|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
Record loss of polar ice is chilling new warning on warming
 Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:08 pm
|
 |
|
Let's see... I am advocating an increased awareness of accelerating, human induced, climate change on Earth. I am advocating a change to more fuel efficient vehicles. I am advocating a switch to renewable, non-polluting, sources of energy, which of course is a threat to coal and Big Oil interests. And in some distorted, irrational mindset that makes me a "mouthpiece for the elites" ?!?!
I do believe that there is an element of disinformation occuring in this thread. It is up to the readers to decide just what data they want to consider useful for decisions in their lives. It never ceases to amaze me how some are so willing to discount the impact of human activities on the health of our planetary ecosystem.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/13/MNC9TT0TQ.DTL&hw=arctic+ice&sn=002&sc=790
Record loss of polar ice is chilling new warning on warming climate
David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor
There was more bad climate news from the High Arctic on Wednesday as scientists reported fresh evidence that the ice all across the oceans surrounding the North Pole and the vast Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than ever.
Year after year in recent decades, the impact of global warming on Arctic regions has been growing more severe, but this year the situation appears worse as the ice is melting at a record pace, according to researchers who monitor climate change in the far north.
The evidence the scientists presented at sessions of the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco foretold even more alarming news for the future, as none of them saw signs that things would be better next year or the year after that.
Donald Perovich, a research geophysicist with the Army's Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in New Hampshire, said sea ice in the oceans surrounding the North Pole disappeared to an all-time record low this year - nearly 25 percent less than the ice cover of two years ago, which at the time was at a record low.
And while in 1980 the amount of ice covering the north polar sea would have been enough to blanket the entire continental United States, more than half of it has melted, leaving much less than enough to cover the states east of the Mississippi, he said.
"I used to say that the Arctic sea ice will all be gone in my children's lifetime," Perovich said in a conversation with reporters, "but now I think I may see it gone in my own lifetime - and I'm past 50."
Perovich and his research team installed instrumented buoys to measure ice thickness in the Beaufort Sea, which lies in the Arctic Ocean north of the northern coasts of Alaska and Canada. In June, at the end of the Artic winter, one buoy measured an ice floe 11 feet thick -"a pretty healthy piece of ice," he called it. But by September, as summer ended, that same ice floe had lost a full 7 feet off its base, and more than 2 feet from its top - the fastest summer melt his team had seen in 20 years, he said.
"And as you go further and further down this path," Perovich said, "it gets harder and harder to go back up" - meaning that even if the winter is colder in 2008 and 2009, the Arctic sea ice next year is almost sure to be thinner and sparser.
The story from Greenland is equally ominous.
Konrad Steffen, whose research team at the University of Colorado maintains a climate-monitoring network of 22 stations on the ice cap there, said air temperatures have risen by about 7 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 15 years, primarily the result of an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
"The amount of ice lost by Greenland over the last year is the equivalent of two times all the ice in the Alps," Steffen said.
Marco Tedesco of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., uses microwave detectors aboard the Defense Department's meteorological satellites to measure reflection from the vast ice cap that virtually covers Greenland, and he reported that even though snowfall thickens the ice cap in the island's center, melting of the ice over the entire island lasted nearly a month longer this year than it did in 1988, setting a record for ice-melt duration.
At elevations above 6,500 feet, Greenland's melting index - a complex measure of where the ice melts and how long it continues melting - also set a record this year, at more than 150 percent above the average for the past 20 years, Tedesco said.
Michael Steele, a geophysicist and oceanographer at the University of Washington's Polar Science Center, said his group's temperature measurements in the Chukchi Sea, between the north coasts of Alaska and Eastern Siberia, has shown a continuing surface warming trend for the past 100 years.
But this year sets a record, he said. Throughout the sea, he said, the water temperature was 6 degrees warmer than the historical average, and nearly 3 degrees warmer than the historical maximum. In one northern part of the Chukchi, the water temperature actually reached 9 degrees warmer than average - a high never before observed, he said.
Preliminary analysis shows that solar heating is the main cause of the rising temperatures as heat is trapped near the sea surface by the greenhouse effect, he said. The second cause is heat transport by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans as their loads of increasingly warm water pour northward into the polar regions.
