Are we killing ourselves? Or just our Children?

[Subtle]

Of course, the motto of The Flat Earth Society is "We are on the level".

[isotopeman]

I think it's great that there is such examination about the causes of global warming. Well-made questions and research has the potential to allow us to better understand the world around rather than drawing conclusions based on what's convenient. The consensus on global warming doesn't come from politically-motivated scientists simply observing that two events are happening simultaneously.
Many of the known sources of climate change are known and have been examined for their role. It's well-known in both the scientific and non-scientific communities that climate change has happened in the past due to things such as wobbles in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, unusually massive meteor impacts, etc.
These are all things that we can look at today and see how much, if any, of a factor they play in what we are seeing. It’s easy to break our own rule of “just because two things happen simultaneously doesn’t mean they’re related” and say that in the past, there were climate changes caused by these massive geological occurrences, therefore today’s changes could be caused by something other than what climatologists, geologists and other –ists are saying. Doing so is implying that today’s changes are probably caused by those same things that have caused them in the past. The only thing is, those things can’t happen today without somebody noticing. We know when volcanoes erupt, when large meteors hit the Earth, and where the Earth is in its orbit. There may be more factors, but the point should be obvious. So, if we know these things are not causing what we see in our climate, we know that something else must be influencing it.
Among other potential sources, whether the warming is caused by increased CO2 emissions is still being studied, as it should be. One thing is certain though, we are causing the unusually marked increase in atmospheric CO2. Fortunately, this isn’t being determined by guessing how much output is generated by every factory, car and campfire compared to natural sources. There are a number of scientific methods in place, and I’ll use the one I’m most familiar with.
Petroleum products all have similar carbon stable isotope ratios. (The ratio of carbon-13 atoms to carbon-12 atoms) Atmospheric CO2 has historically had a different ratio, or signature as it’s called. Even natural gas has differing signatures based on whether its from an organic or inorganic source. The carbon in atmospheric CO2 is increasingly approaching the ratio of petroleum products rather than that of natural sources indicating that the atmospheric CO2 is increasingly composed of CO2 created from the combustion of fossil fuels.
Another method uses the unstable isotope of carbon, C-14. We released a lot of C-14 atoms into the atmosphere in the 50s and 60s from bomb testing, resulting in a global change of atmospheric C-14 abundance. (Note that this is abundance, and not isotopic ratio – a different method) This increase of C-14 abundance is also present in plant and animal matter that used the carbon for biological processes. Petroleum products are old enough to have virtually no C-14. The CO2 from burning fossil fuels is made of the same carbon that was in the fossil fuel and dilutes the atmospheric carbon pool with C-14 deplete CO2, which we are finding to be the case, particularly in urban areas.
I’m not a geologist, and my degree is in German Studies, but I can still understand this. I work in the scientific community measuring these carbon-isotope ratios (and nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen). I see the publications with the same data that I sent to the researcher who submitted their samples for analysis and communicate daily with other similar labs around the world (there aren't that many). If you think I’m being bought out, for starters, I make $10 an hour. What’s more, I seldom know what the samples are that are being sent until after the project is complete. They typically have only ID numbers. I actually prefer it to be that way. There are a number of honest scientists out there who make enough to be comfortable while doing what’s good for their community and family. We should all use discernment in deciding whether who we trust for information has the credibility to provide that information.
Here’s a bit of literature that’s been sitting on my desk awhile. It should be a good start for anyone interested in how we can determine where the carbon in the atmosphere comes from. The effects of the CO2 are for someone else with a better understanding of it.
For what it’s worth, I found Al Gore’s movie disappointing. I paid 7bucks to see nothing new, just the same information that’s been widely available presented by Al Gore with graphs containing colors.

Hsueh, Diana Y. Regional patterns of radiocarbon and fossil-fuel derived CO2 in surface air across North America. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 34. 2007.

Demeny, Attila. Stable isotope compositions of CO2 n background air and at polluted sites in Hungary. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectreometry. 2002; 16: 797-804.

