To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Global Health
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > News discussions > General Science News

yor_on
global warming

CSI's Global Climate Change Initiative
http://www.conservationinstitute.org/clima...imatechange.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
http://green.nationalgeographic.com/enviro...w-overview.html

Climate Roulette: Loss of Carbon Sinks & Positive Feedbacks
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_fbk.htm

the Arctic.. Arctic Ice Retreating More Quickly Than Computer Models Project April 2007
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...arctic-ice.html

whales
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/315787_focus20.html

US plans to list polar bears as endangered
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learning...lar_bears.shtml
Polar bears are drowning and receding Arctic glaciers have uncovered previously unknown islands in a drastic 2006 summer thaw widely blamed on global warming.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1367342006

Sea birds’ deaths puzzling large, 'gull-like water birds that spend most of their lives far off shore until they nest'
http://www.thestate.com/155/story/110304.html

Famous Caymans coral reefs dying, scientists say
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic...ia-296952-1.xml

MASS EXTINCTION UNDERWAY
http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html

Now you don't have to belive any of this.
But i do ;)
soundhertz
I'll hazard an opinion.

I don't refute the data. This is the latest in the continuing chronology of earth's mean global temperature fluctuations. But how can we know the real percentage of our input into this number so soon? I think that that data is down the road still. Earth and it's neighbors large and small all are capable of producing more drama than this even if 100% of global warming is our fault alone.

Polar Bears were an adaptation of brown bears to the Ice Age of about 80,000 years ago. While bears have been around for a while, polar bears haven't. Like many species that have come and gone without our help, they may be doomed to a relatively short chronology. They also may reappear. The fur would conceivably turn white again given similar conditions. Remember, they are basically slightly smaller Kodiaks.
Other species however we are decimating. One look at "Blue Planet" is convincing enough to anybody. No one argues that we are destroying mini-ecosystem after mini-ecosystem in rain forests as well as temperate forests, along with all their proprietary little inhabitants.

The global warming diatribe is tedious and unproductive. It sucks into useless arguing all the time and energy that could be put to the real problems, the ones nobody is dunderheaded enough to deny - Pollution, Deforestation, Mining (especially in sensitive areas), Horrific misuse of fresh water in areas critical to it, the sheer amount of garbage from overpackaging/nonrecyclable materials.

No money or manhours need be put into guessing whether these issues exist. No more data is needed. We're convinced. If we addressed these issues like there was no tomorrow, instead of quarreling over whether or not we're making the temperature rise, we'll have a better effort in getting something really done, and as an added bonus, if we really are increasing the temps, we'll be easing that issue too, killing two birds with one stone. After all, isn't the solution the same anyway? The global warming argument is flawed because you can't use a chicken little approach with only conflicting and dubious data. Arguments will ensue. But pollution and the rest that I mentioned are real. The data is clear and convincing. And we are individually as responsible for ourselves as businesses and governments are. I'm as libertarian as you can get, but the planet has no emissary, and no voice. But I'm not looking at whether we're causing rising temps, I'm looking at what we know needs to be done now. We are obsessed with infallible packaging and perfect sterility and cleanliness in the products that we buy, yet the planet degrades with unnumbered forms of human generated 'soot' in the air land seas and bowels.

Here is some related reading. You'll have to copy and paste, as I wanted to offer the descriptions.


QUOTE

UnderwaterTimes | Study: Oceans Teem with Bacteria, Many Unknown ...
Study: Oceans Teem with Bacteria, Many Unknown; Numbers 'Exceeds All Expectation'. ... competition with dominant species, may exist throughout the oceans. ...
www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=26108731095 - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

UnderwaterTimes | Study: Oceans Teem with Bacteria, Many Unknown ...
Study: Oceans Teem with Bacteria, Many Unknown; Numbers 'Exceeds All Expectation'. ... competition with dominant species, may exist throughout the oceans. ...
www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=26108731095 - 28k - Cached - Similar pages


500 species found in census of marine life
Some 500 previously unknown species of marine life were discovered during the  .... Among the many new species discovered by Census participants during 2006, ...
news.mongabay.com/2006/1210-marine.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
QUOTE
   
Wild Animals: unknown species of wild cats in Guyana
Subject: unknown species of wild cats in Guyana Question Hello, Jonathan; ... The other species are quite small and many of them are poorly known. ...
en.allexperts.com/q/Wild-Animals-705/ unknown-species-wild-cats.htm - 24k -
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
   
Wild Animals: unknown species of wild cats in Guyana
Subject: unknown species of wild cats in Guyana Question Hello, Jonathan; ... The other species are quite small and many of them are poorly known. ...
en.allexperts.com/q/Wild-Animals-705/ unknown-species-wild-cats.htm - 24k -

How Many Species Exist? - National Wildlife Magazine
In contrast, the lion´s share of unknown species are small, ... Of course, the only way to really find out how many species inhabit the planet is to go out ...
www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/ article.cfm?articleId=177&issueId=21 - 24k -

QUOTE
   
[PPT] Cradle to Grave: The Life Cycle of Styrofoam
File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - View as HTML
Now, a study of the pollution rates from freight trucks in relation to Styrofoam distribution is an entire study in itself. For this analysis, we need to ...
www.ereciclaje.com/cultura/Styrofoam%5B1%5D.ppt - Similar pages
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
   
[PPT] Cradle to Grave: The Life Cycle of Styrofoam
File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - View as HTML
Now, a study of the pollution rates from freight trucks in relation to Styrofoam distribution is an entire study in itself. For this analysis, we need to ...
www.ereciclaje.com/cultura/Styrofoam%5B1%5D.ppt - Similar pages
  
UN PUBLICATIONS - Product Details: Air Pollution and Citizen  Awareness
The project focused on a matter that is crucial to the success of plans for controlling air pollution: The awareness and participation of the inhabitants of ...
https://unp.un.org/details.aspx?entry=E03251& title=Air+Pollution+and+Citizen+Awareness
QUOTE
   
World's 10 Worst Pollution Spots
"This initial Worst-Polluted Places list is a starting point," Hanrahan added. "We are looking to the international community and local specialists for ...
www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-18-02.asp - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
   
World's 10 Worst Pollution Spots
"This initial Worst-Polluted Places list is a starting point," Hanrahan added. "We are looking to the international community and local specialists for ...
www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-18-02.asp - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

Top 10 Metro Areas With the Worst Pollution — The Real Estate Bloggers
The survey measures metropolitan areas that have the worst air pollution. While the survey is designed on scientific principles, scanning through the ...
www.therealestatebloggers.com/2007/ 05/01/top-10-metro-areas-with-the-worst-pollution/ -
QUOTE

Toxic Pollution And Health: An Analysis of Toxic Chemicals ...
The mining industry overwhelmingly releases the most toxic pollution to land. In 2004, U.S. facilities reporting to TRI released more than 608 million ...
www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/ healthy-communities/healthy-communities/toxic-pollution-and-h... - 32k -
QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Toxic Pollution And Health: An Analysis of Toxic Chemicals ...
The mining industry overwhelmingly releases the most toxic pollution to land. In 2004, U.S. facilities reporting to TRI released more than 608 million ...
www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/ healthy-communities/healthy-communities/toxic-pollution-and-h... - 32k -

