|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 10, 2006 11:17:45 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801772_pf.html'Rapid Warming' Spreads Havoc in Canada's Forests Tiny Beetles Destroying Pines By Doug Struck Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, March 1, 2006; A01 QUESNEL, B.C. -- Millions of acres of Canada's lush green forests are turning red in spasms of death. A voracious beetle, whose population has exploded with the warming climate, is killing more trees than wildfires or logging. The mountain pine beetle has infested an area three times the size of Maryland, devastating swaths of lodgepole pines and reshaping the future of the forest and the communities in it. "It's pretty gut-wrenching," said Allan Carroll, a research scientist at the Pacific Forestry Centre in Victoria, whose studies tracked a lock step between warmer winters and the spread of the beetle. "People say climate change is something for our kids to worry about. No. It's now." Scientists fear the beetle will cross the Rocky Mountains and sweep across the northern continent into areas where it used to be killed by severe cold but where winters now are comparatively mild. Officials in neighboring Alberta are setting fires and traps and felling thousands of trees in an attempt to keep the beetle at bay. "This is an all-out battle," said David Coutts, Alberta's minister of sustainable resource development. The Canadian Forest Service calls it the largest known insect infestation in North American history. U.S. Forest Service officials say they are watching warily as the outbreak has spread. The United States is less vulnerable because it lacks the seamless forest of lodgepole pines that are a highway for the beetle in Canada. So far, U.S. officials say, the outbreaks have been mostly in isolated clumps of remote wilderness areas of northern Washington. "It's a rapid warming" that is increasing the beetles' range, said Carroll. "All the data show there are significant changes over widespread areas that are going to cause us considerable amount of grief. Not only is it coming, it's here." "We are seeing this pine beetle do things that have never been recorded before," said Michael Pelchat, a forestry officer in Quesnel, as he followed moose tracks in the snow to examine a 100-year-old pine killed in one season by the beetle. "They are attacking younger trees, and attacking timber in altitudes they have never been before." The tiny beetle has always lived in high areas from Arizona to northern British Columbia, and occasionally populations have grown in limited outbreaks. In Canada, where the beetle's favored lodgepole pine thrives, it has been controlled by winters with early cold snaps or long killing spells of 20 degrees below zero. But for more than a decade, forestry experts say, the weather here has not been cold enough for long enough to kill the beetle. Scientists with the Canadian Forest Service say the average temperature of winters here has risen by more than 4 degrees in the last century. "That's not insignificant," said Jim Snetsinger, British Columbia's chief forester. "Global warming is happening. We have to start to account for it." The result is a swarm of beetles that has grown exponentially in the past six years, flying from tree to tree. The advance is marked by broad swaths of rust-red forest, the color pines turn before they drop all their needles to become ghostly grey skeletons. "It's depressing to see," said Steve Dodge, a British Columbia forestry official whose office is along the Quesnel River. This town of 10,000 sits in the heart of the province's vast evergreen woodlands. Steam billowing from the kilns of a half-dozen sawmills and pulp plants enshroud the town, which proudly calls itself the "Woodsmart City" in homage to the timber industry that sustains it. In an attack played out millions of times over, a female beetle no bigger than a rice grain finds an older lodgepole pine, its favored host, and drills inside the bark. There, it eats a channel straight up the tree, laying eggs as it goes. The tree fights back. It pumps sap toward the bug and the new larvae, enveloping them in a mass of the sticky substance. The tree then tries to eject its captives through a small, crusty chute in the bark. Countering, the beetle sends out a pheromone call for reinforcements. More beetles arrive, mounting a mass attack. A fungus on the beetle, called the blue stain fungus, works into the living wood, strangling its water flow. The larvae begin eating at right angles to the original up-and-down channel, sometimes girdling the tree, crossing channels made by other beetles. The pine is doomed. As it slowly dies, the larvae remain protected over the winter. In spring, they burrow out of the bark and launch themselves into the wind to their next victims. British Columbia is a buffet laid out before them. Years of successful battles against forest fires have allowed a thick concentration of old lodgepole pines to grow -- a beetle feast that natural wildfire would have stopped. "It was the perfect storm" of warmer weather and vulnerable old trees, coupled with constraints that slowed logging of the infected wood, said Douglas Routledge, who represents timber companies in the city of Prince George. At the province's Ministry of Forests and Range in Quesnel, forestry officer Pelchat saw the beetle expansion coming as "a silent forest fire." He and his colleagues launched an offensive to try to stop or at least delay the invasion, all the while hoping for cold temperatures. They searched out beetle-ridden trees, cutting them and burning them. They thinned forests. They set out traps. But the deep freeze never came. "We lost. They built up into an army and came across," Pelchat said. Surveys show the beetle has infested 21 million acres and killed 411 million cubic feet of trees -- double the annual take by all the loggers in Canada. In seven years or sooner, the Forest Service predicts, that kill will nearly triple and 80 percent of the pines in the central British Columbia forest will be dead. Pelchat is now spending his time trying to plan recovery through replanting. In this area, a mature pine forest takes 70 years to grow. Meanwhile, the beetle is moving eastward. It has breached the natural wall of the Rocky Mountains in places, threatening the tourist treasures of national forest near Banff, Alberta, and is within striking distance of the vast Northern Boreal Forest that reaches to the eastern seaboard. "If that beetle is allowed to come any further, it will absolutely devastate our eastern slope forests," said Coutts, in Alberta. "If we're not prepared, it's going to infest all Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and then northern Ontario in 20 years. This is the battlefront." Ironically, Quesnel is booming now. The beetle has killed so many trees that officials have more than doubled the allowable timber harvest, so loggers can cut and haul as many dead trees as possible before they rot. The icy roads are choked with giant trucks growling toward the mills, loaded with logs marked with the telltale blue stain fungus. In town, two sawmills and the plywood and pulp plants of the largest company, West Fraser Mills, are "running flat-out," with shifts round-the-clock, said Tom Turner, a manager there. He walked the catwalks of a sawmill as whirling machines below grappled and twirled the offloaded trees. Computers sized up each log, instantly figured the best cut, and shoved it at furious speed through giant disk saws and planers to produce lumber that rail cars would carry to home builders in the United States. West Fraser is spending $100 million to upgrade the mill. Other companies have added shifts and proposed new plants to make chipboard or wood-fuel pellets. Property values in Quesnel are rising, rents are up, the local shopping center is flourishing again and unemployment has dropped, said Nate Bello, the mayor of Quesnel. But the boom will end. When what people here call "beetlewood" is removed or rots out -- and no one is sure how long that will take -- the forestry industry "will be running at about half speed," Bello acknowledged. He sees his chief challenge as figuring out how to convert Quesnel from a one-industry town to something with a more diverse economic base. He and city officials talk of attracting retirees and small, computer-based businesses, and even of luring tourists to the area, despite the stark industrial tableau of sawmills and pulp plants. Some people in town say those are quixotic plans. "This town is going to die," scoffed Pat Karey, 62, who spent 40 years at the sawmill. Other men in the Quesnel cafe -- "Smokers Welcome" said the sign in the window -- nodded in assent. "A mill job is $20 an hour, or $30 with benefits. The jobs they are talking about bringing in are $8-an-hour jobs," said Del Boesem, whose runs a business dismantling heavy logging machinery.