E-mail David Perlman at dperlman@sfchronicle.com. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| Acidic Seas May Kill 98% of World’s Reefs by 2050
Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:57 am
|
|
|
Well that's one thing that they don't have to worry about on Mars...acidic seas killing off coral reefs. How convenient! Ah well, only "The Elite" get to go on vacations and enjoy snorkeling in clear, warm waters. No wonder THEY are worried that coral reefs are rapidly becoming bleeched and DEAD because of too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Acidic Seas May Kill 98% of World’s Reefs by 2050
by Ian Sample
Published on Friday, December 14, 2007 by The Guardian/UK
The majority of the world’s coral reefs are in danger of being killed off by rising levels of greenhouse gases, scientists warned yesterday. Researchers from Britain, the US and Australia, working with teams from the UN and the World Bank, voiced their concerns after a study revealed 98% of the world’s reef habitats are likely to become too acidic for corals to grow by 2050.
The loss of big coral reefs would have a devastating effect on communities, many of which rely on fish and other marine life that shelter in the reefs. It would leave coastlines unprotected against storm surges and damage often-crucial income from tourism. Among the first victims of acidifying oceans will be Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, the world’s largest organic structure.
The oceans absorb around a third of the 20bn tonnes of carbon dioxide produced each year by human activity. While the process helps to slow global warming by keeping the gas from the atmosphere, in sea water it dissolves to form carbonic acid - rising levels of which cause carbonates to dissolve. One of these minerals, aragonite, is used by corals and other marine organisms to grow their skeletons. It is particularly susceptible to carbonic acid. Without it, corals become brittle and are unable to grow and repair damage caused by fish, snails and natural erosion.
The scientists used computer simulations to model levels of aragonite in the world’s oceans from pre-industrial times, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels stood at 280 parts per million. Present day levels of carbon dioxide are 380ppm, but scientists expect the figure will rise substantially by the end of the century.
The team looked at three scenarios based on predictions of greenhouse gas emissions by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The first assumed that atmospheric carbon dioxide was held at today’s level, leading to an increase in temperature of 1C by the end of the century. Under this scenario there was enough aragonite left in the oceans for corals to continue growing.
The second scenario looked at the effect of carbon dioxide levels at between 450 and 500ppm, a rise that would increase global temperatures by 2C. Under these conditions only very hardy corals and creatures that lived off them would survive.
In the worst scenario, when carbon dioxide levels rose above 500ppm, the models predicted a 3C rise and a substantial increase in ocean acidity, causing the majority of reefs to die off. The study appears in the journal Science.
“Before the industrial revolution over 98% of warm water coral reefs were bathed with open ocean waters 3.5 times supersaturated with aragonite, meaning that corals could easily extract it to build reefs,” said Long Cao, a co-author from the Carnegie Institution in Stanford. “If atmospheric carbon dioxide stabilises at 550ppm, and even that would take concerted international effort, no existing coral reef will remain in such an environment.”
Peter Mumby, a reef ecologist at Exeter University, who worked on the study, said: ” Reefs help protect coastlines from storm damage by acting as a buffer, so without them storm surges will go straight over and hit the coast.”
Under threat
Philippines One of the most threatened coral hot spots, the reefs face damage from pollution, run-off from logging, and dynamite fishing
Gulf of Guinea Around 20 sq km of reef between four islands off the west African coast under threat from coastal development and coral harvesting
Sunda Islands Part of the coral triangle, one of the most diverse coastal areas. Already at threat from destructive fishing and reef fish trade
Southern Mascarene Islands Reefs surrounding Mauritius, Reunion and Rodriguez islands in southern Indian Ocean are under threat from pollution from the sugar cane industry and agricultural development
Eastern South Africa Next to Cape Floristic, this smaller reef is also at risk from over-fishing and tourism |
| |
|
|
mmmmbarium
tagged & banned
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 385
Location: Hell on Earth |
|
Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:11 am
|
|
|
Sore throat:
Of course I care about the planet. Hell, i drive around a POS toyota tercel thats gets 35 mpg. I recycle, I try to limit my use of water and natural gas etc etc.
