Friday, December 4, 2009

DON'T Do Something To Save The Planet

DON'T Do Something To Save The Planet

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:06:13 -0500
R337549
2 years ago
GWHunta

R337551
2 years ago
Freeman

CO2 is not the only GHG; humans accelerate the production of nitrous oxides also


R337557
2 years ago
Science

“Relegating CO2 as a “pollutant” for its greenhouse gas properties today is no different than asking the same be said for anthropogenic increases in water vapor, which is at the very heart of the climate change issue” you forgot to add “in my head.” to the end of that.


R337560
2 years ago
GWHunta

Water vapor is the principal GHG.

CO2 is of course a distant second.

Methane and the lessor trace gases are all part of the equation, but our focus in this global “crisis” must be what is the very best mitigation strategy for the very least cost per capita.

That is by far and away, adopting vegan lifestyles.

As a side benefit, there would be the reduction of risk from pandemic viral infections and there is currently an enormous veterinary pharmaceutical industry to meet the needs of modern animal for meat production in the form of growth hormones and antibiotics that increase the efficiency with which these factory produced livestock can be raised.

At the same time billions go without being fully immunized and their needs for vitamins and medicine are not being met.

Seems one hand might wash the other in this arena.

Peace,


R337565
2 years ago
GWHunta

... you forgot to add “in my head.” to the end of that.

Shame you’re apparently incapable of getting your head around the concept, alleged animal lover.

So tell me Science of all the non-climate changing and positive impacts that damming the planet’s rivers, the expansion of industrialized agriculture, irrigating arid and semi-arid lands and increased meat production is having on our biosphere?

Eating lower on the food chain reduces the need for water diverted for irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, growth hormones and antibiotics and animal waste that are polluting our rivers and displacing wildlife.

Sometimes no Peace


R337566
2 years ago
GWHunta

P.S.

If you can’t grasp the basic physics of why lowering the planet’s albedo, increasing the specific heat capacity of the continents and increased evapotranspiration into our troposphere is having a general warming impact on the global climate, maybe you can grasp the concept that if you don’t buy that burger, you’ll still have the money in your pocket.

Peace,


R337571
2 years ago
GWHunta

Try thinking. It is far more difficult, but also far more rewarding than simply believing or not.

Our global society is today on the very brink of tumult, the likes of which has never been witnessed in human history.

Doing nothing can help.

Peace,
GWHunta

Post Modified: 04/22/08 11:30:27

R337572
2 years ago
GWHunta

Father Roy isn’t alone.

We are all truly…....

On The Line


R337588
2 years ago
aganunitsi

I work a couple of blocks from Chinatown. I’m about to head to one of my favorite restaurants for lunch. It’s Buddhist, and they have a large selection of “mock meat” dishes, made from either wheat gluten or soy.

It’s the only place I’ve found that has decent mock seafood. Seafood is my one guilty pleasure, as far as meat eating goes, and I haven’t found a replacement at the grocery store. Too hard to get that fishy taste without using fish?

Actually, if you’re interested, I did discover a recipe while cooking at home. When trying to make mock seafood, use flax seed oil and a little dry seaweed. At high temps, the flax seed oil begins to give off a fishy smell (it isn’t that different from fish liver oil) and the seaweed, when crumbled, contributes just the right combination of salts to give that “seafoody” taste. I’ve made a killer mock seafood gumbo using this method.


R337594
2 years ago
GWHunta

Sounds great.

And of all flesh products, eating cold-blooded creatures produced naturally from the oceans and our inland waters is the least environmentally harmful and the healthiest for the consumer, eaten in moderation.

Though I’m against the factory-farming of livestock for ethical, moral and health reasons, I’m not personally opposed to limited meat-eating or hunting for the check it provides on wildlife populations, recreational benefits and of course the provision of a minimal supply of free ranged meat.

Peace,


R337595
2 years ago
mtnlungta

Not doing meat
Seems to go against the grain of a few hundred thousand years of being omnivorous
Doing it the way we are doing it
Is yes not very sustainable
A total reevaluation
Of what it is to be human is required
And will not be considered by those with the power to implement any change
Without a total collapse
This collapse won©t facilitate change either
As the most pathological will again rise to power


R337596
2 years ago
mtnlungta

I am pretty much convinced that as far as this is concerned
Quote
This expanding population is the real issue that needs to be addressed.
End quote
There are plans for nine out of ten of us


R337609
2 years ago
microdot

We’re dealing with an every man for himself culture. It’s very difficult for people to think beyond their own personal needs. It’s, in fact, dangerous for them to try.

So.

It’s a safe bet the “make-the-world-a better-place” argument will never clear the barriers to entry in cultures where extreme degrees of capitalism have taken root.

Those cows and chickens are fed on genetically modified grains (among other things — I guess for a while there they were feeding the cows to each other — isn’t that where Mad Cow Disease came from?).

We don’t know what transgenic food does exactly because the genetic makeup has been destablized and it’s not constant. But it’s pretty clear what the glyphosate does.

If you’re going to simplify one argument and go out and creatively hammer it to a tipping point — that’s the one that’ll hit the most birds with one stone.


R337610
2 years ago
microdot

Is that Bill Clinton in the Ronald McDonald suit?


R337626
2 years ago
GWHunta

R337668
2 years ago
johnnycivil

stop greenwash
greenpeace’s new corporate assault site


R337708
2 years ago
Watson

This all makes sense. Even before climate change was invented it had to be obvious to the meanest intelligence that some people were consuming a lot more than their share and many billions of people were going without the minimum requirements for a sustainable existence. It seems that vegetarianism has a very high percentage chance of being a good thing. There are probably some downsides out there (soya grown on rain forest land?), but your analysis looks accurate. It’s a whole load of things we have to consume less of.


R337753
2 years ago
Science

Another Greenpeace website very relevant to this and any other gwhunta blog.


R337768
2 years ago
Liam

Yeah, nobody likes to hear this. As long as I’ve been even marginally activist-y with veg stuff, I’ve seen the vast majority of the ‘environmental movement’, obsess about one issue of the day, or another – clean water, air, recycling, global air conditioning,,,

but I’ve always had to hear it from their mouths full of burgers and fries. It’s the easiest connection to miss, apparently, that you’ve got to feed these happy cows dozens to hundreds of times the volume of grain and water, to get them to produce a little ‘happy meal’ for one person, versus just eating rice and beans ourselves.

It’s the easiest argument to miss, and I gave up on people’s ability to hear it some time ago. Vegetarianism, or near-veggie-ism, for all the sense it makes economically, biologically, sanitarily, and for general comfort and well-being – is simply un-American, (French, German, Chinese, Brazilian, and everywhere else where they love love love their brisket and barbeque).

It’s like a spiritual thing, maybe. Or maybe when the price of rice and beans gets high enough, someone will say, “Hey! That f-ing cow is eating my g-damn dinner!”

Rice and Beans!


R337771
2 years ago
Symington

I’m certainly not categorically against raising animals to eat them, just against industrial meat.

In a lot of developing countries you have goats and cows and chickens just living in the sprawl, eating all sorts of refuse and it improves the local diets. Also, it keeps the hedges trimmed.


R337780
2 years ago
aganunitsi

I’m certainly not categorically against raising animals to eat them, just against industrial meat.

And with all of the diseases it breeds, it looks like industrial meat is against us as well.


R337783
2 years ago
GWHunta

Livestock are nearly a necessity and make sense for subsistence farmers.

I’m not a total vegetarian nor pressing for totalitarian vegetarianism.

Fact is that most of us mindlessly consume far more meat than is healthy for us and almost everybody in the first world consumes more animal protein than is necessary for a healthy diet at great environmental expense, further damaging the biosphere and climate that at the same time we claim to revere and cherish.

Demand for and prices for grain for biofuels, and livestock feed is growing exponentially while we’re reaching our limits of available arable land to produce these basic foodstuffs.

The poor are being squeezed out of the global grain market, while meat and dairy production is indirectly subsidized in the U.S. as one of the byproducts of ethanol production is distillers grain, which is then marketed to cattle and dairy producers.

With about 10 million tons of distillers grains produced nationally in 2006 and 16 million tons expected by 2010, according to an Ohio State University study, the ethanol byproduct is being marketed to feedlots and dairy farms across the United States as a source of revenue for ethanol plants.

While that might sound like a win-win to a steak eating owner of an E-85 sucking SUV, there of course are some downsides to this other than the fact that there are humans going hungry and we’re damaging our biosphere and global climate in the process.

10 million: Tons of distillers grains produced in 2006

16 million: Tons projected by 2010

90 percent: Cost of distillers grains from Front Range Energy LLC compared to corn feed

2.8 gallons: Amount of ethanol produced by a modern dry-mill ethanol from one bushel of corn

17 pounds: Amount of distillers grains produced by one bushel of corn

50 percent: Increase in E. coli when cattle are fed dry distillers grains

60 percent to 120 percent: Increase in feedlot phosphorus in manure when cattle feed includes 20 percent or 40 percent distillers grains

For more on angle that see:

CSU researchers, others looking into distillers grains’ impact on cattle, beef

The bottom line is this.

Higher demand for agricultural products leads to increased deforestation, greater need for water diverted to irrigation and increased global warming.

Higher prices for the most basic of foods upon which the human population depends leads to shortages, famine, social instability and violence and potentially war and genocide.

Eating more meat and other animal protein than is necessary for maintaining a healthy diet contributes daily to these injustices.

Today is day one of the Close the SOA Fast

Just DON’T Do It for…....

Peace,


R337785
2 years ago
GWHunta


R337787
2 years ago
GWHunta

R337788
2 years ago
GWHunta

R337822
2 years ago
Science

“but I’ve always had to hear it from their mouths full of burgers and fries. It’s the easiest connection to miss, apparently, that you’ve got to feed these happy cows dozens to hundreds of times the volume of grain and water, to get them to produce a little ‘happy meal’ for one person, versus just eating rice and beans ourselves.”

Word, that’s why you gotta go grass fed beef.


R337834
2 years ago
manyhues

Congrats on the top blog GWH, interesting discussion.

Some good carne is still one of my guilty pleasures, but I am selective about what I consume.

Who here grew up listening to MDC “Corporate DeathBurger”? I have not eaten a fast food hamburger for two decades.

As an aside, that foto of HilBilly from his/their days at Oxford (I think…)—why is it that I suddenly think of Informant Anna and her ilk? Those Clinton’s were some bad news hippies, and now they trash Obama for an obscure connection to the Weather Underground?

Does that paint Hillary as a snitch?

And who trusts a snitch?

Yikes, scary aside…


R337863
2 years ago
sakura10

Just wanted to remind everyone that Thursday is 2 Big Macs for $2. At least up in the Pacific Northwest. Check your local McDonalds for similar promotions in your area.


