that happens are we?

Now where's my Coca Cola gone. . ?

people are still in denial. . .

[edit on 31-7-2004 by shanti23]

Originally posted by Outland

That's a simplistic and misleading observation. While climate is changing (and always has and always will), the part that is in doubt for many (both scientific and not) is the degree, if any, of human contribution to it.

Despite what the IPCC and over hyped media have to say, there is not a true consensus on many factors (such as solar influence and the real effect of increased CO2) and numerous other factors are still poorly understood which is why climate models are still very much inaccurate (garbage in, garbage out).

I actually would have to say that the "simplistic and misleading observation" comes mostly from you Outland. This is not the first time that our views differ on this issue, althou it is alright to disagree. You also keep saying that climate change, or abrupt climate change being affected by human activity is not the general concensus and that merely the media is the one making a big deal out of this, when it is in fact quite the contrary.

The media is not the only one that has been presenting this problem, nor is the "Pentagon's Weather Nightmare", the only report that states the problems of climate change and abrupt climate change to civilization.

Q Have humans contributed to the warming?
A. Yes, but there is debate over how much. Natural variability - such as that arising from changes in the sun's energy input to Earth, volcanic activity, and regional climate phenomena like El Ni�o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) - does play a role in adjusting the global thermometer. But the observed temperature record cannot be wholly accounted for by natural causes. As the American Geophysical Union recently concluded: "It is scientifically inconceivable that - after changing forest into cities, putting dust and soot into the atmosphere, putting millions of acres of desert into irrigated agriculture, and putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - humans have not altered the natural course of the climate system."

Excerpted from.
Woods Hole Oceanographic institution: Abrupt Climate Change

Just don't take my word, here are some more links and quotes that differ from your view Outland, and the view of the few scientists you seem to agree with.

Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change on timescales of decades to centuries, when compared to historical rates of change on similar timescales. Much scientific evidence indicates that these changes are likely the result of a complex interplay of several natural and human-related forces.

Although humans are relative newcomers in the vast scale of the Earth's geological history, we have become agents of environmental change, at least on timescales of decades to centuries. Atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases and pollutants, and extensive changes in the land surface, have potential consequences for global and regional climate, weather, and air quality, the Earth's protective shield of stratospheric ozone, the distribution and abundance of many plant and animal species, and the health of ecosystems and their ability to provide life-supporting goods and services.

Excerpted from.
US Global Change Research Program

Yes, it is true that climate change has happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future, but it is also true that since the industrial age we have had an steady increase in greenhouse gases that do affect the climate and it has been mostly happening due to human activity.

The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation. Continuation of historical trends of greenhouse gas emissions will result in additional warming over the 21st century, with current projections of a global increase of 2.5�F to 10.4�F by 2100, with warming in the U.S. expected to be even higher. This warming will have real consequences for the United States and the world, for with that warming will also come additional sea-level rise that will gradually inundate coastal areas, changes in precipitation patterns, increased risk of droughts and floods, threats to biodiversity, and a number of potential challenges for public health.

Excerpted from.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change

It used to be that most scientists, from different fields involved in this issue, thought climate change, or abrupt climate change was not a problem or a concern a few years ago, but now most scientists do say that it is a problem, and only "a few" are still saying it is not an issue.

We know that the earth has become warmer over the last century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), reports that the average surface temperature of the earth has increased during the twentieth century by about 0.6� � 0.2�C. (The � 0.2�C means that the increase might be as small as 0.4�C or as great as 0.8�C.) This may seem like a small shift, but although regional and short-term temperatures do fluctuate over a wide range, global temperatures are generally quite stable. In fact, the difference between today�s average global temperature and the average global temperature during the last Ice Age is only about 5 degrees C. Indeed, it�s warmer today around the world than at any time during the past 1000 years, and the warmest years of the previous century have occurred within the past decade.

We also know that human activities�primarily the burning of fossil fuels�have increased the greenhouse gas content of the earth�s atmosphere significantly over the same period. Carbon dioxide is one of the most important greenhouse gases, which trap heat near the planet�s surface.

Excerpted from.
Global Climate Change Research Explorer

If you don't think it is a problem Outland, then you are either not looking at what has been happening lately all over the world, or you simply decide to ignore it. We have had unprecedented and extreme weather from Canada, the Arctic and Alaska all the way to Australia, the Antarctic and other countries in between. Lately many countries, including those above, have had record breaking storms, lightning, hail, floods etc and these events are not isolated just to some countries, or just some regions, but in actuality all over the globe.