The problem with Global Warming is that CHEMTRAILS ARE NOT BEING ADRESSED.....DUH 
Al Whore tells us what we need to do to save planet..and then he does the exact opposite.
Theres lots of money to be made with the Carbon Tax, and "being green".
Much like both sides in war are funded by the same people. Not only do Gas compaines get to rape us at the pump, they are going to hit us with a Carbon Tax.
Do you really think global warming and using non-polluting technologies threaten the OIL companies?? NO, it doesnt. Because if starts to get to far "out of hand", they sqaush it, or at least delay it. They are Keeping things in balance for themselves right now.
SORE THROAT, do you eat meat? Do know how much water and feed it takes to raise one cow, and how much methane they produce?
Do you realize that the air is acutally cleaner now then it used to be? And that Humans beings only occupy 2 percent of earths land mass and 75 percent of the planet is covered by water? Does that put it into perspective to you?
Do you realize that the Global warming hysteria picked up steam right around the same time that chemtrails showed up in the skies? No coincedence there, right???
What about the military using HAARP to super heat huge sections of the upper atmosphere to develop their exotic weapons? I can assure you they are doing it, all you have to do is look up.
Is it possible that some of the things have had or are having an effect on the planet warming?:
--Nuclear tests
--Depleted Uranium
--HAARP
--Chemtrails
Why arent these in the global warming models?
I am NOT saying the planet is isnt warming. Of course we need to conserve, and recycle and be green.
But we also need to step back and not believe every friggen Sensationalistic article on Global warming.
Yes, the coral reefs and the plankton are dying. Ice caps melting. Is from a natural cycle? Is it the military?
Is it from us, the little guys...the peasants...the slaves.....?? NOPE |
| |
|
|
perverted_introvert
Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 2006
Location: Chicago |
| IMHO
Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:16 am
|
|
|
This guy is getting way too much air time. Ever wonder why?
Now that the bush administration has been accused of intentionally fouling up the global warming talks, I wonder if his time is up.
I don't normally read this thread, I tend to lump you with Ellyn and "messages from matthew." You guys both spew garbage. What do you have to gain, I wonder? People that ask questions get banned, yet you have a free license to spew disinformation all over the place. Well done, are you hiring?
_________________
“To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee” |
| |
|
|
No Way Oligarchs
Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Posts: 305
Location: Entropia, South-west England |
|
Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:11 pm
|
|
|
Off topic bit
Hey PI. Thanks for sharing the excellent pics in the CT Reports thread. Very odd. Bet Sorethroat has an explanation though. Bound to. Written into her contract I'll bet...
On topic bit
Scientists abandon bogus MMCC claim in droves, right here -
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
Consensus indeed...
Baa-aa.
_________________
Parsons used the lavatory, loudly and abundantly. It then turned out that the plug was defective and the cell stank abominably for hours afterwards. George Orwell. 1984. |
| |
|
|
PAK
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1324
|
|
Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:47 pm
|
|
|
Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it
By Judi McLeod
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
There's an elephant in global warming's living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.
The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.
This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.
With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.
Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."
Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself--the Generation Investment Management LLP, "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C." of which he is both chairman and founding partner.
To hear the saving-the-earth singsong of this dynamic duo, even the feather light petals of cherry blossoms in Washington leave a bigger carbon footprint.
It's a strange global warming partnership that Strong and Gore have, but it's one that's working.
Strong is the silent partner, a man whose name often draws a blank in the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of a beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the Unites States. That's because he spends most of his time in China where he works to make the communist country the world's next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is big cheese in the world of climate change, and is one of the main architects of the coming-your-way-soon Kyoto Protocol.
Gore is the glitzy, media approved front man in the partnership, the flashing neon lights on the global stage warning the masses of the end of Earth, as we know it, and Hollywood's poster boy for greening the silver screen.
The skeptics of man-made global warming believe that Gore and Strong have made climate change "the new religion". Climate change is not the first religion both parties have tried to make stick. Along with former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, Strong, currently president of the Earth Council, has been boasting of replacing the Ten Commandments with the Earth Charter, a golden rule guide for how the masses should treat the environment.