A 'Best' And 'Worst' List | Environmental Working Group
A benchmark investigation of industrial chemicals, pollutants and .... the maker of Suntanicals Sunscreen Lotion -- listed on EWG's "worst" list as ...
www.ewg.org/node/21993 - 25k - Jul 14, 2007 - Cached - Similar pages
yor_on
I'll look into that too :) as time goes by, so to say. The Internet is a blessing to us all.
But i can't agree on your view of Global warming being 'tedious and unproductive'. To me the problem seems to be that there are to much Data making us all bewildered. We have on one side a major part of the industry who desperately wants time to 'saddle around' to some other source of energy. Government's who has to admit to its seriousness, but doesn't really know how to implement the draconian decisions needed for changing our energy basis. No wonder that every finding gets downplayed in the end. And while we are discussing the climate continue to change. And every change we might in the end decide to make will at least take fifty years of continuous temperature rise before any change will be registered. There are so many factors talking against our use of oil and coal etc etc even without this, but nothing happens, if you don't count the right to buy poor unindustrialized countries share of 'pollution rights'? Which strikes me as more of a sick joke than a way of cleaning up our environment. Well that is how i see it at least.

And yeah, i belive we are changing a 'balanced cycle' of our earth into a 'unbalanced' one and i also belive that we will find a point where it will be very hard to stop it some time in our future. How long it will take i don't know but every time the IPCC has come out with a prediction they seem to have been forced to revise it 'upwards' the next time. So to me it seems to be accelerating :). and as i agree with it being a shame to treat our Earth as we do i don't think that will matter if we don't address this problem too. As for the Polar bears demise i have a feeling that the same might be said about us if we don't get our 'stuff' together :)

Btw: what will happen to the 'micro life' in the ocean if it acidifies? I goggled on your link 'Oceans Teem With Bacteria, Many Unknown´ That is our first source of life, isn't it?
yor_on
One of my biggest worries is the so called heat sink our oceans are expected to be. There is evidence for the Oceans acidifying due to its increasing uptake of manmade CO2. The Arctic seems to have started divesting itself of it's ice, giving us an even more accelerating Global warming. Also Antarctica have now started accelerating our climate, not by calving ice, but by severly diminishing of its CO2 uptake. " The oceans near Antarctica are thought to have one of the healthiest appetites for greenhouse gases. Their surface waters can guzzle around 15 percent of all the carbon dioxide produced by people, which comes mostly from industry and automobile emissions. The new study found the oceans are mopping up only about 10 percent of carbon- oxide, requiring projections for future levels of greenhouse gases to be bumped up accordingly. " http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...bon-oceans.html

and this for an estimate over how much the Oceans already have taken up from us.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ancarbon_2.html
safertr
While North America and Europe—where the science is strongest—exhibit the highest density of indicators, scientists have made a great effort in recent years to document the early impacts of global warming on other continents. Our map update reflects this emerging knowledge from all parts of the worl
http://click2info.net/directory-content.as...Global_Warming/
http://takeindirectory.com/takein.aspx?tr=.../Global_Change/

Although factors other than climate may have intensified the severity of some of the events on the map, scientists predict such problems will increase if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not brought under control.
yor_on
well Bro, Interesting collection ::))

for myself though i prefer simpler links that point directly to those facts you want to highlight in your post. a matter of personal taste only :)

Never mind. matter all?
yor_on
First of all to get some perspective i suggest that you read this transcript from 1997. 'Sea Level, Ice, and Greenhouses' a FAQ by Robert Grumbine at bobg@radix.net.
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/sea.level.faq.html

It will give you some back ground information on why it's just the Arctic that is starting to change at the moment, its just one page ( well sort of :) And its a good read. Take particular interest to what he says about West Antarctica and the ice shelves. When you come near the end you will find this

" That West Antarctica can collapse much faster than Greenland relies on another oddity of the West Antarctic geometry. Most of the ice sheet base rests well below sea level (500 - 1000 meters below). The important oddity is that as you move further inward, the land is further below sea level. So, consider a point near the grounding line (the point on land where the ice shelf meets the ice sheet). Ice flows from the grounded part into the floating part. The rate of flow increases as the slope (elevation difference) between the two sections increases. Extra mass loss in the ice shelf means that the shelf becomes thinner (and lower) so more ice flows in from the ice sheet. This makes the ice sheet just a little thinner. _But_ at the grounding line, the ice sheet had just enough mass to displace sufficient water to reach the sea floor. Without that mass, what used to be ice sheet begins to float. Since the sea floor slopes down inland of the grounding line, the area of ice sheet that turns into ice shelf increases rapidly. More ice shelf means more chance for ice to be melted by the ocean.

The collapse mechanism has a mirror-image advance mechanism. Should there be net accumulation, the ice sheet/shelf can ground out to the continental shelf edge. Go back to near the grounding point. This time add some excess mass to the ice sheet/shelf. This thickens the system to ground ice shelf. The grounded ice shelf takes area away from the ocean ablation zone, which makes the mass balance even more in favor of accumulation. So the advance can also be a self- accelerating
process. "

But, please read it all.
Now after this i would like you to read this. A new article about ' Study Finds Subglacial Water in West Antarctica Considerably More Active Than Previously Observed ' at http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=773

It talks about new findings considering ' a subglacial water system beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) is causing scientists to rethink the mechanisms that control the flow of ice streams into the Ross Ice Shelf and ultimately into the Southern Ocean. ' What this might mean for Antarctica nobody knows, but ' Some 90 percent of the world's ice is located in Antarctica, most of it formed in an ice sheet over the land. If rising atmospheric temperatures increasingly melt the ice shelves, their ability to buttress the ice streams on the land would be reduced, allowing more ice to enter the oceans and raise sea levels. One concern is that as increased subglacial water accumulates, it may move ice off the continent faster '.
yor_on
Study: Glaciers And Ice Caps To Dominate Sea-Level Rise Through 21st Century,
http://www.physorg.com/news104082524.html.
Now this is interesting, they haven't considered the view stated above ( yet )
But its still a pointer.
yor_on
"A study published in the journal Science revealed that since 1981, the Southern Ocean has been taking up less carbon dioxide - five to 30 per cent less per decade - than researchers had predicted previously. At the same time carbon dioxide emissions rose by 40 per cent, the study found. The reason for the slowdown is more winds over the Southern Ocean since 1958, caused by human-produced greenhouse gases and ozone depletion. "

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1926488.htm

" In fresh drafts of a summary of its next report, the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has said that it is more than 90 percent likely that global warming since 1950 has been driven mainly by the buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, and that more warming and rising sea levels are on the way.