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 12, 2006 18:28:24 GMT -5
The planet is wilting away, that's all there is to it. The Hopi prophecies foresaw as did all the great futurists such as Edgar Cayce.
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 12, 2006 22:38:48 GMT -5
The planet is fine..
Humans are making the planet inhospitable for themselves.
The earth will heal itself long after the human species either becomes extinct or (hopefully) moves to another planet or dimension.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 12, 2006 23:20:56 GMT -5
Both are true...Humans are causing worldwide havoc, and the earth is not OK. H-Bomb testing is thought to be a cause of ozone depletion. Global Warming is being accelerated by human activity. Depleted Uranium is thought Asia now. Rivers are non-sustainable. Spraying chemicals to block UV-B radiation. HAARP is disrupting Plates and Ionosphere. There's so many things humans are doing to harm the earth. Somewhere in there is the apocalyptic, "When the end is near, all the streams and rivers will dry up". Perhaps these crazed fundamentalists are accelerating all of this. The Mother can only take so much bashing. www.noble-gas.com/weatherornot.mp3
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 14, 2006 12:50:16 GMT -5
How's this for stupidity? And then people wonder why there's so many new diseases, people dying, psychologically disturbed & mentally dysfunctional. Gee, maybe it has to do with the widespread, suicidal self-contamination of the human race by de-regulated greedy, corporate polluters? The EPA has of course been overhauled and retrofitted with Bush cronies that couldn't care less about our long term self-preservation. This was posted at another forum. Gale Norton, who just resigned is exactly the kind of anti-nature/science/progress, religious hack that you were talking about Swamp. I've never even heard of the "Sagebrush Rebellion" have you? 69.73.163.60/oreillysucks/viewtopic.php?t=3804EPA drops objections to nerve agent disposal plan[/u]
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 14, 2006 13:10:57 GMT -5
I couldn’t find the article but I was also reading about how China, our fantastic trading partner with “favored nation status” has been dumping tons upon tons of untreated water & nuclear waste in to the fucking ocean! Half the population has contaminated drinking water & water shortages.
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 15, 2006 12:34:00 GMT -5
2.6 parts per million! HORRORS. HORRORS. IT'S THE END OF THE @#$%ING WORLD! WOE IS US! Now, couple things to keep in mind. 2.6 parts per million is .00026 of one percent. Put another way, if the composition of the atmosphere were laid out along a road 1 mile long, the amount of increase that generated this headline comes to .164 of one inch. About 1/6 of an inch. Oooooh. Wow. 1/6 of an inch out of one mile. Stop the presses! Second, carbon dioxide is not necessarily bad. Plants, including food crops, love it. The more they get the larger they grow. In a world where famine is rampant (and a United States which wastes half the food it grows) this is a good thing. Third. Carbon dioxide is only 1/10 the greenhouse gas that an equivalent amount of methane is. And there is much more methane being produced than carbon dioxide. The reason you don;t see headlines about it is that methane comes from deep crust microbes, termites, cows, YOU; in short sources nobody can really do anything about. So the parasites that live off of making the public afraid of things (and the funding such fear will create) can't very well scare you with something as much a part of nature as you are, so they hopped onto the carbon dioxide bandwagon, wave that 1/6 of an inch out of one mile at you, and hope to scare you into demanding your congress hand them more money to "research" the problem. There is no balance of nature. Nature is change. You're being snookered with a claim that what is natural is un-natural. The world is SUPPOSED to get hotter and colder in cycles. It's been doing it all along. www.rense.com/general70/rises.htm
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 15, 2006 12:46:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 15, 2006 14:07:46 GMT -5
Believe what you want man..........
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 15, 2006 14:10:48 GMT -5
Humans do not take to well to excess carbon dioxide as plants do. Excess CO2 causes an acidic condition in the blood. High acidic (low Ph) condition is an indicator in many diseases. High total carbon dioxide values may be present with certain diseases that decrease blood pH (respiratory acidosis). These diseases include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, and pneumonia. High values may be present with certain disorders that increase blood pH (metabolic alkalosis). These disorders include Cushing's syndrome, Conn's syndrome, alcoholism, and persistent vomiting.
The Oil Companies and governments are offering their solution......Aerosol Mitigation or chemtrails to cover a blown out Ozone layer.
The only way this destruction of the environment could be called "natural" is we assume humans and our technology are all part of nature. To the Buddhist, EVERYTHING is artificial.