R337864
2 years ago
ill_logik

been veggie for like 7 and almost half years. damn best thing i coulda dun. even thinking about eating meat is kinda nasty now, you realize all the ways you become addicted to food, you’re just like a fiend. clean that shit up for your own health.

tho veggies are also fucked, it takes lots of oil, but still the amazon is being cut down to grow soy to then feed to animals in NA. if we didn’t need to have slaughterhouse cities to then feed the cities it would def ease up on the footprints.

be healthy y’all

Post Modified: 04/23/08 23:54:27

R337865
2 years ago
ill_logik

btw how do u embed vids?


R337868
2 years ago
FloydAnderson

It’s explained here


R337869
2 years ago
ill_logik

nice


R337871
2 years ago
Science

“Just wanted to remind everyone that Thursday is 2 Big Macs for $2. At least up in the Pacific Northwest. Check your local McDonalds for similar promotions in your area.”

sweet, tired of eating at my work’s cafetaria…overpriced and underfatted


R337884
2 years ago
GWHunta

Higher prices for the most basic of foods upon which the human population depends leads to shortages, famine, social instability and violence and potentially war and genocide.

Not so sweet.


R337921
2 years ago
Livingston

hey fucktard, please explain how anthropogenic alterations to the water cycle have caused the 30% acidification of the oceans since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

you forgot to explain it here

remember this?

The global oceans are the largest natural reservoir for this excess carbon dioxide, absorbing approximately one-third of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by human activities each year, and over the next millennium, is expected to absorb approximately 90% of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere. It is now well established that there is a strong possibility that dissolved CO2 in the ocean surface will double over its pre-industrial value by the middle of this century, with accompanying surface ocean acidity (pH) and carbonate ion (CO32-) decreases that are greater than those experienced during the transition from ice ages to warm ages. The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the ocean changes the chemistry of the oceans and can potentially have significant impacts on the biological systems in the upper oceans.

When carbon dioxide reacts with seawater it forms carbonic acid, which is corrosive to calcium carbonate shells and skeletons. The impact is likely to be disruptions through large components of the marine food web.

no, no its not from a blog. the citation is from here.

sorry.
remember also to explain the vostok ice core data and the data from manua loa

opps
Arctic ice seen melting faster than anticipated

It found that ice in Greenland and across the Arctic region was retreating “at rates significantly faster than predicted in previous expert assessments.”

you should submit your wack theory on your blog to more science organizations and then post the responses here on GNN.

that shit is funny.

Post Modified: 04/24/08 13:14:14

R337938
2 years ago
Symington

finally, I’ve been waiting for Liv and GW to square off for a while. Have at ye(achother)!!


R337941
2 years ago
Symington

I mean, I hate to appeal to authority, especially to this crowd, but come on…

On the other hand the massive changes we’ve wrought upon the earth could be considered a geo-engineering experiment where the consequences weren’t exactly calculated beforehand…


R337947
2 years ago
GWHunta

Livingston,

You kiss your momma with that mouth? How’s your reading comprehension? From the post you cited:

And do try to remember that the discussion was referencing optimum levels of atmospheric CO2 in climate controlled greenhouses.

The relatively small increase of about 100 ppm since the onset of industrialization has almost certainly had some impact on plant growth, though because we’re still relative low on a scale of optimum levels for plant life, though not necessarily optimal levels for our biosphere per se, the amount of CO2 enhancement and its impact on plant growth is likely thus far relatively small.

If you read what I’ve posted, I’m in no way advocating increasing atmospheric CO2 levels beyond where the are today and would like to see emission levels curbed and eventually reduced to the point that atmospheric CO2 is brought back down to a target of about 300 ppm.

That said, it isn’t possible. Excepting a major war, famine and global genocide and trust me, there’s folks working each and every day to make that a viable possibility.

Sorry I can’t participate in your trace gas hysteria but if you’ll kindly read Damming Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change in its entirety and can fully comprehend it, you might get a clue about why the oceans are becoming more acidic due in part to our alterations of the hydrological cycle.

The ocean “deserts” are growing due to the lack of nutrients available to phytoplankton and this lack of nutrients is further reducing the ability of the oceans to sequester CO2.

As river flows are reduced, nitrates and phosphorus from fertilizers and animal waste, as mentioned in this very blog increase to deadly concentrations, creating algal blooms and in cases creating dead zones off major river deltas where the oxygen is depleted to levels so low that the water can’t support animal life.

Now because I’ve got the good sense to understand that atmospheric CO2 levels have historically trailed changes in global temperatures, not vise versa and understand as well that the planet’s “greenhouse effect” is primarily hydrological and not fundamentally dependent on atmospheric CO2 or other “trace GHG’s” doesn’t mean I advocate the unrestricted burning of fossil fuels.

Lastly, when you post on my blogs, try not to be such a knob.

Peace,


R337948
2 years ago
GWHunta

Human beings put more than 12 cubic kilometers of additional water into the atmosphere on a global daily average from major irrigation activities alone.

Do you have any concept of how much thermal energy it takes to boil 12 cubic kilometers of water? (314.25 terawatts) Or how much ice it could melt? (roughly 84 cubic kilometers)

The heat of vaporization is about seven times that the heat of fusion.

When you look down an irrigation ditch, try to imagine the flow off an ice sheet of seven times that volume.

In the northern hemisphere during the summer months this output volume peaks and is far higher than the daily global mean of 12 cubic kilometers.

Every living breathing creature is constantly exhaling not only CO2, but water vapor as well. Not to mention the trace gases exiting their gastrointestinal tracts.

99% of the water utilized by a plant is to cool it.

With gas almost $4.00 a gallon, most of us aren’t driving any more than we must already.

Mass transportation and more efficient personal transportation is in the immediate future if we are all to have one, but these things take time, energy and material investments.

I’ve already got energy efficient compacts and the old tubular fluorescent lighting and have had for many years.

I burn wood for space heating if possible and don’t cut any live trees for fuel wood if I can avoid it. The dead wood was going to become atmospheric CO2 anyway.

Some don’t have all these options available to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels or the finances to afford the most energy efficient transportation and appliances on the market.

You can count me in with the latter.

But we all have control over our diets and can immediately make a considerable alteration of our individual agricultural footprints, reducing the amount of land, fertilizers, pesticides, growth hormones and antibiotics that end up in our biosphere and at the same time reduce our per capita CO2 emissions by changing our diets to consume more basic foodstuffs and less highly processed food and animal protein.

That was the fundamental point of this blog and it remains a valid one.

Everybody is screaming climate crisis.

Peak Oil is here, whether man-made or geological it makes no difference, production has peaked as demand continues to grow and oil prices are now expected to reach $180.00 a barrel over the next few years.

Biofuels become extremely lucrative at those kind of oil prices.

There isn’t enough water and arable land currently in production to feed and fuel 7 billion omnivorous humans with carnivorous tendencies and a lust for driving SUV’s.

Current global grain reserves are under 60 days and prices are climbing, knocking the poor out of the food market, while ethanol makers in the U.S. are converting 28% of this nation’s corn crop into ethanol and making a killing off tax subsidies for the ethanol and selling the distiller’s grain as animal feed for 90% of the price of corn feed.

Each time we hit the dollar menu for a burger or a chicken sandwich, we participate in the propagation of the food to fuel / food to foolishness, business as usual mindlessness of a culture that is living not only beyond its own means, but the means of this planet as well.

Just DON’T Do It.

Post Modified: 08/17/09 00:13:01

R337951
2 years ago
Livingston

give it up. you’re citing yourself now. are you an expert in this? did you go through school to study this stuff? are you on the ground floor trying to do something about it? you’re going to write shit telling people how to think about the planet?

CO2 is an essential element in the metabolisms of nearly every evolved life form on this planet, as is water in both its liquid and vapor states.

pick up an ecology book and shut the fuck up once and for all. talk about how you dont like the war or something. stay on the site, write but if you keep this bullshit up acting like you know what is happening to the environment im going keep being a knob. cuz im mean drunk. and cuz when im sober i gotta stand in front of third graders and pretend like i know what the fuck we’re going to do.

if you like nature go enjoy what’s left of it and don’t worry about being wrong about this bullshit. seriously man. i actually want you to get up and go look at trees and birds and rivers. it makes you feel better. there’s still something left.

now james lovelock says we got and 8 C rise locked into the system and that means any survivors will be on antarctica. i’ve never been to antarctica but i doubt it could be as beautiful as what we got here.

life is short. especially in the 21st.

moms coming round to put it back the way it outta be


R337953
2 years ago
GWHunta

Hey Liv,

Got nature out my back door. Grafted a broken limb on a little White Pine this morning that was damaged in the blizzard we had a week or so ago. Transplanted it there last year.

Let me ask you this.

Does industrialized agriculture have a negative impact on the biosphere and biodiversity?

If so, less is better. Eating lower on the food chain means less.

Sorry you can’t be convinced that we are altering the global climate by altering the planet’s hydrology and prefer to stick with the theory that atmospheric CO2 is the primary anthropogenic impact.

That’ll make selling “Peak Oil” energy policies a lot easier for politicians.

Again, I don’t advocate increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, but rising CO2 alone just isn’t the boogie man it’s being made out to be.

Peace,


R337998
2 years ago
GWHunta

R338043
2 years ago
GWHunta

R338065
2 years ago
GWHunta

Biofuels contribute to anthropogenic climate change.

PDF

Post Modified: 04/25/08 11:06:18

R338100
2 years ago
Livingston

retard. you’re still avoiding the acidification of the ocean.

explain it:

The global oceans are the largest natural reservoir for this excess carbon dioxide, absorbing approximately one-third of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by human activities each year, and over the next millennium, is expected to absorb approximately 90% of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere. It is now well established that there is a strong possibility that dissolved CO2 in the ocean surface will double over its pre-industrial value by the middle of this century, with accompanying surface ocean acidity (pH) and carbonate ion (CO32-) decreases that are greater than those experienced during the transition from ice ages to warm ages. The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the ocean changes the chemistry of the oceans and can potentially have significant impacts on the biological systems in the upper oceans.

CO2 alone just isn’t the boogie man it’s being made out to be.

so the rapid rise in CO2 isn’t really being absorbed by the oceans and acidifying them? why are all them coral reefs bleaching? please make up theories contrary to the science. that shit is fun.

1. Ocean acidification is a predictable consequence of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from human activities. Surface ocean chemistry CO2 and pH changes resulting from these activities can be predicted with a high degree of confidence. 2.Ocean acidification means that there would be concern over carbon dioxide emissions independently and apart from any possible effects of carbon dioxide on the climate system. Ocean acidification and climate change are both effects of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, but they are completely different; ocean acidification depends on the chemistry of carbon dioxide; whereas climate change depends on temperature and freshwater changes resulting from the atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. 3. If current trends in carbon dioxide emissions continue, the ocean will acidify to an extent and at rates that have not occurred for tens of millions of years. At present, ocean chemistry is changing at least 100 times more rapidly than it has changed in the 100,000 years preceding our industrial era.

R338106
2 years ago
GWHunta

Livingston,

Cut the name calling and read Damming Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

The whole thing, slowly, as then you might comprehend it.

I’m not in favor of higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2, I’m for reductions, but the warming is primarily hydrological and there are ways we can benefit both the hydrological cycle and mitigate our disruption of the carbon cycle hand in hand.

