Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Vanishing Face of Gaia

Recs

8

April 17, 2010 – Comments (12)

I have been reading James Lovelock's latest book.  He has what I found an interesting analogy on anedotical evidence versus scientific evidence and uses the example of autism.  Some parents have noticed autism symptoms after vaccination on the anedotical side, which is then amplified by the media, yet the science side has found no link.  We tend to believe anedotical evidence as usually to do so when it is wrong usually does not cause harm, where as not believing when there is a connection can take you out of the gene pool, so evolution favors the belief in anedotical evidence. 

In 2008 it was cooler and many more questioned and rejected global warming based on that anedotical evidence. In 2007 the decline in the ice caps was especially large.  A lot more energy went to melting ice caps and that does not show up as temperature change.  And actually, temperature change is a poor indicator of global warming right now because melting ice absorbs an enormous amount of energy and helps to moderate the temperature of the Earth.  A better indicator of global warming is measuring the sea level, which has been rising.  Temperature has huge variations whereas the rising sea level is much more consistent.

There are number of events happening on Earth that I knew were causing the total energy absorption of the Earth to be increasing: the melting of ice caps and a rise in ocean temperature, but there are also a number of things he mentions that I was not aware of, like there is a huge difference in what happens in the ocean if the surface water increases above 12 deg C.  Mess with that and you are messing with phytoplankton, which is a major source of oxygen.  He refers to "desert oceans."

Something else I did not realise, he says about half the carbon dioxide is coming from respiration of people, and the animals on farms to support the population, so trying to reduce vehicle admissions does very little in the big picture.

 

12 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 17, 2010 at 8:27 AM, nuf2bdangrus (< 20) wrote:

As much as I think global warming is real, I also believe there are hundreds of unknown factors.  I also believe that excess carbon that creates warmth creates more green plants that should absorb carbon...but that is still climate change.  IS the earth designed to handle 20 billion people?

Report this comment
#2) On April 17, 2010 at 10:27 AM, ralphmachio (24.77) wrote:

Is it necessarily the case that humans are responsible for the rise in temperatures?

Isn't there a 30 year lag between what we do on Earth and what happens to the climate?

How much of the Earth's temperature is regulated by it's core? Is this energy constant? What might affect it?

Should anyone aside from inventors and green speculators profit from global warming? How about the kind folks at Goldman that profited while the world got warm? (assuming we are responsible).  

For those of you who don't know how this plays out, Government, or industry(one in the same) causes a problem. The People react with outcries of,"help us, save us, oh please". Then the government does something entirely unpopular that it had intended to do the whole time, under the guise of a solution to said problem. In this case, it's steal more of your money. 

Will said 'solution' be any solution at all? Come on? who are we talking about here? 

There is literally nothing but belief in non-sense that keeps the government popular. Just as you are about to uncover some atrocity, the government shifts attention through the media, and the goldfish-memory lemmings seem to totally be on whatever page the transparently state run media tells them to be on. Oh? It's not the economic decisions that thieves made for our future? Now it's global warming? How about a war?

And can we have a discussion on global warming and not mention Chem trails that turn into clouds within hours? What about HAARP, capable of super-heating the ionospere?

We are ill equipped, at best, to truly decide what is causing our global warming, or our increase in cancer and other disease which may or may not be caused by vaccinations. It may be from aspertame from Monsanto. It may be from nuclear testing (global warming too, for that matter). It may be from the flouride in our water, or any number of the pharmaceuticals in our municipal water supplies. The reason for being so ill equipped is primarily, the loudest voice in the room, wearing the most impressive empty suit is the one with the most popularity. (He's also the one poisoning you, and turning up the temp on your planet.)      

Report this comment
#3) On April 17, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Deepfryer (27.64) wrote:

"And actually, temperature change is a poor indicator of global warming right now because melting ice absorbs an enormous amount of energy and helps to moderate the temperature of the Earth.  A better indicator of global warming is measuring the sea level, which has been rising."

100% correct. I don't think most people understand the difference between heat and temperature. So, they do not realize that heat does not necessarily equal temperature change. Most of the heat from global warming is not currently resulting in temperature change - rather, this heat is melting the polar ice caps.