Depleted Uranium, Nuclear Atmospheric tests, dumping of excess carbon dioxide, dumping of dioxin, and spraying chemicals in the air is not natural in an earth sense.
I do not put my trust in people like Jay Reynolds, Exxon/Mobil, Rush Limbaugh, and Ronald Reagan who say that "tree huggers" are the enemy of the pollution industry, and Global Warming and Ozone depletion are non-existent.
On the other hand, I would not trust the UN and their solutions. In a sense, it's as if the fascists/Corporatists are in league with the UN. The industry cause the problems, then the UN comes in with the "solution". This is what happened in Nazi Germany. The Communists were causing the problems, and the Third Reich had the solutions.
Basically, we need to convert to clean energy, and repair the ozone layer.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 15, 2006 14:32:58 GMT -5
Part 1
Report on THE EFFECTS OF INCREASED ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE I. INTRODUCTION
Before the year 2020, the climate of the earth may be warmer than any time in the past thousand years. This change, which is incredibly fast by geological time scales, will be brought about by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere. The most important source of excessive CO2 is the burning of carbon-based fossil fuels for energy production. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of all living systems and is normally considered harmless. It is a minor element in the earth's atmosphere comprising only about 0.03% of the total atmosphere. However, this small amount of CO2, along with water vapor, is responsible for what is commonly known as the greenhouse effect.
The fact that changes in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere could cause changes in the earth's climate has been known for over one hundred years. However, only in the last 5 to 10 years has significant research been done in this field. The most ominous of the effects of a warmer climate will be the shifting of local weather patterns. This shifting will have profound effects on agricultural production in a world that is already unable to adequately feed its citizens today. There will also be an accompanying redistribution of wealth which will likely lead to dangerous social conflicts. It is obvious that the continued introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere will have consequences far worse than producing a slightly balmier climate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this report is to examine the climatic changes caused by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and their implications for society. Also discussed will be the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect, the sources and reservoirs of carbon dioxide, and some possible methods to reduce the magnitude of the problem. Note, however, that the most we can do at this point is lessen the severity of the situation. That the mean global temperature will increase in the next few decades is certain. The only questions are how much and how fast.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. NATURAL WEATHER PATTERNS
The earth's climate naturally changes over extended periods of time. Temperatures have been much warmer for 80 to 90 percent of the last 500 million years than they are today. The polar ice caps, for example, are actually a relatively new phenomenon. They were formed 15 to 20 million years ago in the Antarctic and perhaps as recently as 3 to 5 million years in the Arctic.
The climate is still dominated by natural cycles of warming and cooling. The most influential of these natural weather patterns is the 180-year cycle. The 180-year cycle predicts that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere reach a minimum every 180 years. (Climate records for the Southern Hemisphere are incomplete.) The bottom of the last cycle was in the early 1800s, which suggests that we may now be in a period of peak coldness. The winters of 1976 through 1979, which were unusually bitter, seem to reinforce the theory behind the 180-year cycle. This current cooling trend would mask any warming caused by an increased greenhouse effect.
However, the 180-year cycle predicts a natural warming trend will begin shortly before the end of this century. At the same time, the effects of elevated CO2 levels on atmospheric temperatures will have increased to new high levels. Figure 1 shows the combined effects of these warming trends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, temperatures could reach their highest level in several hundred years shortly after the year 2000, and they will reach their highest level in the last 125,000 years by mid-century [1:7-11].
Figure 1. Combined Effect of the 180-Year Cycle and Increased CO2 Concentrations. Source: Harold W. Bernard. The Greenhouse Effect (Cambridge: Ballinger, 1980), 10.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. MECHANISMS OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
For the mean global temperature to stay constant, the earth-atmosphere system must be in radiative equilibrium with the sun. In other words, the incoming solar radiation must match the outgoing thermal radiation from the earth. Of the incoming solar radiation, 35% is reflected back into space. The reflectivity of the earth is its albedo. The albedo is taken into consideration when the total energy flux of the earth-atmosphere system is calculated. Of the remaining 65% of solar radiation that is not reflected back, 47% is absorbed by the surface and 18% is absorbed by the atmosphere. For the temperature of our system to remain constant, this energy that is absorbed by the atmosphere must be radiated back out. This radiation primarily takes place in the 5-micron to 30-micron range of wave lengths, which is in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. A micron is one millionth of a meter [2:755].
Natural Greenhouse Effect
The effective radiating temperature is the temperature the earth should have for the amount of solar radiation it absorbs. Calculation of the effective radiating temperature gives a value of -200° C. However, the observed mean global temperature is 140° C. The difference of 340° C is caused by a natural greenhouse effect that takes place in the atmosphere [11] . As the earth tries to lose heat into space, the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation emitted by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the surface. Specifically, the atmosphere allows 50% of the incoming solar radiation to reach the surface but only 10% of the longwave radiation from the surface to escape. This causes the temperature of the earth-atmosphere system to increase. The magnitude of the greenhouse effect is defined as the difference between the upward infrared radiation from the surface and the upward infrared radiation from the top of the atmosphere [2:755].
Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapor
The greenhouse effect is caused by minor constituents in the atmosphere, mainly carbon dioxide and water vapor. The earth must radiate in the 5-micron to 30-micron region. However, water vapor is a strong absorber of radiation over the entire thermal spectrum except in the 8-micron to 18-micron interval. The 12-micron to 18-micron interval is largely blocked by CO2 absorption. In fact, current CO2 levels are sufficient to make the 15-micron band virtually opaque to infrared radiation. The earth is, therefore, constrained to radiate its excess thermal energy in a nearly transparent window from 8 microns to 12 microns. As anthropogenic carbon dioxide is introduced into the atmosphere, mostly by combustion of fossil fuels, absorption of infrared radiation in the 10-micron band and in the wings of the 15- micron band is increased. This increased absorption results in an overall warming of the earth-atmosphere system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive Feedback Mechanisms
As the climate becomes warmer, positive feedback mechanisms tend to exacerbate the problem. Elevations in temperature decrease the solubility of CO2 in the oceans. Therefore, as temperature increases, the oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere, which causes another increase in temperature. Even more threatening is the greenhouse water vapor coupling. The atmosphere tends to attain a definite distribution of relative humidity in response to a change in temperature. If the temperature is increased, the relative humidity, which is a measure of the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, is also increased. At the same time, the vapor pressure of water is raised. The result is more water vapor in the atmosphere, which causes more greenhouse effect, which raises temperatures even higher, which again increases the water vapor in the atmosphere. This positive feedback mechanism approximately doubles the sensitivity of surface temperature to a change in the amount of energy absorbed by the earth [1:19].
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 15, 2006 14:45:47 GMT -5
Part 2
IV. THE CARBON CYCLE
The annual increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dependent on several factors. First is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by consumption of carbon-based fuels. Subtracted from this amount is the carbon dioxide that is removed from the atmosphere and stored in reservoirs, or sinks. The most prominent sinks of carbon dioxide are the atmosphere, the oceans, and the biosphere. Also contributing to a net increase in CO2 is the deforestation of large land areas each year. The amount of carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuels and the annual increase in atmospheric concentrations are both well known. Approximately 50% of the CO2 produced from fossil fuel remains in the atmosphere. The rest is absorbed into sinks. The proportion of CO2 that goes into each sink and the mechanisms of CO2 removal are poorly understood.
CO2 From Fossil Fuel
Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, about 154.4 gigatons (G ton) of carbon have been added to the atmosphere. One gigaton is equal to one billion tons. Even more alarming is the fact that of this 154.4 G tons, about 27%, or 45 G tons, were produced from 1970 to 1978. Overall, the use of carbon-based fuels has increased at an exponential rate of 4.3% per year from 1860 to the mid-1970s. (See Table 1.) High energy costs should help to slow the use of fuels,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
although no significant reductions in demand have yet been observed.
Table 1. Estimated Carbon Added to the Atmosphere by the Burning of Fuels (G tons per year) Year Carbon Added (G tons) 1950 1.63 1960 2.16 1970 3.96 1975 4.87 1978 5.62 Source: Gordon J. MacDonald. The Long-Term Impacts of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels (Cambridge: Ballinger, 1982), 152.
It is expected that industrialized countries will be able to significantly reduce the use of fossil fuels for energy production by using clean energy sources such as solar and nuclear. However, a growing world population will place heavy pressure for increased energy use, especially in developing countries. The percentage of CO2 produced by geographical regions in 1974 and the projected contribution expected in 2025 is listed in Table 2. Even though the United States will reduce its contribution from 27% to 8%, the amount produced by developing regions in the same time will more than triple [4].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Dioxide Produced by Different Fuels
The amount of carbon added to the atmosphere depends on the type of fuel being burned. Fuels with a high hydrogen- to-carbon ratio produce the most energy for each unit of carbon released. The dirtiest fuels, in terms of carbon dioxide, are the various synthetic fuels that are produced from coal. Synfuels release large amounts of CO2 because energy must be expended to extract them from coal. Therefore, the carbon dioxide generated from producing the synfuel must be added to that released by combustion. Because the world has very large coal reserves, research into synfuel production has increased greatly. Although synfuels could significantly reduce the dependence of the United States on petroleum, they would tend to accelerate the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Table 3 lists the amount of CO2 released by each type of fuel.
Table 2. Percent of Atmospheric CO2 Contribution by Nation and Continent Nation or Continent 1974 2025 USA 27 8 USSR & Eastern Europe 25 17 Western Europe 18 10 Central Asia 8 19 Japan, Australia, N. Zealand 7 4 Developing Asia -- 4 Developing America 4 40 Developing Middle East -- 3 Developing Africa -- 2 Source: Committee on Governmental Affairs, U. S. Senate. Carbon Dioxide Accumulation in the Atmosphere, Synthetic Fuels and Energy Policy (1979), 451.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3. CO2 Contribution by Fuel Type. Carbon released per 100 quads of energy produced (1 quad=1015 Btu). Fuel Carbon in 10[-15] Grams Oil 2.00 Gas 1.45 Coal 2.50 Synfuels 3.40 Source: Committee on Governmental Affairs, U. S. Senate. Carbon Dioxide Accumulation in the Atmosphere, Synthetic Fuels and Energy Policy (1979), 451.
Future Levels of Carbon Dioxide
Future inputs of carbon from fossil fuels are dependent upon world energy consumption and on the mix of fuels used. Two models have been devised to estimate the world consumption of carbon-based fuels in the future. The first model is based on the historical growth rate of 4.3% per year.
Figure 2. Growth Rate of Fuel Use Computed With Two Different Models. Source: Gordon J. MacDonald. The Long-Term Impacts of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels (Cambridge: Ballinger, 1982), 34.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the world use of fossil fuels is maintained at that level, the proven energy reserves would be exhausted by 2010 to 2015. The second model, and probably the more accurate one, postulates that the current growth rate will continue until 1990, and then the rate of growth will decline to zero over a fifty-year period. Figure 2 graphically compares growth rates from both models. This tapered growth scenario would postpone the exhaustion of proven reserves by ten to fifteen years. However, actual use of carbon-based fuels could continue for some time after this, since the total amount of recoverable reserves is much greater than the proven reserves. Obviously, these estimates are greatly simplified, since they were devised to give minimum times to exhaustion of energy reserves.
As conventional fossil fuels become more expensive, it is likely that world fuel usage will shift to a different combination of fuels than used today. Changes in this fuel mix causes more uncertainty in estimates of future CO2 inputs into the atmosphere. Table 4 gives the dates for doubling of CO2 concentrations for various fuel use combinations [9].