Levin, Ingeborg. Radiocarbon – a unique tracer of global carbon cycle dynamics. Radiocarbon. Vol 42, Nr 1, 2000, p69-80.

Randerson, J.T.. Seasonal and latitudinal variability of troposphere d14CaO2: post bomb contributions from fossil fuels, oceans, the stratosphere and the terrestrial biosphere. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. Vol 16. No 4. 1112.

Widory, David. The carbon isotope composition of atmospheric CO2 in Paris. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 215 (2003) 289-298.

[Subtle]

Good points on identifying the sources of carbon, but likely no matter the source the link from carbon to temperature has not been direct.

Also it's worth bringing forward another big influence on climatic fluctuations which the work on all the wobbles stuff done by Malenkovitch(I'll look up the spelling) seems to provide the best model.

[thefultonhow]

Good points on identifying the sources of carbon, but likely no matter the source the link from carbon to temperature has not been direct.

Are you saying that CO2, methane, etc. are NOT greenhouse gases?

[Subtle]

The chart of temps and amounts of carbon in the atmosphere over many of thousands of years show very little correlation.

As noted in an earlier post the lag on any correlation may be in the order of 400 to 800 years.

Today's terminally anxious will name most anything as a "greenhouse" gas, which designation has liitle to do with the change from Ice Age to Interglacial and back again.

[thefultonhow]

Okay, the greenhouse effect is a well-accepted scientific theory. Not even global warming deniers deny it. You are the only person I've ever heard of who does not accept it.

Can you find any actual scientists that back up your view, or are you just making stuff up and accepting it as fact?

[Subtle]

This is thicker going than I thought it would be.

The so-called greenhouse gases do assist in warming- this I did not deny- but there are much greater forces at work that create the regular recurrance of Ice Ages.

By the way, water vapour has considerable influence in global warming. but for some reason seems to be off the radar of the missionaries out to change something as implacable as climate.

[Subtle]

Bold politician

The President of the Czech Republic is publishing a book that calls man-made global warming a "myth" and casts doubts on Al Gore's sanity.

Should be available in a few months.

[evolutionmovement]

This isn't the same president that made Frank Zappa ambassador of Western culture just before he died is it?

[Subtle]

Politically, Zappa was libertarian and he and his music were sort of an inspiration to those in Eastern Europe who were trying to throw off the oppression of big government.

There was talk of on unofficial cultural representative.

The president with the book is Vaclav Klaus, who also has a Ph. D in Economics. Clearly it hasn't impaired his critical judgement.

[Richard]

Damn. I like Frank Zappa.

[evolutionmovement]

Frank was awesome and it actually would have been a smart choice in having him as a sort of filter on the good things about Western culture to adopt and what crap to leave out. I just thought it would be amusing.

[Tleg93]

Zappa made music that everone should let their girlfriends listen to.


Aside from Global warming, the technologies and enviromentally friendly attitude that it creates it ultimately a good thing. The major issue I've always had with attitudes about this subject is that people are always so fired up about littering but are completely ambivalent when it comes the the real environmental poisons...the ones you can't see but dwell in groundwater and the air we breathe. Out of sight, out of mind I guess...

[Richard]

So it's okay because it MAKES people better? I guess it's okay to controll behavior all of a sudden. The end justifies the means. A happier, better place would benefit everyone. Well, not people who would lose their jobs, but F___ 'em.

Here's something interesting:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech ... ote04.html

It's a bit long, but makes a very good case.

[Tleg93]

Richard, I'm not even sure where you're coming from and I'm pretty sure you have no idea what I was saying in my post. To make it simple, it was just a statement about how people care more about the superficialities rather than the real substance of things. A banana peel on the roadside isn't pretty but it won't kill anyone but yet that seems to be an issue that most everyone will get pissed about. High concentrations of Mercury in the groundwater from coal burning plants and excavation is something you can't readily see but since you can't see it, nobody really believes it exists, that is until they get Mercury poisoning then it's a huge conspiracy but yet it's been there all the time YOU were sleeping and getting pissed about a banana peel.