Climate Change

The European Union is at the forefront of international efforts to combat climate change, one of the greatest environmental and economic threats facing the planet and a top policy priority for Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstr�m. The Earth�s average surface temperature rose by around 0.6�C during the 20th century and evidence is getting stronger that most of the global warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, which cause emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other 'greenhouse' gases.

Excerpted from.
Europa Environment: Climate Change

Climate change is one of the most significant environmental challenges the world has ever faced. We are already seeing the effects of climate change in Canada. The potential impacts on our health, economy and environment require us to take action.

With the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the Government of Canada has made climate change a national priority, and is working closely with Canadians and the global community to meet this challenge.

Excerpted from.
Environment Canada: Climate Change

Some other links on climate change from different organizations from around the world. (meaning not only the media or IPCC)

Climate change is one of the most significant sustainable development challenges facing the international community. It has implications not only for the health and well-being of the Earth's ecosystems, but also for the economic enterprises and social livelihoods that we have built upon this base. Creative responses based on solid research, shared knowledge and the engagement of people at all levels are required to meet the challenge posed by climate change.

Excerpted from.
International Institute for Sustainable Development: Climate Change

The principal greenhouse gas concentrations that have increased over the industrial period are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons CFC-11 (CCl3F) and CFC-12 (CCl2F2) [Hansen et al., 1998; Schimel et al., 1996]. The observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 280 ppm in the preindustrial era to about 364 ppm in 1997 (Figure 1) [Friedli et al., 1986; Hansen et al., 1998; Keeling and Whorf, 1998] has come largely from fossil fuel combustion and cement production.

Excerpted from.
American Geophysical Union: Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

Global warming and the resulting changes to the world's climate are a growing problem. If left to run its course, climate change will have significant impacts on our economy, our environment and our society. New Zealand and many other developed nations are taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus reduce the effects of climate change.

Excerpted from.
New Zealand Climate Change Office

US Department of State: Climate Change

Federal Department of the Environment - climate change

Climate Change Impacts on the United States. The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change

The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research comprising nine UK research institutions.

UNEP: Climate Change

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

Caribbean Planning For Adaptation To Climate Change

I could keep posting more evidence, not from the media, that climate change, and abrupt climate change is a problem for civilization, and that we have influenced at least partially on the abrupt climate change we are currently going through. But, its really not necessary, right outland?



[edit on 31-7-2004 by Muaddib]

It's amazing that on a forum where "Deny Ignorance" is rule #1, some simply tend to regurgitate the same old stuff found elsewhere on the net instead of thinking for themselves and actually analyzing freely available data.

I could write pages of why the whole "anthropogenic induced 'global warming'" scenario is an overblown fraud and a scam, but this forum is too small and some "Art Bellian" minds are closed to only accepting doomsday scenarios.

The only scientific consensus of the scientists is that you either jump on the "global warming" bandwagon to preserve your career and get headlines, or you find your good reputation smeared. Fortunately, "the few scientists" (as Muaddib puts it) are hanging in there anyway. There are more than a "few", Muaddib. We only hear from the ones that the media chooses to write about.. the "few" who don't have to fear about losing their jobs because they're not backed by eco-whacko/green/socialist money.

Anyway... I'll do something really different here. Instead of posting that rehashed and tired graphic plot of the CO2 trend that someone else made, I can take the freely available data from Mauna Loa and combine it with the freely available data from the Siple Station ice core (look it up for yourself).

Then, I can add the global surface temperature anomaly (GTA) data from Jones et al (2001) which is also freely available. Now let's look at some graphic plots that weren't made by someone else.

Chart 1

Immediately, your eye(s) will go straight to that famous steep curve of CO2 increase in the latter 20th century. You may even notice a rough (and I do mean rough) correlation with the GTA. You will also notice that I added some historic volcanic eruptions to the chart.

Now as we are all being told (and some are faithfully believing), more of that nasty CO2 "greenhouse gas" equals more "greenhouse warming" (obviously, I'm leaving out some minor technicalities to keep things simple and brief, but you get my point).

One of two things should be happening at this point. Those with no experience in statistical analysis will say "Yup! CO2 and humans are the enemy!" -OR- You will be asking questions. I hope it's the latter.

We see that CO2 seems to be steadily increasing in an almost logarithmic fashion, but GTA is not synchronized to that trend. We have GTA rising and falling independently of the C02 peaks and valleys. We even have a dip in CO2 (1994) despite a peak in GTA.