Peace,


R338126
2 years ago
ZenSwashbuckler

Vegetarianism, or near-veggie-ism, for all the sense it makes economically, biologically, sanitarily, and for general comfort and well-being – is simply un-American, (French, German, Chinese, Brazilian, and everywhere else where they love love love their brisket and barbeque).

Vietnamese, Australian, Pakistani, Mexican, Argentinian, Persian, Turkish, Indian, etc, etc, etc…

Might as well call it inhuman.

The real problem here is not that stupid humans love their meat and this is bad – we’ve always loved our meat. The problem is that over the last hundred and fifty years or so we’ve gotten used to having the lowest proportion of our species engaged in food production in the entire history of life on Earth. It’s not just industrial meat production, it’s the whole fuckin’ thing. Once a billion people are able to earn a living wage by sitting on their asses in front of electricity-sucking computer screens all day (full disclosure: I’m guilty), then go to the supermarket on the way home and buy anything they want, nobody is willingly going to go back to a civilization dependent on tens of thousands of local peasants and true village-size free markets of farm stands.

Food has become casual and easy – this is the biggest “crime” we have committed against our planet and ourselves. Meat is, and ought to be, a special, juicy, beautiful delicacy.


R338127
2 years ago
ZenSwashbuckler

And you fuckin’ know what? I am getting sick and motherfucking tired as hell of watching you people (you know I respect you all, so I also don’t wanna hear any fucking backlash from your oh-so-sanctimonious offended asses) tear each other to fucking shreds with rhetorical machetes and cluster bombs over whether or not carbon dioxide is the prime costumed supervillain responsible for global warming. As I see it everybody who gives a shit about our species retaining basic knowledge, scientific ability, and literacy over the next two centuries all agrees we need to:

  • cut back on our electricity usage;
  • simplify everybody’s lives and adopt a species-wide austerity agenda in order to retain the shape and system-interaction of the planet as we know it – giving up lots of the luxuries the First World came to take for granted after 1945;
  • find actually-sustainable ways of doing everything we absolutely cannot live without, such as agriculture and science.

None of you are disagreeing on these things. So as I see it the only reason you science people are arguing at each other like you’re all talking about the 9/11 story, is because fucking Sauron has seduced you all into thinking each other hostile enemies.

This is exactly what the smug, smarmy mug of Bill Kristol snickers over most.

Grow the fuck up, all of you.

Post Modified: 04/25/08 17:44:10

R338128
2 years ago
Livingston

Livingston,

Cut the name calling and read Damming Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

gw, i mean fucktard. i read yer jerkoff shit and made comments on it. its in that thread, just scroll down. im the one they call Livingston.

your shit is retarded.

hey swashy
when did you get all tarded? i used to like your stuff.

385 ppm CO2 now
wanna have a remotely safe planet for life?
return it to 320 to 350 ppm. try reading the papers before you shit out yo mouth.

funny. i just walked out of the little strip of jungle left on the pacific side of the central american corridor of rainforest with my friend frank joyce talking about this shit and much more.

heh. turns out i know more about what is happening here and going to happen than all them big name biologists. and now they look to me to fix it, cuz they know they didn’t do shit.

you know fuck all kids.

you can get on the ground floor or go fuck yeaselves.

watch it burn

i told you so

pussies


R338129
2 years ago
Chickenma1

Hmmm…. Sounds like water vapor is warming the atmosphere and CO2 is acidifying the oceans. Double trouble, if you ask me.


R338130
2 years ago
Science

I like this ultra-abrasive Livingston a lot. Go figure.


R338133
2 years ago
a_pretty_rainbow

I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed more complete PWNAGE in my years of reading this site. That was awesome, livingston.


R338135
2 years ago
aganunitsi

I would like to figure out how we get serious, trusted scientists to discuss the water vapor issue.

GWHunta’s thesis, of how our terraforming ways are launching more water vapor into the atmosphere than was there 1,000 years ago, is pretty fucking easy for me to comprehend. But I also know that seemingly simple concepts can be wrong, especially when you’re dealing with a system as complicated as a biosphere.

And, as abusive as he is, I just like Livingston. He has a passion that I am sorely lacking. He definitely feels like he’s right. But he doesn’t have the ability to explain to me how he’s right. The ills of CO2 do not negate the ills of excess water vapor, they only compound them.

Is there any scientific individual/group we would trust to debate the water vapor issue?

(And seriously, the only reason to “debate” the issue is so people don’t get false hope. If we were to magically transform into a 0% CO2 spewing civilization tomorrow, GWHunta’s thesis predicts we would still be fucked by global warming.)


R338142
2 years ago
Livingston

hey, thanks yall. im just glad to bring the heat to teh masses. if i gots to listen to douchebag toursists who get shuttled up on massive buses complaining that the cloud forest is nothin special and smile about it i get to unleash a bit of rage here and there, eh?

aganunitsi – what the fuck? i feel like im right? do you live in a fucking cave man? its not my theory – i dont feel like im right. i feel like the motherfucking scientists the world over are right – you know, simple folks like JAMES FUCKING LOVELOCK. dude invented the kitchen microwave, nasas electron capture devices and wrote the Gaia hypothesis. hes kinda regarded as a fucking genius. and here you have dumbtards who somehow get an opinion about issues they’ve never investigated. what the fuck.
seriously. you want me to explain how im right?
dude, im not right. i didn;t make up the ideas im defending like GW did. read my anthropocene emergence article. seriously. and the fucking papers i link. goddamn.

hey GWshitbag. i got a question for you. you ever done a goddamn thing to try and change shit other than bitch about it on GNN? you ever walk through the forest looking down at the smoldering, buring fields in guancaste talking to the biologists you idolized, the people who wrote the books which inspired your vocation? i have. i did that shit today. and it fucking sucks to stand next to them watching the shit burn and have no closure, no clue, no idea how we’re going to get out of this.

fuck you bitchass. 3 maybe 5 years to drop CO2 from 385 ppm to 320-350 ppm or greenland goes, the artic goes, amazon goes and the planet spits us the fuck out. not my theory asshole. climate code red.

fuck vegetarian boycott shit. eat a big bloody steak and take out industrial civilization.

we told you so.
remember that motherfucker

re still eating meat as you’re speaking out about saving the planet and mitigating anthropogenic climate change by reducing emissions of atmospheric CO2, methane and other lessor trace gases, or are concerned about preserving our global wildlife heritage and maintaining species diversity, save your own breath, because you are a hypocrite.


R338143
2 years ago
a_pretty_rainbow


R338145
2 years ago
Science


R338160
2 years ago
aganunitsi

All I’m looking for is a clear explanation. Yes, I’m a climatalogical biospherical retard, so sue me. I happen to take the motto “question everything” seriously.

I found this summary article, which does an excellent job of pointing out evapotranspiration’s complex role in the homeostasis of the biosphere (or “Gaia”, if we must). The only conclusion drawn is that this shit is complex. Lovelock is quoted as saying that Gaia should be heading into another ice age, but is warming instead (that one’s for you, Bacchus).

I Googled “james lovelock global warming agriculture”, just to see if the man has specific counter-points to GWHunta’s thesis. I found this article, in which Lovelock states

Agriculture already uses too much of the land needed by the Earth to regulate its climate and chemistry.

But the article doesn’t go into further detail. What do you think he meant by that?

Actually, scratch that. I just found something via a Google of “james lovelock agriculture”. Check this out

If evapotranspiration, or the additions of the tropical rivers to the oceans, is vital to the maintenance of the present planetary homeostasis, then this suggests that its replacement with an agricultural surrogate or a desert not only would deny these regions to their surviving inhabitants but would threaten the rest of the system as well. We do not yet know; we can only guess that tropical forest systems are vital for the world ecology. It may be that they are like the temperate forests that seem to be expendable without serious harm to the system as a whole; temperate forests have suffered extensive destruction during glaciations as well as during the recent expansion of agriculture.

So, Lovelock had at least considered the importance of evapotranspiration, although here he is worrying about the lack of it, not the overabundance. And he doesn’t mention anything about diversion of water for power/irrigation.

As the creator of the Gaia hypothesis, I would love to hear Lovelock’s thoughts on GWHunta’s thesis. Well, Lovelock’s ideas for nuclear power worry me – the old man may have gone batty. As someone who’s theory was largely ignored for many years, I’m sure Lovelock would give GWHunta’s thoughts an honest read. Livingston, you got any connections?

Post Modified: 04/26/08 03:09:39

R338161
2 years ago
aganunitsi

I found another article.

It looks like a good starting point for further research. Specifically, into what they term LULC, or land use/land change. I also notice that, down in the comments, they mention something I related in another blog – we are talking about energy buildup in the biosphere, not heat. The energy can end up in many places: kinetic (wind), thermal (heat) and potential (moisture).

Post Modified: 04/26/08 03:47:16

R338162
2 years ago
skullfucker69

Watching Livingstone devolve is great.

hey GWshitbag. i got a question for you. you ever done a goddamn thing to try and change shit other than bitch about it on GNN? you ever walk through the forest looking down at the smoldering, buring fields in guancaste talking to the biologists you idolized, the people who wrote the books which inspired your vocation? i have. i did that shit today.

I don’t believe you.
I don’t believe you have photos of you and alan pounds tongue-kissing and I don’t believe you panty-raid hippy chicks. Ever.

I think you’re just a smelly drunk who keeps posting the same link about bleached coral.


R338163
2 years ago
sisyphus

everyone who posted in this shitheap of a discussion deserves a piece of cake:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/1453/goatsecakelargecn5.jpg

Post Modified: 04/26/08 12:55:15

R338164
2 years ago
aganunitsi

Nooooooo. Well, the baker was a great artist. You can even see the wedding ring. Now I’m hungry.

PS – Mmmmm, looks like German chocolate.

Post Modified: 04/26/08 04:49:51

R338174
2 years ago
GWHunta

Poor Livingston,

The rage pours out when the beliefs are shattered.
It’s always safer to knwo that to simply believe.

By virtue of your trace gas hysterics and tantrums you’ve placed yourself squarely in the corner of a_pretty_rainbow and Science.

Brilliant.

Humanity is rerouting about one percent of the volume of the total hydrological cycle away from the oceans and back into the atmosphere.

The water gets there eventually, it just has to travel further northward, where river outputs and runoff is increasing, as opposed to its former courses before mankind dammed them and re-routed the water to agricultural fields.

This “wetter” troposphere equates to a warmer planet because it carries within it more of the latent energy mentioned in the previous post.

This is fact.

There is an anthropogenic climate impact due to our interference and manipulations of the planet’s hydrological cycle.

If you, Livingston, or anybody else for that matter, as in a_pretty_rainbow or Science. would like to explain to the rest of us how nearly 50,000 large dams, hundreds of thousands of smaller dams and hundreds of millions of acres under irrigation globally don’t alter this planet’s hydrological cycle, go for it.

Or if you’ve the good sense to concede that this does in fact alter the planet’s hydrology, skip that and go straight to the part where it doesn’t have any impact on the global climate.

Or quantify how much of an impact it does have.

