SCI/TECH: Climate Fears as Carbon Levels Soar

According to the following news article an unprecedented rise of carbon dioxide now two years in a row are raising fears that our world may be on the verge of runaway global warming. There are some within the science community who believe that we are indeed on the brink of climate change, however there are many theories and suspect causes. The following article does shed light on one potential cause..




There is much more in the full report above.

Also according to the above report the heat wave of last year now believed to have claimed as many as 30,000 lives world wide was so unusual that many scientists believe it could only have been caused by global warming.

This has been a year also of extreme weather in many forms, leading many to suspect that something is wrong with the climate. Some believe we are now trapped in an ever growing cycle of global warming. Others believe that we are going through a natural phase of global warming aggravated by production of greenhouse gasses. A cycle which can contribute to the slowing or weakening of ocean currents which clould lead to global cooling or the dawn of a new ice age.

The causes and factors are debatable, the facts are not.

IF the production of greenhouse gasses does cause runaway global warming, Is it too late to do anything about it?

Related Past ATSNN Discussion

SCI/TECH: Satellites Record Weakening North Atlantic Current

[edit on 11-10-2004 by UM_Gazz]

Well, I'm all over getting a handle on our CO2 emmissions, but the statement that Mauna Loa is "far enough away from" CO2 sources is crazy...they have active volcanoes in Hawaii...that's a major CO2 source.

This very interesting I am not an expert in global warming but I wonder, for how long the CO2 emmisions has been recorded? Can Scientist use the data they have now to compare with let say 100 years ago?

I just wonder.

I am trying to find the link for it, but a while back Nat Geo did a pollution story. One thing they talked baout was the the positvie and negative carbon balance. They indicated that a large amount of carbon was missing from the equation and were unsure as to where it had gone? Its an intersting article none the less. But Valhall is right, how could the Hawaiian volcanos not be considered a source?

The only thing I can think of is they were talking about South Point on the big island. Its the Southermost point in the US and due to the winds, the air that passes over the area travels like 21 days without picking up landmass polution. Its used as "reference air" for studies.

This sort of thing happens every few millenia. If you look back through Earth's history, we've gone through a pretty regular cycle of 'greenhouse gas' density since we started up this whole 'life' gig.

Originally posted by Odd
This sort of thing happens every few millenia. If you look back through Earth's history, we've gone through a pretty regular cycle of 'greenhouse gas' density since we started up this whole 'life' gig.

Oh really? You have the data to back this up, right?

lol.

I've noticed that China's industrial activity and the use of the automobile has vastly increased I believe in the last two years. I heard they have lots of pollution and could be a big source of greenhouse gases over the Pacific Ocean since that is where the pollution from China would drift to first.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

Scientists are baffled why the quantity of the main greenhouse gas has leapt in a two-year period and are concerned that the Earth's natural systems are no longer able to absorb as much as in the past.

Maybe those scientists should see if the pollution can be traced back.

Originally posted by Odd
This sort of thing happens every few millenia. If you look back through Earth's history, we've gone through a pretty regular cycle of 'greenhouse gas' density since we started up this whole 'life' gig.

Yes...but it doesn't help to discharge more of these gases and chemicals to the atmosphere and to the oceans...or do they?

Have there been times in the past when we had large emissions of CO2 and we were not "supposedly" technologically advanced? yes....but there is more to this than just "it shows it is a regular cycle of the Earth..."

The oceans absorb and redistribute CO2 in large quantities throughout the Earth.....

The oceans hold 90% the amount of CO2 of the Earth....and phytoplakton are the lifeforms of the oceans that absorb most of the CO2....these tiny plants live about a day or two at the most, and when they die they sink to the bottom of the oceans with CO2....this is the main storage of CO2 of the Earth...

These microscopic plants sometimes grow in very large numbers and when this happens the temperature of the Earth lowers dramatically, this could also be the reason, or one of them, for the small ice age we had in the middle ages.

On the opposite spectrum, large die-offs of these species will result in the oceans not absorbing as much CO2 and making the Earth much hotter.... also underwater volcanic activities will make the CO2 that sinks with dead phytoplakton rise to the surface again... Other events, such as"El Ni�os" affect the grow of phytoplakton....and all of these, and some others causes, account for climate change, even in times when civilization was not as technologically advanced as we are now...

