COMMENTS: 93
Lightning Strikes: Get Used to Catastrophic Wildfires and Worse
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
It still is. In late June, an ahead-of-schedule dry lightning event sparked more than 8,000 strikes across California, setting off over 800 fires, many of which are still burning as I write. And if you're the praying type, you might want to start praying they can be put out before the conventional time window for such events arrives in late July and August.
"This doesn't bode well for the fire season," AccuWeather.com meteorologist Ken Clark told the Associated Press in June, shortly after the lightning hit. "We're not even into the meat of the fire season at this point, and the brush is extremely dry. It's not going to get any better," he added. "It's going to get worse."
How much worse? How much time have you got? You might want to spend it packing.
According to a study published in Science last year, the Southwest region of the United States will enter permanent drought by 2050, and that's being optimistic. The seven states dependent upon the Colorado River Basin -- Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and California -- will most likely war over what remains of its diminishing water resources. The region's thirsty population will also be beset by rampant firestorms, as portions of the snowpack that remains bypass the liquid stage and evaporate into thin, dry air.
As the Union of Concerned Scientists argued in the paper "Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Droughts and Fires," published before global warming consciousness took hold this century, "Warmer global temperatures are expected to cause an intensification of the hydrologic cycle, with increased evaporation over both land and water." As the same organization explained in an analysis of the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report, "Nearly 90 percent of the 29,000 observational data series examined revealed changes consistent with the expected response to global warming."
In other words, dry lightning strikes in June might be "climatologically rare" now, as National Weather Service science officer John Juskie explained in the same Associated Press report. But thanks to human-induced global warming, they will soon be utterly logical.
"In the Rocky Mountains, fire season has grown by almost two months over the past decade as a result of climbing temperatures," explains Sierra Club spokesperson Kristina Johnson. "And as we see more droughts in California, we can expect more catastrophic wildfires."
Makes sense to me. But not to some meteorologists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including one I interviewed about this matter.
"Microclimate forecasting is hard," dodged Brian Tentinger, meteorologist for the NOAA's San Francisco and Monterey Bay Area Weather Forecast Office. "It's warm, but sometimes certain conditions set up the perfect storm. That's just the way things happen. Yes, there have been record-setting temperatures, but I wouldn't say the lightning storms portend a trend. I would be disinclined to say that it worries me."
Nice sentiment, but unfortunately that kind of reassurance from the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Weather Service is, pardon the pun, half-baked. It ignores the data at hand, which is growing more voluminous by the moment.
Barely a week before the so-called freak lightning storms set fire to California, the NOAA, Tentinger's own agency, released an exhaustive report on extreme weather events specific to North America, explaining that there is an unequivocal trend upward for abnormally hot days and nights, severe droughts and lower precipitation, especially in the Western regions of the nation.
Mix all those variables together, and you have 8,000 lightning strikes coming out of nowhere to torch a cumulative land mass the size of Los Angeles, the largest city in California and the second-largest in the United States. Tentinger might be disinclined to worry, but he's growing more alone by the day in that confidence. And even he, once pressed, gives way.
"If we keep having continuously dry rainfall seasons and conditions," Tentinger admitted, "then it's going to be a problem. If they persist, you're going to see the type of events that we've seen this year continue."
But the nightmare for the left coast isn't just about conflagration by lightning. "Wildfires are just one of the disasters we can expect if we don't act now to curb global warming," the Sierra Club's Johnson adds. "There will also be widespread floods, famine and disease."
The fallout from these natural catastrophes will dramatically reshape the nation, especially California, in ways that are unimaginable and dystopian to the extreme. Native species such as the coastal redwood and the artlessly named fire poppy could retreat or die off entirely due to warming temperatures. The rising mercury has already opened the door to all manner of pestilence, including bark beetles, whose decimation of trees across California, Colorado, New Mexico and elsewhere has left behind dead husks just begging for a spark -- say, from a freak lightning storm or 8,000 -- to come along and send them homeward to the forest in the sky. The paper "Climate Change and the Future of California's Endemic Flora," published on the open-access science site PLoS One, explains that "across all scenarios, the general trend is that diversity shifts toward the coast and northward."
The biodiversity of all other regions in California? Toast. Relatively speaking.
But the jostling and posturing of scientists, politicians, producers and consumers is a smokescreen for the patently obvious, summed up best by Bob Dylan in "Subterranean Homesick Blues:" "You don't need a weather man/To know which way the wind blows." Just take a look around you; that should be all you need to let you know that things are literally getting hot, heavy and, especially, high. The planet's carbon dioxide emissions are higher now than they've been in the last 650,000 years. (That is not a typo.) Methane is similarly through the roof. Record-setting temperatures on land and at sea have altered the geographical, and geopolitical, face of the planet. Dry lightning storms are arriving months ahead of schedule and burning areas the size of Los Angeles in the blink of an eye. Species are dying off or moving to areas with more moisture.
It might not be too long until we follow them, out of hot zones once known as home, and into an uncertain future of vanishing resources. We can use the freak lightning to brighten our nomadic trudge.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Erik1968 on Jul 18, 2008 1:07 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean, it really might NOT have to do with global warming. It scares me the way a little science can become a runaway frieght train. (Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe there is global warming going on, I just would rather not point to every single thing that happens and say "See! There it is! We TOLD you!!")
