|
|
Post by bucketochicken on May 13, 2008 12:46:35 GMT -6
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stmThe evidence on atmospheric concentrations comes from an Antarctic region called Dome Concordia (Dome C).
Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time.
Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of temperature.
"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.
"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on May 13, 2008 13:24:09 GMT -6
That's all fine & well... but I read that this one scientist says that's a GOOD thing...
Oh, and Al Gore wears khakis.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on May 13, 2008 13:33:40 GMT -6
I blame socal, ghost, racerhawk and their liberal allies who freaking drive everywhere they go. Get a bike lazy asses (especially racerhawk). Walk somewhere. Hopefully the federal government will continue its industrial policy of building 8 lane roads that stretch out 45 miles from downtown of every major city in the US so our way of life and dependence on fur'en earl is preserved.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bluzmn on May 13, 2008 14:45:24 GMT -6
I think it is a liberal conspiracy to make W and the other Republicans look bad. They are planting that CO2. How much of that is due to bong hits, BTW?
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on May 13, 2008 15:33:40 GMT -6
I think it is a liberal conspiracy to make W and the other Republicans look bad. They are planting that CO2. How much of that is due to bong hits, BTW? I think bong hits are carbon neutral -- or carbon negative. As the plants themselves pull CO2 from the air... and during "burning", the released Carbon laden smoke is then sequestered in the lungs and bong water. |
|
|
|
Post by bucketochicken on May 13, 2008 15:54:42 GMT -6
Cow farts. It's cow farts, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on May 13, 2008 16:00:18 GMT -6
I think it is a liberal conspiracy to make W and the other Republicans look bad. They are planting that CO2. How much of that is due to bong hits, BTW? I think bong hits are carbon neutral -- or carbon negative. As the plants themselves pull CO2 from the air... and during "burning", the released Carbon laden smoke is then sequestered in the lungs and bong water. Cosign. Plus, with the decrease in motivation, the hittee is less likely to drive or do anything productive, thereby reducing his own "carbon footprint." |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on May 13, 2008 16:02:59 GMT -6
Cow farts. It's cow farts, right? That's where the methane is coming from. I'm sure we can fix this though. Does anyone else remember when the freaking ozone layer was going to disappear? Jesus Christ, I was terrified to go outside from 1985 through 1987 for fear that I would be decimated when the ozone hole let the sun's rays directly zap me. However, the media has not scared me about that issue for years so it must have fixed itself, much like this will. |
|
|
|
Post by socal on May 14, 2008 7:51:16 GMT -6
Cow farts. It's cow farts, right? That's where the methane is coming from. I'm sure we can fix this though. Does anyone else remember when the freaking ozone layer was going to disappear? Jesus Christ, I was terrified to go outside from 1985 through 1987 for fear that I would be decimated when the ozone hole let the sun's rays directly zap me. However, the media has not scared me about that issue for years so it must have fixed itself, much like this will. Perhaps you should rethink this line of argument... as governments around the globe came together to enact laws banning CFC's... directly relating to the HUGE decrease in Ozone depleting fluorocarbons. I'll dig for some graphs if you'd like, but the arguments on my side are: a) Without the ozone layer, life on Earth ceases to exist. b) With global action in reducing fluorocarbons, the concentrations have dropped precipitously. c) Attention to such issues does have results... without having to pay HUGE CFC taxes... So if you'd like to stand on the counter argument side, have at it. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on May 14, 2008 8:19:55 GMT -6
Well socal, the damage was allegedly irreparable, but now it's okay. Consumers drastically changed their habits as well, look at aerosols now, they say stuff like "ozone friendly" and "CFC free." I'm glad you could see my tongue-in-cheek reference there (I wish our pal dweebbuster was still around, he'd have eaten that bait alive), and I know that there were significant steps taken by the gov, and I'm not discounting those measures, but when those steps were taken, there were viable alternatives to propel aerosol cans and to charge air conditioners, but the problem with a C02 ban is that there are no viable alternatives.
Don't get me wrong, if we could take 75% of the cars off the street in Chicagoland, my QOL would go up drastically and I'd be happy because the smog cloud that I breathe from everyday would disappear, I just don't see where today's viable alternative comes from. Compound that all over America and the legislative pen cannot have the impact that it did in the CFC case.
|
|
|
|
Post by bucketochicken on May 14, 2008 8:23:14 GMT -6
...if we could take 75% of the cars off the street in Chicagoland, my QOL would go up drastically... Cosign. Not to mention the people in those cars... |
|
|
|
Post by socal on May 14, 2008 8:45:50 GMT -6
...but the problem with a C02 ban is that there are no viable alternatives. Don't get me wrong, if we could take 75% of the cars off the street in Chicagoland, my QOL would go up drastically and I'd be happy because the smog cloud that I breathe from everyday would disappear, I just don't see where today's viable alternative comes from. Compound that all over America and the legislative pen cannot have the impact that it did in the CFC case. While it's not the ultimate solution, allowing the wishes of a Republican Governor (Schwarzenegger) to increase emission/fuel efficiency standards for cars sold in his State... instead of the Republican President (via his proxy) blocking the same "State's Rights" Republicans often espouse... is a nice first step. In case you're interested, here is a list of ongoing articles describing the politicization of the EPA & the dismissal of consensus EPA scientists opinions by the Bush Admin: tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/cgi-bin/mt-current/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=12&search=EPA&x=0&y=0one snip: |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on May 14, 2008 8:57:36 GMT -6
While it's not the ultimate solution, allowing the wishes of a Republican Governor (Schwarzenegger) to increase emission/fuel efficiency standards for cars sold in his State... instead of the Republican President (via his proxy) blocking the same "State's Rights" Republicans often espouse... is a nice first step. As shitty as it is that some KD in DC tells liberals like CARB to shove their emissions plans up their asses, the supremacy clause is one of the most important clauses of our Consititution. It has allowed the US to develop a common market governed by federal law in many areas that significantly lowers transaction costs. Europe has caught on and is standardizing rules across the continent, we need to make sure we are standard and not 50 independent states dictating labeling or emissions, etc. Cars running cleaner and more efficient is a great policy, but it really has to be balanced against real world manufacturing and development constraints, which I don't think bodies like CARB do very well. With gas hitting $4 a gallon, all the incentive people need to get rid of their SUV and get a smaller car is in place. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on May 14, 2008 9:08:45 GMT -6
Humans exhale CO2...I wonder how much CO2 6 Billion people pump into the atmosphere?