Gore, who has given sermons at the United Nations sponsored Cathedral of St. John the Divine Church in New York City, is a promoter of the religion known as Gaia.
The two environmental gurus also share a belief in radical Malthusian population reduction. According to them, too many people, particularly in the U.S. are polluting the planet, emitting excessive Freon through their refrigerators and jacking up the air conditioning.
But the conduct of Al Gore and Maurice Strong in the capitalist world is one for the books. It's a side of them that may have remained unknown had it not been for the investigative talent of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).
The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of An Inconvenient Truth traveled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste.Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.
"Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day. First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm's registered lobbyist, and Gore's former top Senate aide," wrote EIR.
"Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers' cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.
"With Al Gore's Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal's stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When, in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers--including Maurice Strong--sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996--a Sunday--the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.
"On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share.By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice Strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong's role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.
In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, the Korean man found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.
In that year, Gore, still U.S. vice president, was making news for "taking the initiative in creating the Internet."
The leaders of the man-made global warming movement, you might say, get around.
Meanwhile Jumbo's still in global warming's living room, but the duo with the tiniest carbon footprints on earth continue to just tiptoe past him.
_________________
... we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. Aldous Huxley |
| |
|
|
PAK
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1324
|
|
Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:04 pm
|
|
|
These guys are laughing all the way to the bank at the sheeple's stupidity, believing their Glo-baal warming BS while our skies are being sprayed with CHEMICAL CRAP on a daily basis.
Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average
Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
###
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
_________________
... we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. Aldous Huxley |
| |
|
|
blookanoo
Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 100
Location: west kootenays BC |
|
Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:33 am
|
|
|
The hypocricy is out of control. Sometimes there are special news shows like "Planet in Peril" and "Earth in Crisis" and every second commercial is for giant pick-up trucks or bacon double burgers. Why don't they address the environmental impact of the meat industry? We were never meant to eat so much meat. It was a rare treat for our hunter/gatherer ancesters. And everyone driving stupid giant trucks that can pull a house isn't helping the planet either. Not to mention the industrial military complex and what it's doing to the environment. What a joke it is. Everybody is so full of s!@# |
| |
|
|
perverted_introvert
Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 2006
Location: Chicago |
| Heh
Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:11 am
|
|
|
Remember what happened to the almighty Oprah when she spoke out about Texan Cattlemen?
http://www.vegsource.com/lyman/lawsuit.htm
When Mr. Lyman explained that cows are being fed to cows, Ms. Winfrey seemed to be repulsed by this thought, and exclaimed that it had just stopped her cold from eating another hamburger.
The show aired on a Monday, and beef futures -- which had been in a steep decline due to drought, over-supply and a number of complex factors -- fell further on Tuesday. (Pundits referred to this as the "Oprah crash.") The cattle industry was apparently outraged, and pulled hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of TV advertising in retaliation.
A short time later, some Texas cattlemen, led by billionaire Paul Engler, owner of Cactus Feeders, Inc., filed suit against Lyman, Oprah, Harpo Productions (which produces Oprah) and King World Syndicator (King World was released from the suit by summary judgement). The lawsuit alleged Lyman and Oprah had violated a Texas law which forbids someone from "knowingly making false statements" about agricultural business. The cattlemen have alleged that the all-powerful and God-like Oprah is responsible for the decline in beef futures.
_________________
“To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee” |
| |
|
|
mmmmbarium
tagged & banned
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 385
Location: Hell on Earth |
|
Sun Dec 16, 2007 3:31 am
|
|
|
Its funny SORE THROAT, that you are on Chemtrail site, in the CT science section, with a thread thats 50 pages long.....that has NO MENTION of chemtrails what so ever.
You've bought into this s!@#, and are attempting to spread it. The propagandists have struck a major nerve with you THE ENVIROMENT. And no matter what anyone says to you, you'll believe every word they say. All while they are spraying toxic chemicals in sky. Look at what they are doing. There IS evidence that shows chemtrails are causing the warming. Wake the Hell up, Gawd dammmm.
