So, I "orderd" and Econocank but got the new "Cat Canang" album, which I am totally greatful for, but the disc ended up breaking on its way to California. But the letter said I should post in the science blog about some of the stuff I am doing here. The school I am atending is called the Woolman Semester. It is an alternative to high school, only a semester long outside Nevada City north of Sacramento. The campus is located on the Seierra Freidns Center, which has a rich and diverse community. We gather together weekly for community meetings to bring up issues or make announcments and make decisions. We also spend much of the week engaged in community work, where we help in the garden, and this semester we are building a green house out of recycled materials! The classes I am taking focus on Peace through literature, Justice and Sustainable Sciences. I just got here about a week ago, and will be here untill the end of May. A few of the projects I have to complete include a sustainability project for my enviormental science class, which I have chosen to work with one of the interns on the organic gardening done here, as well as work with composting. In our Peace Studies class it is optional to complete a Peace Project, and my idea is to build a few bikes from recycled parts, or get familiar with the Bio-Deisel station here on campus. I am excited to ee how the rest of my semester goes and will certainly keep updating if you guys would like to hear more about the program!
"There are too many willing to die for war, and too little willing o die for peace" -Tom Fox
Thanks fo r the science post, we will be realy developing this SCIENCE thread this year in preparation for a "Primetime" DEGISCI website.
Yeah I'm realy sorry about that disc, the whole shippment was destroyed. The disc were head out from OR to FL so the sabatogue must have occured here in Springfield, VT or the Brattleborro big PO. I've been sending discs out like this for 4 years and have never had a problem. I pay an extra $0.30 for "NONMACHINE SORT". My hypothesis is that I sabatogued myself, usualy I only send 1 or a few discs at once. Maybe the mass mailing but extra stress on the cds against each other. I'll get you a replacement soon, but unfortunetely my computer is in the shop so it may be a couple of weeks.
As far as this Science blog goes, if you are down, just put a copy of any science related writting you do for school in here. We will be organizing articles into catagories. So far we have been planing a big focus on Hydrology, Hydrogen Electrolisis, MicroGreens, Earth Science, and Education...
Although Al was a little misleading by showing charts that only went back 50K years, without addressing Milankovitch cycles, but he was extremely careful not to explicitly say anything that wasn't true. Remember he is a successful multigenerational politician. The media has been confuseing everyone by saying too different things... liberal: Humans caused global warming. Conservative: Humans don't cause global climate change.
Read this: www.und.edu/faculty_qa/08092006.html ***************************************** Fact, not theory: that’s the latest on global warming, the scientifically hypothesized hike in the average temperature on Earth. Naysayers claim it’s a lot of hot air. But researchers—with a handful of notable holdouts—say global warming and climate change are real. No one has yet produced exact specifications for either phenomenon. And there’s no clear consensus about their long-term consequences. Nevertheless, scientists such as University of North Dakota geophysicist and Chester Fritz Distinguished Professor Will Gosnold say global warming is measurable—the numbers, if you know how to read them, are incontrovertible. Dr. Gosnold, chair of the UND department of geology and geological engineering, has analyzed temperature data from several hundred sites to document the Earth’s average temperature changes over the past 500 years. In the following Q&A with Office of University Relations writer Juan Miguel Pedraza, Gosnold talks about global warming, climate change, and what the current research about them signals for the future.
Q. We hear the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in the media seemingly used interchangeably; is there a difference between them?
A. Yes, there’s a difference, though they are, of course, related.
Climate change can be caused by a number of forcing mechanisms which basically change how much solar radiation reaches the planet’s surface or in how heat is redistributed after it arrives at the surface. Most of these mechanisms are natural and cannot be altered by human activity.
Global warming and global cooling are, indeed, climate change, but today we usually associate “global warming” with climate change caused by human activity.
Q. You say climate change is natural. How does it work?
A. We know that climate change can be caused by a number of forcing mechanisms, as I noted earlier. These are things that cause the climate to shift by changing the amount or intensity of solar radiation that falls on Earth’s surface or in how that radiation is redistributed. For, example the Milankovitch cycles: the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit changes over a 100,000-year cycle; the Earth’s axial tilt changes over 41,000-year cycles; and the precession of the Earth’s axis changes over a 23,000-year cycle. Together, these cycles cause slight changes in the amount of radiation falling on the planet, and these slight changes over time cause shifts in climate.
Q. Before we get too much farther along, can you define these terms?
A. Eccentricity is a measure of how circular the orbit of a planet or satellite is. In a perfectly circular orbit, the eccentricity is zero; elliptical orbits have eccentricities between 0 and 1, where 0 is a perfect circle and 1 is a straight line.