We all hear that CO2 has been rising fast since the start of the industrial era or about 1900. But again, the GTA seems to have not followed the tend. We even see large dips in the GTA at some points well into the 20th century despite CO2's steady increase. To make matters worse, we see no GTA response matching CO2 trends whatsoever between 1858 to about 1978. The trends after that point even diverge with the GTA trend dipping while CO2 still rises. Now back to the volcanoes...

As we know, volcanoes can create a delayed mild cooling effect. That is clearly evidenced in the GTA data. However, we also need to realize that volcanoes spew out a large amount of CO2. Obviously, the cooling effects of ash and SO2 overcome the alleged warming of CO2, but where is this added CO2 in the CO2 data? As well, the cooling effects do not usually last more than 2-3 years after the particulates settle out of the atmosphere, yet the CO2 lives on for hundreds of years. This should make for an extended slow warming trend after the cooling, but the data doesn't show that. There are still those pesky dips in GTA long after the volcanic spew has settled. Now let's make everything even more puzzling..

Chart 2

Here, I compare the CO2 record to a 12 month running mean of tropospheric temperature anomalies (data courtesy of NOAA). No match here either!

No, don't even try that losing argument about "The troposphere is miles above us and we live down on the ground!" You lose because: (1) the troposphere also starts from the ground up to about 7-18 km high depending on latitude, (2) the satellite temperature anomalies are based on measurements over a wide altitude range of the troposphere, (3) CO2 is somewhat evenly dispersed in the atmosphere, so it's alleged warming effect should be as well.

Now some points to ponder and challenge your curiosity:

�Most of commercial aviation travels in the low to mid troposphere belching out millions of tons of scorching hot CO2 at high altitudes. Yet the lower troposphere has only shown a mild temperature increase while the mid to high troposphere shows no warming and even a slight cooling, respectively.

�To say that a nearly 100PPM increase in CO2 over 150 years is responsible for a more than negligible increase in warming is to say that CO2 has some super capacity to absorb heat (IR). It does not. In our large atmosphere, how can a measly total amount of 0.038% of CO2 allegedly capture and distribute all that heat (IR)?

�If anyone is in denial, it is those who ignore that water vapor is twice as effective at absorbing and re-emitting heat than CO2 is and water vapor is 1100 to 1500 times more abundant in the atmosphere. Combining water vapor's spectral absorption efficiency with it's comparative volume and you roughly get a factor of 2200 to 3000 times the "greenhouse" capability compared to CO2. The specific heat (heat capacity) of CO2 is a fraction of that of molecular water vapor.

�And what about the barely mentioned increase in atmospheric clouds over the last 60 years? Again, water vapor is all but ignored. Even the best climate models can't get that right.

�Aside from monitoring CO2 at the Antarctic, the data most relied upon is from Mauna Loa. Considering that Hawaii's air currents come mainly from China and the rest of Asia, how does that logically relate to the U.S. mainland? Never mind the fact that Hawaii's active volcanoes are constantly spewing out CO2 of their own.. right next door to the monitoring station.

If there's too much CO2 in the atmosphere, the troposphere should be heating up like mad, but it's not. It is true that CO2 absorbs IR in the wavelength region conveyed as heat (around 15�M for CO2), but while a CO2 molecule reacts in a phase of absorbing the IR, it also slows passage of the IR (blocks) at the same time. In other words: The molecule absorbs heat from the IR wave by means of excitation by radiance. It can then re-emit (or transfer) the heat either by radiance or a kinetic transfer of energy to another molecule (any molecule it bumps into) only if that molecule is in a lower energy state. Like any other molecule, it can not absorb or dissipate more energy than it is subjected to.

To illustrate that absorption of IR is similar to blocking IR, consider the popular method used to measure CO2 in the first place (just like at Mauna Loa). CO2, like many other gases, is measured by passing it through a chamber. At one end of the chamber is a wide-band source of IR. At the other end is a photo detector filtered to "see" IR at a specific wavelength. In the case of CO2, this is 15�M. The amount of CO2 detected is a function of how much IR is blocked at the detector end. The higher the amount of CO2, the less IR reaches the detector. If the gas was left in the chamber long enough, the detector would eventually "see" the IR wavelength again after all of the CO2 molecules had reached equilibrium. The more CO2 in the chamber, the longer this will take. Therefore, re-radiative blocking is occurring. The absorbed heat must be transferred by kinetic means.

What evolves is a transfer of energy from excited molecules to those molecules with less energy in an effort to create equilibrium (distribution). As more energy is absorbed, more is distributed. Thusly, an over abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere should be trapping that heat in the atmosphere. Therefore, the troposphere should be much warmer than it is. But it's not. Because these physical laws are part of the climate models, those models also say that the troposphere should be warming. What's wrong?