Can we try to remeber that for 50 years now the rumor that fat is bad for you has been circling, against all scientific evidence? And just now, finally, we're starting to realize that sugar is far, far worse.
I just worry about the way a little science can snowball into decades of idiocy. I'm no scientist, I don't pretend to understand all this stuff.
I mean, you don't need a weatherman...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» If not the weatherman, who?
Posted by: Last Chance
» You're ' Preaching to the Converted', Last Chance..
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: you don't need a weatherman...
Posted by: laszlortreiber
» RE: you don't need a weatherman...
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: you don't need a weatherman...
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: you don't need a weatherman...
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dawnteach on Jul 18, 2008 4:58 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You can't lie to the Creator.
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: You can't lie to the Creator.
Posted by: graffen48
» RE: shouldnt of pissed him off
Posted by: Razst
» So why isn't God punishing us for the sins most mentioned in the Bible, instead of the least?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: So why isn't God punishing us for the sins most mentioned in the Bible, instead of the least?
Posted by: HoboHomo
» How about God's wrath on just plain human stupidity and greed???
Posted by: emccready
» Why didn't anything happen in Massachusetts?
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Why didn't anything happen in Massachusetts?
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Why didn't anything happen in Massachusetts?
Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: shouldnt of pissed who off?
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: shouldnt of pissed who off?
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: shouldnt of pissed who off?
Posted by: barryr
» RE: shouldnt of pissed who off?
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: shouldnt of pissed him off
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: shouldnt ("have")? pissed him off
Posted by: Talon
» RE: shouldnt of pissed him off
Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: shouldnt of pissed him off
Posted by: Lauren
» JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED, guess you ignore that part huh?
Posted by: magiquarian1969
» My gods approve of same sexy marriage
Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: shouldnt of pissed him off
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: shouldnt of pissed him off
Posted by: Lauren
» RELigion is caused by insanity
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: Ligion is caused by insanity; maybe so is the idea that one can mine asteroids from. . .
Posted by: Beck
» Read "Mining the Sky" by Lewis and go to www.liftport.com
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» So God was fine w/ slavery and a lack of womens rights?
Posted by: bim
» RE: shouldnt of pissed him off
Posted by: G.Achin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: williameon on Jul 18, 2008 6:03 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dead eye and the Shrubs reign of Terror is ending.
Time to put an end to the Evil system that Spawned them.
The Climate catastrophe and the coming economic DOOM.
The poles are shifting.
Where they will stop?
NO ONE KNOWS!
The Economic Pump has lost it’s prime.
Put too much wealth into too few hands and it spells Economic Disaster!
GREED does it, again!
There will be an interruption in food supplies.
While the Midwest sinks under water and
California is having a FIRE SALE what do we do.
Prepare for the worst.
Open waters at the Pole and what are we doing about it?
We’re wasting all of our resources, Militia, valuable time and money fighting a loosing WAR!
BRAINWASHED!
How?
Why?
Endless Homogenized and Pasteurized
BU__! SH__!
Your Government/Military has been Privatized,
We're paying WAR TAX at the pump.
Every time we fill up.
$4 DOLLARS a GALLON!
Stop the WAR and Oil will drop by 50%!
The Corpirate system is corrupt and is collapsing from the wight of it's own GREED!
Cheap oil created it and expensive oil will do it in.
Work around it!
KICK the habit!
Get rid of the Oil PUSHER MAN!
A decentralized, locally owned and operated sustainable system is the answer.
Micro-Democracies.
LOCAL owned and produced: Green housing/renovation, solar/wind power, renewable energy, organic farming, education, manufacturing, Financial (credit unions) and an Independent Media.
Buy staples and Green Hardware with your BUSH Dollars before they become completely worthless.
When you let these Lying, Spying, Stealing, Treasonous, Torturer Terrorists get away with Mass Murder,
What did you think was going to happen?
They’ve eventually turned on you.
Stop Dead Eye and the Chimp now!
Stop the BU__! SH__!
SURGE
PURGE
REBOOT!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: uncleeddie on Jul 18, 2008 7:38 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Human Induced? Well, yes...
Posted by: greenman
» RE: Human Induced? Well, yes...
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Human Induced? Well, yes...
Posted by: uncleeddie
» RE: Human Induced?
Posted by: Crazy H
» gravity is an unproven theory.
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» "No mistake is too dumb for someone, somewhere to make if they
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: modeler on Jul 18, 2008 8:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: easons for Thankfulness?
Posted by: helenwheels
» Turning things around
Posted by: Cathyc
» you should of seen it coming.
Posted by: rafaeltoral
Comments are closed-
Posted by: helenwheels on Jul 18, 2008 8:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Los Angeles, just 1 mile away from where there was a big fire last year in Griffith Park. Directly as a result of that fire, exactly one day later, I contracted something called Reactive Airway Disease. Now, every time there is a fire anywhere w/in 50 miles it acts up. I have to use an inhaler. I am actually planning on moving just because the air quality has gotten so bad. 8-9 years ago, this wasn't the case. That's a huge change in a short time. I moved here from the midwest 12 years ago, and the first 3-4 years were cooler and had good winter rainy seasons. No one even needed to use A/C. Now everyone has it.