For the mathematically inclined, the eccentricity equation is e = (a2 – b2 )1/2/a, where a and b are the major and minor axes of the ellipse, respectively. Earth’s eccentricity has varied over time between 0.005 and 0.0607; right now, the eccentricity is 0.0167, or about 1:6, and has a period, or cycle, of about 100,000 years. Precession is the “wobble” of the Earth as it spins on its axis. This wobbling motion does not affect the tilt angle, or axial tilt, of the Earth; however, it changes the direction in which the Earth is tilting. The wobble, or precession, completes its cycle about once every 23,000 years. Axial tilt describes how far the Earth leans away from the vertical with respect to its orbital plane; if the Earth’s axis of spin did not tilt, there would be no seasonal changes because every place on the globe would receive the same amount of sunlight/darkness year-around, that is, 12 hours of daylight, 12 hours of night, with no variations from one month to the next.
Q. So let’s continue: as you were saying, there are “forcing factors” other than those you just described that propel climate change.
A. Yes, forcing factors other than solar radiation can be grouped into atmospheric composition, atmospheric circulation, and ocean circulation.
Humans can affect only one of these forcing factors: atmospheric composition.
We humans have increased the atmospheric content of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, or CO2, by burning fossil fuels to a point where the heat balance of the planet has changed. Earth now is storing more heat than it was before anthropogenic, or human-produced, CO2 began accumulating in the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 27 percent (280 parts per million by volume [ppmv] to 380 ppmv) since the Industrial Revolution and the increase is a consequence of burning of fossil fuels.
An important point I would like to make is that H20 has a stronger effect than CO2 and that leads to a serious feedbackproblem.Global warming driven by all greenhouse gases has increased evaporation rates, and the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is increasing.
Q. Well, from what you’ve said about anthropogenic greenhouse gases and fossil fuel usage, we’re talking about how much we drive. We Americans are still the world’s largest—in terms of a single society—consumers of fossil fuels. More than half of the 22 million barrels of oil we consume daily is used in personal transportation. We continue to buy large vehicles in record numbers—the Ford F-150 full-size, half-ton pickup truck, for example, has been the best-selling vehicle in the U.S. for 21 years. Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reportes that fuel economy in American vehicles hit a 22-year low in 2002 and has not improved much since then.
A. Yes, internal combustion engines —transportation in general—are a major contributor to global warming.
A National Research Council report, commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences, was released this summer; it showed that, yes, global warming is real and humans are largely responsible, and the major factor is CO2 emission from burning fossil fuels. Auto and light truck emissions are increasing about 2 percent per year; of course, this constant annual rate of increase results in an exponential curve because every year’s 2 percent increase is built upon the previous year’s 2 percent increase, so you’re compounding the rate of increase.
It’s gotten scary; now, the major contributor to global greenhouse gases turns out to be the Third World. China and India are starting to make an impact with their huge populations and growing demand for oil. But that doesn’t diminish our role: the United States as a country is pretty much the leader in greenhouse gas emissions; the Europeans actually have reduced theirs since 1990 because their governments have taken it a lot more seriously than we have. They specifically have undertaken to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
Q. Please clarify what you said about the Third World’s role in global warming.
A. Demand for energy in the Third World is mostly for carbon-based fuel because that is the available resource and it’s the conventional resource; that’s what most economies are geared toward, petroleum, oil, gas, coal, and wood. China this year is using about 40 percent more crude oil than it did last year and its fleet of private cars is growing at about 20 percent per year.
Q. Any alternatives out there that would be practical, handy to access, and economical?
A. All alternatives (to fossil fuels) should be explored, but my favorite is geothermal; we have an enormous untapped resource that could replace much of the fossil fuel that we use, especially for space heating and cooling. According to current research, if the United States would step up to use ground-source heat pumps, we could reduce our electric power usage by 75 percent.
Q. So why haven’t we done it?
A. We haven’t done it because there are initial high-end costs, but the payback time for a geothermal or ground-source system is less than 5 years. Economics always plays a key role—that’s the first thing that people look at.
Q. Tell us how you became convinced that global warming is, indeed, real.
A. In 1989 I was working on a problem of heat flow, looking at how ground water in deep sedimentary basins moves heat under the ground. Many of the temperature gradient curves in my study showed a curious curvature toward warmer temps in the upper 100 meters of the boreholes.
As an aside, during a presentation of the research at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, I noted that our long-held belief that the Earth’s mean (average) annual temp has been relatively constant for the past several millennia might not be true and that the climate might be changing. A senior U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientist who was in the audience sent me a letter and a copy of a paper he had published in Science with similar observations from deep boreholes in Alaska’s North Slope. He realized that we had discovered evidence for climate change and suggested that I look into all of my data.