Table 4. Doubling-Dates for Carbon Dioxide Concentrations for Different Fuel Use Combinations.
Fuel 4.3% Exponential Growth Tapered Growth Current Fuel Mix 2035 2055 All Coal After 1990 2030 2045 All Synthetics After 1990 2022 2030 All Natural Gas After 1990 2043 2075 Source: Gordon J. MacDonald. The Long-Term Impacts, 84.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. CLIMATIC EFFECTS OF INCREASED CO2 CONCENTRATIONS
Current estimates for doubling-dates of carbon dioxide concentrations range from about 2020 to 2075. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels will cause an increase in the mean global temperature of about 30° to 50° C with an increase of about 120° C at the polar regions. The reason for the amplified effect at the poles is that the atmosphere has a much lower concentration of water vapor at the poles than at lower latitudes. Therefore, an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause a relatively larger increase in the greenhouse effect over the poles. This warming then increases the water vapor present by melting ice, which causes the process to be self-enhancing.
Changes in Local Weather Patterns
As the temperature of the atmosphere is increased, the global circulation patterns will be shifted. This will cause widespread changes in local weather patterns. Although mathematical models devised by meteorologists can describe overall climatic changes, they are not able to predict these small-scale variations in local conditions. One method that can be used is to examine weather records for a period when the temperature was higher than it is today.
The 1930s As Climate Analog
The most recent global peaked in the 1930s. The 1930s averaged about 10° C warmer than recent decades have. In the United States, a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
greater number of state records for high temperatures were set in the 1930s than in any decade since the 1870s. The 1° C increase is analogous to the initial decade of CO2-induced warming which should occur shortly after the turn of the century.
Drought
The most significant feature of a warmer climate is the absence of adequate precipitation. The drought of the 1930s has been called the greatest disaster caused by meteorological factors. Research into climate records by studying tree rings has determined that 1934 was the driest year in the western United States since 1700. If the atmospheric circulation patterns of the 1930s return early next century because of warmer temperatures, agricultural production and water supplies could be seriously affected. Even though food production would decline, modern agricultural practices would probably prevent a catastrophe like the dust bowl of the 1930s. Water supply, however, is a different situation. Particularly hard hit will be the region of the West that draws water off the Colorado River basin. This region, which is already plagued by water shortages, could be devastated by a drought that lasts several years.
Increased Tropical Storm Activity
The warming of the atmosphere will cause the sea temperature to rise as well. This will result in more tropical storms being generated. The 1930s were a period of increased tropical storm activity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-one tropical storms blew up in 1933, seventeen in 1936; the current average is nine per year. These storms will also be able to reach higher latitudes because of warmer seas [1:35-50].
Sea Level Increase
Researchers have suggested that conditions similar to those of the 1930s could persist for as long as 25 years. During this time the earth's temperature will still be increasing and a longer range problem will become evident. The polar ice caps would begin to melt, raising the sea level. This will be a slow process, but one that will be irreversible once the greenhouse threat is fully realized. A rise in ocean levels of between 15 to 25 feet is possible in as little as 100 years. Coastal regions would be flooded causing tremendous destruction of property. Along the Texas coast, for example, Galveston, Corpus Christi, Beaumont, and Port Arthur all would be permanently inundated. As many as 10 nuclear reactors would be in danger of flooding and contaminating the ocean. The 15- to 25-foot raising of sea levels is for normal tides with storm tides reaching even farther inland [4].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. WAYS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
The severity of the consequences of this major climatic change requires that action be taken to lessen man's input of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The greenhouse threat is a global problem that calls for global action. Unfortunately, the political structure of the world tends to impede cooperation on a global scale. Even with these difficulties, it is imperative that the use of carbon-based fuels be reduced significantly. The United States, as the world's leading consumer of energy, could influence world opinion and stimulate action by taking decisive measures. Some of the steps that need to be taken are:
1. A concerted effort must be made to conserve fuel with a goal of reducing global consumption 20% worldwide by the year 2000. Public knowledge of the effects of CO2 on the climate is needed. A tax on fossil fuel would provide an extra incentive to conserve. The revenue from such a tax could be used to further development of alternate energy sources.
2. The use of a combination of fossil fuels that will minimize the input of CO2 into the atmosphere must be emphasized. Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels and large reserves of gas have been found. Coal is also found in abundance in the United States and is therefore likely to be increasingly used for energy production. However, coal releases 75% more CO2 into the atmosphere per unit of energy produced than does natural gas. Because of this, use of coal should be de-emphasized and use of natural gas emphasized.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Alternate energy sources, such as solar and nuclear, should be developed. There is a substantial amount of emotional opposition to nuclear power, which will impede the expansion of its use. Solar power, as are wind and wave power, is ideal in that it is constant and non-polluting. The technology is not quite at a stage where solar power is economically feasible. A strong effort must be made to develop this highly attractive source of energy. 4. Reforestation on a massive global scale is needed to provide a large biotic sink in the next few decades. The total respiration of CO2 should be less than the total photosynthesis on a regional and worldwide basis. Fast- growing trees, such as the American Sycamore, can absorb as much as 750 tons of carbon per square kilometer per year. Water hyacinths can absorb 6000 tons of carbon per square kilometer per year. The growth of biomass for energy production could serve as an additional method of reducing CO2 accumulation because it would only involve recycling between carbon pools of the biosphere and the atmosphere.