As other posters have said, the scientists have the proof and as the author said, we have our eyes. I actually saw one of these fires in northern CA driving back from Oregon last week. It was immense, I've never seen anything like it. I can only imagine the health issues that people in the area are going to experience.
And I'm a young, healthy person... if I contracted Reactive Airway Disease, I can't imagine others wouldn't and it may be tougher on the elderly and can you imagine kids growing up breathing that crap in & what it would do to developing bodies, especially their respiratory system?
And I'm only one, tiny example of fire fallout. I don't even know what those firefighters must have to deal with.
All in all, pretty scary shit. I am planning a move w/in the next couple of years, as much as I hate to even think about it. Love my lifestyle and Los Angles, but really don't want my lungs to fail before I even hit 50.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Health Issues must be escalating - and it isn't only the effects of these fires
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Health Issues must be escalating
Posted by: badkitty
» RE: Health Issues must be escalating
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Health Issues must be escalating
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Health Issues must be escalating
Posted by: helenwheels
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Jul 18, 2008 9:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A proactive governor would have increased the budget for fighting fire early on. Extra flying tankers would have been available. Next, he would have called the National Guard up immediately when the fires were ten times as small. Sometimes a zero tolerance policy pays off. Just as important, more fire lines should have been pre-cut during the previous winter.
Another technique is to pre-burn the fire line area just as a thundershower approaches on radar in winter when firefighting is much safer. The thundershower cheaply puts out the fire for the fire crew. Next summer, a real fire stops at the fire line.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A dead forest is a global warming event waiting to happen
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: A dead forest is a global warming event waiting to happen
Posted by: G.Achin
» Where are the resources?
Posted by: Beagle17
» RE: A dead forest is a global warming event waiting to happen
Posted by: AJAXXXXX
» RE: A dead forest is a global warming event waiting to happen
Posted by: G.Achin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Jul 18, 2008 9:58 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JT
Ultimate Anonymity
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wildbill on Jul 18, 2008 10:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ampant fire storms?
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: ampant fire storms?
Posted by: HoboHomo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: scienceisnotconsensus on Jul 18, 2008 1:36 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First let me refer you to this growing debate:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
It's conclusion:
"Conclusion
Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.
In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."
Second to everyone reading this is how the oligarchy impose their will on people.
All government power from local to national to multinational and global level is based on FEAR.
FEAR is the only weapon they can use to control billions of people. (to be continued)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: scienceisnotconsensus
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: scienceisnotconsensus
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: scienceisnotconsensus
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: Greg2008
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: scienceisnotconsensus
» Wanna bet?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: G.Achin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jul 18, 2008 2:06 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading down this list you can tell the ones who get their "science" from AM talk radio. Listen carefully now, CO2 is indeed increasing dramatically and most of it up til now has been largely due to human endeavors that use coal and petroleum distillates for fuel. This is understood by taking ice core samples which contain the atmosphere from long ago trapped in bubbles in polar ice caps and comparing the air in those trapped bubbles with the atmosphere we have today and with measurements of atmospheric constitution kept since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The evidence for dramatic increase is incontrovertible. Again, no mystery there.
Lately the warming our activity has caused has gotten things to the point where vast areas of the northern hemisphere, that is actually millenia worth of tundra that has bloomed and died and frozen, has begun to thaw for the first time in millions of years. Thawing causes all this dead matter to start rotting, (like your frozen food does when there is a long term power outage) releasing as it does, many times the amount of CO2, methane and other heat holding gasses that we have put into the atmosphere in all our time here. CO2 etc REALLY DOES cause warming. So things are going to get a LOT warmer folks. It's exponential now. Dry places will get a lot drier. There is no mythology here, no alarmist hysteria. This is simply what happens when that amount of matter begins to decay... all that gas realeased goes into the atmosphere.
California will look a lot like Baja does now in fifty years if the current climate models hold. There may be some micro climate regions along the very edge of the coastline where Coast Redwoods might survive, but most likely they will be wall to wall people... so yes, this magnificent tree species that survived Ice Ages and whose relatives go back to the time of the dinosaurs will likely die out completely. Extinction is forever, people, and we are blithely sending thousands of species that way every year with our thoughtless quest for wealth and power.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's called desertification
Posted by: Morphizm
» RE: It's called desertification
Posted by: G.Achin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Greg2008 on Jul 18, 2008 6:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Other effects of global warming?
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 18, 2008 10:25 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Energy policy = environmental policy
because Global Warming
can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of the oceans.
Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.
October 2006 Scientific American
"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."
Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."
www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:
http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672
http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535
http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html
http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0
These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.
The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian
"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.
ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.
I have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kaos.underwave on Jul 18, 2008 10:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead, try addressing the consequences of two potential reactions:
taking action to restore balance between anthropological development and natural systems [reason: worlds ending]
taking no action and continuing as per normal [reason: worlds not ending]
Let me preface this a bit-We can see from evidence as far back as the 80s that intensely concentrated and accumulated human development, like in big cities [l.a., n.y., london, etc] causes poisoning of atmosphere and land, to the extent that living in london is supposed to be like smoking a few packs of cigarettes a day, right? So unregulated human dev. has at least a local impact, as opposed to global.