Thanks to my previous research on geothermal resources, I had compiled a large database of subsurface temperature measurements in boreholes from North Dakota to Texas. UND geographer Paul Todhunter and I began a program to analyze those data to test a basic hypothesis: if greenhouse warming is occurring as general circulation models predict, we should see a systematic change in the amount of temperature change at the surface. The mid-continent data are especially suitable for this analysis for a variety of reasons that tend to suppress non-climate related signals. (Editor’s note: a general circulation model, or GCM, is a three-dimensional computer model of the global climate system; GCMs can simulate human-induced climate change.)
Also, our method has a significant advantage over the meteorological record due to the thermal damping of the climate signal. The low thermal diffusivity of the ground greatly reduces statistical uncertainty in the temperature time series. (Editor’s note: Basically, this means that Gosnold and Todhunter reached their conclusions by making observations across all of the many variations that occur from year to year, a process akin to getting the gist of a radio news broadcast through a lot of background noise or picking out a conversation at a crowded party.)
We found that warming has increased from south to north as predicted by the GCMs. We published the results in (the peer-reviewed journal) Global and Planetary Change; our paper was referenced in the recent National Research Council report on climate change.
Q. So what do you see happening as a consequence of global warming?
A. We’re going to see stronger storms, more property damage, greater threats to life and health, more extreme events. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has already documented a pattern of increasing occurrences of extreme weather events tied to global warming.
Longer-term, predictions are that we’ll see a rise in the level of the oceans, maybe as much as 7 meters, or about 23 feet. It’s uncertain how long the rise will take, but if some predictions on the rapid decay of the polar ice caps are correct, it could occur by the end of this century. Since more than 90 percent of world’s population lives close to sea level, the social and economic disaster resulting from that much of a sea level rise is almost incomprehensible.
We know that over the Earth’s history, climate change has generally occurred on the scale of millennia; but now, new evidence of rapidly melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica indicate that climate change has been scaled back to centuries instead of millennia.
I’m amazed that in the last year, so many things have come out about accelerated climate change. I’ve been surprised—one of the really startling things I have seen was a PBS video on global dimming which showed that there’s less sunshine because aerosols—various types of particles in the atmosphere—are reflecting solar energy back into space, so the amount of sunlight reaching the ground is 30 percent less today than in 1950.
The culprit is atmospheric pollution due to human activity. This may explain why climate researchers have had difficulty matching models of greenhouse warming with the actual rate of warming. The models did not include the reduction in solar radiation at ground level. Global dimming has retarded the rate of warming, and this tells us that without the aerosol pollution, Earth would have been warming at an even faster rate.
Q. Why are we seemingly unaware of this? Our collective problem-causing behavior doesn’t seem to be changing much.
A. First and foremost, what is happening in science is just not on the popular radar—changes on time scales of decades-to-centuries do not cause a sense of urgency for most people. Second, there has been well-financed and effective campaign to spread misinformation about climate science. Things tend to be presented with a “two-sides” argument in most news media, and the misinformation campaign has taken great advantage of this. The fact is, in the concept of Earth system science, we know that everything is related; energy from the sun drives our climate and always has. And we know that Earth’s average surface temperature is rising in contradiction of the trend expected from the Milankovitch cycles. We should be cooling and entering another glacial stage.
The paleoclimate record for the past 1000 years actually shows a slow cooling trend, but that trend reversed dramatically at the time of the Industrial Revolution.
Our view today is that the average temperatures of the first half of 2006 were the highest ever recorded for the continental United States and 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995. The peer-reviewed scientific literature points to anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the cause of the temperature increase.
"But researchers—with a handful of notable holdouts—say global warming and climate change are real. No one has yet produced exact specifications for either phenomenon. And there’s no clear consensus about their long-term consequences."
important to understand. many assume doomsday is part of the "scientific consensus"...or the "truth" that is inconvienient. and "notable holdouts"... does that mean people who arent neocon neonazi "scientists"? you mean, people who believe the earth is flat or what?
will the changing climate, should it be a-chaging so, be more harmful and cause greater suffering than industry and pollution already has the past 100 years? disease/cancer/stress... these are too boring... we need the wrath of god to rain down. hurricane fire and brimstone. these are the dayz of our lives.
save us, Al. we need scary music in the background!
consensus of concerned scientists + the recent reports... they assert a few basic tenets as undeniable: 1. greenhouse gas cause rising temps 2. we have more co2 + rising temps (on some level) 3. we should be concerned
the other things, based on the models and everything else... about consequence, trajectory, etc, degree of human effect... its more open to debate than strong proponents of global warming activism will allow. sure, better to err on the side of caution and concern. im all for it. however, desire for security and romance places enormous bias on interpretation of context....not to mention political influence from a variety of angles. follow the money trails on all sides. seems like the facts about industry/pollution and its harmful effects on human health were in a long long time ago, and are not based on computer models of open systems. i guess this is another reason that the babylon system must fall. fire on the mountain, run boys run you mean that black smoke isnt good for ya?!?!?!?!?!??!??!??! who woulda guessed?!!!!! i guess necessity and mutation are the breeding grounds for evolution of the species. eating ghram crackers to curb sexual appetite ...! it was 60 degrees in January! because of global warming? but thats 20-30 degrees higher than many years avg..... but the proposed warming trend is less than a half a degree every so many years... right? how does that work?
my knee swelled up, storms a brewin' groundhog says spring right around the corner
"Phil's official forecast as read 2/2/07 at 7:28 a.m. at Gobbler's Knob:
El Nino has caused high winds, heavy snow, ice and freezing temperatures in the west. Here in the East with much mild winter weather we have been blessed.