In its last report, published in 2001, the panel concluded that there was a 66 percent to 90 percent chance that human activities were driving the most recent warming. The shift in language in the current draft, while subtle, is substantive. If it remains in the final version, scheduled for release Feb. 2 in Paris, it will largely complete a quest that lasted decades to determine if humans are nudging the earth's thermostat in potentially momentous ways. "

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/21/news/climate.php
yor_on
Working Group I of the IPCC, Paris, February 2007.

" Average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years. "

" Temperatures at the top of the permafrost layer have generally increased since the 1980s in the Arctic (by up to 3°C). The maximum area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern Hemisphere since 1900, with a decrease in spring of up to 15%. "

" New data since the TAR now show that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003. Flow speed has increased for some Greenland and Antarctic outlet glaciers, which drain ice from the interior of the ice sheets. The corresponding increased ice sheet mass loss has often followed thinning, reduction or loss of ice shelves or loss of floating glacier tongues. Such dynamical ice loss is sufficient to explain most of the Antarctic net mass loss and approximately half of the Greenland net mass loss. The remainder of the ice loss from Greenland has occurred because losses due to melting have exceeded accumulation due to snowfall. "

" Eleven of the last twelve years (1995 -2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1850). The updated 100-year linear trend (1906–2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to global surface temperature 0.92]°C is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901-2000 given in the TAR of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8] C.
The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.

The total temperature increase from 1850 – 1899 to 2001 – 2005 is 0.76 [0.57 to 0.95]°C. Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values.

Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise.

Changes in precipitation and evaporation over the oceans are suggested by freshening of mid and high latitude waters together with increased salinity in low latitude waters. Mid-latitude westerly winds have strengthened in both hemispheres since the 1960s. More intense and longer droughts have been observed over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. Increased drying linked with higher temperatures and decreased precipitation have contributed to changes in drought. Changes in sea surface temperatures (SST), wind patterns, and decreased snowpack and snow cover have also been linked to droughts. "

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Now i'll make a wild guess ::)) In five to ten years we will start to see a accelerating release of Methane into the Atmosphere, and the linear thinking of how the climate works will break down (again :) Earth ain't linear. Earth is a dynamic nonlinear system, and even if mostly stable , we are throwing a big monkey wrench into its cyclic gears. When a nonlinear system change 'state' it can do so very quickly.
yor_on
So what's new then?

I looked out and found this. It's a new study of how increased CO2 will affect the Oceans acidity. It has both good and bad news.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...a-rog030807.php

What is good is that ' "As the concentration of carbon dioxide increases, ocean water will become more acidic; which is bad news for marine life," Cao said. "Fortunately, the effects of climate change will not further increase this acidity."

There are a number of effects and feedback mechanisms built into the ocean-climate system, Jain said. "Warmer water, for example, directly reduces the ocean pH due to temperature effect on the reaction rate in the carbonate system. At the same time, warmer water also absorbs less carbon dioxide, which makes the ocean less acidic. These two climate effects balance each other, which results in negligible net climate effect on ocean pH." '

Now this is both good and bad because of what it implies, it could be taken as proof of our marine ecology surviving an even higher CO2 and warmer climate. But if you look above you will find almost the same kind of rapport that states.

"A study published in the journal Science revealed that since 1981, the Southern Ocean has been taking up less carbon dioxide - five to 30 per cent less per decade - than researchers had predicted previously. At the same time carbon dioxide emissions rose by 40 per cent, the study found. The reason for the slowdown is more winds over the Southern Ocean since 1958, caused by human-produced greenhouse gases and ozone depletion. "

Now where do you think that CO2 goes as it no longer is taken up by the oceans 'heat sink'? Do you think it will just quietly disperse? Or dissolve? Well, the rest of it (you know, that amount we didn't expect to be taken up by the oceans :) seems to go up in the atmosphere accelerating the temperature. Any guesses to this new amount of CO2?

Also the study mentioned first says ' "Even if we could engineer our way out of the climate problem, we will be stuck with the ocean acidification problem," Caldeira said. "Coral reefs will go the way of the dodo unless we quickly cut carbon-dioxide emissions."

Over the next few decades, we may make the oceans more acidic than they have been for tens of millions of years, Caldeira said. And that’s bad news. '

And here's another nail in the coffin for those wanting it to be the Sun.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007....climatechange1

And finally, if you go to http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics.htm you will find power point presentations of how they think the climate will affect us. I don't know why so many want to believe this to be BS. I can only guess it's because it will affect us all.

adoucette
QUOTE (yor_on+Aug 18 2007, 11:41 AM)
I looked out and found this. It's a new study of how increased CO2 will affect the Oceans acidity. It has both good and bad news.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...a-rog030807.php

What is good is that ' "As the concentration of carbon dioxide increases, ocean water will become more acidic; which is bad news for marine life," Cao said. "Fortunately, the effects of climate change will not further increase this acidity."

There are a number of effects and feedback mechanisms built into the ocean-climate system, Jain said. "Warmer water, for example, directly reduces the ocean pH due to temperature effect on the reaction rate in the carbonate system. At the same time, warmer water also absorbs less carbon dioxide, which makes the ocean less acidic. These two climate effects balance each other, which results in negligible net climate effect on ocean pH." '

Now this is both good and bad because of what it implies, it could be taken as proof of our marine ecology surviving an even higher CO2 and warmer climate. But if you look above you will find almost the same kind of rapport that states. 

"A study published in the journal Science revealed that since 1981, the Southern Ocean has been taking up less carbon dioxide - five to 30 per cent less per decade - than researchers had predicted previously. At the same time carbon dioxide emissions rose by 40 per cent, the study found. The reason for the slowdown is more winds over the Southern Ocean since 1958, caused by human-produced greenhouse gases and ozone depletion. "

Now where do you think that CO2 goes as it no longer is taken up by the oceans 'heat sink'? Do you think it will just quietly disperse? Or dissolve? Well, the rest of it (you know, that amount we didn't expect to be taken up by the oceans smile.gif seems to go up in the atmosphere accelerating the temperature. Any guesses to this new amount of CO2?


...

And finally, if you go to http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics.htm you will find power point presentations of how they think the climate will affect us. I don't know why so many want to believe this to be BS. I can only guess it's because it will affect us all.

NOPE.

It is ALL good news.

The FIRST report just confirms what we have discussed on this board. Corals and Plankton have been on this earth for a LONG time and in WARMER times and times of MUCH higher CO2 levels.

Hence their survival was NEVER in doubt.

Well except to the GW pessimists which have now achieved almost CULT status.


As to the second study.

Its NOT that the Southern Ocean is not taking up CO2.

Its just, as the report said, taking up LESS than some scientists PREDICTED.

Why you think that's bad news is beyond me.

The predictions were wrong.

So what?

It is NOT a "new amount of CO2".

As to where the CO2 went?

There are LOTS of CO2 sinks, but the study does NOT require us to recalculate the amount of Atmospheric CO2, that is measured INDEPENDENTLY.


As to the IPCC graphics.