The consequences of reacting in a manner so as to prevent or remedy 'global warming', in terms of reducing emissions and generally environmentally friendly stuff etc would be, regardless of the validity of the supposed apocalyptic threat:
a much nicer environment for all of us, and our children; an organism more in balance with its environment, that is, more successful.
The disadvantage? Damage to the economy, to the power of the nation-state.
Individual health is increased, at the price of economic health.
If, on the other hand, the latter reaction is generally adopted [carry on as usual], the best case scenario is:
further slow but steady poisoning of earth, water and atmosphere; further depletion of resources, agricultural land, fish stocks; more cancer, more concrete, more imbalance, more shit, but better local and global economy...maybe.
Worst case scenario is..you know.. everyone dies, tidal waves and plagues and the fire of god raining from the sky etc
Even in the best case scenario, if this imbalance between organism and environment increases a crisis point must eventually be reached. And in the meantime we have to put up with 1000+ Londoners dying a year just because they breathe the air here.
I'd much rather take action for a false reason and be left with the best product, than take no action and face either an undesirable product or total annihilation.
I figure there's so much conflicting stuff about whether this is real or not, that its just impossible sit on either side of the fence with any confidence. Who knows? Really? Can any of you be sure who is right?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: think consequence
Posted by: AJAXXXXX
» RE: think consequence
Posted by: G.Achin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: corylus on Jul 18, 2008 11:05 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever the human impacts to the atmosphere and climate, it's not as though that's the only way our species has completely soiled the beds we sleep in. All in all, I think many other species will be much better off when we suffer our imminent demise as a result of our own murderous hands and empty heads. Even redwoods have survived millions of years of climate change, and no one really knows that they'll be threatened by either localized climatic warming or cooling. The range of that species could extend northward, or southward, on inland -- I don't know, nor does anyone else really know how most species will respond to climate change, even if data gathered to date are extensive and sound. Most of the species we live among have been around much longer than Homo sapiens, and are much better equipped genetically and ecologically to persist through the human-induced changes. So, I suspect that articles such as this one are intended more to scare humans into changing our ways through hysteria (think the "War on Terror" ruse (as if any organization is more prone to terrorism than the U. S. government!)), than they are to explain ongoing climate change within the context of the Earth's long-term climate and the ecology of its diverse ecosystems and organisms.
About the lightning-caused fires: this phenomenon has likely been repeated every 50 to 100 years in northern California, over several tens of thousands of years. I profess to having no hard data on this, other than the fact that most of the native plants here have evolved physiological and morphological traits that enable them to persist through burning, in some species much more frequently than every 50 years. The recent fires, in many cases, have removed excessive litter from forests and woodlands, and will rejuvenate soil nutrient levels and critically important fungi and other micro-organismal populations. If there weren't so damned many people living in places where they have no business, or who insist on living "ecologically" even though they really don't have a clue what that means in a wholistic sense (as in, putting yourself in harm's way without any notion about the inherent dangers of living in a fire-adapted and -dependent natural environment), then most of the concerns about the recent fires would indeed be what it is, ecologically: good news.
To sum up, don't make lightning, or lightning-caused fires, or the threats they pose to humans, the scapegoat or the "lightning rod" for hysteria about climate change. Fire has been a climatic part of the American West landscape for many thousands of years, and using it to pawn off humans' responsibility for their own stupidity (let us count the ways) is a red herring tactic. This article, at best, makes a specious point about climatic fires, and should have been much more deliberate in sorting out the human factors in climate change from the longer term climate patterns of western North America.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 18, 2008 11:11 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.skeptic.com/
the_magazine/featured_
articles/v14n01_human_
induced_climate_change.html
Dr. Tapio Schneider discusses the science behind human-induced climate change.
He is a climate scientist and Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering
at the California Institute of Technology.
How We Know Global Warming is Real
The Science Behind Human-induced Climate Change
by Dr. Tapio Schneider
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than at any time in at
least the past 650,000 years. They are about 35% higher than before the industrial
revolution, and this increase is caused by human activities, primarily the burning
of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, as are methane, nitrous oxide,
water vapor, and a host of other trace gases. They occur naturally in the
atmosphere. Greenhouse gases act like a blanket for infrared radiation, retaining
radiative energy near the surface that would otherwise escape directly to space. An
increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and of other greenhouse
gases augments the natural greenhouse effect; it increases the radiative energy
available to Earth’s surface and to the lower atmosphere. Unless compensated for
by other processes, the increase in radiative energy available to the surface and the
lower atmosphere leads to warming. This we know. How do we know it?
How do we know carbon dioxide concentrations have increased?
The concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in atmospheric
samples have been measured continuously since the late 1950s. Since then, carbon
dioxide concentrations have increased steadily from about 315 parts per million
(ppm, or molecules of carbon dioxide per million molecules of dry air) in the late
1950s to about 385 ppm now, with small spatial variations away from major
sources of emissions. For the more distant past, we can measure atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases in bubbles of ancient air preserved in ice (e.g.,
in Greenland and Antarctica). Ice core records currently go back 650,000 years;
over this period we know that carbon dioxide concentrations have never been
higher than they are now. Before the industrial revolution, they were about 280
ppm, and they have varied naturally between about 180 ppm during ice ages and
300 ppm during warm periods (Fig. 1). Concentrations of methane and nitrous
oxide have likewise increased since the industrial revolution (Fig. 2) and, for
methane, are higher now than they have been in the 650,000 years before the
industrial revolution.