One flaw is that no one can really quantify exactly how much CO2 would be needed to induce a more than negligible impact. It's extremely hard to believe that 0.038% is enough to do the deed. The IPCC says that doubling the current amount would be catastrophic, but that is at best, a guess. So far, the data trends say otherwise.

In my past experience with volumetric gas analysis, I would estimate that the required level of CO2 to cause noticeable warming wouldn't be of much concern because you would suffocate before then. That's between 5000 to 10,000 PPM depending on various factors.

Consider something more tangible than "greenhouse gas" theories. Over the many generations of people on this planet, personal costs and investments have grown along with economies and population. Climate has always been in a state of flux and often enough, disaster strikes. A hurricane here, a flood there and drought over there. Who pays for devastated towns, ruined crops, hail damaged cars and ships lost at sea? The big banks, the big insurance companies and of course, you in the end.

The insurance companies, banks and governments can't ask God to reimburse them for an "act of God", but someone has to pay. For them, wouldn't it be nice to actually pin the blame on some entity that has money? Shortly after the onset of the "greenies" screaming about ice ages and global warming, news stories popped up with more frequency about governments and insurers screaming about the cost of one "act of God" after another. Their day was made with the notion of "anthropogenic induced global warming". They could now pave the way to blame entire countries in order to seek reimbursement. Further, they could make big profits from the idea of investing in carbon trading and alternate technologies.

Even the oil companies that you hate so much stand to make large gains even if no one buys gas at the pumps. With the hype over hydrogen power, you'll soon be driving a hydrogen fueled car to your fuel cell powered office. Both of which will be deriving the hydrogen fuel from... NATURAL GAS owned and distributed by Exxon and the rest. This will do little to help the "global warming" problem since processing of natural gas creates a waste product of MORE CO2!!!

Geeez... for a bunch of people who love to wallow in conspiracies, you can't smell this one under your nose? And this is only the tip of the melting iceberg.

Originally posted by shanti23
Now where's my Coca Cola gone. . ?
people are still in denial. . .

Then I guess that you must be in denial as well. What have you personally done to reduce the amount of "greenhouse gases" that you contribute? Have you traded in your car to ride an electric rail system? Ooops... that emits bad ozone.

Are you powering your home with solar cells? Hmm.. don't ask what they do with the waste cyanide used in processing those cells.

Are you growing your own food so that you won't be contributing to those nasty fossil fueled trucks and railroads that deliver products to your store? Ooops.. composting creates CO2 and methane.

Have you given up on that Coca Cola? There is no such thing as good CO2 or bad CO2 if you're a believer in human induced "global warming". It's all the same CO2. It's not like the "good ozone" / "bad ozone" thing.

On an interesting note, suppliers of compressed gases (like Praxair for one) readily state on their website that one source for their CO2 is from natural wells (underground). Natural or not, it winds up in the atmosphere. I don't see anyone suing them.

Electric motors do not make more ozone then a CRT monitor. If you use brushless motors then there is no ozone at all. Mercury arc lamps and high output strobe tubes output more ozone then CRTs. O3 is more reactive and could be used like N2O.

Put me down as a non-believer in today's politically correct group-think that human activity is responsible for global warming.

Aside from the detailed and persuasive presentation from Outland (for which, may I express my appreciation and admiration), consider also this: the Earth has gone through many rapid and substantial climate changes in its history. We are just coming off an ice-age that ended only 10,000 years ago (a blink of geologic time). It stands to reason the Earth has been warming ever since. There have been over 20 glacial advances and retreats in the past 2 million years alone (see the Illinois State Museum site at Illinois State Musem.

We just happen to be in a geologic period when the Earth is warming. Having said all that, I will concede there is room for debate as to the extent human activity is contributing to it. However, there is no room for jumping to conclusions, hysteria, and pushing for radical, hasty "solutions". The evidence, as most responsible climatologists state, is inconclusive, and the Earth as a "system" is horrendously complex and defiant of easy analysis.

Originally posted by Outland
It's amazing that on a forum where "Deny Ignorance" is rule #1, some simply tend to regurgitate the same old stuff found elsewhere on the net instead of thinking for themselves and actually analyzing freely available data.

I could write pages of why the whole "anthropogenic induced 'global warming'" scenario is an overblown fraud and a scam, but this forum is too small and some "Art Bellian" minds are closed to only accepting doomsday scenarios.