Ok

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001sy...ppt#256,1,Slide 1

Shows that by 2080, using near the upper range of sea level rise projections, and using some enhanced protection (build dikes) that in a world with ~ 3 Billion MORE people (~ 50% of which will live on or near a coastal area) the TOTAL people who willl be subjected to flooding by STORM SURGES will be ~ 50 million more than at constant protection and if sea levels remained the same.

BIG WHOOP.

So much for the BILLIONS of flooding refugees the GWers have been going on about.

Or

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001wg2/ppt/08.02.ppt

Which shows the impact on warming and Wheat yields.

Gee, they GO UP.

Big surprise.

AFAIK there has YET to be ANY significant negative impact on the globe from a WARMER world.

If you think there has been, simply post an article that details a SPECIFIC SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE impact of GW that HAS already occurred.

Then we will contrast that to the KNOWN FACT that the Net Primary Productivity of the planet has gone UP ~ 3% for each of the last two decades.

Arthur
yor_on
Wow Arthur :)

You don't have to like it but that's the way i view it :)
You have your interpretation and i do have mine :)
But mostly those are links so i expect people to create their own :)
I believe people to make their minds up for them selves, and a guy like you i would expect the same ::))

Btw: why do you say
" Well except to the GW pessimists which have now achieved almost CULT status "
There are no singns of that here at last :::)))
555Joshua
So we are the first species to bring on its own extinction among many others we shall cause. unsure.gif
adoucette
QUOTE (yor_on+Aug 19 2007, 10:06 AM)
You don't have to like it but that's the way i view it smile.gif
You have your interpretation and i do have mine smile.gif

As I said:

AFAIK there has YET to be ANY significant negative impact on the globe from a WARMER world.

If you think there has been, simply post an article that details a SPECIFIC SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE impact of GW that HAS already occurred.

Then we will contrast that to the KNOWN FACT that the Net Primary Productivity of the planet has gone UP ~ 3% for each of the last two decades.

Arthur
555Joshua
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 19 2007, 02:33 PM)
As I said:

AFAIK there has YET to be ANY significant negative impact on the globe from a WARMER world.

If you think there has been, simply post an article that details a SPECIFIC SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE impact of GW that HAS already occurred.

Then we will contrast that to the KNOWN FACT that the Net Primary Productivity of the planet has gone UP ~ 3% for each of the last two decades.

Arthur

Polar bears are losing their habitat. That can be considered negative. More humans are prone to get hyperthermia, since they won't drink enough water. More rain will result, causing less drought. Won't that suck?
yor_on
It all depend on how you see it :)
In Sweden we've had a lot of rain those last summers. As we live in a 'closed environment' this globe of ours i presume that there are a limited amount of rain to fall, off course rainfall and humidity will increase as the climate gets warmer but i'm expecting changes of the weather patterns too. The rain will increase in some places but then i also expect them to decrease at others f ex. How it will show itself i think is to early to see, but in ten years time if we're here Arthur :) I think that both you and me will know some more about that. As for the polar bears and other fauna, there also are to early to see any definite pattern. If we had one this discussion wouldn't exist i'm afraid ::))

But all considered i still say that we have to get away from producing manmade CO2. And coal burning and manmade fertilizers etc etc. It's going to set us back, but we have some truly good technology in the Internet and other environmental (relatively at least :) hi tech that will allow us to create and meet even without our car :) But I say, let the bikes be :::)))
yor_on
So this could be interesting.

" Experts once thought China might overtake the United States as the world’s leading producer of greenhouse gases by 2010, possibly later. Now, the International Energy Agency has said China could become the emissions leader by the end of this year, and the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency said China had already passed that level. "

And

" China’s problem has become the world’s problem. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides spewed by China’s coal-fired power plants fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo. Much of the particulate pollution over Los Angeles originates in China, according to the Journal of Geophysical Research. "

For the full article check out http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html
adoucette
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 19 2007, 03:39 PM)
Polar bears are losing their habitat. That can be considered negative.

Nope.

Twas as warm back in the 30s/40s in the Arctic as it is now.

Here is an article by Arctic climatologist H. W. Ahlmann

“Researches on Snow and Ice, 1918-1940”

It was written in 1946 and published in The Geographical Journal:

Like the Fröya glacier, all the other glaciers in north-east Greenland have terminal moraines marking their maximum extension in post-glacial times. There is reason to presume that in Greenland, as in Norway and Iceland, this maximum extension occurred in the latter half of the eighteenth [1700s] and beginning of the nineteenth [1800s] centuries. In north-east Greenland, as elsewhere round the northernmost Atlantic, a post-glacial warm period occurred [the Climate Optimum, ~9,000 to 5,000 years ago], during which time the local glaciers disappeared completely or became much reduced in size. The outlet glaciers of the inland ice receded considerably, and the peripheral parts of the inland ice itself grew thinner. After this postglacial warm period, glaciation again increased and, after alternating advance and regression, culminated in the maximum extension of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries [maximum extent of the Little Ice Age]. This was followed by a slow regression, which was interrupted by minor advances, but has increased rapidly during the last decades [1918-1940]. The present extensive regression is due to the recent climatic improvement.


Apart from the proofs of climatic improvement given by these investigations, the following facts may also be mentioned. The experiences of the Russian scientists along the North-East Passage are especially noteworthy. In 1930 the Leningrad Arctic Institute was established, and in 1933 became responsible for the scientific work of the Central Northern Sea Route Administration in Moscow. Throughout the 1939 war the Arctic Institute has maintained seventy-seven scientific stations in the Russian sector of the Arctic. The regular air surveys of the extent of the drift-ice, which are carried out during the summer months, have shown that between 1924 and 1942 the drift-ice was reduced by about 1 million square kilometres. The average thickness of the sea-ice in the Polar Sea has diminished from 365 centimetres at the time of the Nansen Fram expedition of 1893-95, to the 218 centimetres found by the ice-breaker Sedov, which in 1937-40 drifted along a route similar to that followed by the Fram. Two fossil-ice islands in the Laptev Sea have completely melted in recent years, leaving only submarine banks. And finally, the temperature has increased in the so-called Atlantic waters of the Polar Sea as well as in the Kara Sea…


On the basis of the known extension of the drift-ice it is possible to calculate the general distribution of atmospheric pressure. The direction of the ice-drift is parallel to the isobars, and the speed of the ice-drift is inversely proportional to the distances between the isobars. The Arctic fauna has followed the climatic change, and both fishes and fowl are now found much farther north than formerly. The southern limit of permanently frozen ground in Asia has moved many kilometres farther north, and the Spitsbergen period of navigation has lengthened considerably. From 1909 to 1912 it lasted ninety-five days, but in 1930-38 it had increased to one hundred and seventy-five days, and in 1939 to as many as two hundred and three days (from April 29 to November 17). This part of the Arctic may, without exaggeration, be said to have experienced a climatic revolution.