5. Research into the carbon cycle is needed to reduce the uncertainties surrounding predictions of climatic changes. Although the amount of carbon dioxide that is released and the amount that
------------------------------------------------------------------------
remains airborne is well known, the method by which CO2 is assimilated into sinks, such as the ocean and the biosphere, is poorly understood. Typical estimates of the amounts of CO2 absorbed annually by the ocean and the biosphere are 2 G tons and 1 ton, respectively [4].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. SUMMARY
Carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere is the most dangerous pollution problem today. This excess of CO2 will cause an increase in the mean global temperature which should be detectable shortly before the end of this century. This warming is caused by the greenhouse effect. CO2 allows incoming radiation from the sun to enter the atmosphere. The heat from the earth's surface, which must radiate in the infrared region of the spectrum, is absorbed by CO2 and water vapor, thereby raising the atmospheric temperature. The greenhouse water-vapor coupling provides a strong positive feedback mechanism. Fossil-fuel use increases at an exponential rate of 4.3% annually. This should cause a doubling of CO2 concentrations by between the year 2020 and the year 2075. This doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the mean global temperature of about 30° to 50° C. Warmer temperatures will cause a shift in atmospheric circulation patterns. This will cause local weather patterns to change. The results for the United States could be intensive drought, increased tropical storm activity, and a rise in the sea level caused by melting of the polar ice caps. To lessen the severity of the problem, fossil fuel consumption must be curtailed and alternate energy sources developed. Also, a global reforestation program should be undertaken to provide a large biotic sink for CO2 in the new few decades.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFORMATION SOURCES
1. Bernard, Harold W. The Greenhouse Effect. Cambridge: Ballinger, 1980. 2. Bryson, Reid A. "A Perspective on Climate Change." Science (May 17, 1974), 753-759. 3. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U. S. Senate. Hearings on the Effects of Carbon Dioxide Buildup in the Atmosphere. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1980. 4. Committee on Governmental Affairs, U. S. Senate. Carbon Dioxide Accumulation in the Atmosphere, Synthetic Fuels and Energy Policy. A symposium. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington: 1979. 5. Gribbin, John. "Fossil Fuel: Future Shock?" New Scientist (December 1980), 541-543. 6. Idso, S. B. "Climate Significance of Doubling CO2 Concentrations." Science (March 28, 1980), 128-134. 7. Kellog, W. W. and Schneider, S. H. "Climate Stabilization for Better or For Worse?" Science (December 18, 1974), 1163-1171. 8. Lewin, Roger. "Atmospheric CO2: A New Warning." New Scientist (April 1975), 211-214. 9. MacDonald, Gordon J. The Long-Term Impacts of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels. Cambridge: Ballinger, 1982. 10. Manabe, S. and Wetherald, R. T. "Distribution of Climate Change Resulting From Increase in CO2 Content of the Atmosphere." Journal Atmospheric Science (January 1980), 99-118. 11. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Inadvertent Climate Modification: Report of the Study of Man's Impact on Climate. Cambridge, 1971. 12. Stuiver, M. "Atmospheric CO2 and Carbon Reservoir Changes." Science (January 20, 1978), 253-258.
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 15, 2006 17:56:27 GMT -5
People are so arrogant to assume that we can stop and change what the EARTH wants to do.
Again..the EARTH goes through natural warming ansd cooling cycles and there is little or NOTHING we can do about that.
In fact..the earth has flipped its magnetic pole many, many times throughout history. It will happen again.
Just like the earth is going to warm up AGAIN...and cool off again.
The next solar cycle is going to be 50 times stronger than the last one it has been stated.
I think THAT ALONE should warm things up more than us puny humans could ever hope to do.
Probably flip the poles too. 2012 i'll be willing to bet.
So.....
In summary, the earth will be LONG around after we either die off or move on.
As far as OZONE thickness...thats another topic all together.
I still say man-caused global warming is completely over exaggerated..in comparison to what the SUN and EARTH do automatically on their own.
Its a FEAR MONGERING campaign to get us all under boot.
Plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Mar 15, 2006 19:55:20 GMT -5
I'm completely with you on this one Mech.. Even though it is a Seemingly christian view point, And I in no way consider myself christian..
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 15, 2006 20:41:38 GMT -5
Im not a Christian either...I'm an Agnostic with quantum physics theory leanings.
Again....WE are making OUR HUMAN environment a mess and uninhabitable..
The Earth will go on without us.
It was here before us...it will be so afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 15, 2006 20:52:48 GMT -5
People are so arrogant to assume that we can stop and change what the EARTH wants to do. Should Exxon be held accountable for oil spills? Should GE be accountable for dumping dioxin? Should Car manufacturers NOT develop alternative power? Use Solar instead of Nuclear Power? Use Bio-Diesel? The problem is, the Earth is not causing these problems like excess carbon dioxide, Global Warming, and Ozone depletion. Humans are part of the earth, so from a Unified Field POV, EVERYTHING is being effected. Humans now have the power to change entire planets, so we have become that arrogant. Just we have a Constitution for human rights, there is an unwritten Constitution for Mother Earth. Constitutionalists and Humanists fight for Human Rights. Animal Rights Activists fight for animal rights. Environmentalists fight for the Earth's rights. The Ancient Hopis and Essenes would be ashamed of what humans are doing .
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 15, 2006 21:00:46 GMT -5
I was talking about this discussion of CLIMATE and so-called global warming.
Oil spills, dioxin dumping, et al was not brought up in this thread.
Constitution for mother earth?
Do we now have to "pray to our mother goddess" and sacrifice things to it now to please her/him/it?
No thanks.
I do more in one day for the environment than the average joe....environmental laws in the USA are very strict...of course..under DUMByas regime they have been softened..but 60 to 70 years ago...the USA's skies and water were a heck of a lot dirtier..especially at ground level.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 15, 2006 22:30:47 GMT -5
Yes, A Constitution for Mother Earth. There is this misconception of True Pagans perpetrated by the Likes of Neo-Christians like Henry Makow, Jeff Rense, and Alex Jones. As much as I agree with them, and even enjoy Alex, there is a New World Order, I find their views on society and the environment very Conservative. They think that people who worship the earth are sacrificing animals and drinking the blood of children. This is comic book stuff. Even Mike Rivero from WRH is tainted in a Nixon direction. I have corresponded with him on emails, and he is rather homophobic, hates environmentalists, and think hackers should be shot. Basically, riding the undercurrent is the Book of Revelation, still conditioning their minds. This can give Christians a bad name, and you know that the original Essenes were Nature Worshippers. In a sense, the Inquisitors had led the people away from the Vegetarian/Enviornmentaist Essenes and Gnostics, and turned their message into "The State/Church is all powerful". IMO, the anti-environmental stuff is a continuation of Witch Burning. The State/Church is now the State/Corporation, and pro-environment laws are a threat to the power base, much like the herablist witches were to the Inquisitional Clergy 800-600 years ago.