One one these days, the truth will be exposed. And all these lies of Global warming being caused by us will be shown.
No mention of Global Warming for 100 industrial years.....Then 10-15 years ago BAM, the global warming hysteria takes off, right when chemtraisl show up.
Their dis-regard for the enviroment is causing global warming. They think weapons building are more important then the Enviroment.
They are covering their tracks very well, arent they.
You should join Gastronamus Cafe ( A.K.A global warming-namus. Idiots like Swamp gas and Socrates would just love you over there. |
| |
|
|
PAK
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1324
|
|
Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:04 am
|
|
|
Truly amazig considering when I was in college the scientists were freaking out that we were going into an ice age, all the science confirmed it. This was back in the very early 70's, but nevertheless, it was BELIEVED as TRUTH. Isn't it amazing, that now that the the powers that be can spray the skies with chemical crap they introduce Global Warming as the new science, promoted in schools across the US as TRUTH, not a theory. It's an INCONVENIENT TRUTH to MENTION CHEMTRAILS, no doubt, by the ALLEGORY of GREEN.
_________________
... we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. Aldous Huxley |
| |
|
|
blookanoo
Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 100
Location: west kootenays BC |
|
Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:14 am
|
|
|
I think the demise of the environment is by design. It's on record that in the 60's they said if we keep destroying the planet at this pace then in 40 yrs we can use the environmental crisis as a reason to control the sheeple rather that having to use war. |
| |
|
|
mmmmbarium
tagged & banned
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 385
Location: Hell on Earth |
|
Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:47 pm
|
|
|
http://www.carnicom.com/sh1.htm
GLOBAL WARMING & AEROSOLS
It can be demonstrated that the introduction of essentially any metallic or metallic salt aerosol into the lower atmosphere will have the effect of heating up that lower atmosphere.[/b] The impact is both significant and measurable. [b]Those that seek and express concern on the so called global warming problem might wish to begin their search with an inquiry into the thermodynamics of artificially introduced metallic aerosols into the lower atmosphere. The direct injection of massive amounts of particulate matter by aircraft into the atmosphere for more than five years establishes the foundation for this inquiry. An examination of the specific heat characteristics of an altered atmosphere will provide the path for the realistic conclusions that can be made.
Any claim that the aerosol operations represent a mitigating influence on the global warming problem appears to be a complete facade that is in direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of physics and thermodynamics. The lack of candor and honesty by government, media and environmental protection agencies in response to public inquiry is further evidence of the fictitious fronts that have been proposed. It is past time to recognize that one of the primary effects of the dense aerosols that now permanently mar the lifeblood of this planet is the heating up of the very atmosphere that we breathe.
The early stage of the current argument for global heating and the aggravation of drought conditions was proposed approximately two years ago1. The benefit of the current study is that an estimate of the magnitude of the heat influence upon the atmosphere can now be made. Those that continue to claim that a benevolent, but necessarily secret, enterprise to protect the planet with a blanket of purportedly heat reflective aerosols in the lower atmosphere exists will need to provide the primary evidence of that claim. That claim will need to be justified with solid physical principles and observation. Hypothetical research models that are under discussion and rationalization, such as the Teller proposal, are more appropriate to the outer reaches of the planet and space. These proposals do not explain the deposition of massive amounts of hygroscopic aerosols into the lower atmosphere.
The recent media attention to the dramatic and accelerating climatic changes will hopefully be extended to the fundamental principles that are expressed within this report.
The mathematics, physical principles and thermodynamics of this argument will be made available on a separate entry.
=====================================================
The fundamental equations that address the heating of the atmosphere with the introduction of foreign materials are the following:
cv = sum [mfi * cvi]
which is the specific heat of a mixture (gravimetric analysis)2
where
mfi is the mass fraction of the ith component, and cvi is the specific heat of the ith component in units of joules / (kg * oK)
and cv is the specific heat of the mixture in units of joules / (kg * oK) and oK is degrees Kelvin.
and the heat transfer as given by the first law of thermodynamics3
Q = m * cv * del T
where Q represents the change in energy in joules, m is the total mass of the mixture, and del T is the change in degrees of the mass in degrees Kelvin.