Btw, green building and environmentally friendly technologies create jobs. It's on you to be able to take note of trends and adapt to the landscape. The world waits for nobody, it just moves on.

[Richard]

Okay. So coal plants are bad. Solution? Natural gas - too expensive/creates CO2. Nuclear - nobody wants it in their backyard. Solar - really expensive/too much space needed (no greenspace). Hydroelectric - causes floods/disrupts wildlife. Wind - birds might fly into them/eyesore. Yet Ted Kennedy is hailed as a friend to the environment after he borked windmills near his estate.

Looks like it's lights out with no electricity. Doomed we are, I'm afraid. I'll get a job building caves. Unless there's a non-impacting way to produce electricity.

I'm obviously being sarchastic. I'm trying to point out that there's a struggle of cost versus impact. There's a lot of people who stand in the way of any energy generation, too.

[Tleg93]

Well, you're barking at the wrong person.

[thefultonhow]

I for one would like to see more nuclear plants.

[Subtle]

Nuclear-generated electricity is the best option to replace a lot of fossil-fuel driven generators.

But guess who has prevented the expansion of nuclear power--the terminally anxious left who burden the rest of society with their superstitions about science and economics.

[Tleg93]

I think that to blame it on the left is an extremely oversimplified way of looking at things that prevent nuclear power generation. There's a lot of factors that get in the way of this including the kind of corruption that almost led to an catastrophe at TMI.

[Richard]

Ahh, yes. The Bible thumpers are to blame too. Thou shalt not harness the atom!

The key word "almost" seems to say alot. We ALMOST had a catastrophe. A catastrophe didn't happen, but now everyone's shaken up about nuclear power. People ALMOST get into car accidents every day. Yet they get into their car the very next day, like nothing ever happened. And just like cars, nuclear technology is getting safer and safer. Still, there's this unruly stigma about them.

Its like third graders and kooties when you boil it down.

And your remark, Tleg, is soooooooooo typical of those who don't allow energy plants to be built. They have all these objections, but are NOWHERE when it comes to actually coming up with other ideas. I guess they think they have no responsibility if they just stand in the way. There seems to be alot of that going on these days.

[evolutionmovement]

The reson I don't consider myself an environmentalist despite my concern for the environment is their lack of reason and solutions. It's like they want the infrastructure to collapse. As if they wouldn't be the first people I'd eat when I ran out of boxed pasta and mussels from the beach. Like any nut-job fanatics they do their cause more harm than good. Like around here they'll bitch about the dirty coal-burning plants, yet defeat an offshore wind farm that would take its place with the BS excuse of migrating birds when the real reason is that the rich losers like Kennedy on Nantucket didn't want to see the white specs of them way off in the distance. Modern wind turbines spin pretty slowly and any bird that can't avoid them is no loss as far as I'm concerned. Plus who are we kidding - it ain't bald eagles or some kind of endangered plover they'd hit but seagulls, Canadian geese, and other sky rats.

I would love to have a place off the grid with solar and wind turbines for power and heat as well as an extremely efficient insulating design. It would be even better if they had viable electric cars I could recharge using this free energy. Then all they'd have to do is grow meat in a lab and I'd have no reason for guilt. I suppose I could go vegetarian, but I don't feel THAT guilty.

There's a nuclear plant about 60 miles from here. I'm not concerned and it's an old one. The new ones would be much better and I still don't see why we couldn't launch waste into space as a last resort. Send it into the sun. I've heard there's a concern that if the rocket explodes there will be fallout issues, but I'm sure they can come up with capable containers for that eventuality. Besides, they've sent up nuclear powered satellites.

[Tleg93]

Ahh, yes. The Bible thumpers are to blame too. Thou shalt not harness the atom!

The key word "almost" seems to say alot. We ALMOST had a catastrophe. A catastrophe didn't happen, but now everyone's shaken up about nuclear power. People ALMOST get into car accidents every day. Yet they get into their car the very next day, like nothing ever happened. And just like cars, nuclear technology is getting safer and safer. Still, there's this unruly stigma about them.