But.....do you think that humans emitting more gases and chemicals that kill off large amounts of phytoplakton, among other things, does not influence global warming/climate change more than what the natural cycles do?....

Sorry, but imo you have to be very naive if you think that human activity does not cause a significant impact/damage to the Earth's ecosystem...
When you add to the problem things go from bad to worse..... I don't see how some people reason that humans emitting all these gases and chemicals does not make things worse....

i am not saying that we should stop all human activity right off the bat, but there are many things that we could do to mitigate, it's too late imo to stop, the damage human activity has caused.

2+2 has always been 4 not 1 or 2.... meaning, when you add to the problem the problem increases....it does not make it less of a problem to ignore the truth about human activity causing more damage to the Earth's ecosystem and just mindlessly continuing adding more chemicals/gases that contribute more to the problem...

---edited to add comment---

[edit on 10-10-2004 by Muaddib]

Muaddib is right, and I'm not saying that humans are not responsible for the majority of the trouble. CO2 levels have fluctuated wildly since the beginning of life on earth, though, and the recent upturn in carbon dioxide levels is only a bit earlier than it would have been even without anthropogenic influence.


Homeostasis has hardly been consistent; that's common ecological sense. And the disaffected 'lol' was cute, thanks.

I failed to mention that phytoplakton is the main source of food for life in the oceans... Any major changes these microscopic lifeforms got through affects life in the oceans...and on Earth since there are many nations that depend on large populations of fish in the oceans..

[edit on 11-10-2004 by Muaddib]

From my experience I know that air quality in southern California area became lot worse since they started 'chemtrailing us'. I monitor the sky every day since the very first day they sprayed us and I have noticed the increased amount of the smog - more then tenfold, all since the chemtrailing of my area started about 2.5 years ago. From really nice blue skies a few years back -- it became murky, yellowish-brown goo, or reddish-black layer that is blocking the sky, mountains and beaches.


Also, visibility went down from 15 + miles to less then a third of that. I live in this area for over 17 years, so I can tell the difference in the skies. Strangely, no one seem to notice, nor care for this correlation, and when pointed out -- people think you are a nut case. I am positive that 'powers to be' are manipulating as usual by their favorite problem-reaction-solution method.
The fact that people do not seem to notice this change in the skies kind of proves that manipulation of the shiple is extremely easy, doesn't it?

I know one thing, pollution (including carbon levels) does not increase tenfold in a short few years, unless it is manipulated, nor do the upper respiratory problems escalate 3000 percent in same time period. If someone argues that could be caused by the cars, it should be enough to say that there are virtually no polluting cars on the road in this area, so the air quality should be better then 10 years ago, not worse.
In effect what "they" are doing is creating a greenhouse effect so that pollutants cannot escape so that shiple can get sick. "They" are also heating up the ionosphere so that the global warming appear as a real threat to survival of the shiple. Add the pathogens to the chemtrail soup and you have shiple riddled with illnesses. So, even if the shiple discovers a partial truth
(one level of manipulation) the shiple would be dumbfounded as to the real extent of genocidal intents of the 'elite' This is multi-level manipulation and shiple has a real problem comprehending this subject, even at one level -- because it is not easy to accept the truth if you are a sheep.

I am furious on those evil Satanists that 'run the show', but I am also very disappointed that average person does not care at all, not even for their own family. This behavior is like of that patient that does not want to accept that he has terminal illness. Ignorance will not make something go away but it can make it worse, or unavoidable. That is what we are faced with -- something major will need to happen if people are going to wake up. Only, will there be a time for that?
If the average person had any interest for the truth -- the manipulation would be over in a short time.
"They" need the suckers for the manipulation to work, so no suckers = no manipulation.




[edit on 11-10-2004 by incognit0]

Gazz... the killer heatwave in Europe a year ago was the result of a nasty persistant weather pattern. It would be like getting a high pressure to set up over California just the right way to cause Santa Ana winds to blow for weeks on end. It was simply a case of bad luck. IF it were because of global warming you'd expect the region to be at least warm the next year. Not cold like it was this year. If global warming were so real you wouldn't have seen a global temperature average below normal like you did this summer. Europe has one fluke killer heatwave and everyone thinks the sky is falling. Why don't you ask people in the Northeaster parts of the US about the winters the past couple of years. They have been extremely cold and this winters promises to be a repeat.