The only scientific consensus of the scientists is that you either jump on the "global warming" bandwagon to preserve your career and get headlines, or you find your good reputation smeared. Fortunately, "the few scientists" (as Muaddib puts it) are hanging in there anyway. There are more than a "few", Muaddib. We only hear from the ones that the media chooses to write about.. the "few" who don't have to fear about losing their jobs because they're not backed by eco-whacko/green/socialist money.

Now as we are all being told (and some are faithfully believing), more of that nasty CO2 "greenhouse gas" equals more "greenhouse warming" (obviously, I'm leaving out some minor technicalities to keep things simple and brief, but you get my point).

Geeez... for a bunch of people who love to wallow in conspiracies, you can't smell this one under your nose? And this is only the tip of the melting iceberg.

Outland, I am starting to think that you have some ulterior motive for posting at all in ATS. The only posts I have seen you respond to are those related with "global warming," "climate change" and/or "abrupt climate change" and you always seem hell bend on downplaying any reports having to do with "climate change," even when there is real data that corroborates that human activity does have an impact, on climate change.

This with the fact that you mentioned that ATS is a "small forum" makes me believe that your sole purpose is going around different forums and downplaying anything having to do with "climate change," but who knows perhaps you just like doing this for some reason.

Not only that, but you even try to downplay this more by namecalling, such as saying people who fund scientists that believe that human activity probably does have an effect on the climate must be socialists? or "hinting" those thinking that it could be true that human activity does play an important role in climate change are socialists?....even giving those who disagree with you other names.... Now, i am not the kind of person that would see a spook when people speak their minds, but this is too much Outland....even for you.

Talking about conspiracy wallowing....if you think that NOAA, NASA, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and other respectable and reliable agencies from around the globe "must be funded by socialists" and "Art Bellians"........... Now that's a conspiracy i haven't heard about..... not to say that you must be really closed minded to even have this thought cross your mind.

Now, going back to the topic at hand, nice try on trying to portray that human activities only emit CO2, but it is not the only gas that we are releasing into the atmosphere.

There are other gases that are emitted by human activity into the atmosphere, and quite a few of these other gases absorb heat more than CO2 (carbon dioxide).

SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride), PFCs (perfluorocarbons) and
HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) are a lot more powerful, non-natural occurring gases than CO2, are generated by industrial processes, and PFCs, HFCs are the most heat absorbing of the gases. Depending on the HFC some absorb heat per molecule from 140 times more than CO2, in the case of HFC-152a, to 12,000 times more heat absorbtion per molecule than CO2 in the case of HFC-23.

There are other greenhouse gases which are emitted in the industrial/agricultural processes, such as N2O (Nitrous oxide) which absorbs heat 270 times more per molecule, than CO2. Another greenhouse gas is CH4 (Methane), and it traps heat 21 times more per molecule, than CO2. Althou these last two greenhouse gases also occur naturally, we do add quite a good amount of these, and other gases and chemicals, by our emissions to the atmosphere and the oceans.

The problem doesn't just come from one gas that is emitted by human activity, but the effects from the total amount of "gases" and "chemicals" that we emit into the atmosphere and the oceans, and this total amount of gases and chemicals do play a role on global warming and climate change.

One problem that I also see which you continously overlook in this issue is the role of the ocean on greenhouse gases and climate change. We also dump tons of harmful chemicals into the oceans, and this also does affect the climate as well as making other problems, such as taking out of balance the food chain in the oceans.

The world oceans absorb about half of the human emitted carbon dioxide, and this does have an effect on global warming, because of this there is a chain reaction since this absorbtion creates more acid, (carbonic acid dissolves calcium carbonate, which is needed by sea creatures to make their shells) which threaten the life in the oceans, including phyto-plankton.

Phyto-plankton are actually responsible for 50% of the Earth photosyntesis, they are pretty much the base of the food chain in the ocean, and it has been found that they play an important role on the climate since they absorb CO2 and influence climate in other ways also.

Here is a link to phytoplankton, and how they influence climate change.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

Here is a link to more information on this, but oh wait, they must be socialists since they actually disagree with you.....
news.bbc.co.uk...

We both actually agree that this "is only the tip of the iceberg," just look at what is happening around the world....or perhaps everything that is happening must just be something we "art Bellians" invented, its not real at all....

Oh and BTW Outland, I can think pretty darn good for myself thank you very much.....


---edited to add some links and to correct spelling---

[edit on 4-8-2004 by Muaddib]

Outland presents a formidable argument, one that can only be admired.
Although it is slightly ruined by the content pointed out by mauddib's post and that patronising tone just won't go away. . .or is that just the way I'm reading it?