Arthur

yor_on
three more studies :)

"Many aspects of the climate system that appear stable within a certain range of temperatures can shift dramatically when a particular threshold is passed," Wara said. "We can’t say where that threshold is, but it is a concern as we continue this ongoing global experiment of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere."
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/beri...icht-45787.html

" Will Warming Lead to a Rise in Hurricanes? "
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/science/...6460554&ei=5070

And about Ozone (man made)
" Rising surface ozone reduces plant growth and adds to global warming "

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70725143612.htm
adoucette
Sheesh

The quote from the first article is just his opinion, not supported by ANYTHING in the article, which is a study of the Pacific during the Pleocine ~ 2 - 5 million years ago.

A more appropriate quote that actually has something to do with his work.

QUOTE
According to Ravelo, however, the El Nińo-like conditions of the Pliocene should not be regarded as a direct analogy for the future effects of global warming. Rather, the Pliocene climate should serve as a target for global climate models to test their ability to reproduce the full range of possible climate states.


A more appropriate quote from the SECOND article

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
According to Ravelo, however, the El Nińo-like conditions of the Pliocene should not be regarded as a direct analogy for the future effects of global warming. Rather, the Pliocene climate should serve as a target for global climate models to test their ability to reproduce the full range of possible climate states.


A more appropriate quote from the SECOND article

It seems similarly logical that as the world warms, hurricanes will be more frequent or more powerful or both. After all, they draw their strength from warm ocean waters. But while many scientists hold this view, there is far less consensus, in part because of new findings on other factors that may work against stronger, more frequent storms.


Like last year

The third article is just hogwash as the global surface level Ozone levels AREN'T increasing.

User posted image

Sheesh Squared.

Arthur
yor_on
You do find this irritating Arthur :)
Ah well, it gives you ample opportunity to disprove all other weather scholars work.
Keep it up my man ::))
adoucette
QUOTE (yor_on+Sep 22 2007, 07:56 AM)
You do find this irritating Arthur smile.gif
Ah well, it gives you ample opportunity to disprove all other weather scholars work.
Keep it up my man :smile.gif)

Not at all.

Your posts, for the most part, are good examples of media/scientists distorting the message to make a political oriented point.

Like the Ozone article.

Here it is:

Scientists from three leading UK research institutes have just released new findings that could have major implications for food production and global warming in the 21st century.

Experts from the Met Office, the University of Exeter and the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, have found that projections of increasing ozone near the Earth's surface could lead to significant reductions in regional plant production and crop yields. Surface ozone also damages plants, affecting their ability to soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and accelerating global warming.

Near-surface ozone has doubled since 1850 due to chemical emissions from vehicles, industrial processes, and the burning of forests. Dr Stephen Sitch, a climate impacts scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre and lead author of the article, said: "Climate models have largely ignored atmospheric chemistry but in this research we have identified a cause of potentially increased warming with elevated levels of surface ozone likely to suppress plant growth."

Plants and soil are currently slowing--down global warming by storing about a quarter of human carbon dioxide emissions, but the new study suggests that this could be undermined by further increases in near-surface ozone. As a result more carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere and add to global warming. Co-author, Professor Peter Cox of the University of Exeter, explains: "We estimate that ozone effects on plants could double the importance of ozone increases in the lower atmosphere as a driver of climate change, so policies to limit increases in near-surface ozone must be seen as an even higher priority."

The research is published online in Nature July 25, 2007.



So now lets parse the story. (see bolded sections)

First they claim to have found something that is very important:

new findings that could have major implications for food production and global warming in the 21st century.

Then they state:

projections of increasing ozone near the Earth's surface could lead to significant reductions in regional plant production and crop yields.

And there in lies the SPIN on the whole article.

PROJECTIONS

Whose PROJECTIONS?

How RELIABLE are they?

Note that they DON'T SAY.

BUT

They IMPLY that this is the case based on HISTORICAL data:

Near-surface ozone has doubled since 1850 due to chemical emissions from vehicles, industrial processes, and the burning of forests.

Since 1850?

We've got good global measurements from 1850????

RIGHT.

Well let's not argue that point

What about in the more RECENT past?


Here's a NASA graph of Global Ozone spanning 40 years.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/o3/img/fig2.jpg

User posted image


BIG OOPS

Why is this not surprising?

Because we are, as a society, been working for the last ~ 40 years to REDUCE ground level Ozone.

So the article may be a REMINDER of why we should continue these efforts, but it fails miserably as a prediction of the likely impact of ozone on the future of food production or global warming.

Oh, and the GOOD news?

Plants and soil are currently slowing--down global warming by storing about a quarter of human carbon dioxide emissions

Is pessimistic in that research shows this number is closer to half and results in an overall increase in the total Global BIOMASS of 3% per decade.


Arthur
yor_on
'media/scientists' is it :)

Good of you to let me know.
Cheers :)
adoucette
QUOTE (yor_on+Sep 22 2007, 09:49 AM)
'media/scientists' is it smile.gif

Good of you to let me know.
Cheers smile.gif

You are welcome since you obviously don't recognize MARKETING spin when you read it.

You apparently can't TELL that there are a LOT of people trying to SELL you an idea.

You seem to EASILY fall for their MARKETING SPIN.

Worse, you then try to SELL others on your RELIGION.

Oh well,

It worked for the Missionaries.

Arthur
yor_on
Awh Arthur, I just pick links i find interesting..
You don't need to read them at all if it offends your sensibilities.
As for the preaching :) Well, use your mind, it's a muscle :)
adoucette
QUOTE (yor_on+Sep 22 2007, 02:10 PM)
Awh Arthur, I just pick links i find interesting..
You don't need to read them at all if it offends your sensibilities.
As for the preaching smile.gif Well, use your mind, it's a muscle smile.gif

You would think that posting a link to a BIASED article would offend YOUR sensibilities.

Guess not.

Arthur
yor_on
Arthur, calm down. It's no big deal, neither you nor me are going to make a difference here :) Mother nature will take care of it all, little caring for what we might think. And no ranting, :) from any corner, will make it different.
adoucette
I am calm.

Truly you have a defeatest attitude though.

Everyone makes a difference.

Simply start with the man in the mirror every morning.

Arthur

yor_on
Awh man, You should see me shaving , my face looks like the moon afterwards.
Filled with new craters :)
yor_on
"New findings show a slow recovery from extreme global warming episode 55 million years ago"
http://www.physorg.com/news4491.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1995348,00.html
and "New NASA Data Still Proves Global Warming is Real"
http://www.physorg.com/news4491.html

"persistent El Nińo-like conditions during past global warming"
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/beri...icht-45787.html

"Rising surface ozone reduces plant growth and adds to global warming"
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...e-rso072507.php

And finally

" Pollution filled brown clouds may be causing as much warming as greenhouse gasses over southern Asia and threatening the water supply of Ganga, the Yangtze, and Indus with major adverse impact on the areas the rivers serve, researchers say. In a study supported by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), researchers found that the clouds of aerosol particle are contributing to the potentially devastating effects of retreating Himalayan glaciers. "The rapid melting of these glaciers, the third-largest ice mass on the planet, if it becomes widespread and continues for several more decades, will have unprecedented downstream effects on Southern and Eastern Asia," the study concludes. "This is a big topic of conversation in India. Much of the water supply of north and central india is from major rivers fed by glaciers in the Himalayas and the supply would be adversely impacted if the retreat of glacier continues," the author of the study David Winker of the Nasa Langley Research Center in Virginia said. The hope lies in reducing this pollution, which, combined with the heating effect of greenhouse gases, is enough to account for the retreat of Himalayan glaciers observed in the past half century, with serious implications for such famed rivers as the Ganga, Yangtze and Indus, the chief water supply for billions of people in India, China and other South Asian countries, the study notes."