More facts:

The anthropogenic alteration in the hydrological cycle is primarily a phenomena in the northern hemisphere which is why the Arctic is inordinately impacted by global warming as opposed to the fact that Antarctica, once you move in from the coast, is actually getting colder and drier.

Though the anthropogenic warming is primarily in the northern hemisphere, the oceans absorb and disperse this much of this additional energy globally.

Antarctica is a land mass, not simply a normally ice covered, though nearly landlocked sea as is the Arctic.

The Antarctic interior is fundamentally shielded from the impact of global warming due to increased anthropogenic water vapor because of the relatively stable atmospheric conditions that prevail over this southernmost continent, where the climate remains very dry and cold.

Atmospheric CO2 and the other trace GHG’s are increasing over Antarctica as well as the rest of the planet, due to atmospheric mixing and the relatively long residence time of these trace gases, especially when compared to water vapor.

CO2 is not warming the Antarctic for the same reason it is not warming the Arctic. All GHG’s help retain or in reality simply slow the escape of outgoing longwave infrared radiation, by capturing this energy and then re-radiating it in random directions.

GHG’s in effect make the atmosphere opaque to this outgoing infrared energy, of which there is much less being radiated out from a cold terrestrial surface such as the Antarctic icecap as there will be from relatively hot desert sands or a warm sea surface.

If global warming was primarily a function of additional energy being retained in the atmosphere due to increased CO2 and the other trace GHG’s, the warming impact of CO2 would be far greater in the tropics and mid-latitudes than in the Arctic.

How much of an impact has increased atmospheric CO2 and the lessor trace GHG’s had on surface temperatures in the center of the Sahara desert?

No part of the planet’s surface experiences greater diurnal temperature changes than a desert environment.

Why? Because the hydrological cycle, water and water vapor are more than 90% of the ‘greenhouse effect.”

Make a 1% alteration to the hydrological cycle, capturing vast volumes of solar energy in the form of the latent heat of vaporization and you alter the planet’s climate.

About .8 C they say.

Peace,

Post Modified: 07/26/09 00:54:27

R338177
2 years ago
GWHunta

Nice sisyphus.

Guess that puts you in the car with rest of the clowns.

Care to point out where I’m wrong?

Explain to me why the Sahara isn’t heating up, but the Arctic is when atmospheric CO2 and the lessor trace GHG’s are almost evenly dispersed throughout the atmosphere.

The difference is in the change in the amount of water vapor carried in the atmosphere and the latent heat carried to the Arctic and returning in the form of sensible heat when this water vapor condenses.

The middle of the Sahara hasn’t seen any great impact from global warming because it’s relatively dry.

The CO2 centric scientific community and the mass media that is trumpeting their work is having a great deal of difficulty with the Antarctic anomalies as well.

Want to hear the latest spin on the differences between the impacts of increasing anthropogenic GHG’s in the northern and southern polar regions.

Try this recent

piece.

Here’s the jewel.

Antarctica’s interior has been shielded from the global warming pattern because of the ozone hole above the continent. Two new studies reveal that climate change and ozone depletion are closely tied.

The connection between the ozone “hole” and Antarctic weather is solid, but the ozone “hole” has squat to do with why the Antarctic interior isn’t warming along with the rest of the planet.

Humans tied to wetter Arctic

Meanwhile, in a separate paper in Science, researchers said human activities are at least partly responsible for the Arctic having become a wetter place over the last half century.

Seung-Ki Min of Environment Canada, and colleagues, studied rain and snowfall patterns in the arctic and the factors affecting them.

They concluded that human-induced greenhouse gases have contributed to the increased precipitation rates observed in the Arctic region over the past 60 years.

They warned that this “Arctic moistening” could occur more quickly than current climate simulations indicate.

Their work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Canadian International Polar Year Program.

From:

Watch for climate flaws in fixes, experts warn

I figure the recommendations I’ve made for eating less animal protein to be pretty much foolproof.

Peace,

Post Modified: 04/26/08 08:56:19

R338178
2 years ago
Lot08

I guess there have been a few end of the world scenarios over the millenniums of recorded civilization that generated intense debates like this. Most of them have been ignored or deeply internalized — from St. John the Baptist’s vision to the other bearded guys in sneakers carrying their signs off Sixth Avenue in Greenwich Village.

The current fears about a finally doomed mankind seems to me to be calling out the most extensive arguments, auguring consequences hitherto only imagined. I think overpopulation has aggravated all of the ills of mankind and its environment.

Onward to (Near) Extinction


R338179
2 years ago
GWHunta

No doubt on the population pressure tip, Lot08.

We’re seeing a convergence of a lot of different aspects of the problems we face, the biggest one being the lack of critical thought among the masses.

I started this blog to help advertise a 3 day juice fast by members of the SOA Watch, the founder who I had the pleasure of meeting several weeks ago now.

One of the problems we’re encountering along with “Peak Oil” is “Peak Grain.”

The surplus has dwindled to below 60 days and prices are increasing steadily. Food crops diverted to biofuels are exacerbating this price pressure.

While there is little or nothing any of us can do about peak oil, peak grain is something we can each have an immediate impact upon by altering our diets and reducing the amount of animal proteins we consume.

Because agriculture and agricultural irrigation have negative impacts upon the oceans and biosphere as well as the global climate, this alteration in diet can also immediately reduce the size of our individual agricultural footprints to help alleviate global warming and the loss of habitat for endangered species as well as make an immediate reduction in our individual carbon footprints as well.

Why there is any resistance to these concepts of direct action, or inaction, as is the case of fasting or not consuming something, and why this is arousing so much wrath is beyond me.

Seems to me that the detractors to the points I’m continuing to make here prefer to believe and not be forced to think.

I guess simply placing the blame on “industrial society” and not taking any individual responsibility to help avert a global food and climate crisis is easier than acknowledging that the widely practiced and government subsidized pattern of over-consumption of animal protein practiced by the first world is major part of what is not only altering our climate and taking habitat away from native species, but clogging our own arteries as well.

Fact is the FAO claims that food production can theoretically be doubled on this planet.

All I’m trying to point out is that not only is this not going to be beneficial to the global climate and our wildlife, it isn’t even necessary if we in the first world reduce our agricultural footprints and end all government support and subsidies for the the food to biofuel boom.

Peace,

Post Modified: 07/23/09 22:36:37

R338201
2 years ago
a_pretty_rainbow

I think it’s fair to say that gwhunta is a textbook delusional. as well as a total moron.


R338202
2 years ago
Memnoch07

Why?


R338234
2 years ago
GWHunta

Coming from you a_pretty_rainbow, that means absolutely nothing to me.

Been to your LOLZ site, apparently you stick to reading in realms you clearly understand and few others.

I’ve put this out there plainly to the active detractors and I’ll repeat the exercise in futility once again for you.

What impact do you believe hundreds of thousands of dams and hundreds of millions of irrigated acres of agricultural land scattered around the globe are having on our climate?

The U.S. alone has 53,000,0000 acres of irrigated agricultural land.

(Not counting golf courses)

During the mid-summer in the northern hemisphere we vaporize more water into vapor than flows from the mouth of the mighty Amazon at this same time of the year.

Try to think of all this water being turned to low temperature steam, because that is fundamentally exactly what is happening.

Or simply sit me down and explain to me how all this latent heat has no impact on the global climate.

Peace,

Post Modified: 04/26/08 15:24:44

R338253
2 years ago
GWHunta


R338289
2 years ago
Livingston

haha

see you dumb fuckers on the thread for our next article


R338317
2 years ago
Science

“Why?”

I got this one.

You’re welcome.


R338318
2 years ago
Science

Oh, maybe you weren’t asking “why” he thought that, you were asking why gwhunta is those things. The most likely theory has something to do with Dick Cheney or something. Dick Cheney made him that way. That fuck.


R338320
2 years ago
GWHunta

At least Dick Cheney, Al Gore and that entire class of political ilk have a motive for their actions, despicable though they are.

In a competitive system where there is only the illusion of justice and the rule of all, they have to be willing to cut throats to make the climb and to stay on top.

You, Science, on the other hand aren’t making any money, gaining or holding power acting like a knob, posting distracting and sometimes vile comments on an otherwise intelligent discussion thread, for lack of any substantive contributions of your own.

By the way, nobody made me anything.

Excepting the surgeons who mutilated my body in an effort to silence my voice.

Try Graft…No Graft…Any Questions?

In spite of the fact you can’t argue the anthropogenic hydrological impact on our climate, maybe you’ll be capable of discerning whether or not there are bone grafts placed between and fused into my cervical spine.

Or maybe the Truth isn’t what you seek, only opportunities to diminish the efforts of another.

Intellectuals, especially politically motivated and vocal intellectuals have always been loathed by totalitarian regimes and even our so called “democratic” republic during times of “war,” such as the current war of terror the U.S. is waging around the globe.

I’ve had the good fortune to have not only the intellect, but sufficient free time and the access to information throughout my life to follow my own leads.

The fact that I’ve resisted and will continue to resist the devolution and corruption that has overtaken our government during the slide into the fascist state it has become isn’t anything I’m ashamed of.

On the “amateur” climatologist tip, all you worshipers of the scientific community who accept as gospel anything posted on Science might take another look on the point I made regarding Antarctica in a previous post I made earlier in this thread.

I explained that contrary to these alleged scientists that the ozone hole over the Antarctic continent wasn’t the cause of Antarctica being cold and for the most part untouched by anthropogenic climate change, but was the result of the Antarctica being cold.

Seems the actual scientific consensus and atmospheric physics are once again with me and not the buffoons published and hailed in the MSM.

How about this for a “Why” there is an ozone “hole” over Antarctica.

It is called a polar vortex and it works like “this.

The polar vortex is a persistent, large-scale cyclone located near the Earth’s poles, in the middle and upper troposphere and the stratosphere. It surrounds the polar highs and is part of the polar front.

The vortex is most powerful in the hemisphere’s winter, when the temperature gradient is steepest, and diminishes or can disappear in the summer.

The Antarctic polar vortex is more pronounced and persistent than the Arctic one; this is because the distribution of land masses at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere gives rise to Rossby waves which contribute to the breakdown of the vortex, whereas in the southern hemisphere the vortex remains less disturbed.

The Arctic vortex is elongated in shape, with two centers, one roughly over Baffin Island in Canada and the other over northeast Siberia.

The chemistry of the Antarctic polar vortex has created severe ozone depletion.

The nitric acid in polar stratospheric clouds reacts with CFCs to form chlorine, which catalyzes the photochemical destruction of ozone. Chlorine concentrations build up during the winter polar night, and the consequent ozone destruction is greatest when the sunlight returns in spring (September/October).

These clouds can only form at temperatures below about -80°C.

Since these temperatures are rarely reached in the Arctic, ozone depletion at the north pole is much less severe than at the south.

Accordingly, the seasonal reduction of ozone levels over the Arctic is characterized as an “ozone dent,” whereas the more severe ozone depletion over the Antarctic is considered an “ozone hole.”

The Antarctic Polar Vortex typically lasts from August to November.