Oh no, here it is:

Originally by Outland
I could write pages of why the whole "anthropogenic induced 'global warming'" scenario is an overblown fraud and a scam, but this forum is too small and some "Art Bellian" minds are closed to only accepting doomsday scenarios.

Thanks for those assumptions.
But, there are some really good points in your posts Outland.
Anyway. . .

The Global Warming scenario can be likened to a religion.
It cannot be proven, but people will radically change their lifestyle because of it.
Global warming activists associate differing beliefs with low morality.
Natural disasters are credited to global warming, just like any other deity. And of course, the last chapter of the global warming story is a doomsday scenario.

Jim, NJ, USA

And in this light, Outland is an enviromental atheist.

Or does that put me in your 'Art Bellian' pigeon hole?

One could argue that mankind has had no effect what-so-ever on this planet, but it wouldn't be true.
The fact is this: we do not understand our ecology enough.
Something is wrong ( A Wildlife Catastrophe in the U.K. for example) and whether or not people are making money from it is beside the point.
If international CO2 emission control becomes a political tool then it is because human beings will use anything at their disposal as a political tool, not because it is a political tool in itself; that really is paranoid conspiracy theory at its best.
Anyway, there is a lot more than CO2 causing our problems, as muaddib points out.
Butterfly wings and hurricanes. . .

Or does that put me in your 'eco-whacko/green/socialist' pigeon hole?

Originally by Outland
It's amazing that on a forum where "Deny Ignorance" is rule #1, some simply tend to regurgitate the same old stuff found elsewhere on the net instead of thinking for themselves and actually analyzing freely available data.

I can think for myself, I think
I didn't make my own CO2 graph because there are enough CO2 graphs (and limited time and energy on my behalf).
Like I don't make my own knife and fork when sitting down to dinner, I open the draw and use ready made ones - does that make my knife and fork any less effective?
And to be honest, my metallurgy skills aren't very good and I'd have to copy the current knife and fork designs because they are more effective than anything I could create - does that make me ignorant?

And it's not a rule, it's a challenge.

[edit on 4-8-2004 by shanti23]

Originally posted by Outland
As we know, volcanoes can create a delayed mild cooling effect. That is clearly evidenced in the GTA data. However, we also need to realize that volcanoes spew out a large amount of CO2. Obviously, the cooling effects of ash and SO2 overcome the alleged warming of CO2, but where is this added CO2 in the CO2 data?

Amount of CO2 spewed out by volcanoes is miniscule compared to human CO2 emissions... that's where it is.

Originally posted by Outland
Are you growing your own food so that you won't be contributing to those nasty fossil fueled trucks and railroads that deliver products to your store? Ooops.. composting creates CO2 and methane.

Now you walked to your own hole.
That CO2 produced by composting food plants and those is already in circulation/"equation". (and you can't prevent this by burning fossil fuels)
But carbon in fossil fuels have been out of circulation/equation hundred million years.
It's same if you warm your house with firewoods, of course burning those releases CO2, same amount as that tree absorbed when gowing... but that carbon is (/has been) already in circulation/equation because it would be released back to atmosphere in every case.
Now if you warm your house with coal that carbon has been out of circulation/equation hundred million years and it's now added to CO2 amount already in circulation.


It's little same like with economy, central banks control amount of "loose" money in market because too much of it and suddenly everybody would start buying more and consuming more which causes lot of inflation... and too high inflation is definitely not a good thing for economy.

Muaddib digs for a conspiracy..
"Outland, I am starting to think that you have some ulterior motive for posting at all in ATS. The only posts I have seen you respond to are those related with "global warming,".... and you always seem hell bend on downplaying any reports having to do with "climate change," even when there is real data that corroborates that human activity does have an impact, on climate change."

You are correct, Muaddib. I do have a motive... a motive to present the other side also based on real data, but data that contradicts the over-hyped level of human effect. While to you it may seem that I'm hell bent on downplaying, one in turn can also consider your offerings as "up playing" the dreaded fears and dyer consequences of mankind's foolish meddling.

The posts that I choose to respond to are those in which I have a great interest in and feel that I can offer useful additional or alternative information. I apologize to all for the exception of this post so far.

To counter a few of your somewhat misleading comments, I will emphasize that none of my posts refute climate change or the seriousness of it. What I do refute is the level and accuracy of blame being placed on mankind, the motives behind it and the alleged correlation with CO2.

What worries me most isn't climate change itself, but instead, the impact and costs of potentially bad policies that could be forced upon everyone based on false blame backed by hidden agendas and pseudo science.