Val... they say stuff like that about Hawaii because they have to protect their theory at all costs. These global warming people should quiver with fear very time someone mentions the name Mayon becuase that volcano alone show blow the theory away. When this mountain erupted not too long ago it released tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Yet the global temperatures did not react accordingly. Why? Because these infamous greenhouse gases don't impact our temperatures as much as these people would like you to believe.

#1 greenhouse gas.... water vapor. Last I checked SUVs don't produce water vapor.

I love it. Let's put our heads in the sand and feel smug because "water vapour" is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2. Let's carry on polluting the planet and reducing the ability of natural systems to cope. Plankton isn't dying its simply reducing naturally (yeah right !) . The volume of fish in the oceans is not due to overfishing but to baby seals overeating so let's club seals (yeah right !). Let's tap billions of gallons of buried CO2 (locked up in oil) and release it into the atmosphere and pronounce any changes are natural (yeah right!).

Oh forgot to mention: water vapour does indeed have a stronger effect. BUT big BUT. A BUT you failed to relate was that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is constant hence its contribution to increasing temperatures is zero.

first , kudos to mauddib, the oceans are the vital regulator of co2 on the planet. also known as a carbon sink, they absorb the gas from the atmosphere. plankton being a huge part of this as the base layer of that ecosystem. next china, there consumption of fossil fuels has been growing rapidly these last few years. I think this may have a large impact of a reading. this is based on a personal observation of mine. I live in northwest colorado. a couple years ago i woke up and couldn't see across the valley,(about 2 miles, maybe less). at first we thought it was a wild fire. later discovered it was caused by a sand storm in western china, in the Gobi dessert I think. if a cloud that dense could blow from china to colorado, it could easily affect readings in Hawaii IMO.

So what we have on the best current evidence is that

global temperatures are currently rising;

the rise is part of a nearly million-year oscillation with the current rise beginning some 25,000 years ago;

the �trip� or bifurcation behavior at the temperature extremes is attributable to the �opening� and �closing� of the Arctic Ocean;

there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise;

the dominant source and sink for CO2 are the oceans, accounting for about two-thirds of the exchange, with vegetation as the major secondary source and sink;

if CO2 were the temperature�oscillation source, no mechanism�other than the separately driven temperature (which would then be a circular argument)�has been proposed to account independently for the CO2 rise and fall over a 400,000-year period;

the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere from combustion is within the statistical noise of the major sea and vegetation exchanges, so a priori, it cannot be expected to be statistically significant;

water�as a gas, not a condensate or cloud�is the major radiative absorbing�emitting gas (averaging 95%) in the atmosphere, and not CO2;

determination of the radiation absorption coefficients identifies water as the primary absorber in the 5.6�7.6-�m water band in the 60�80% RH range; and

the absorption coefficients for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude too small to be significant even if the CO2 concentrations were doubled.

The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It�s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I�m listening; but if there are objections, let�s have them with the numbers.


References


1. Sigman, M.; Boyle, E. A. Nature 2000, 407, 859�869.
2. Calder, N. The Weather Machine; Viking Press: New York, 1974.
3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change; Houghton, J. T., Meira Filho, L. G., Callender, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., Maskell, K., Eds.; Cam bridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K., 1996.
4. Hileman, B. Chem. Eng. News 1992, 70 (17), 7�19.
5. Schuster, A. Astrophysics J. 1905, 21, 1�22.
6. Schwarzschild, K. Gesell. Wiss. Gottingen; Nachr. Math.�Phys. Klasse 1906, 41.
7. Schwarzschild, K. Berliner Ber. Math. Phys. Klasse 1914, 1183.
8. Essenhigh, R. H. On Radiative Transfer in Solids. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Thermophysics Specialist Conference, New Orleans, April 17�20, 1967; Paper 67-287; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA, 1967.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.freerepublic.com...