How do we know the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is caused by
human activities?
There are several lines of evidence. We know approximately how much carbon
dioxide is emitted as a result of human activities. Adding up the human sources of
carbon dioxide — primarily from fossil fuel burning, cement production, and land
use changes (e.g., deforestation) — one finds that only about half the carbon
dioxide emitted as a result of human activities has led to an increase in
atmospheric concentrations. The other half of the emitted carbon dioxide has been
taken up by oceans and the biosphere — where and how exactly is not completely
understood: there is a “missing carbon sink.”
Human activities thus can account for the increase in carbon dioxide
concentrations.
......the article continues. Go to the URL above.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tarnishedreality on Jul 19, 2008 6:24 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think it's this simple. Increase the amount of Methane and CO2 and you get environmental disaster! I think that there are many variables in play here. For one the planet does go through cycles. The Sahara was once a lush forest, but it turned into a desert right along with the majority of the Middle East and it did so before a single car existed. I have to own up to this fact that the earth naturally changes climate to my conservative work mates all the time.
That being said, we're not helping ourselves by advancing the time table of climate change faster than the animal kingdom and ourselves can adapt. Pollution may not be the sole cause of this change, but we are contributing to it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» THIS global warming is entirely OUR fault
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: THIS global warming is entirely OUR fault
Posted by: tarnishedreality
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macdon1 on Jul 19, 2008 7:21 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 20, 2008 12:07 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cars are a ways down the list.
The sun happens to be dimmer right now than usual, and has
been. See RealClimate.org.
We know all about Milankovitch cycles, and the earth should be
cooling off right now. It is time for another ice age. We have
gone way beyond preventing the ice age.
We know a lot about other cycles as well, such as the Pacific
Ocean oscillation, the North Atlantic oscillation, etc..
You can forget about trying to blame Mother Nature. This one is
OUR fault, and it is far more rapid than anything Nature does that
doesn't include a giant asteroid or comet impact. This global
warming is Anthropic, which means human caused.
"No mistake is too dumb for someone, somewhere to make if they
think they can spin it into supporting their anti-science agenda."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=581
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You posted this twice, did you know that?
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GPFrank on Jul 21, 2008 7:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Answer to why didn't something happen in Massachusetts as well as rather than California:
God is a crapshot like those who invent him.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Erik1968 on Jul 18, 2008 1:07 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I mean, it really might NOT have to do with global warming. It scares me the way a little science can become a runaway frieght train. (Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe there is global warming going on, I just would rather not point to every single thing that happens and say "See! There it is! We TOLD you!!")
Can we try to remeber that for 50 years now the rumor that fat is bad for you has been circling, against all scientific evidence? And just now, finally, we're starting to realize that sugar is far, far worse.
I just worry about the way a little science can snowball into decades of idiocy. I'm no scientist, I don't pretend to understand all this stuff.
I mean, you don't need a weatherman...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» If not the weatherman, who?
Posted by: Last Chance
» You're ' Preaching to the Converted', Last Chance..
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: you don't need a weatherman...
Posted by: laszlortreiber
» RE: you don't need a weatherman...
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: you don't need a weatherman...
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: you don't need a weatherman...
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dawnteach on Jul 18, 2008 4:58 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You can't lie to the Creator.
Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: You can't lie to the Creator.
Posted by: graffen48
» RE: shouldnt of pissed him off
Posted by: Razst
» So why isn't God punishing us for the sins most mentioned in the Bible, instead of the least?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: So why isn't God punishing us for the sins most mentioned in the Bible, instead of the least?
Posted by: HoboHomo
» How about God's wrath on just plain human stupidity and greed???
Posted by: emccready
» Why didn't anything happen in Massachusetts?
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Why didn't anything happen in Massachusetts?
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Why didn't anything happen in Massachusetts?
Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: shouldnt of pissed who off?
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: shouldnt of pissed who off?
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: shouldnt of pissed who off?
Posted by: barryr
» RE: shouldnt of pissed who off?
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: shouldnt of pissed him off
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: shouldnt ("have")? pissed him off
Posted by: Talon
» RE: shouldnt of pissed him off
Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: shouldnt of pissed him off
Posted by: Lauren
» JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED, guess you ignore that part huh?
Posted by: magiquarian1969
» My gods approve of same sexy marriage
Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: shouldnt of pissed him off
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: shouldnt of pissed him off
Posted by: Lauren
» RELigion is caused by insanity
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: Ligion is caused by insanity; maybe so is the idea that one can mine asteroids from. . .
Posted by: Beck
» Read "Mining the Sky" by Lewis and go to www.liftport.com
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» So God was fine w/ slavery and a lack of womens rights?
Posted by: bim
» RE: shouldnt of pissed him off
Posted by: G.Achin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: williameon on Jul 18, 2008 6:03 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dead eye and the Shrubs reign of Terror is ending.
Time to put an end to the Evil system that Spawned them.
The Climate catastrophe and the coming economic DOOM.
The poles are shifting.
Where they will stop?
NO ONE KNOWS!
The Economic Pump has lost it’s prime.