So it’s like I was saying, the Antarctic cold makes the ozone “hole,” it’s not the ozone “hole” that makes Antarctica cold.

Sometimes no Peace

Post Modified: 07/23/09 22:10:39

R338321
2 years ago
GWHunta


R338322
2 years ago
GWHunta

Maybe fewer words and more pictures and you’ll be better able to comprehend my points regarding anthropogenic climate change.


R338323
2 years ago
Lara

I’mmma veggie! been once since 9 years old…


R338324
2 years ago
GWHunta


R338325
2 years ago
GWHunta

I’mmma veggie! been once since 9 years old

That’s terrific. I’m pushing 50 and still struggling with it.

Peace,


R338326
2 years ago
GWHunta

The point of the opposing views of the planet is to illustrate that though atmospheric CO2 and the lessor trace gases are more or less evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere, human anthropogenic impact on the hydrological cycle is land based and is impacting the northern hemisphere to a greater degree than the southern hemisphere because that is where the majority of the land mass is.

Ocean currents of course do serve to help disperse some of the additional energy we sequester in the biosphere to the southern hemisphere as well.

Peace,


R338327
2 years ago
GWHunta

Bottom line, less meat, less warming and more food available at a more reasonable cost for your fellow man.

GWHunta


R338380
2 years ago
Livingston

yeah, ok thanks for the bottom line from a delusional blogger who is convinced his made up theory is more valid than international scientific consensus.

bottom line from the real world:

Human warming hobbles ancient climate cycle

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Before humans began burning fossil fuels, there was an eons-long balance between carbon dioxide emissions and Earth’s ability to absorb them, but now the planet can’t keep up, scientists said on Sunday.

The finding, reported in the journal Nature Geoscience, relies on ancient Antarctic ice bubbles that contain air samples going back 610,000 years.

Climate scientists for the last 25 years or so have suggested that some kind of natural mechanism regulates our planet’s temperature and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Those skeptical about human influence on global warming point to this as the cause for recent climate change.
ADVERTISEMENT

This research is likely the first observable evidence for this natural mechanism.

This mechanism, known as “feedback,” has been thrown out of whack by a steep rise in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal and petroleum for the last 200 years or so, said Richard Zeebe, a co-author of the report.

“These feedbacks operate so slowly that they will not help us in terms of climate change … that we’re going to see in the next several hundred years,” Zeebe said by telephone from the University of Hawaii. “Right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium.”

In the ancient past, excess carbon dioxide came mostly from volcanoes, which spewed very little of the chemical compared to what humans activities do now, but it still had to be addressed.

This antique excess carbon dioxide — a powerful greenhouse gas — was removed from the atmosphere through the weathering of mountains, which take in the chemical. In the end, it was washed downhill into oceans and buried in deep sea sediments, Zeebe said.

14,000 TIMES FASTER THAN NATURE

Zeebe analyzed carbon dioxide that had been captured in Antarctic ice, and by figuring out how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere at various points in time, he and his co-author determined that it waxed and waned along with the world’s temperature.

“When the carbon dioxide was low, the temperature was low, and we had an ice age,” he said. And while Earth’s temperature fell during ice ages and rose during so-called interglacial periods between them, the planet’s mean temperature has been going slowly down for about 600,000 years.

The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, Zeebe said, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air.

Since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century, ushering in the widespread human use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.

That means human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast as natural processes do, Zeebe said.

And it appears to be speeding up: the U.S. government reported last week that in 2007 alone, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 2.4 parts per million.

The natural mechanism will eventually absorb the excess carbon dioxide, Zeebe said, but not for hundreds of thousands of years.

“This is a time period that we can hardly imagine,” he said. “They are way too slow to help us to restore the balance that we have now basically distorted in a very short period of time.”

_____________________________________

reduce from 385 ppm to 320-350 ppm CO2 within decades or greenland and antarctica go. rising sea water will pollute fresh water resources for billions of people.


R338384
2 years ago
GWHunta

Just as the ozone “hole” over the Antarctic isn’t the cause of the Antarctic cold, but the result, historical increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 were driven by global temperatures, not the cause of these changes.

Correlation is not causation.

Livingston,

PLease do address “my imaginary impact” of hundreds of thousands of dams worldwide and hundreds of millions of acres of irrigated farmland on the planet’s hydrological cycle and global climate.

Peace,


R338385
2 years ago
GWHunta

reduce from 385 ppm to 320-350 ppm CO2 within decades or greenland and antarctica go. rising sea water will pollute fresh water resources for billions of people.

While our hydrological alterations put the ice sheets of Greenland at risk, the Antarctic continent is an entirely different case and will remain relatively stable and is quite likely to become even colder and drier away from the coastal regions as the rest of the planet warms.

Peace,


R338386
2 years ago
GWHunta

One of several reasons why Antarctica isn’t impacted in the same manner as the rest of the planet by anthropogenic hydrological system alterations.

Peace,


R338388
2 years ago
GWHunta

More on the ozone hole.


R338411
2 years ago
Livingston

While our hydrological alterations put the ice sheets of Greenland at risk, the Antarctic continent is an entirely different case and will remain relatively stable and is quite likely to become even colder and drier away from the coastal regions as the rest of the planet warms.

hey you retarded fuck. stop making shit up.

look, moron. the continent isnt what we’re worried about. its the antarctic ice that IS MELTING AND COLLAPSING which threatens to rise sea levels.

Ice shelves are thick plates of ice, fed by glaciers, that float on the ocean around much of Antarctica. The Larsen B shelf was about 220 m thick. Based on studies of ice flow and sediment thickness beneath the ice shelf, scientists believe that it existed for at least 400 years prior to this event, and likely existed since the end of the last major glaciation 12,000 years ago (see more about Dr. Eugene Domack’s research).

For reference, the area lost in this most recent event dwarfs Rhode Island (2717 km2) in size. In terms of volume, the amount of ice released in this short time is 720 billion tons, enough ice for about 12 trillion 10 kg bags.

This is the largest single event in a series of retreats by ice shelves in the Peninsula over the last 30 years. The retreats are attributed to a strong climate warming in the region

The rate of warming is approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius per decade, and the trend has been present since at least the late 1940s. Overall in the Peninsula, extent of seven ice shelves has declined by a total of about 13,500 km2 since 1974. This value excludes areas that would be expected to calve under stable conditions.

In particular, the next shelf to the south, the Larsen C, is very near the stability limit, and may start to recede in the coming decade if the warming trend continues. Melt ponds are occasionally observed in limited regions of the Larsen C shelf. More importantly, the warmest part of the giant Ross Ice Shelf is in fact only a few degrees too cool in summer presently to undergo the same kind of retreat process. The Ross Ice Shelf is the main outlet for several major glaciers draining the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which contains the equivalent of 5 m of sea level rise in its above-sea-level ice

CITATION

We knew what was left would collapse eventually, but the speed of it is staggering,” Vaughan said.

During the last 50 years, the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed by 2.5°C, much faster than mean global warming. One response to climate change has been the retreat of five ice shelves, floating extensions of the grounded ice sheet.

CITATION

Climate myths: Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

Climate models do not predict an evenly spread warming of the whole planet: changes in wind patterns and ocean currents can change the distribution of heat, leading to some parts warming much faster than average, while others cool at first. What matters is the overall picture, and global temperature maps show far more areas are warming than cooling.

CITATION

ever notice how your comments all reference a blog with a jerk off theory that you contrived from bits and pieces of info and ours are from actual scientific institutions?

yeah, so that’s prolly while the rest of the world is going to go ahead and try to deal with the carbon cycle upset and ignore your ideas.

neat huh?

Post Modified: 04/28/08 16:42:02

R338414
2 years ago
ill_logik

you really think the world is going to deal with the carbon imbalance? aren’t you the doomsday partier in the rainforest?


R338417
2 years ago
Livingston

you really think the world is going to deal with the carbon imbalance? aren’t you the doomsday partier in the rainforest?

partying like its the end of the world is part of the plan – sort of like a back up that keeps us going. biologists know the world is pretty fucked so we’re trying to enjoy it as much as we can and help out the other people who know how to enjoy it without fucking it up.

in between partying i seemed to have created the first independently run biodiesel station in Costa Rica using only waste veggie oil. oh, and i teach classes on sustainable living. and grow food and plants. and guide and do environmental education. and we’re working on building a center for sustainable living in Monteverde with bikes, a library, garden, park and rec center. and i write articles here and on other enviro sites. and im working on a book. and the rest of the shit i do i can’t discuss.

but yeah i still call it partying in the rainforest.
you should out sometime before the planet explodes.

im not sure if we will be able to handle the carbon imbalance or anthropogenic change in general but im having fun doing it and since im a tropical biologist i really dont have much else to do. taking down industrial civilization makes more sense at this point than returning to do some wanker study telling people that the frogs are dying.

oh and GWhunta for you:

Confusingly, it appears that one human impact on the climate – the Antarctic ozone hole – is currently compensating for another, global warming. If the ozone layer recovers over the decades as expected, the circular winds could weaken, resulting in rapid warming.

This raises the question of what is happening to Antarctica’s ice sheets, which hold enough water to raise sea level by a catastrophic 61 metres, should it all melt.

and then there’s that CITATION


R338418
2 years ago
GWHunta

Floating ice shelves breaking up and melting don’t raise sea levels.

(Does your glass run over if you forget your drink and the ice melts?)

As the southern ocean warms, expect less shelved ice around the Antarctic coastline.

Apparently you didn’t read my links, the ozone “hole” is there because of the Antarctic cold, Antarctica isn’t cold because of it.

Antarctica is cold because it is relatively dry, as in the driest continent on the planet. The Antarctic interior hasn’t been impacted by the anthropogenic acceleration of the hydrological cycle, excepting the coastline which is impacted by a rise in temperature of the surrounding waters.

Should the southern polar vortex weaken and add moisture to the atmosphere over the continent, Antarctica will add ice, which will serve to offset the thermal expansion of the oceans and the loss of Greenland’s ice sheet.

Peace,


R338420
2 years ago
GWHunta

Livingston,

I thought you read the IPCC reports.

Contrary to what you might expect, the third IPPC report predicted that global warming would most likely lead to a thickening of the Antarctic ice sheet over the next century, with increased snowfall compensating for any melting cause by warming.

Sometimes no Peace


R338422
2 years ago
Livingston

Floating ice shelves breaking up and melting don’t raise sea levels.

here, since you prolly cant scroll up and read it for yourself:

More importantly, the warmest part of the giant Ross Ice Shelf is in fact only a few degrees too cool in summer presently to undergo the same kind of retreat process. The Ross Ice Shelf is the main outlet for several major glaciers draining the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which contains the equivalent of 5 m of sea level rise in its above-sea-level ice

ecological systems are a bit more complicated that your glass of ice water.

in addition to threating catasptrophic sea level rises melt water also has the potential to upset the thermohaline cycle and significantly alter climate.

Freshening of deep Antarctic waters worries experts

and

moron, it doesn’t matter why the ozone hole is there. we know why its there – CFCs. if it heals as expected warming of antarctic ice could rise sea levels 61 meters.