Listen Richard, there WAS a nuclear accident in Chernobyl and more close calls they never told people about. I'm not against nuclear power but I'm not waving a flag in support of it either. Another thing, the American Before you go attacking me, make sure you know what you're talking about. My personal view on nukes is that I'd prefer it to coal but I really would like to see a mix of power sources including wind, solar and hydrothermal and yes, some nukes. If they can give assurances that contractors won't cut corners, creating dangerous circumstances and also that nuclear facilities won't kill people that try to expose corrupt policies then I'm all for it but some of the things that have happened in the past including killing and coercing plant workers that blew the whistle on nuke plant operators are prett fucked up and nobody wants that stuff going on.

Its like third graders and kooties when you boil it down.

No, acutally it's a lot more complex than that and if you had an inkling of understanding or wisdom you would recognize that.

And your remark, Tleg, is soooooooooo typical of those who don't allow energy plants to be built. They have all these objections, but are NOWHERE when it comes to actually coming up with other ideas. I guess they think they have no responsibility if they just stand in the way. There seems to be alot of that going on these days.

And your response is sooooo typical of those that have no clue what they're talking about and just get all pissed when people don't see things their way. Then, instead of discussing what someone's ideas actually are, they just start pointing fingers and making accusations. Dude, you have absolutely no clue how I personally feel about nuclear power or anything for that matter. Just because I put an alternate point of view in a discussion that is dominated by armchair politicians doesn't mean I'm against it, it just means that there's other points of view to think about. SO before you get your panties in a bunch think about what your saying. Nowhere did I say that I was against nuclear power but rather just pointed out that there are arguments against it. Get it straight before you try to pigeonhole someone. Also, I don't engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

[Richard]

[quote="Tleg93']
If they can give assurances that contractors won't cut corners, creating dangerous circumstances and also that nuclear facilities won't kill people that try to expose corrupt policies then I'm all for it but some of the things that have happened in the past including killing and coercing plant workers that blew the whistle on nuke plant operators are prett fucked up and nobody wants that stuff going on.
[/quote]

Isn't this common sense? I mean, really. Let's take a count of how many people who WANT this kind of stuff going on.

Chernobyl was the worst accident ever. But it wasn't as bad as we were led to believe as schoolchildren.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Health officials from the Nuclear Energy Agency have predicted that over the next 70 years there will be a 0.01% increase in cancer rates above the base rate in much of the population which was exposed to the 5–12 (depending on source) EBq of radioactive contamination released from the reactor. So far three people have died of thyroid cancer as a result of the accident

The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that as many as 9,000 people among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed, may die from some form of cancer (one of the induced diseases).[3] Nearly 20 years after the disaster, according to the Chernobyl Forum, no evidence of increases in the solid cancers and, possibly more significantly, none of the widely expected increases in leukemia have been found in the population.[

Dr. Peter Boyle, director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, put the discussion of the figures into perspective: "Tobacco smoking will cause several thousand times more cancers in the same [European] population."

And I'll doubt they'll make the same mistake twice. I doubt experiments will ever go on like that in the future, much less at one right next to a population center.

My remark about your remark, Tleg, was towards the naysayers. Your remark is typical of what THEY say and I was pointing that out. I didn't intend to put you in that group, nor did I intentionally write it to seem that way. I associated the remark with them, not you with them. If that's how it's interpreted, my bad. I'll be John Kerry and say it was a botched joke.

Seriously, I didn't aim to put you in "their" group. Unless you are in that zany group already.

BTW - this is the remark I was talking about.

Well, you're barking at the wrong person.

And as far as your last post, evolution, I agree with you 99%. I ain't eatin no lab meat, nor will I ever feel guilty for eating real meat. Unless it was stolen from a hungry child.

BTW - yet another reason to hate cars. The rising price of corn is due to it's use in making ethanol. Poor people in Mexico can't afford tortillas because of the increase. Someone's always a victim.

[Tleg93]

Oh, I'm sorry then if I misunderstood. It sure seemed like you were directly addressing me with your comments. I'm still not 100% convinced that nuclear is the way to go.

http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.htm