Put too much wealth into too few hands and it spells Economic Disaster!
GREED does it, again!
There will be an interruption in food supplies.
While the Midwest sinks under water and
California is having a FIRE SALE what do we do.
Prepare for the worst.
Open waters at the Pole and what are we doing about it?
We’re wasting all of our resources, Militia, valuable time and money fighting a loosing WAR!
BRAINWASHED!
How?
Why?
Endless Homogenized and Pasteurized
BU__! SH__!
Your Government/Military has been Privatized,
We're paying WAR TAX at the pump.
Every time we fill up.
$4 DOLLARS a GALLON!
Stop the WAR and Oil will drop by 50%!
The Corpirate system is corrupt and is collapsing from the wight of it's own GREED!
Cheap oil created it and expensive oil will do it in.
Work around it!
KICK the habit!
Get rid of the Oil PUSHER MAN!
A decentralized, locally owned and operated sustainable system is the answer.
Micro-Democracies.
LOCAL owned and produced: Green housing/renovation, solar/wind power, renewable energy, organic farming, education, manufacturing, Financial (credit unions) and an Independent Media.
Buy staples and Green Hardware with your BUSH Dollars before they become completely worthless.
When you let these Lying, Spying, Stealing, Treasonous, Torturer Terrorists get away with Mass Murder,
What did you think was going to happen?
They’ve eventually turned on you.
Stop Dead Eye and the Chimp now!
Stop the BU__! SH__!
SURGE
PURGE
REBOOT!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: uncleeddie on Jul 18, 2008 7:38 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Human Induced? Well, yes...
Posted by: greenman
» RE: Human Induced? Well, yes...
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Human Induced? Well, yes...
Posted by: uncleeddie
» RE: Human Induced?
Posted by: Crazy H
» gravity is an unproven theory.
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» "No mistake is too dumb for someone, somewhere to make if they
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Comments are closed-
Posted by: modeler on Jul 18, 2008 8:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: easons for Thankfulness?
Posted by: helenwheels
» Turning things around
Posted by: Cathyc
» you should of seen it coming.
Posted by: rafaeltoral
Comments are closed-
Posted by: helenwheels on Jul 18, 2008 8:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Los Angeles, just 1 mile away from where there was a big fire last year in Griffith Park. Directly as a result of that fire, exactly one day later, I contracted something called Reactive Airway Disease. Now, every time there is a fire anywhere w/in 50 miles it acts up. I have to use an inhaler. I am actually planning on moving just because the air quality has gotten so bad. 8-9 years ago, this wasn't the case. That's a huge change in a short time. I moved here from the midwest 12 years ago, and the first 3-4 years were cooler and had good winter rainy seasons. No one even needed to use A/C. Now everyone has it.
As other posters have said, the scientists have the proof and as the author said, we have our eyes. I actually saw one of these fires in northern CA driving back from Oregon last week. It was immense, I've never seen anything like it. I can only imagine the health issues that people in the area are going to experience.
And I'm a young, healthy person... if I contracted Reactive Airway Disease, I can't imagine others wouldn't and it may be tougher on the elderly and can you imagine kids growing up breathing that crap in & what it would do to developing bodies, especially their respiratory system?
And I'm only one, tiny example of fire fallout. I don't even know what those firefighters must have to deal with.
All in all, pretty scary shit. I am planning a move w/in the next couple of years, as much as I hate to even think about it. Love my lifestyle and Los Angles, but really don't want my lungs to fail before I even hit 50.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Health Issues must be escalating - and it isn't only the effects of these fires
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Health Issues must be escalating
Posted by: badkitty
» RE: Health Issues must be escalating
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Health Issues must be escalating
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Health Issues must be escalating
Posted by: helenwheels
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Jul 18, 2008 9:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A proactive governor would have increased the budget for fighting fire early on. Extra flying tankers would have been available. Next, he would have called the National Guard up immediately when the fires were ten times as small. Sometimes a zero tolerance policy pays off. Just as important, more fire lines should have been pre-cut during the previous winter.
Another technique is to pre-burn the fire line area just as a thundershower approaches on radar in winter when firefighting is much safer. The thundershower cheaply puts out the fire for the fire crew. Next summer, a real fire stops at the fire line.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A dead forest is a global warming event waiting to happen
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: A dead forest is a global warming event waiting to happen
Posted by: G.Achin
» Where are the resources?
Posted by: Beagle17
» RE: A dead forest is a global warming event waiting to happen
Posted by: AJAXXXXX
» RE: A dead forest is a global warming event waiting to happen
Posted by: G.Achin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Jul 18, 2008 9:58 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JT
Ultimate Anonymity
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wildbill on Jul 18, 2008 10:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ampant fire storms?
Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: ampant fire storms?
Posted by: HoboHomo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: scienceisnotconsensus on Jul 18, 2008 1:36 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First let me refer you to this growing debate:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
It's conclusion:
"Conclusion
Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.
In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."
Second to everyone reading this is how the oligarchy impose their will on people.
All government power from local to national to multinational and global level is based on FEAR.