Global warming has caused a great debate. This mild winter makes it seem just great.
On this Groundhog Day we think of one thing. Will we have winter or will we have spring?
On Gobbler's Knob I see no shadow today. I predict that early spring is on the way."
keep your head in the clouds and keep a-reachin for the starz. there are other planets! seek the alter destiny!
"Fact, not theory: that’s the latest on global warming,"
Explain to me how that's not trash talk. there is no science in there. show the proof not the political "Hollywood" support garbage of Al Gore. Local climate adjustments. Not Global Warming; and for f***s sake lets not blame india and china. be brainwashed by mr gore if you'd like; he obviously wants you to think we doomed. feel guilty or what ever it is in your life that makes you believe his b u ll do do.
No James, my point was this thread is for "Science" not opinions based on the latest garbage being spewed of the television. Science is based on using the knowledge we have already ascertained and then testing our knowledge to then try and define just a little more. But I think what scientists and this thread really tries to pride itself on is being able to support its theories in a calm and lucid manner using research from other scientists in the community.
You should listen to yourself on this thread James, while some people are reporting actual scientific data and trying to give degicank and this message board a legitimacy, you are blabbing your mouth like a big gassy bag of hot air.
If you want to rile people up, why don't you go on another thread that doesn't make you look so ignorant? I mean, I may not know much about science and especially not much about this whole "Global Warming" topic, but I would like to learn....and name calling is not how I believe I am going to learn about this.
We eagerly await your next post, I hope you have not been put off by some of our more foul mouthed brethren on here. Hopefully he will learn to bite his tongue on such matters in the future....or at least splurged bullsh*t on another thread. Hey Noob Sabot, youre the administrator right? Can you please make a Madonna thread for Uncle James? He needs a lucky star.
And yes James, I will agree with you, I think Al Gore is a douche. But that has nothing to do with this thread or Science in any way.
Help Us, Help Us™ Buy a t-shirt! Visit the VORCAN Store today at VORCAN.com!
Science is based on using the knowledge we have already ascertained and then testing our knowledge to then try and define just a little more. But I think what scientists and this thread really tries to pride itself on is being able to support its theories in a calm and lucid manner using research from other
Up until the late 19th century (and even well into the 20th century but that is trivial) Science was completey locked into the beliefs and thoughts of the catholic church. Science was desperately trying to tie in the existence of "God's Will" with the common world around us.
Today science fact is simply something that can't be disproved. Science is about as solid as Degicank itself.
So to bring serious arguments about an inconvenient truth:
1)Why would anyone listen to a mainstream politician? They are trained liars republicans, democrats and independents. Green party or libertarians they all use tactics of persuasion. truth is not a highly computed factor for any of them. Scare tactics are however. George bush has terrorism AL gore has global warming.
2) Ice sheets or glaciers or icebergs melting would not raise the sea level at all. That comment is absolute fiction. you can prove this to yourself at home. Fill a glass with ice. Now fill it with water. let the ice melt and see how much water pours out of the glass. Use a five gallon bucket a swimming pool, it doesn't matter what scale you experiment on, even earth, the volume will not increase. *
3)I already brought this point up but will emphasize it again; he took on frank Zappa, john Denver, Dee Snyder etc on the censorship issue. poor form; enough to discredit him from any real stance let alone a fictitious one such as global warming. WHY? his wife and her friends found certain music genres offensive so they used their power to influence law makers to restrict the exposure of these genres. You can't by an uncensored CD in walmart today thanks to these laws made possible by Al gore. blockbuster selectively edits the movies they rent thanks to these laws.
4)He starts the film off saying it is not a political issue (global warming) then talks almost half the film about his political career.
5)read a farmers almanac. they are historically 70-80 percent correct on weather patterns and predictions. this alone should discredit any notion of global warming as AL gore describes it.
6)isn't it strange how al gore tells you what YOU can do to slow global warming? He doesn't say what corporations can do to slow this so called global warming. Plus al gore is using way more fuel flying around promoting his movie than you EVER will. If thats not f***ed I don't know what is.
* Minimal (not this 23" al claims) impact on the sea levels would occur if ALL the glaciers in the mountains of the world melted.
Last Edit: Feb 8, 2007 11:15:12 GMT -5 by degijames