Muaddib said:
"This with the fact that you mentioned that ATS is a 'small forum'.."

To clarify, I meant "small" in terms of space that is too limiting to present numerous pages required to detail my points. I in no way inferred that ATS or it's participants were insignificant in any way.

Muaddib:
"..you even try to downplay this more by namecalling -- saying people who fund scientists that believe that human activity probably does have an effect on the climate must be socialists?"

Observing someone's socialist ideals and referring to them thusly as being socialist is hardly "name calling". One who believes in that ideology is just that. Call them what you will (Green Parties, Progressive Parties, Liberal Democrat Parties, Labor Parties), they are indeed socialist by their ideologies.

If one believes that there is no front against capitalism and other western ideologies by those who preach socialism, then they have been living under a rock. The steady confrontation and attempts to undermine western ideology are abundantly apparent and out in the open. That in itself is not a conspiracy, but some of their methods of influence could be deemed as such.

For many years, environmentalism has been a useful tool for the socialist agenda. Hardly does a socialist website, manifesto or platform exist without prominently uttering deep convictions over environmental concerns as a proud banner. Socialist influences on numerous educational campuses take advantage of young minds who are taught and preached to by biased professors. From biased teaching comes biased scholars and PhD's who bring their instilled socialist ideology into their professional careers. Environmental and political professions are routinely favored targets.

One doesn't have to do very much basic research to find links between socialist ideology and the influences to such groups as Greenpeace, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund and others. But those are easy pickings and someone else can do a post on them. For this instance, and especially for Muaddib, I will take a brief look at his beloved Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI).

Say it isn't so! A Woods Hole Oceanographer forced to recant by the green lobby?
"An eminent scientist who was once the leading critic of global warming had to stop writing on the subject in order to continue his research. The source of the pressure that ended his publications was then-Senator Al Gore."

David G. Aubrey, Ph.D., Senior Scientist of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute once said that global warming was a myth?
"Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree. "

WHOI is nested in an area populated by other scientific research facilities in the village of Woods Hole, Massachusetts. One of which is the Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC). WHOI and WHRC, although not related in any obvious way, work together on many projects and share their resources. The founder of WHRC, Dr. George Woodwell, has some interesting relationships...

"Dr. Woodwell is the founder and director of the Woods Hole Research Center. Prior to founding the Center, he was... a founding trustee and is vice chairman of the board of the Natural Resources Defense Council -- World Wildlife Fund -- World Resources Institute -- Environmental Defense Fund -- Ecological Society of America..."

Dr. Woodwell also served as "Chairperson of the Science Council" of the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development, hosted by the very green/socialist International Institute for Sustainable Development. "Sustainable Development" is a more recent addition to socialist banner.

Back to WHOI with open arms for the left-leaning scientist..
"...(Robert) Morse's liberal views fell victim to his board of trustees and he resigned as president in 1971. He then joined the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, as director of research in 1971."

Where science and social ideologies mix, the results are suspect. Enough hooey about WHOI.. back to the green enviro-socialist connection..

"Who Owns the Environmentalist Movement?"

From the socialist "Common Dreams News Center", featured links to their comrades referred to as "America's Progressive Community" as:

�20/20 Vision
�Earth Charter USA
�Environmental Defense Fund
�Environmental Working Group
�Federation of American Scientists
�Global Green USA
�Greenpeace USA
�Rainforest Action Network
�Union of Concerned Scientists
�World Wildlife Fund

Here's a list for you.. "Progressive Coalitions supporting socialist agenda"

UK Socialist Party: "Global warming is an important issue for socialists and anti-capitalists"

Interesting reading:
"Federal Government Doles Out Millions in Greenhouse Pork"

"Global warming smear targets"

Muaddib rebutted:
"There are other gases that are emitted by human activity into the atmosphere, and quite a few of these other gases absorb heat more than CO2 (carbon dioxide)."

True, but CO2 is referred to most often since its content in the atmospheric greatly dwarfs the amounts of other mentioned "greenhouse gases". The few times that you will find any charts comparing atmospheric "greenhouse gas" volume to global temperature anomalies (GTA), you will likely see CO2 as the chosen gas. Why? Because its curve is the closest match (and not close enough as the charts that I previously posted illustrate) to the GTA. If we were to add all the other "greenhouse" contributors that you listed, any hope of a correlating match to the GTA trend would vaporize. By that means, your argument works against you.

As recently stated by Jerry Brennan who has taken over the "Still Waiting for Greenhouse" website, "While the atmospheric parts per million of CO2 have continually increased during recent decades, atmospheric temperatures have risen, and fallen, uninfluenced by any notions that some people may have about the powers of CO2. Atmospheric temperatures respond to realities, not myths."