FEAR is the only weapon they can use to control billions of people. (to be continued)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: scienceisnotconsensus
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: scienceisnotconsensus
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: scienceisnotconsensus
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: Greg2008
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: scienceisnotconsensus
» Wanna bet?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: Take a chill pill Scott
Posted by: G.Achin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jul 18, 2008 2:06 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading down this list you can tell the ones who get their "science" from AM talk radio. Listen carefully now, CO2 is indeed increasing dramatically and most of it up til now has been largely due to human endeavors that use coal and petroleum distillates for fuel. This is understood by taking ice core samples which contain the atmosphere from long ago trapped in bubbles in polar ice caps and comparing the air in those trapped bubbles with the atmosphere we have today and with measurements of atmospheric constitution kept since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The evidence for dramatic increase is incontrovertible. Again, no mystery there.
Lately the warming our activity has caused has gotten things to the point where vast areas of the northern hemisphere, that is actually millenia worth of tundra that has bloomed and died and frozen, has begun to thaw for the first time in millions of years. Thawing causes all this dead matter to start rotting, (like your frozen food does when there is a long term power outage) releasing as it does, many times the amount of CO2, methane and other heat holding gasses that we have put into the atmosphere in all our time here. CO2 etc REALLY DOES cause warming. So things are going to get a LOT warmer folks. It's exponential now. Dry places will get a lot drier. There is no mythology here, no alarmist hysteria. This is simply what happens when that amount of matter begins to decay... all that gas realeased goes into the atmosphere.
California will look a lot like Baja does now in fifty years if the current climate models hold. There may be some micro climate regions along the very edge of the coastline where Coast Redwoods might survive, but most likely they will be wall to wall people... so yes, this magnificent tree species that survived Ice Ages and whose relatives go back to the time of the dinosaurs will likely die out completely. Extinction is forever, people, and we are blithely sending thousands of species that way every year with our thoughtless quest for wealth and power.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's called desertification
Posted by: Morphizm
» RE: It's called desertification
Posted by: G.Achin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Greg2008 on Jul 18, 2008 6:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Other effects of global warming?
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 18, 2008 10:25 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Energy policy = environmental policy
because Global Warming
can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of the oceans.
Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.
October 2006 Scientific American
"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."
Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."
www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:
http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672
http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535
http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html
http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0
These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.
The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian
"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.
ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.
I have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kaos.underwave on Jul 18, 2008 10:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead, try addressing the consequences of two potential reactions:
taking action to restore balance between anthropological development and natural systems [reason: worlds ending]
taking no action and continuing as per normal [reason: worlds not ending]
Let me preface this a bit-We can see from evidence as far back as the 80s that intensely concentrated and accumulated human development, like in big cities [l.a., n.y., london, etc] causes poisoning of atmosphere and land, to the extent that living in london is supposed to be like smoking a few packs of cigarettes a day, right? So unregulated human dev. has at least a local impact, as opposed to global.
The consequences of reacting in a manner so as to prevent or remedy 'global warming', in terms of reducing emissions and generally environmentally friendly stuff etc would be, regardless of the validity of the supposed apocalyptic threat:
a much nicer environment for all of us, and our children; an organism more in balance with its environment, that is, more successful.
The disadvantage? Damage to the economy, to the power of the nation-state.
Individual health is increased, at the price of economic health.
If, on the other hand, the latter reaction is generally adopted [carry on as usual], the best case scenario is:
further slow but steady poisoning of earth, water and atmosphere; further depletion of resources, agricultural land, fish stocks; more cancer, more concrete, more imbalance, more shit, but better local and global economy...maybe.
Worst case scenario is..you know.. everyone dies, tidal waves and plagues and the fire of god raining from the sky etc
Even in the best case scenario, if this imbalance between organism and environment increases a crisis point must eventually be reached. And in the meantime we have to put up with 1000+ Londoners dying a year just because they breathe the air here.
I'd much rather take action for a false reason and be left with the best product, than take no action and face either an undesirable product or total annihilation.
I figure there's so much conflicting stuff about whether this is real or not, that its just impossible sit on either side of the fence with any confidence. Who knows? Really? Can any of you be sure who is right?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: think consequence
Posted by: AJAXXXXX
» RE: think consequence
Posted by: G.Achin
Comments are closed-
Posted by: corylus on Jul 18, 2008 11:05 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever the human impacts to the atmosphere and climate, it's not as though that's the only way our species has completely soiled the beds we sleep in. All in all, I think many other species will be much better off when we suffer our imminent demise as a result of our own murderous hands and empty heads. Even redwoods have survived millions of years of climate change, and no one really knows that they'll be threatened by either localized climatic warming or cooling. The range of that species could extend northward, or southward, on inland -- I don't know, nor does anyone else really know how most species will respond to climate change, even if data gathered to date are extensive and sound. Most of the species we live among have been around much longer than Homo sapiens, and are much better equipped genetically and ecologically to persist through the human-induced changes. So, I suspect that articles such as this one are intended more to scare humans into changing our ways through hysteria (think the "War on Terror" ruse (as if any organization is more prone to terrorism than the U. S. government!)), than they are to explain ongoing climate change within the context of the Earth's long-term climate and the ecology of its diverse ecosystems and organisms.