READ and stop pulling out the ideas which fit your made up theory:

Confusingly, it appears that one human impact on the climate – the Antarctic ozone hole – is currently compensating for another, global warming. If the ozone layer recovers over the decades as expected, the circular winds could weaken, resulting in rapid warming.

This raises the question of what is happening to Antarctica’s ice sheets, which hold enough water to raise sea level by a catastrophic 61 metres, should it all melt.

and whats this… it looks like a CITATION

Antarctica will add ice, which will serve to offset the thermal expansion of the oceans and the loss of Greenland’s ice sheet.

really? wow. a perfect correlation between melting and freezing – sounds just like how global climate works! got any data for that one?

igotta jam now. look man, you’re obviously just too afraid to face any of this stuff. even if you did actually believe in the theory you made up to explain climate change would you get out there and do anything about it?


R338424
2 years ago
Livingston

I thought you read the IPCC reports.

thats what you get for thinking when your not used to it.


R338425
2 years ago
GWHunta

You know, I’m tired of being treated like I’m denying global warming and climate change. Your name calling is beyond lame.

You have a dozen posts in this thread, not one acknowledges the common sense advocacy for doing something to reduce our agricultural footprints and reduce our carbon emissions at the same time which was the point of this blog.

You’ve turned the thread into name calling and random cites of the common MSM limited understanding of how atmospheric CO2 rules the planet’s climate and steadfastly refused any consideration for or discussion of how human interference with the hydrological cycle is impacting global climate.

The hydrological cycle of this planet is primarily what determines the planet’s climate.

Alter and intensify the hydrological cycle, warm the planet.

Now find fault in that single statement, genius.

Sometimes no Peace


R338426
2 years ago
GWHunta

Eating lower on the food chain reduces the need for agricultural land, fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation and fossil fuels and reduces pollution of the biosphere and the loss of habitat of native species of plants and animals.

I recommend something simple we can all afford not to do immediately to mitigate our environmental footprints and get more criticism than acknowledgment for it.

Scientists indeed.

Peace,

Post Modified: 04/28/08 18:10:04

R338428
2 years ago
Science

I kinda am in love with this thread.


R338467
2 years ago
GWHunta

Practicing vegetarianism or at least reducing your intake of animal protein to recommended levels for good health may be the very best means to dull this sword.

Sometimes no Piece


R338496
2 years ago
aganunitsi

Because a news article I recently read stated that 80% of our agricultural product goes to animal feed, I had to do some Google research to confirm the statistic (it was much higher than I would imagine).

So far, I’ve found corroborating evidence that A LOT of US agriculture, in one way or another, goes into raising animals, although I could not find confirmation of the statistic above. For example, 80% of the agricultural land is used to raise animals. Of our grain/cereal product, 70% goes towards animal feed (either domestically, or exported). And worldwide, about a third of all arable land is used by livestock (mostly permanent pasture).


R338498
2 years ago
GWHunta

Much of the marginal agricultural land considered in an 80% equation as being used for the production of animal feed is used for grazing and pasture and the production of baled/rolled hay for wintering feedstock.

These lands could be reforested for CO2 mitigation or put into production for foods fit for direct human consumption.

Peace,


R338512
2 years ago
Science

“a news article I recently read stated that 80% of our agricultural product goes to animal feed”

Yepperz, cows don’t have very efficient digestive systems. We’re definitely wasting a lot of food and food acreage by feeding cows, then eating them…much more than if we’d just use the land to grow food for us…but cows are delicious…so very delicious…


R338517
2 years ago
Truthcansuk

Cows are what I imagine angels taste like…



R338520
2 years ago
Science

I have no doubt.


R338521
2 years ago
Science

Steak is the real angel food cake.


R338523
2 years ago
Livingston

The hydrological cycle of this planet is primarily what determines the planet’s climate.

Alter and intensify the hydrological cycle, warm the planet.

right. so lets quit the name calling and get serious.

international scientific consensus (not just MSM – but mainstream science) cites anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions as the leading cause of climate change.

our leading climate scientists have also called for emergency action to combat what they have determined as rapid and dangerous climate change (climate code red report, for instance). they claim we must reduce CO2 emissions from 385 ppm to 320 to 350 ppm within decades to avoid catastrophe.

the theory you made up in your dam blog doesnt account for CO2 acidification of the ocean. you made up a theory pieced together with bits of science that sounds neat to people who don’t want to actually confront the problem. but your theory does not explain how the massive amount of CO2 we have dumped into active carbon cycling is effecting the oceans.

now, do i have to list all those citations again?


R338524
2 years ago
Livingston

The hydrological cycle of this planet is primarily what determines the planet’s climate.

Alter and intensify the hydrological cycle, warm the planet.

right. so lets quit the name calling and get serious.

international scientific consensus (not just MSM – but mainstream science) cites anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions as the leading cause of climate change.

our leading climate scientists have also called for emergency action to combat what they have determined as rapid and dangerous climate change (climate code red report, for instance). they claim we must reduce CO2 emissions from 385 ppm to 320 to 350 ppm within decades to avoid catastrophe.

the theory you made up in your dam blog doesnt account for CO2 acidification of the ocean. you made up a theory pieced together with bits of science that sounds neat to people who don’t want to actually confront the problem. but your theory does not explain how the massive amount of CO2 we have dumped into active carbon cycling is effecting the oceans.

now, do i have to list all those citations again?


R338533
2 years ago
aganunitsi

international scientific consensus (not just MSM – but mainstream science) cites anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions as the leading cause of climate change

Yes, but I haven’t found a single one that directly denies GWHunta’s thesis. To me, this is not a “debunking”. If anything, it raises alarms that there is a variable they haven’t considered. Or simply one nobody is interested in studying. My wife works in research at Stanford, and I know research follows the money. If no one is offering cash to do a study, it isn’t going to get done. The “scientific community” is not a charity organization.

You can’t deny that water vapor is THE greenhouse gas. So how have atmospheric water vapor concentrations varied over time? What are the variables that affect it? At what concentration is the infrared heat trapping quality of water vapor offset by the increased albedo due to cloud formation? How does this change with pressure and temperature? Do increased CO2 concentrations (or other gases) inhibit cloud formation?

I’ve searched till my eyes have popped out, and I haven’t found an article that directly explains why irrigation and damming wouldn’t contribute to global warming, much less a study showing how much of a contribution they would account for. How much is it? I guess you would say 5%, while GWHunta would say 95%. Lack of discussion within the “scientific community” is not denial.

I’ve found plenty of studies on micro-climates. Phoenix, Arizona, for example, is cooler because of the neighboring agriculture. Quoting studies of micro-climates does not answer questions about global climate. Or, as has been pointed out elsewhere (by you?), “weather” is not “climate”.

Post Modified: 04/29/08 16:59:55

R338563
2 years ago
GWHunta

Thanks for that aganunitsi.

It’s refreshing to have somebody actually considering the points I’m repeatedly making rather than either discounting them out of hand or throwing their hands up saying they just don’t get it or worse begin chanting the CO2 is climate change mantra.

It’d be great if Livingston would actually read Damming Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change

The increased acidification of the ocean is addressed. not ignored, though acidification of the ocean is negligible when considering changing the energy budget and balance of the planet’s climate as a whole.

As for anthropogenic alteration of the carbon cycle and the increase of atmospheric CO2, the burning of fossil fuels absolutely increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and that later finds its way into the planet’s oceans as the primary mechanism for the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere is precipitation.

Rainwater has always been slightly acidic for this reason.

The fact that damming has reduced the volume of sediment transported into the oceans has impaired the biochemical processes that sequester this dissolved CO2 in the surface waters of the oceans into the ocean depths and this CO2 dissolved into precipitation as carbonic acid is re-released to the atmosphere when this surface runoff is diverted for agricultural irrigation.

Peace,


R338570
2 years ago
mtnlungta

If anything, it raises alarms that there is a variable they haven©t considered. Or simply one nobody is interested in studying.
from aganunitsi

exactly
you all have these elaborate theories
and speculations like you really know whats going on
and i know you know lots
and can cite shit higher up the food chain
but im betting that theres a whole bunch more
that you never even considered
that needs to be factored in

its like a never before seen thing
caused by who knows what
and you know it
just give up being right
and watch what happens next


R338572
2 years ago
aganunitsi

A speculation is a question, not a knowing. Question everything.

When (thought) sees that it is incapable of discovering something new, that very perception is the seed of intelligence, isn’t it? That is intelligence – “I cannot do”. I thought I could do a lot of things, and I can in a certain direction, but in a totally new direction I cannot do anything. The discovery of that is intelligence. ~ J. Krishnamurti


R338592
2 years ago
GWHunta

Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel, food and other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.

Because 3,500 calories translates into a pound of fat, somewhere along the way, America’s 227 million adults have eaten 16 trillion calories too many. That’s 14 billion Big Mac meals, with fries and a soda. Eliminate those and you wipe out $81 billion, or McDonald’s past four years of sales.

Some even argue that global warming would slow a mite, as consumption of gas, energy, fertilizer and methane-producing cattle decreased.

Peace,


R338831
2 years ago
GWHunta

Food to ethanol in the U.S. produced more than 27 million tons of animal feed in 2007, is projected to produce 35 million tons in 2008 and to top 40 million tons in 2009.

Overconsumption of animal products adds to the profitability of the food to fuel scam and as the price of distillers grain plummets and it is projected to do so, fast food may well soon become the only food the working poor can afford.

Sometimes no Piece

Post Modified: 05/02/08 13:48:33

R338886
2 years ago
GWHunta

By the way, the latest on ocean acidification due to increased CO2.

Increasing Levels Of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Cause A Rise In Ocean Plankton Calcification


R338889
2 years ago
GWHunta

That pointed out, I favor letting the rivers flow naturally and carrying more sediment and nutrients to replenish the ocean naturally.

Peace,


R341253
2 years ago
GWHunta

Obesity adds to global warming, study finds

Humans getting heavier, requiring more fuel to move us and our food

Post Modified: 05/21/08 14:09:45

R341264
2 years ago
Truthcansuk

GW – Does your glass run over if you forget your drink and the ice melts?

Actually it does, if the ice was above the surface level of the water. Like the ice shelf is above the surface of the ocean…

But i could be wrong, I suck at physics…


R341269
2 years ago
Science

That’s correct, tcs. And, it’s actually simple math, not physics. GWHunta, you’ve supposedly dedicated a major part of your life to researching global warming, so your comment would lead me to believe that you’re either a complete retard, or just intellectually dishonest. Either way it doesn’t make bode well for your trustworthiness.

Where did you get that comment? Did he edit it out of his last post or something? hahaha. gw, did you just hope you wouldn’t be caught in your bullshit? Is that really the best way to operate?


R341271
2 years ago
dj_farnaby

actually no, it doesn’t im pretty sure. the mass of ice below surface level equals the mass of water of the whole ice cube, since ice is less dense than water. or something like that.