Muaddib misconstrues my point:
"We also dump tons of harmful chemicals into the oceans...", "..carbonic acid dissolves calcium carbonate, which is needed by sea creatures.."

I never even once stated that heaping CO2 into the environment was a good thing, nor have I refuted other related effects. Again, what I dispute is CO2's alleged role in climate change. You believe that there is a connection. I see no connection, but a handy excuse based on bad science for certain agendas to blame mankind for any weather related disaster that comes along.

shanti23 rebutted:
"One could argue that mankind has had no effect what-so-ever on this planet, but it wouldn't be true."

I never argued that. Mankind has had a great impact, both good and bad, on this planet. I am strictly arguing against the over hyped role that anthropogenic sources of CO2 play in WARMING.

I noticed that with all the assumptions and tangents thrown about that no one tried to attack the charted data. There is no correlation between GTA and the trend in CO2 or other alleged "greenhouse gases" despite mankind's contributions.

Some notable quotables from some enviro-whackos:

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
-Dave Forman, founder of Earth First, and member of the Board of Directors for the Sierra Club.

"We in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels."
-Carl Amery, Green Party of West Germany

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
-David Brower, Friends of the Earth

Yes shanti23, if environmentalism spawns twisted attitudes that spew forth sad thoughts like the ones above, count me as a "environmental atheist". I won't subscribe any ideology that equates human life to something less important than algae.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Outland]

Another shining example of the socialist agenda behind environmentalism and anti-capitalism.....

Originally posted by deeprivergalTony Juniper, Director of Friends of the Earth states, "This is an incredible even. The catasrophe of these seabirds is just a foretaste of what lies ahead.

"Friends of the Earth" has a lengthy list of socialist and even communist bed partners. Do your own Yahoo! search.

Outland, that's too far of a stretch.... I am actually one of the few people in the forums that does not like socialism/communism at all. First because I was born and raised until I was 8 years old in a communist country. Second because pretty much most countries that are "truly" socialist/communist have become dictatorships.

It is probably true that socialists use global warming or any environment problem to further their agenda, they tend to use any problem, and demonstrations against any political system/governments that are not similar to theirs, just to further their agenda. But to say that every person that believes human activity most probably affects the environment is only part of a socialist coup is way too much of a stretch. Your points also sound like excuses that those involved in the industries that release such gases and chemicals into the environment would come up with.

I still remember not too long ago when the tobacco industry was saying and coming up with their own studies that said that second hand smoking was no problem, and cigarrettes are not a leading cause for cancer....

Okay, so we're looking at global warming being the cause of bird death in the U.K., please consider two facts:

1. The U.K. is a series of islands in the North Atlantic whose climate is made more moderate by the fact that, like all islands, it is surrounded by water.

2. Water has a tremendous thermal capacity and does not respond immediately to environmental temperature changes. (Take a glass of ice water and put it in the shade on a 90 degree day for three hours, it'll still be quite cold and no where near 90 degrees, even though it's only a glass of water and is completely surrounded by 90 degree air.)

With that in mind, the logical conclusion is either that global warming is so much worse than anyone thought that it has caused the oceans to warm dramatically (I think recent figures only peg temperature increase in fractions of degrees over recent decades) or that the loss of food supply is affecting the birds (loss of food supply can be contributed to migratory patterns, pollution runoff, etc.).

Muaddib jabbed:
"Your points also sound like excuses that those involved in the industries that release such gases and chemicals into the environment would come up with."

Muaddib; "My points" are about CO2 not being related to "global warming" at a scant 0.038% volume of the atmosphere. It doesn't matter if "industries" or anyone else use that same argument, the point is still valid. Again, the data comparisons between CO2 and GTA show no significant correllation. And again, you still have not tried to refute that claim with any counter data.

Instead of referring to factual data as "excuses", show me some real data where any of the so-called "greenhouse gases" (other than water vapor) have increased the Earth's mean temperature. Show me the physics of how 380PPM of CO2 can influence the temperature of the other 999,000+ PPM of the remaining atmosphere. Tell me how, aside from occasional volcanic aerosols, the GTA has dipped repeatedly regardless of the steadily rising trend of "greenhouse gases".

You can believe what some will tell you and want you to hear, or you can examine the data yourself and apply some basic highschool level physics. The science just isn't there, but the pseudo science is.

For other disturbing articles and threads related to birds, see the following post...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Folks, I don't know what the cause is, but something is definately up.