This one you have to pay so see the full content at.
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070730/ful...ws070730-6.html
If someone finds it for free please link it :)
adoucette
Did you forget that the Ozone article was already responded to?

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=264857

Sheesh.

As to the Melting Glaciers.

The POLLUTION FILLED BROWN CLOUDS of Asia is one of the fundamental reasons that leaving them out of KYOTO made NO SENSE.

BUT

UNLESS THE GLACIERS are changing size RAPIDLY (either way), the amount of water that comes down each Summer is ESSENTIALLY the same as is deposited each WINTER.

If the Glaciers are GROWING, the amount of water that comes down is LESS than is deposited, not more.

Sheesh.

Arthur
adoucette
As to the Slow Recovery from Warming.

laugh.gif

Results from a large international research effort published last year indicated that the oceans have already absorbed nearly half of the carbon dioxide produced by humans in the past 200 years--about 120 billion metric tons of carbon.

When carbon dioxide dissolves in water it makes the water more acidic. Ocean acidification starts at the surface and spreads to the deep sea as surface waters mix with deeper layers. The sediment cores studied by Zachos and his coworkers showed the effects of a rapid acidification of the ocean during the PETM. The acidification was more severe than they had expected, suggesting that the amount of carbon dioxide that entered the atmosphere and triggered global warming during the PETM was much greater than previously thought.

...

Previous estimates for the amount of greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere during the PETM were around 2,000 billion tons of carbon. Zachos said at least twice that much would be required to produce the changes observed in this new study.

==> Translation, 2,000 Gigatons of CO2 had HALF as much impact as previously thought.

"This is similar to the estimated flux from fossil fuel combustion over the next three centuries," he said. "If we combust all known fossil fuel reserves, that's about 4,500 billion tons of carbon.


==> Which is SILLY.

We burned 120 Gigatons over the last 200 years but this projection is to burn over TWELVE times as much each century as we did in the last 2????

BS

We won't combust all the fossil fuel reserves over the next three centuries.

We won't come CLOSE.

The COST of fossil fuels will continue to RISE as their recovery becomes more and more costly, thus reducing their attractiveness as an energy source while the cost of ALTERNATIVE energy sources (Solar, Wind, Geo, Nuclear, Hydro, Bio) will not as the "Fuel" cost (SUN/EARTH) remains the same, thus increasing their attractiveness.


Cry WOLF anyone?

Arthur
yor_on
awh Arthur :)

Relax :)
photojack
Arthur seems to need more than to just relax. He seems to be carrying on a one person campaign against the barrage of PEER-REVIEWED science that appears here and elsewhere on the Internet and in print. I'm curious as to his agenda, and he does seem to have one! laugh.gif wacko.gif

Please see: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=18619&st=105# biggrin.gif
adoucette
That's pretty funny.

The previous article notes that we generated 120 Gigatons of Carbon over the last 200 years but then projects that we will burn over TWELVE times as much for each of the next three centuries as we did in the last 2????

Please find some RATIONAL support for that OUTRAGEOUS estimate.

Since when is pointing out an UNLIKELY scenario a CAMPAIGN?

Then you point to a thread where you are supporting someone who is using 200,000 kwh of electricity a year and over $1,000/month of natural gas (at ONE of his 3 houses), and flying over 1 MILLION miles per year.

Now WHO has an AGENDA?????

Oh, I guess that would be YOU:

QUOTE (Photojack+)
Are you a Republican hell bent on discrediting Democrats at all costs? ...  Read the science with on open (not Republican, Bush worshiping) mind!


laugh.gif

What about posting ACTUAL CLIMATE DATA as I do in this thread?

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=271819

Do you have a problem with reviewing ACTUAL data?


Arthur
yor_on
Discussions around plankton.

first this one It's a nice introduction to Antarctica, in it it says
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%2...bal_warming.htm

" Krill numbers may have dropped by as much as 80% since the 1970's - so today's stocks are a mere 1/5th of what they were only 30 years ago "

which bring us to this
http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...ctic-abyss.html

Now that may seem positive, it is positive :) actually.
Shows us that mother nature have hidden resources.

But, it hinges on the water temperature. So is the water heating up?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80217220939.htm

adoucette
Yoron,

The warming of the ATMOSPHERE over the last 100 years has been but 0.6 C.

But even so there is a HUGE lag in the oceans.

Which is why changes in the overall ocean temps are a small fraction of the increase in global air temp.

The Southern Oceans might be warming up, but if so, its NOT due to AGW, its due to CHANGES IN OCEAN CURRENTS.

Note your first source points out:

QUOTE
The Antarctic Peninsula, a key breeding ground for the krill, is one of the places in the world where there has been the greatest rise in temperatures due to global warming. This region has warmed by 2.5?C in the last 50 years (much more than the mean global rate), with a striking consequential decrease in winter sea-ice cover.


Yes, its gone up 400% more than the Global mean rate, which means the cause is ocean currents, not AGW.

As to the Southern Ice.

Currently the Southern Sea Ice is a MILLION sq kms MORE than the average.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...t.365.south.jpg

Interesting the article talks about the drop in krill populations from the 70s might hinder the recovery of the great balleen whales.

What the article SHOULD mention is that that was right at the time that Whaling was halted and the population of these whales (huge eaters of krill) were at their lowest levels.

The whales HAVE recovered.

And have done so in significant numbers.

Any guess what these increased populations of whales are eating?

Arthur
yor_on
Hi Arthur :)
amrit
STYLE OF HEALTHY LIFE “VALENS”

Srečko Šorli,
srecko.sorli@terme-ptuj.si
GRAND HOTEL PRIMUS, SLOVENIA


Psychotherapy based on humanistic psychology is finding out that self-awareness is an important element of health (Ščuka). As we are aware about outer world, about our body, mind and emotions, we can also be aware about ourselves. Self-awareness is giving us inner power, motivation and perseverance to realize our life mission. “Valens” is a life style awakening self-awareness and creating harmony between body, mind and consciousness. Symbol of Valens is “Wheel of health” with six spokes that are complementary. Center of Wheel of health is symbolizing self-awareness and assures that wheel turns good also by big burdening. Stile Valens makes possible that we successfully carry trough difficult situations in our private and business life.