R341274
2 years ago
Science

It’s an irrelevant analogy. And that’s why he did it. We aren’t talking about an ice cube in a glass of water melting or even individual ice bergs melting in the ocean. We are talking about the polar ice caps which are not floating on the surface the way one ice cube floats at the top of a drink. So, tcs is right, if you think of it as ice being piled up above the surface of the water, when it melts the water will rise. And when the ice caps melt, the water will rise.


R341275
2 years ago
Science

But kudos on the attempted assist in his misinformation campaign. You’re like GW’s John Stockton.

Post Modified: 05/21/08 18:12:52

R341276
2 years ago
dj_farnaby

agreed. only read TCS’s post and answered GW’s question literally. mah bad. feel free to be a dick tho


R341277
2 years ago
Science

At least I compared you to a guy who averaged a double double throughout his career. That’s quite the backhanded compliment.


R341285
2 years ago
criticalthinking

owned.


R341296
2 years ago
Truthcansuk

But back to what GW originally was posting about: I agree with you 100% about the agri-clusterfuck we’ve gotten ourselves into. I’m in the process of shifting to near (hopefully complete after a while) vegetarian diet, just need to collect a bit more info on what i need to eat to stay healthy…


R341299
2 years ago
Science

you sicken me


R341314
2 years ago
JustLurking

just need to collect a bit more info on what i need to eat to stay healthy

well at least for starters, I recommend…


R341317
2 years ago
JustLurking

your comment would lead me to believe that you’re either a complete retard, or just intellectually dishonest. Either way it doesn’t make bode well for your trustworthiness…. Where did you get that comment? Did he edit it out of his last post or something? hahaha. gw, did you just hope you wouldn’t be caught in your bullshit? Is that really the best way to operate?

since I know there’s others thinkin it, guess It’s been left up to me to rear the ugly thing…

the level of irony which exists via those words coming from you, I have to say exceeds anything available to the mortal human being by way of the English language alone.

probably suffice to just say, coming across that was hella amazing…


R341320
2 years ago
Science

Even your short posts are narcolepsy inducing. Can’t. Stay. Awake. aaehottttttttttttttttttttijttttttttttthjiooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohjiooooooooooooooooooooo Sorry, I was just unconscious. But, I’m awake now. While my head was on the keyboard I slobbered a bit. I am going to turn off my laptop and turn it upside down so the saliva can drain. I expect it will be in fine working order by the morning. After I wake up tomorrow I will chug a bunch of Jolt Cola and then try to get through the rest of your post and then respond after careful deliberation.


R341324
2 years ago
JustLurking

heh, you’re such a dipshit


R341338
2 years ago
JustLurking

Livingston writes:

it fucking sucks to stand next to them watching the shit burn and have no closure, no clue, no idea how we’re going to get out of this…. fuck you bitchass. 3 maybe 5 years to drop CO2 from 385 ppm to 320-350 ppm or greenland goes, the artic goes, amazon goes and the planet spits us the fuck out. not my theory asshole. climate code red… fuck vegetarian boycott shit. eat a big bloody steak and take out industrial civilization.

and indeed that is the bitter pill which many of those who frequent this place seem unable or at least unwilling to swallow. An even more distasteful pill is the number of different and inconceivably massive factors it would take to get on board including nations or governments such as China ( ha ha ha ha) America… (oh please stop you’re killing me) and have them step in NOW with unbelievably drastic measures, along with bastions of consumers the world over ( LMAO ?).... which also means we re-arrange the entire energy and transportation infrastructure and economic model top to bottom, like not soon but pronto today ?? ... which let’s face it…

is not going to happen folks anytime soon or at best soon enough.

sorry I know the Pollyanna in you is not having a good time with that, but unless you can show me something reasonably probable in terms of how you plan on turning that runaway train around, it’s a much better gamble ( and saner orientation I might add) to say this shit can’t be stopped even if in theory or on paper it shows do-able provided ALL the right actions were put into practice.. but you see that’s the kicker…it only works if all of it was indeed implemented, which like I said just isn’t gonna happen kids.

What appears even more difficult for some of you to assimilate is that really, there’s nothing wholly unnatural goin on here folks. We’re gonna bury this bitch into the ground and that’s guaranteed. This particular era believe or not has and will eventually show itself as having served some sort of legitimate function in nature..

oh I can hear it already… but OMG JL how could you say such a horrible thang !... well, check the shit out man. Seems to be the case with nature overall.. that’s what it does, time and time again. It does shit, all kinds of shit, even mean and nasty shit, but in the end it always seems to serve something. Many of you have somehow managed to cram into your heads that we’re some sort of exception to that rule… a little grandiose ain’t it ?

the fact that creating imbalance, or applying methods onto something even when contrary to it’s function (determined by it’s structure) is shown to be a fully demonstrable activity also means it exists as a legitimate aspect of nature (in some context or another) simply by default because the shit exists as a part of natural reality…

I dunno guys, seems to me that sooner or later you’re gonna have to make friends with that shit or, well fight that bitch right to the bitter end. Does seem to be somewhat of an option there, but even there you still lose that game in the end…

so yea, no point in blaming me for that shit cuz I didn’t make that part of up either. best go and take it up with mom, not sure what good that’s gonna do ya, but I suppose your certainly entitled to try…

for those of who think I pointing to the idea that we’re all just dust in the wind, guided by fate or some shit thus none of it means anything anyways so there’s no reason why we shouldn’t carry on and continue to be nothing but total disrespectful biatches to this planet ?... uh, suffice to say you’d be severely distorting what I’m saying…

When it comes to the forces, principles and actions of nature it always works out. That shit never seems to fail. What makes you think this is any different.

Post Modified: 05/22/08 03:00:39

R341352
2 years ago
Science

Purposely triggering narcolepsy I think would be considered premeditated assault in a court of law. Lay off or I will get a restraining order forcing your internet posts to stay fifty feet away from my internet posts at all time.


R341360
2 years ago
JustLurking

Izzy tried that too…. shit failed the test and was thrown out. kinda how shit goes in that fanciful and imaginary noob court of yours, nonetheless,

I’m contacting my attorney at lol as we speak


R341361
2 years ago
GWHunta

We are talking about the polar ice caps which are not floating on the surface the way one ice cube floats at the top of a drink.

The majority of the planet’s glaciated surface is in Antarctica and is for the time being safe, though there has been a loss of floating ice shelves on Antarctic peninsulas.

The Arctic polar ice cap on the other hand, is floating ice and the analogy holds.

The Arctic is where there has been rapid change with a major loss of sea ice for reasons I’ve elaborated on many times in my blogs and comment threads regarding Global Warming aka Climate Change.

Peace,

Post Modified: 05/22/08 10:02:52

R341363
2 years ago
aganunitsi

When it comes to the forces, principles and actions of nature it always works out.

Mars.


R341431
2 years ago
JustLurking

Mars

as in been there done that?


R341446
2 years ago
aganunitsi

As in my impression of “nature conquers all” is that it is as romantic a notion as “love conquers all.” Depends on what you mean by nature, I guess. If nature=life, then I think it applies. Let’s see nature conquer the death of our sun (oh wait, I believe we would be part of that attempt). If nature=whatever happens, then of course nature conquers all – it’s a truism. But that also makes the adjective “unnatural” unapplicable to anything that ever happens…

You cannot go against nature,
Because when you do
Go against nature
It’s part of nature too.
~ Love and Rockets, No New Tale to Tell

Post Modified: 05/23/08 08:51:30

R341509
2 years ago
empress

I’m done with this interrogation


R341565
2 years ago
GWHunta

Go figure.


R341822
2 years ago
JustLurking

As in my impression of “nature conquers all” is that it is as romantic a notion as “love conquers all.” Depends on what you mean by nature, I guess. If nature=life, then I think it applies.

love conquers all eh… funny how this shit gets distorted or what you assume is actually being conveyed.

I personally don’t see having utter faith in what are shown to be immutable laws and principles in life overall to be romanticizing. 1st law of thermal dynamics for instance, shit’s never been shown capable of being violated. We could examine any number of variations which would apply similar. And yes, in this context nature was meant to imply life overall as in all phenomena or things which exist and the principles and forces which appear to guide them.

I would call the mind set which thinks man is somehow “separate and apart” or worse has somehow managed to outdo or “bust” nature, hence beat it at it’s own game not only romanticizing but perhaps demonstrating an anthropocentric orientation unsurpassed.

This would be a person’s dichotomy hard at work, as in that over there folks is nature, and over here we have, man, hard at work fucking nature up.

Here on this planet we have what is known as biological life functioning on this particular “level of organization”, generally named or labelled as the “molecular” one. For a good number of folk, the ability to consider or entertain the possibility that the principles of plant, animal and human might in fact exist or be functioning on other levels of organization is pure hocus pocus. fine, I understand that.

And yet here we are on what’s essentially a frozen chunk of rock and when placed up along side against say what is known as plasma state it’s not a very pliable or flexible place we have here, amazing there’s anything going on down here at all, but it is. Plasma state to most would seem to be a very inhospitable environment when there are those who might suggest to you it’s in fact very much the other way around.

Tango in fact offered a really nice reference courtesy of NASA to what I’m essentially touching upon.

At a balmy minus 179 degrees Celsius (minus 290 degrees Fahrenheit), Titan is a far cry from Earth. Instead of water, liquid hydrocarbons in the form of methane and ethane are present on the moon’s surface

Titan has lakes of methane. Lakes. Of. Freakin’. Methane. Owing to the abundance of the gas in the chemical makeup of the moon and the vast pressures upon it (for those who skipped physics class, pressure generally means temperature, and vice versa). To compare that to Earth, even Earth millions of years ago, is to fail to account for the vast differences in chemical availability between the two planets.Tango

The saturnian moon Titan is the second largest satellite in the Solar System, trumped only by Jupiter’s Ganymede. It is the only Solar System satellite with a dense atmosphere, which produces a surface pressure 1.5 times that at Earth’s surface… methane on Titan plays the role of water on Earth: liquid methane evaporates; the vapour eventually condenses; and rainfall replenishes the surface liquid – Nature 445, 29-30 (4 January 2007)

While our observations about life and how it functions can be shown to be accurate by way of the method, I’m suggesting it’s not the only one. The idea of life functioning at virtually every level of organization on a conceptual level in terms of “functions” be it the concept of weather, or water, or the idea of life having a technological characteristic to itself as part of it’s nature through and through perhaps hasn’t been considered a whole lot, but if Tango’s post is any indication it will be a whole lot more over the next little while.

be interesting to see how you guys mangle this one

Post Modified: 05/26/08 14:16:35

R393725
5 months ago
GWHunta

Radical Hope: Ethics in the Face of Cultural Devastation

Sometimes no Peace

Post Modified: 07/26/09 01:48:37

R393786
5 months ago
GWHunta

Behold the Power of the hydrological cycle.

Peace,


R395033
4 months ago
aganunitsi

Yo skunk man, I noticed that your articles on the hydrological cycle don’t have info on how cosmic rays affect low altitude cloud formation, which drives cooling.