50,000 climatologists says there is global warming and carbon dioxide is dangerous at a slighter higher level than it is now. 300 government and Energy sponsored scientists disagree with this. I always go with the Pagans, Humanists, non-corporate scientists, and the creative. If we increase the CO2 much more, our bodies will be operating on a high acid-low ph level. This always indicates disease.
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 15, 2006 23:00:20 GMT -5
Swamp Gas:
Ummm...In case you haven't noticed....THEY ARE(elites) conducting rituals, sacrificing, animals, kidnapping children, starting wars, engineering viruses. This is all very SATANIC behavior. Some of these people are in fact EARTH worshippers and HATE humanity.
Pagans of old DID in fact sacrfice people and animals, history does show.
But then again..the christians murdered non-believers.
All religions suck as far as i'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 15, 2006 23:05:32 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree, but these you mention are the worst, linear-minded people that do not represent True People. There are dualists. There is no line between humans and nature. They worship nature because they hate humans. They put a false line between the two.
Everybody believes and worships something. You and I worship and believe in the Constitution. I believe in creativity and love. Some believe in Aliens.
What counts is that you do no harm to people, animals, and nature
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 15, 2006 23:14:53 GMT -5
I for one believe in good ecological sense...HOWEVER..I think NATURE WORSHIP is VERY DANGEROUS.
I predict..a NATURE WORSHIP RELIGION will take shape in the coming decades which will lead to starving populations, holding back fertilizers, increasing heating costs through the roof, re-package EUGENICS of "exess humans", and perpetration of a myth that NATURE is more important than human beings.
An ECO Hitlerian Zen fascist society.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 15, 2006 23:39:03 GMT -5
I respect nature, yet not worship it. Really, nothing should be worshipped. This new religion you speak of is a hybrid. It is a money/nature/deity based religion. And it is my belief that technology and nature are inseparable. It's when people put divisions between things is when we run into trouble. This takes the shape of borders and turf, which always leads to war. AS Thetaloops says in "Science Faction" "Nature is Technology". The opposite is true. This Universe is a wondrous, giant, DNA-machine with consciousness. I know you are a good role model for ecological sense.
|
|
|
Post by Jeanie on Mar 15, 2006 23:52:32 GMT -5
Mech; A more accurate statement would have been to say "professed christians" murdered non-believers. A genuine Christian, that is one who accurately knows and follow's the teachings of Christ, causes no harm purposely to earth, animal, or neighbor....I have made a study of the activities and beliefs of Christians from Christ's time forward and know this to be a fact. The churches making up the body of Christendom might be more accurately defined and Satan's henchmen... Swamp; I totally agree with your assessment of the devastating effect humans have on our planet. I view these polluters as a deadly fungus creeping across the earth. By way of comparison we could use the human body as an illustration. It was designed to be self cleansing, with all it's organs cooperating to keep the body functioning. When there's a toxic build up beyond what the cleansing process can handle, it breaks down, if not corrected the body dies. So it stands to reason, the earth dis-functions when toxic matter is thrown into it's air, water and soil to the extent it's purifying system can't keep up. An example is acid rain which kills trees and means death to life forms living in affected lakes. There are numerous examples of this type of abuse and misuse of the earth. Another illustration could be a well designed automobile, designed to be operated with proper maintenance a necessity, oil, gas, replacing parts as needed, etc. If a trouble maker puts sand in the gas tank and the motor won't run, we could say it's not the fault of the car, the car would be just fine if it hadn't been abused. Just like our polluted earth. This part was for Mech. Jeanie
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 15, 2006 23:59:16 GMT -5
Well Jeanie....
I just FLAT OUT disagree with you and maintain that NATURE WORSHIP is DANGEROUS and has far reaching consequenses for humanity..even more than toxic pollution does.
It will lead to nature chauvanism, nihilism and eco fascism.
You heard it here first.
Some of Hitlers first followers were Back-to-nature socialists.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 16, 2006 0:06:10 GMT -5
Most of Hitler's followers were corporatists. The Gaia Theory treats the Earth as a Living Entity. Most astronauts come back to earth thinking this. Pythagoras originally postulated the idea that the earth puts out a "song", as do all celestial bodies. He called it "Music of The Spheres" Here is Fiorella Terenzi, a musician that converted celestial signals to music. She is an Astrophysicist and Musician. She said that every star and planet has a unique acoustic signature www.fiorella.com/
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 16, 2006 0:16:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jeanie on Mar 16, 2006 0:20:10 GMT -5
Mech says: I just FLAT OUT disagree with you and maintain that NATURE WORSHIP is DANGEROUS
Mech I'm amazed at what you say, WAKE UP, this is NOT nature worship, it's simply common sense. Ever hear of the laws of nature? Take gravity for example, would it be smart to say "I don't need to abide by any laws of nature" Go jump off the roof and see what happens. What's that you say? you don't need to eat, foods too expensive.?...Go without food indefinitely and we'll be sending condolences to your family. Did I hear you say, I don't need air to stay alive ? Put your head in a plastic bag and tie a cord around your neck, go ahead try it. Will you still think you don't need to abide by any "laws of nature"?
The earth has needs to function normally, break those laws of nature and there are consequences to pay. No Mech, it's not nature worship, it's simply intelligent common sense.