Better plant some more fucking trees.
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on May 14, 2008 9:23:48 GMT -6
Humans exhale CO2...I wonder how much CO2 6 Billion people pump into the atmosphere? Better plant some more fucking trees. That raises the prescience of this old joke: What do you call 5,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start... in reducing global CO2 production (and a good example of sequestration). |
|
|
|
Post by idrinkthereforeiam on May 14, 2008 15:46:50 GMT -6
Who gives a shit? It's the Earth's natural processes. I can't remember back 2 or 3 or 4 million years, but I am sure it's cyclical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on May 14, 2008 21:39:58 GMT -6
While it's not the ultimate solution, allowing the wishes of a Republican Governor (Schwarzenegger) to increase emission/fuel efficiency standards for cars sold in his State... instead of the Republican President (via his proxy) blocking the same "State's Rights" Republicans often espouse... is a nice first step. As shitty as it is that some KD in DC tells liberals like CARB to shove their emissions plans up their asses, the supremacy clause is one of the most important clauses of our Consititution. It has allowed the US to develop a common market governed by federal law in many areas that significantly lowers transaction costs. Europe has caught on and is standardizing rules across the continent, we need to make sure we are standard and not 50 independent states dictating labeling or emissions, etc. Cars running cleaner and more efficient is a great policy, but it really has to be balanced against real world manufacturing and development constraints, which I don't think bodies like CARB do very well. With gas hitting $4 a gallon, all the incentive people need to get rid of their SUV and get a smaller car is in place. I think that the market will ultimately play the biggest role, so I agree with you. Expensive gas will mean less demand for massive autos, so the less innovative companies will be forced to move very quickly to bring something to market. It can be done, and the constraints of technology are limited by lack of vision by the companies themselves (to an extent). If they didn't have a big payoff, why invest tons of money? With incentive, I think we'll be impressed with what the automakers can do. If there's a will, there's a way. I do believe in the markets above all, but I'm not against regulating economy standards completely. |
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on May 16, 2008 20:32:46 GMT -6
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stmThe evidence on atmospheric concentrations comes from an Antarctic region called Dome Concordia (Dome C).
Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time.
Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of temperature.
"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.
"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years." I wonder why they didn't add that historic temperature increases generally precede CO2 increases by roughly 800+ years. Here's a nice graph from a childrens book by Laurie David(Yes that Laurie David, producer of An Inconvenient Truth) that shows this even though she attempts to mislead young, impressionable minds. Please read the story. It's a knee slapper. The temperature/CO2 charts are included as well. www.nowpublic.com/politics/do-al-gore-and-laurie-david-conspire-deceive“On page 18 of Laurie David's new children's global warming book, there is a glaring scientific error.
David tells children:
Deep down in the Antarctic ice are atmosphere samples from the past, trapped in tiny air bubbles. These bubbles, formed when snowflakes fell on the ice, are the key to figuring out two things about climate history: what temperatures were in the past and which greenhouse gases were present in the atmosphere at that time.
The more the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature climbed. The less carbon dioxide, the more the temperature fell. You can see this relationship for yourself by looking at the graph: (READS RIGHT TO LEFT)
What makes this graph so amazing is that by connecting rising CO2 to rising temperature scientists have discovered the link between greenhouse-gas pollution and global warming.”
What really makes their graph “amazing” is that it’s dead wrong. In order to contrive a visual representation for their false central claim that CO2 controls temperature change, David and co-author Cambria Gordon present unsuspecting children with an altered temperature and CO2 graph that falsely reverses the relationship found in the scientific literature.
The actual temperature curve in the chart was switched with the actual CO2 curve. That is, the authors mislabeled the blue curve as temperature and mislabeled the red curve as CO2 concentration. The real data show that the red curve represents the temperature changes over geological time, followed (lagged) by changes in CO2 concentrations represented by the blue curve. Thus, children tracing the properly labeled curves from right to left (from past to present) can easily see the real, science-based relationship (particularly clear in the interval between 500,000 and 150,000 years ago).
Corrected chart
Please note that the time axis reads from right to left.
On page 103 of their book, David and Gordon cite the work of Siegenthaler et al. (2005), for their written and graphical contention that temperature lags CO2. However, Siegenthaler et al. clearly state the opposite:
“The lags of CO2 with respect to the Antarctic temperature over glacial terminations V to VII are 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively, which are consistent with earlier observations during the last four glacial cycles.”
(Siegenthaler et al., 2005, Science, vol. 310, 1313-1317) |
|