Let see in detail seven elements of Valens:

- Full breathing:
Stress causes the inhalation to become shallow, and exhalation incomplete. Emotionally painful experiences make breathing shallow as well. Full breathing consists of three phases: full exhalation, abdominal inhalation, chest Inhalation. Full breathing brings a lot of oxygen into the organism, strengthens the muscles of the abdomen, provides exercise for the thorax and spine, and helps maintain the proper poise.
Nowadays, only very few people breathe fully. Mostly people breathe only with their chest; the exchange of air takes place only in the middle part of the lungs, while the diaphragm remains passive. Others breathe only with the lower part of the lungs, i.e. with the diaphragm, while the chest is blocked, and there is little exchange of air in the middle and upper parts of the lungs. Diaphragmatic breathing improves with thoracic breathing and vice versa, thoracic breathing improves when we start breathing with the diaphragm as well.
Full breathing is the basis for the relaxation technique called "conscious breathing", during which our attention is focused on breathing. An exercise in full and conscious breathing takes 30 minutes. Lie down on a comfortable surface, plug out the phone and switch off the cell phone. After 15 minutes of full breathing let the body breathe by itself, do not interfere with the depth and rhythm of breathing, become a pure watcher: the air is entering the body, holds still for a moment, and then returns into space. In Buddhism "conscious breathing" is called “vipassana”. Attention to breathing activates the consciousness, brings the mind to the present moment, and harmonizes it with the body. The result is a deep psychophysical relaxation, which calms down the mind, restores its strength, and enriches it with originality, creativeness, the feelings of ethics and aesthetics.

- Healthy diet:
The Essence recommends the Montignac diet, which is based on medicinal research that showed that the basis of a healthy diet is carbohydrates with a low glycemic index, aminoacid-rich protein and food which contains unsaturated fats. The dishes are made from ecological foodstuffs. Researches done within the framework of the European Union confirm that ecological foodstuffs are an important health factor.
It is also important to distinguish between a physical and a mental need for food. When we are ill at ease, are emotionally excited or have problems at our workplace, we often exaggerate in food. The best way of reaching a perfect body weight is to discover the reason why do we crave for food and eliminate the cause. A conscious lifestyle ensures an ideal body weight.

- Daily exercise:
The universe and nature are in constant movement. Well-being is not something static; it is an on-going process of interaction between the body, mind, and consciousness. To function properly, our bodies need daily exercise, and everybody is free to make a choice of their choosing: jogging, walking, yoga, tai-chi, gymnastics, swimming etc.


- Daily relaxation:
Relaxation supplements movement. Today we have forgotten how to relax and rest. We live for the most part of time in our minds, our heads are full of thoughts about the future or the past at all times, while the body is neglected. One of the consequences of the split of the mind and body is stress. In our wellness program you will learn to relax through "conscious breathing", in which consciousness is focused onto breathing. Breathing is always taking place in the present moment, and being attentive to breathing brings the mind to the present and connects it with the body. The result is a deep psychophysical relaxation. Another important relaxation technique is "conscious thinking", in which we bring our consciousness to the observation of thought processes and emotions. "Conscious thinking" helps us to create negative mechanisms of the mind, such as self-condemnation and faulting others. Relaxation techniques activate self-awareness that also increases awareness about how our thoughts and emotions are creating our life.

- Good interpersonal relations:
Valens develops creativity and friendship with awakening of self-awareness. Self-awareness is raising awareness of our emotions and also of emotions of other people. This gives us capacity to guide emotions into positive way. Research shows (Goleman), that self-awareness is fundamental for happy and successful life.
Important element of interpersonal relations is clear communication. Between people that talk one, thing other and feel third is communication almost impossible. Valens is developing Conscious Communication which means that we talk what we thing and our words are supported with our present emotions. Conscious communication enables integration of an individual into family and working environment. It is strengthening creativity, flexibility, success of different groups including business, politics, sport….

- Healthy nature: Healthy nature reflects health of the human being; damaged nature reflects his/her illness. Valens is deepening human relation with nature. It is awakening awareness that what we do to the nature we do to ourselves. We are integral part of nature and universe. Healthy nature is the basis of our existence and further development on this planet. Valens is supporting development of biological agriculture and industry which makes profit without damaging nature.

- Self-awareness: Evolution of human being leads to the self-awareness. We are on the passage from “I think and fell, so I’m” into “I’m aware of my thoughts and emotions, so I’m”. Situation on the planet shows that reason has no power to resolve health and social problems of today society; in last few years more people is ill, poverty is increasing, religious, racial and tensions between nations are increasing. Self-awareness is a basis of conscious individual that will take responsibility for his/her health as well as for the health of the nature.





SOURCES:

- Ščuka V.(2007). Šolar na poti do sebe, Didakta, Radovljica

- Ščuka V.(2008). Izgorelost managerjev (strokovno gradivo)

- Goleman D.(2001). Čustvena inteligenca na delovnem mestu, Založba Mladinska knjiga, Ljubljana

- Herberst Benson (1993). Wellness Book: The Comprehensive Guide to Maintaining Health and Treating Stress-Related Illnes. Schribner

- John Randoplph Price (1998). The Wellness Book. Hay House

- Sorli S., Fiscaletti D. (2007). Conscious communication into politics, Scientific Inquiry,
Vol 8. Num 1. pp 61-64 http://www.iigss.net/Scientific-Inquiry/Ju...-Fiscaletti.pdf
- Šorli S. (2007). Aktivni elementi wellnessa za zdravo življenje, Wellness, št 1, november 2007
- Šorli S.(2008). Vloga in pomen čustev v wellnessu, Wellness št. 2. Pomlad 2008
- Šorli S. (208). Meditacija proti sindromu izgorelosti, Wellness št.3. Poletje 2008
- Sorli S., Sorli I. K. (2004). The Scientific Basis For The Development Of Human Consciousness. Episteme, Perugia, Italy, Number 8, http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/ep8-sorli2.htm
- Sorli S., Klinar D. Kern N. (2007) Integral Ecology – The Way into Sustainable, Healthy and Peaceful Civilization http://www.wbabin.net/philos/amrit.pdf
yor_on
Ah Amrit?

Thanks for informing us on that global Awareness thingie :)
Not sure if it fits just here though.

Still, here's some news on Ocean acidification for those interested.

This one I found interesting :)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80521105251.htm

International Scientists Find ‘Acidified’ Water on the Continental Shelf from Canada to Mexico
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/2..._oceanacid.html
as well as this which are more 'informal'.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...idocean22m.html

And this is another study.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/est.../np_oceans.html

I've tried to find any conclusions made as for Leg 208 by the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP)...
"Runaway Climate: Methane, Extreme Global Warming, and Massive Deep-Sea Changes"

Which was a study made 2003 about "a hypothesis that 55 million years ago roughly 2000 Gigatons of methane was released to the ocean and atmosphere."
http://www-odp.tamu.edu/public/pressrel_html/leg208.html

Unfortunately I haven't found any conclusions being published about 'leg 208'.
Perhaps there was to few samples? But research continues, now as the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP).
http://www.oceanleadership.org/ocean_drill...xplorer2007-May

And hopefully we will learn more about our history and the implications it might have on our future.

amrit
health of human being is deeply elated to the health of the nature........my post is all about that
philip347
Your guess is right your on.