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 16, 2006 0:22:00 GMT -5
WHAT IS ECOFASCISM??? home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/Eco-Fascism.htmlwww.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/ecofasc.htmlGreen fascism and Hitlers Germany ""We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought." "Nazi "ecologists" even made organic farming, vegetarianism, nature worship, and related themes into key elements not only in their ideology but in their governmental policies."
|
|
|
Post by Jeanie on Mar 16, 2006 0:46:39 GMT -5
I despise Nazi's, if they believed in organic gardening, etc. that's at least one thing they got right. It, of course doesn't excuse the atrocities they committed. Things you say about government, that is, what I read of yours, I agree with. I have no confidence in, nor respect for their evil, greedy, self worshiping ways. But on this nature thing Mech I beieve you've gone over the edge of reason. It is possible for humans to live in harmony with nature and both benefit, it will never happen under current administrations. This won't stop me from doing what's possible to respect the earth and live in harmony with laws of nature. I'm not perfect and I do eat some Junk food for immediate gratification. Hope I don' t tip the scale.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 16, 2006 9:03:40 GMT -5
"Nazi "ecologists" even made organic farming, vegetarianism, nature worship, and related themes into key elements not only in their ideology but in their governmental policies." Hitler and the Nazis WERE NOT vegetarians. this was a myth. Hitler used to go on one month all vegetable cleanses, but his favorite food was Vienna Sausages. www.jewishveg.com/media12.htmlNEW YORK TIMES CORRECTS ARTICLE ON HITLER: REFUTES LONGSTANDING MYTH THAT HITLER WAS A VEGETARIAN The March 15 New York Times "Corrections" box included the following important item on page 2: "A film review about 'Downfall,' which looks at Hitler's final days, referred incorrectly to his diet. Although the movie portrays him as vegetarian, he did eat at least some meat.” While small in size, the correction represents a major victory for truth, since the myth of Hitler’s alleged vegetarianism has long been used to try to discredit vegetarians. If this inaccuracy is repeated in the future, as it likely will be, one can now refer to the nation’s “Newspaper of Record” to set the record straight. As documented below, numerous published accounts and first hand sources have confirmed that Hitler's diet included meat. At times Hitler evidently refrained from eating meat (and using alcohol and tobacco), as a response to his many health problems, but his normal diet, and the food served at his retreats and residences, included poultry and meat, most often Bavarian sausages, ham, liver, and pigeons. Indeed, the Nazis banned vegetarian organizations in Germany and the lands they invaded and occupied. The JVNA thanks the Times, especially its public editor Daniel Okrent and his associate Arthur Bovino, for their great public service of helping to put to rest this pernicious myth. This effort involved many hours of research, copying, and sending information to the Times, primarily by Atlanta writer Lewis Regenstein, president of The Interfaith Council for the Protection of Animals and Nature, with help from JVNA president Richard Schwartz, Micah Books publisher Roberta Kalechofsky, and author Rynn Berry. The JVNA also expresses the hope that other writers who have recently circulated the myth of Hitler’s vegetarianism, including columnist David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times, and writer/commentator Ben Stein, will also issue corrections. ---------------------------------------- Material sent to the NY times to influence their decision included the following: Robert Payne's authoritative "The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler" (Prager, 1973) states on page 346: "Hitler's asceticism played an important role in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked not drank, nor did he eat meat...Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages... His asceticism was a fiction, invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self control...He could claim that he was dedicated to the service of his people. In fact, he was remarkably self indulgent... Although Hitler had no fondness for meat except in the form of sausages and never ate fish, he enjoyed caviar..." --------------------- Armaments Minister Albert Speer's autobiography, "Inside the Third Reich," (Macmillan, 1970) indicates that meat was served, in substantial amounts, at Hitler's meals. Page 89, in the chapter "Obersalzberg," describing Speer's move to the mountain, states that "Hitler usually appeared in the lower rooms late in the morning...The day actually began with prolonged afternoon dinner. The Food was simple and substantial: soup, a meat course, dessert..." Page 119 of the chapter "A day in the Chancellery" states, "Such was the 'Merry Chancellor's Restaurant', as Hitler often called it...The food was emphatically simple. A soup, no appetizer, meat with vegetables and potatoes, a sweet.....Hitler was served his vegetarian food...and those of his guests who wished could imitate him. But few did... It was Hitler himself who insisted on this simplicity. He could count on its being talked about in Germany," p. 128 describes how Hitler enjoyed gorging on caviar, eating it by the spoonful: "For a few weeks, Hitler actually ate caviar by the spoonful with gusto, and praised the taste, which was new to him. But then he asked Kannenberg [the house steward] about the price, was horrified, and gave strict orders against having that again. Thereupon, the cheaper red caviar was served him. But that too was rejected as an extravagance....the idea of a caviar-eating Leader was incompatible with Hitler's conception of himself." ----------------------------------------------------------------- No real vegetarian would eat caviar, given the wasteful & cruel way in which it is produced -- by ripping or cutting open the belly of a female sturgeon full of eggs (roe), thus killing a mother sturgeon and thousands of potential offspring. (As a result of over-harvesting, the source of the world's best caviar, the sturgeon in the Caspian Sea, are now considered threatened with extinction.) The references above, plus writings by Dione Lucas, Hitler's chef, clearly document that while Hitler in his later years sometimes posed as a non-meat eater, he was not a real vegetarian, and did frequently or at least occasionally eat meat, fowl, and other animals products (eggs, caviar) & always served them to his guests. ---------------------------------- Rynn Berry points out in his recent book, "Hitler: Neither Vegetarian nor Animal Lover,“ that the woman chef who was his personal cook in Hamburg during the late 1930s was Dione Lucas. In her "Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook," she records that his favorite dish - the one that he customarily requested - was stuffed squab (pigeon). "I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined in the hotel
|
|