I’ve been looking into the 100k yr glaciation cycle. There is strong evidence that Earth’s orbit in relation to the solar system’s invariable plane is the strongest determinant of this cycle. Right now the method of cooling proposed is that gravitational forces cause cosmic dust (for lack of a better term) to accumulate in this plane, and when we pass through it there’s more material deposited in our atmosphere that serves as cloud nuclei.

While this is a factor, I’m finding more evidence that fluctuations in the sun and Earth’s magnetic fields play a bigger role. These fields shield us from cosmic rays. The rays don’t heat the atmosphere – they drive a particular form of cloud formation. These low altitude clouds block out solar irradiation more than holding in existing heat, for a net cooling effect.

The strength of the Earth’s magnetic field has also been shown to fluctuate in a 100k yr cycle. The scientists that make the claim are tying it to orbital eccentricity, but I’m willing to bet they’re making the same mistake made regarding the Milankovich cycles – I think that it’s tied to Earth’s orbital inclination to the invariable plane.

The Earth’s orbit takes us directly across the invariable plane twice a year, and as orbital inclination falls we’ll spend more time near or in this plane. I’m thinking this screws with our magnetosphere, in addition to taking us through a dust cloud.

The Info

100k Yr Cycle – Inclination, Not Eccentricity
Cosmic Rays and Clouds – Danes Figure Out the How
South Atlantic Anomaly, Cosmic Rays and Cloud Formation
Noctilucent Clouds Directly Correlated with Passage Through the Invariable Plane
100k Yr Cycle Found in Earth’s Magnetic Field
Scientists Admit That They’re Just Learning This Shit

Regarding the sun’s magnetic field…

Lows in sunspot cycles and cooling cycles have already been shown to have a direct correlation (look it up). Still, there’s usually a counter argument along the lines of “but the change in solar radiation doesn’t vary that much with sunspot cycles – it’s like removing a candle flame from a bonfire.” True, but drops in sunspot activity indicate a quieting of the sun’s magnetosphere activity. Fewer sunspots could thus indicate less shielding from our sun’s heliosphere against cosmic rays, which leads to the clouds and the cooling. No additional info on this part yet, still my pet theory that I’m researching.

Just another set of factors for you climate modelers to plug into your models…


R395034
4 months ago
aganunitsi

Oops, double post. So I’ll use this post to say that I fully expect this information will be used by some to support NOT doing something to save the planet.

Post Modified: 08/10/09 02:23:59

R395070
4 months ago
aganunitsi

About that additional info…

So does reduced sunspot activity correlate to solar magnetosphere activity and cosmic ray fluctuations?

Yes

it

does.

Regarding Earth’s increased time near or in the invariable plane, as our orbital inclination continues to descend (over a looong period, btw), I think it’s related to our relationship to the heliospheric current sheet. I think it’s affecting the working of the Earth’s magnetosphere.

This sheet centers on the sun’s equator, which is approximately the same plane as the solar system’s invariable plane. So as the Earth spends more time near or in this plane, we are exposed to more 90 degree tilts in the HCS. Think of very tall waves coming at the Earth’s orbit, with the solar equator the zero point of the waves. When our orbit is at a high tilt in relation to the invariable plane, we spend more time near the peaks/troughs of the waves. As the orbit descends, we spend more time near the middle of the waves, exposing Earth to more 90 degree “wall” crossings as opposed to angled “hill” crossings.

More Info

Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Can Predict Sunspot Cycle


R395126
4 months ago
GWHunta

aganunitsi,

Appreciate the thread bump and the “intro” to astrophysics.

I’ve looked at this theory relating to cosmic rays and cloud formation, the 100k cycle, ect. and find it fascinating, but irrelevant regarding AGW. (anthropogenic global warming)

One thing we can all certainly agree upon is that human activity here on Earth is having absolutely no impact on our Sun. Not much we can do about how the Earth’s orbit is influenced by the gravitational pull of the other large planets causing it to “wobble” over time changing it’s axis.

The CCD’ers (climate change deniers) are quick to call it all within the realms of natural climate variability, pointing to sun cycles and the complexity of ocean currents.

Without doubt, climate variability will continue with us or without us.

I tend to stick with what I know we are doing to change our climate and attempt to quantify our impact, albeit roughly, at 325-350 terrawatts of temporarily sequestered solar energy that is turned to latent heat in the form of water vapor as opposed to sensible heat which would be more readily radiated back to space.

Anthropogenic intensification of the natural hydrological cycle isn’t theory. It is fact. Google Earth and see for yourself.

You stated in a previous post how Phoenix, AZ is now relatively cooler due to the amount of irrigation, both within the city and surrounding agricultural areas.

Phoenix isn’t cooler because of more clouds.

Phoenix isn’t cooler because more sunlight is being reflected back towards space.

Phoenix is cooler because the sun’s energy that was formerly turned to sensible heat is now turning water provided by an extensive man-made irrigation network to water vapor by virtue of evapotranspiration.

This energy doesn’t disappear, it is carried away from Phoenix by the lower troposphere and turns to sensible heat again when this water vapor condenses back to water, hundreds, possibly thousands, or even tens of thousands of miles away.

Before irrigation, Phoenix was a sandy desert, reflecting more sunlight back towards space. The solar energy that was absorbed by the desert, heated the ground, which then radiated that energy skyward.

Turning the desert to agricultural land not only changes the climate in Phoenix, but elsewhere because eventually that water vapor will condense back to water and the latent heat will show up as sensible heat. That is AGW.

That is something we can do something about.

Peace,

Post Modified: 08/11/09 04:33:20

R395146
4 months ago
aganunitsi

Another thing we can do something about is manage people’s expectations. To do that, someone has to be able to provide an accurate model of future change. Can’t do that without taking into account all of the variables.

People don’t like surprises. Especially when it has to do with their livelihood, like a locale of high precipitation turning into an area of low precipitation over two decades. That would be a shitty area to insist on planting all of your crops.

When confronted with an unknown threat, people tend to start screaming about this or that (false) reason why everything is unexpectedly fucked up, then lop off a head or two million until they think they’ve made Jeebus happy.


R395463
4 months ago
GWHunta

Expectations are as varied as opinions. The fundamental problem is corrupt leadership and those that truly understand the issue of climate change have subdued to them.

What we need at this point is a resurgence of independent thought. Absent that there is little hope in people who choose simply to believe or not believe.

The issues of changes in land/water use impacting the climate aren’t that difficult to comprehend with some background study in basic physics.

As for life changes, we’re headed for more in that way than most are willing to imagine if the current political consensus intent on relegating CO2 as the sole culprit and driver of climate change and a pollutant have their way.

Peace,


R395464
4 months ago
GWHunta

Atmospheric Radiation

Post Modified: 08/14/09 01:36:10

R395675
4 months ago
GWHunta

As for the differences in response to “climate change” in the Arctic and Antarctic.

You note after clicking the links above that the Arctic is below the 1979-2000 mean, while the Antarctica is above the 1979-2000 mean.

Now try to figure out the why?

Post Modified: 08/17/09 00:38:00

R395737
4 months ago
aganunitsi

OK, I’m going to say that since the Arctic sea ice has a gazillion tons of water flowing underneath it that brings in warm water, while the Antarctic ice has a circumpolar current that remains cold, the Arctic sea ice is more highly affected by changes in global mean temperature. And since the oceans release their heat over a long period, Arctic sea ice can be melted by ocean currents that heated up years ago, even after the global mean temperature has dropped. Thus we have Arctic sea ice shrinking in response to warm currents underneath while Antarctic sea ice grows in response to cold air overhead.

That’s my guess.


R399769
3 months ago
GWHunta

BE VEG COMPETES WITH TIBET OUTSIDE U.N.


R404526
1 month ago
GWHunta

Some continually overindulge while others are deprived of sustenance.

Meat eating becomes the equivalent of cannibalism.

Driving on corn squeezings is even worse.

Sometimes no Piece


R405264
3 weeks ago
GWHunta

Anna Lappé

Anna earned an M.A. in Economic and Political Development from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs and graduated with honors from Brown University. From 2004 to 2006, she was a Food and Society Policy Fellow with the WK Kellogg Foundation. She is currently a Senior Fellow with the Oakland Institute.

She lives in Brooklyn, New York with her husband and their daughter, Ida.

Her third book, Diet for a Hot Planet: The Climate Crisis at the End of Your Fork and What You Can Do About It, will be published in April 2010 by Bloomsbury.

Sometimes no Piece

Post Modified: 11/20/09 10:02:32

R405275
3 weeks ago
GWHunta

R405776
2 weeks ago
GWHunta

Ever Wonder…....

.......why we’re now locked in a private closet soon to be deleted forever?

Sometimes no Piece


R405781
2 weeks ago
BlackPacker

...because sometimes we act like an infinite number of monkeys sitting at an infinite number of typewriters?


R405788
2 weeks ago
GWHunta

Maybe…....

....... but my point was made in the preceding posts.

Peace,


R405795
2 weeks ago
Trainspotter

Ever Wonder…....why we’re now locked in a private closet soon to be deleted forever?

I won’t speculate on why, but the “closet” aspect of the current reality is certainly depressing.

Think what you will about the debate and your own side of it – find another venue where a thread like this can exist.

Really….. PLEASE FIND another venue…. and report back – thanks.


R405879
2 weeks ago
GWHunta

Meat The Truth

Although many films have convincingly succeeded in drawing public attention to the issue of global warming, they have repeatedly ignored one of the most important causes of climate change, namely: intensive livestock production.

Meat the Truth has drawn attention to this by demonstrating that livestock farming generates more greenhouse gas emissions worldwide than all cars, lorries, trains, boats and planes added together. The Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation chose to compile the best scientific information on climate change and livestock…

Post Modified: 11/20/09 09:40:33

R405912
2 weeks ago
xenonix

look…gimme a break…i do all i can. i mean, i eat every freaking steak, roast beef, hamburger and beef smoked sausage i can get my hands on but these fuckers keep breeding! how about help a brother out with this? we can eliminate these terrorist cows if we all put our forks into it!

xen
eliminating cows one bite at a time


R405915
2 weeks ago
GWHunta

DON’T do it for your heart.

Peace,

Post Modified: 11/20/09 09:44:16

R405918
2 weeks ago
GWHunta

In An Inconvenient Truth, ‘Big Al’ Gore (otherwise known as the Goracle) completely ignored this issue. Gore did however endorse the conversion of food crops to ethanol for use as a replacement for gasoline.

In general, issues on climate change tend to focus on transport and traffic.
(or YOUR carbon footprint)

However, United Nations statistics have demonstrated that transport and traffic only contribute 13 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, while the livestock industry is responsible for 18 percent!

Eat lower on the food chain, for yourself and the planet.

Peace,

Post Modified: 11/20/09 09:58:51

R405923
2 weeks ago
GWHunta

It’s a bite alright.

Sometimes no Piece


R406406
1 week ago
GWHunta

In 1965, 10 billion livestock animals were slaughtered each year; today that number is 55 billion.

Post Modified: 11/26/09 04:17:51

No comments:

Post a Comment

Archived GNN Threads