The Pentagon said we're in the beginning of an ice age.I agree with this.
yor_on
It is funny how profit will make people 'one-eyed' sort of. There is as Adoucette points out a real problem with methane. Even though it only has a twelve year cycle in the atmosphere as its residence time (called atmospheric lifetime sometimes) its global warming potential (GWP) is estimated as being 25 as compared to CO2:s meager 1.

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/02/26/ghg_lifetimes/
http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentat...nhouse_gas.html

Now, we know that the 'big countries' already has tried to make deals over who gets what when the Arctic finally becomes ice-free, considering oil deposits etc etc. The same seems to go for those huge volumes of methane that lie locked up in deposits deep under the ocean and in the frozen ground. This methane is contained in structures formed in methane hydrate, an ice-like form of water, which has voids filled with methane from decayed biological material.

Read this.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...51107083255.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70221180908.htm

and then this.
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/09/11/an...ent-of-methane/

The tundra is already releasing methane and accelerating the warming process. I can't help but wonder what more we will release in our hunt for 'cheap' energy.

OTOH there is good news too :)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/04...bal_warming.htm

As for the reliability of this solution I guess we will have to wait until someone funds a real full scale test. But the idea sounds real nice..
yor_on
So let's take a look at what starts our global warming.
physics of the greenhouse effect
And to further get a good grip on it I found this one quite informative.
A grassy saturated argument

For now we are at around 380 ppm (heat measure). And climbing.

Greenland is melting as well as the the Antarctic Peninsula, but not the Antarctic mountain ice sheets. On the other tentacle we can't be sure what's happening under those ice sheets. The ice tunnels with freeflowing water that lubricates and allows the ice sheets to start moving as a whole to finally break up at deep water, is very difficult to foresee and follow.

There have recently been a try on Greenland to follow one of those tunnels with a camera, but it got stuck unfortunately. And it may also be so that not all tunnels goes down to the bottom. But on Greenland it is whole ice sheets that moves as one with a velocity (as of fastest) of about 40 meter/24 hours. It is the fastest movement anyone has measured as yet. And when they meet deep water they finally break up and starts to melt. If all of Greenland melts scientists expect water levels to rise about seven meters.

As a 'byside' it can be mentioned that glaciers is not ice all through. It seems that they are 'honeycombed' with small 'chambers' filled with water.
That may go some way to explain how the Glaciers can 'move around' obstacles in their path without breaking apart.

There has recently came a Paper from the climate scientist Jim Hansen with colleagues in which he suggests that the Earth System sensitivity is greater than the Charney sensitivity. The standard (Charney) sensitivity is defined as " the global mean surface temperature anomaly response to a doubling of CO2 --- with other boundary conditions staying the same. ---" and there it will be your choice of static boundary conditions that decide the outcomes. In the Hansen's scenario all of those conditions are allowed to vary and interact with the temperature and so allows for a much more fluid response by the weather/temperature to those feedbacks.

here is a link to a Preprint
And if you want the conclusions in a easier package :)
Try this instead.

The only thing to remember reading this article is that they talk about glaciations beginning at 450 ppm. That sounds like the reverse as to that which most scientists believe about what's happening today, but compared to our direction from colder to warmer climate, that epoch Hansen is discussing came from the absolute opposite direction, from a very hot condition towards a colder. What one can notice here if he is right is that there seems to be a lot of different 'forcings' involved in whatever direction the climate may choose to undertake, also feedbacks and interactions amongst them. Which make perfect sense to me at last. After all, we are talking about a non-linear system.
yor_on
Some mechanisms behind the melting of ice shelfs.
"
Ice shelves are floating platforms of ice fed by mountain glaciers and ice sheets flowing from the land onto the ocean. The ice flows from the grounding line where it becomes floating to the seaward front, where icebergs calve. For a typical glacier when the climate warms the glacier merely retreats, reducing its low elevation, high melting area by increasing its mean elevation. An ice shelf is nearly flat and cannot retreat in this fashion. Ice shelves cannot persist unless the entire ice shelf is an accumulation zone, where snowpack does not completely melt even in the summer.

Ice shelves have long been recognized as keys in buttressing Antarctic Ice Sheets. In turn ice shelves rely on pinning points for buttressing. The pinning point are where the floating ice shelf meets solid ground, either at lateral margins or a subglacial rise meets the bottom of the ice shelf causing an ice rise on the shelf surface.

The recent collapse of Wordie Ice Shelf, Mueller Ice Shelf, Jones Ice Shelf, Larsen-A and Larsen-B Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula has made us aware of how dynamic ice shelve systems are. After their loss the reduced buttressing of feeder glaciers has allowed the expected speed-up of inland ice masses after shelf ice break-up. (Rignot and others, 2004). "

http://lightbulbs.org/what-links-the-retre...termann-glacier
It's an accelerating process.

And here are shortsighted dreams waiting for fulfillment.
http://geology.com/news/2008/east-greenlan...l-and-gas.shtml

Does it surprise you :)
yor_on
Read this one.
It discuss mass extinctions that have happened on our Earth.
And new evidence points to new theories.

The mechanisms seem very similar to what we have now.
The only difference being us creating the circumstances instead of volcanoes:)

http://www.chicagocleanpower.org/ward.pdf
yor_on
First this
Australia's Stern review warns of runaway global warming.
Which leads us to "risky action the only way to tackle global warming, say scientists"
And that will lead us to Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows rigorous analysis of where modern-day emissions might be heading under different scenarios.

Let us take a look at some of the political implications of the arctic meltdown according to those who primarily see its 'promises' of new wealth.

Then we have this report, also titled actic meltdown from 2007.
It take up the accelerated disappearing biological diversity of the arctic wild life.
Did you know that the only living Polar bears we are expected to have living in some forty fifty years are those inside a zoo?

So how does it goes with China and its coal driven power plants then?
Awh, they build for their bare lives:) ...One new plant every tenth day, wasn't it?
But they are worried though:)

According to Greenpeace.
"China's reliance on cheap coal to fuel its economy cost a hidden $248 billion last year through damage to the environment, strain on the health care system and manipulation of the commodity's price, according to a report released Monday by Greenpeace." And please understand that this study doesn't concern itself with the hidden costs pertaining the environmental impacts (climate changes) here.

And here we have a educated guess.
" Carbon Emissions Scenarios for China to 2100 "
By Dr Tao Wang and Dr Jim Watson
It may be somewhat conservative though:)

Also it seems that Arthur is becoming correct in his estimation about the possible threats of other greenhouse gases than CO2 sooner than expected.
Read this.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.