Let us assume the atmosphere as a shell around the earth of variable height, the volume of which is given by:
vair = ( 4 / 3) * pi * [ ( R + upper )3 - ( R + lower)3 ]
where vair is the volume of the atmospheric shell in cubic meters, R is the mean radius of the earth in meters, upper is the upper limit of the atmospheric shell under consideration in meters (above sea level), and lower is the lower limit of the atmospheric shell in meters (above sea level).
Based upon an exponential regression of atmospheric density data in kilograms4, a suitable model for the mass of a column of air 1 meter square in dimension can be developed in the following form:
mair = 1.474 * exp -1.424E-4 * h dh
integrated with respect to the upper and lower limits of the atmospheric shell, and mair is the mass of the atmospheric shell in kilograms, and h is in meters.
The mass of the aerosol in kilograms within an atmospheric column of air 1 meter square in dimension is expressed as:
ma = da * (upper - lower)
where the density of a particular aerosol in units of kilograms is designated as da.
As the density of the aerosol and the atmosphere will be considered to be uniform throughout the shell considered, the mass fractions of the atmosphere and the aerosol contribution, respectively, are:
mfair = mair / (mair + ma)
and
mfa = ma / (mair + ma)
Therefore:
cv = ( mfa * cva ) + (mfair * cvair)
where cva and cvair are the constant volume specific heats of the aerosol and air, respectively.
since Q = m * cv * del T
and since we are interested in the change in Q that results from a change in the specific heat of the mixture, we have:
dQ = matotal* del T * dcv
where dQ represents the change in energy in joules that results from a change of temperature in the atmospheric shell in degrees Kelvin and a change in the specific heat of the atmosphere from the introduction of an aerosol component within this mixture. The total mass of the atmospheric shell is given by matotal.
where matotal = mair * vair
and dcv = cv - cvair
It will be found that all introduced materials with a specific heat of less than 1003 joules / (kg * oK) (the specific heat of air) will lead to a decrease in the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of the mass of the atmospheric shell by 1 degree Kelvin. Since the energy from the sun can be considered as a relative constant for the problem of concern, this solar energy will result in an increase in the temperature of the atmospheric shell. The specific heat of barium, for example is approximately 190 joules / (kg * oK).5 This particular element will have highly significant thermodynamic impacts upon the lower atmosphere; the effect of the vast majority of metals and most chemical elements is significant as well. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| A little clarity
Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:00 pm
|
|
|
For the record...I have never said that I believe that the chemical modification of our atmosphere is a realistic or acceptable mitigation to human induced climate change. In fact, I have years of posting questioning the human health consequences of such surreptitious activities on the part of our government. I have long supported and applauded Clifford Carnicom's research.
That being said, take a deep breathe, chill out and realize that the purpose of this particular thread is to DOCUMENT THE PACE AND REALITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
Are Chemtrails part of the "human activites" associated with this change?.. Of course, how could they not be...just the same as HAARP, deforestation, agricultural practices, methane gas releases associated with oil production, etc.
There are plenty of threads that deal with Chemtrails.
If you can't handle the data documenting climate change then I suggest that you spare yourself the upset that you seem to experience by visiting this thread. For some, ignorance is bliss.
And what is abundantly clear, it is an overwhelming abundance of ignorance (and greed) that threatens the quality of life (all forms) on Earth.
Last edited by Sore Throat on Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:07 am; edited 2 times in total |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| Oceans’ Growing Acidity Alarms Scientists
Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:16 pm
|
|
|
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/16/5852/
Oceans’ Growing Acidity Alarms Scientists
by Les Blumenthal
WASHINGTON - Seven hundred miles west of Seattle in the Pacific at Ocean Station Papa, a first-of-its-kind buoy is anchored to monitor a looming environmental catastrophe.
Forget about sea levels rising as glaciers and polar ice melt, and increasing water temperatures affecting global weather patterns. As the oceans absorb more and more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, they’re gradually becoming more acidic.
And some scientists fear that the change may be irreversible.