OK what is driving the temperature?

TUT

I don't believe the active volcanoes would actually be much of a factor to a level reading in Hawaii. Sandstorms in Africa might even be more of a factor there!

Maybe even Mt. St. Helens this week...who knows?

But the reason I'm saying that I don't think that the local volcanoes would have much of effect is because the prevailing trade winds (that make Hawaiian air so nice and clean!) blow across the Pacific pretty steadily from the north-east, and Kilauea (the only active volcano) in Hawaii, actually lies to the sort-of-south east. Look at any topographical map of the islands, and you'll see that the windward sides are much more rugged, and worn down by the elements than any other side.

The trade winds blow most of the steam, smoke (and whatever else the fire goddess Pele spits out of her mouth) south of Mauna Loa's peak (where I'm assuming the sensors are...up at the observatory where you even can heli-snowboard on good snow days...haha).

The rest of the argument in this thread...I agree with the scientists...I'm sure we're warming the planet up.

I hope we change our ways. You Americans and Russians need to stop ignoring this problem that is beginning to affect us all and sign that Kyoto treaty! Get your heads out of the sand!

[edit on 11-10-2004 by radiofreebc]

I feel and believe what is causing the increase in temperature as well as CO2 is deforestation. It causes a vicious cycle that allows more UV in heating the earth and causes ocean upwelling to slow dramatically by heating surface temperatures of oceans. Lack of upwelling causes a depletion in the food chain of fish resulting in their depopulation. Increase in ocean surface temps result in more violent weather developing above the heated water. Over land the increased UV cause drought and an increase in violent weather when moisture is present.
How do we stop it? That's a good one. Simple. Develop a replacement for wood. Pulp for paper shall soon be unnecessary as a result of the INTERNET.
Now as a building and construction material, what about replacing it with blocks of lava rock. The earth seems to be giving us plenty of that. HINT!
It is light, porous, and readily available. Probably a good insulator.

Well I am becoming way to esoteric.

Goodnight,

TUT

Originally posted by Indy
Gazz... the killer heatwave in Europe a year ago was the result of a nasty persistant weather pattern. It would be like getting a high pressure to set up over California just the right way to cause Santa Ana winds to blow for weeks on end. It was simply a case of bad luck. IF it were because of global warming you'd expect the region to be at least warm the next year. Not cold like it was this year.

I was only reflecting what was in the article Indy. Really I have my own views. I believe there is climate change happening and I do not think it is man that is the cause. I much more suspect there is a natural cause behind this. A natural cycle of warming and cooling that has gone on for millions of years.

What I was doing above was reporting a news item, and let you all make of it what you will.

And to all ... Amazing replies.. Thank you

ATSNN discussions are where we create answers and/or understanding.

Tis ok Gazz... I was just venting on the subject in general. Please don't think I was directing it at you.

Tut.... great posts. The oceans control all. Much more energy is contained in the top layer of the ocean than is contained in the atmosphere. It is so easy for the ocean to manipulate the climate. To me the idea that man is manipulating the oceans is like the tail wagging the dog. It is just too easy and too popular for man to be blamed for everything. It is done because there is money in it.

In my opinion the biggest source of observed land based temperature changes in the urban heat island effect. But it isn't popular. You could turn off every factory in the world. You could ground every jet and shut off every car and it wouldn't have an impact on global temperatures.

Originally posted by tututkamen
..........
there is no need to invoke CO2 as the source of the current temperature rise
.........

The above is just your opinion, and an easy way to try to disregard the effects human activity have contributed to the climate change we are currently undergoing.

According to you adding more to the problems we have with climate change does not affect the climate or us at all?....

I have alredy stated before, the problem is not only CO2....is the total addition of all the chemicals, gases and other problems that we have been slowly adding to the Earth's ecosystem.

I am already tired of repeating myself over and over, so here is a link where I have stated this before.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Scroll down more than halfway in the above link to see some of the other gases that we have been adding to the atmosphere.

Your statements above remind me of those people that keep saying that they are going to die anyways and they prefer to live their lives smoking to their hearts content and filling their bodies with chemicals and fat which will have no effects on them at all, since the end result nomatter what you do is death...