About the lightning-caused fires: this phenomenon has likely been repeated every 50 to 100 years in northern California, over several tens of thousands of years. I profess to having no hard data on this, other than the fact that most of the native plants here have evolved physiological and morphological traits that enable them to persist through burning, in some species much more frequently than every 50 years. The recent fires, in many cases, have removed excessive litter from forests and woodlands, and will rejuvenate soil nutrient levels and critically important fungi and other micro-organismal populations. If there weren't so damned many people living in places where they have no business, or who insist on living "ecologically" even though they really don't have a clue what that means in a wholistic sense (as in, putting yourself in harm's way without any notion about the inherent dangers of living in a fire-adapted and -dependent natural environment), then most of the concerns about the recent fires would indeed be what it is, ecologically: good news.
To sum up, don't make lightning, or lightning-caused fires, or the threats they pose to humans, the scapegoat or the "lightning rod" for hysteria about climate change. Fire has been a climatic part of the American West landscape for many thousands of years, and using it to pawn off humans' responsibility for their own stupidity (let us count the ways) is a red herring tactic. This article, at best, makes a specious point about climatic fires, and should have been much more deliberate in sorting out the human factors in climate change from the longer term climate patterns of western North America.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 18, 2008 11:11 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.skeptic.com/
the_magazine/featured_
articles/v14n01_human_
induced_climate_change.html
Dr. Tapio Schneider discusses the science behind human-induced climate change.
He is a climate scientist and Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering
at the California Institute of Technology.
How We Know Global Warming is Real
The Science Behind Human-induced Climate Change
by Dr. Tapio Schneider
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than at any time in at
least the past 650,000 years. They are about 35% higher than before the industrial
revolution, and this increase is caused by human activities, primarily the burning
of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, as are methane, nitrous oxide,
water vapor, and a host of other trace gases. They occur naturally in the
atmosphere. Greenhouse gases act like a blanket for infrared radiation, retaining
radiative energy near the surface that would otherwise escape directly to space. An
increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and of other greenhouse
gases augments the natural greenhouse effect; it increases the radiative energy
available to Earth’s surface and to the lower atmosphere. Unless compensated for
by other processes, the increase in radiative energy available to the surface and the
lower atmosphere leads to warming. This we know. How do we know it?
How do we know carbon dioxide concentrations have increased?
The concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in atmospheric
samples have been measured continuously since the late 1950s. Since then, carbon
dioxide concentrations have increased steadily from about 315 parts per million
(ppm, or molecules of carbon dioxide per million molecules of dry air) in the late
1950s to about 385 ppm now, with small spatial variations away from major
sources of emissions. For the more distant past, we can measure atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases in bubbles of ancient air preserved in ice (e.g.,
in Greenland and Antarctica). Ice core records currently go back 650,000 years;
over this period we know that carbon dioxide concentrations have never been
higher than they are now. Before the industrial revolution, they were about 280
ppm, and they have varied naturally between about 180 ppm during ice ages and
300 ppm during warm periods (Fig. 1). Concentrations of methane and nitrous
oxide have likewise increased since the industrial revolution (Fig. 2) and, for
methane, are higher now than they have been in the 650,000 years before the
industrial revolution.
How do we know the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is caused by
human activities?
There are several lines of evidence. We know approximately how much carbon
dioxide is emitted as a result of human activities. Adding up the human sources of
carbon dioxide — primarily from fossil fuel burning, cement production, and land
use changes (e.g., deforestation) — one finds that only about half the carbon
dioxide emitted as a result of human activities has led to an increase in
atmospheric concentrations. The other half of the emitted carbon dioxide has been
taken up by oceans and the biosphere — where and how exactly is not completely
understood: there is a “missing carbon sink.”
Human activities thus can account for the increase in carbon dioxide
concentrations.
......the article continues. Go to the URL above.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tarnishedreality on Jul 19, 2008 6:24 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think it's this simple. Increase the amount of Methane and CO2 and you get environmental disaster! I think that there are many variables in play here. For one the planet does go through cycles. The Sahara was once a lush forest, but it turned into a desert right along with the majority of the Middle East and it did so before a single car existed. I have to own up to this fact that the earth naturally changes climate to my conservative work mates all the time.
That being said, we're not helping ourselves by advancing the time table of climate change faster than the animal kingdom and ourselves can adapt. Pollution may not be the sole cause of this change, but we are contributing to it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» THIS global warming is entirely OUR fault
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: THIS global warming is entirely OUR fault
Posted by: tarnishedreality
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macdon1 on Jul 19, 2008 7:21 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 20, 2008 12:07 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cars are a ways down the list.
The sun happens to be dimmer right now than usual, and has
been. See RealClimate.org.
We know all about Milankovitch cycles, and the earth should be
cooling off right now. It is time for another ice age. We have
gone way beyond preventing the ice age.
We know a lot about other cycles as well, such as the Pacific
Ocean oscillation, the North Atlantic oscillation, etc..
You can forget about trying to blame Mother Nature. This one is
OUR fault, and it is far more rapid than anything Nature does that
doesn't include a giant asteroid or comet impact. This global
warming is Anthropic, which means human caused.
"No mistake is too dumb for someone, somewhere to make if they
think they can spin it into supporting their anti-science agenda."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=581
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You posted this twice, did you know that?
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GPFrank on Jul 21, 2008 7:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Answer to why didn't something happen in Massachusetts as well as rather than California:
God is a crapshot like those who invent him.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