At risk are sea creatures up and down the food chain, from the tiniest phytoplankton and zooplankton to whales, from squid to salmon to crabs, coral, oysters and clams.
The oceans are already 30 percent more acidic than they were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, as they absorb 22 tons of carbon dioxide a day. By the end of the century, they could be 150 percent more acidic.
“Everything points to dramatic effects,” said Richard Feely, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle. “There are suggestions the entire ecosystem could change over time.”
Originally, scientists thought the oceans could be one of the solutions to the buildup of greenhouse gases, as they absorb about one-third of the carbon dioxide that’s emitted worldwide. But they now know that the fundamental chemistry of the oceans has changed, and the possible impacts seem to grow more nightmarish as research accelerates.
“It seems like it is a one-way street, and that is alarming,” said Steven Emerson, a professor of oceanography at the University of Washington. “The pH of the oceans could be lowered permanently.”
Emerson was the lead scientist on the team that built the buoy at Ocean Station Papa, where weather measurements have been taken since the 1940s. The 10-foot-diameter buoy is equipped with an array of sensors that, among other things, measure the amount of carbon dioxide that’s being absorbed by the North Pacific and the pH, or acid levels, of the ocean. Anchored in water 5,000 feet deep, the buoy relays its information to onshore scientists via satellite.
Of all the oceans in the world, the North Pacific could be the most vulnerable to acidification.
As the oceans’ deepest waters circulate around the globe, they eventually arrive in the North Pacific, where they rise near the surface before plunging deep again to continue their global journey. When the water arrives in the North Pacific, it’s already acidic from the carbon produced by decaying organic material during its 1,000-year journey from the North Atlantic through the Indian Ocean and across the Pacific, Feely said.
As it surfaces, or upwells, in the North Pacific, the water absorbs even more carbon dioxide from the air. Cold water absorbs more carbon dioxide than warm water does.
“The older water is in the Pacific, the newer water is in the Atlantic,” Feely said. “There’s 10 percent more carbon dioxide in the Pacific than in the Atlantic.”
Corrosive water 600 to 700 feet deep already has been detected off the continental shelf of Washington state, Oregon and Alaska, Feely said.
“It’s butting right up against the coast,” he said. “The concern is when it gets to the continental shelf, what it will do to the fisheries.”
The increasing acidity can eat away at the shells of crabs, oysters, clams and nearly microscopic organisms known as krill and pteropods. It also inhibits calcification, the process in which these animals rebuild their shells. Without shells, most of the animals probably would die.
Krill and pteropods are a major food source for juvenile salmon, herring, pollock, cod, mackerel and other fish.
“When you start messing with the lower end of the food chain, it can dramatically affect the higher end of the food chain,” Feely said.
Squid also are sensitive to higher acidity, which affects their blood circulation and respiration. Colonies of coral, including those in tropical waters and those found deep off the Northwest coast, could disappear.
Feely said that 500 million to 1 billion people worldwide depended on fish for survival. Sharp declines in fish populations would affect their lives.
Eventually, the acidification will reach into inland waters, affecting oyster beds and clamming areas.
Earlier this month, the Senate Commerce Committee passed a bill co-sponsored by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., that would create a comprehensive ocean-acidification research and monitoring program. A similar measure has been introduced in the House of Representatives.
Cantwell said she expected her Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard subcommittee of the Commerce Committee to hold hearings in the Northwest on ocean acidification early next year.
“It’s a little-known fact, not widely understood, but it is clear our oceans are suffering,” Cantwell said.
A San Francisco environmental group, the Center for Biodiversity, has asked 10 states - Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Maine and Delaware - to declare their coastal waters “impaired” under the Clean Water Act because of rising acidity. Such a move could clear the way for the states to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions.
“Though we believe the science is there, the political will may not be there,” said Miyoko $#@#!, a lawyer for the Center for Biodiversity. “At least this will raise awareness among policymakers.”
Though cuts in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions might slow or reverse global warming, scientist say it could take thousands of years or longer to reverse the increased acidity of the oceans.
“For all practical purposes this is permanent,” Emerson said. “That’s not true of temperature. But with ocean acidification the time scales are long.” |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 5:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