Also, I don't think people realize that liquid water has the highest specific heat capacity of any commonly-found substance on Earth. Let's say you take one pound of lead and one pound of water. Next, you add enough heat to the lead to raise its temperature by 32.9 degrees C. Then, you add the same amount of heat to the water. The water will only change temperature by 1 degree C. But, it is still storing the same amount of energy (heat).

Guess what will happen once all the ice caps have melted? The energy will start to heat the atmosphere. In case anyone is wondering, air changes temperature 4 times faster than water. To put it simply... by storing so much energy in the oceans, we are basically building a time bomb, which is going to go off as soon as we have melted all the ice caps.

It's just too bad that the neoconservative movement has been so successful in their fearmongering. Not only are people mistrustful of the government, but they are equally mistrustful of scientists and intellectuals in any field of research, because of a percieved connection to the government.

Report this comment
#4) On April 17, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Deepfryer (27.64) wrote:

Oops, my second hyperlink was supposed to go to this page.

Report this comment
#5) On April 17, 2010 at 12:31 PM, MarginCallMcW (20.33) wrote:

Wow ralphmachio. I think a more reasonable Ralph is going to have to rebut some of your ridiculous claims.

"Isn't there a 30 year lag...?" Are you suggesting that this somehow invalidates global warming? Green house gas emitting machines weren't invented last week. 

In response to your general anti-government sentiment: Put on your tin foil hat, grab you Obama=Hitler sign and continue cleaning your guns, if what you say is true you better have lots of ammo.

Vaccinations have never been scientifically linked to any disease. They have been linked to preventing MILLIONS of deaths from disease. May or may not cause cancer? Really? Vaccines may or may not have eradicated small pox from the earth. The increase in cancer incidence can be almost entirely attributed to increased life span. You see, when a person does not die of polio as a child they are MUCH more likely to develop cancer at some latter time. So I guess you are right in a way... maybe vaccines are responsible for increases in cancer. 

Cancer is not caused by nuclear testing. The radiation you receive on a sunny day (especially in an airplane) is greater then you receive while at ground zero of a nuclear testing sight. Aspartame doesn't cause cancer. Do you really think this hasn't been checked? Same with fluoride. You know how we know this? The scary government has agencies that employ scientists that look into these things to protect our health... or maybe it is all a conspiracy and they are lying to us about the safety of these products to somehow profit from our misery.

You're a retard.

 

Report this comment
#6) On April 17, 2010 at 4:41 PM, dwot (67.76) wrote:

Deepfryer, good points about heat and temperature.  I tend to think of it as the total energy of the "system," the earth.  The earth has less energy stored when there is lots of ice and way more when the ice turns to water.  When the ice melts then the water starts to get warmer, not much different then if you have a drink with ice and a drink without ice.

What is the real serious threat from this is as the land holds less water it become far more prone to huge temperature swings, ie, deserts.  Just like your lead example, when the land is dry the sun will heat the land much faster then when there are bodies of water all around it.  So you end up with deserts growning much faster.

I have said it before, I think considering water issues is going to be huge in the future.

Report this comment
#7) On April 17, 2010 at 5:43 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

Here you go, Deb.

Waterwired

Report this comment
#8) On April 18, 2010 at 12:52 PM, AjaxofTelamon (< 20) wrote:

A couple of thoughts:

a.  The ice caps are not melting.  See http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

b.   Sea levels are not rising. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

 

Report this comment
#9) On April 18, 2010 at 7:05 PM, dwot (67.76) wrote:

Thanks devoish.

Here's an interesting link for world water day, which was last month.   Interesting, they use the same two water resources that I wrote about with my concerns about water in petri dish planet..

Report this comment
#10) On April 19, 2010 at 2:08 AM, ralphmachio (24.77) wrote:

Margin Call, you're cute, and amusing. You know so much about my perspective, and I know oh so little about yours, and everyone else's who blindly believes everything they are told. See, I never had the opportunity to put forth the facts and analyze them objectively, as you so clearly have. I was home schooled by mermaids in Atlantis, and cruelly dropped off in this cold place with nothing but a backpack full of david Icke, and Alex Jones books, and now I look so forward to understanding the mainstream knowledge of planet Earth, which as i have said, up until now, I never even heard before.

Thank you for enlightening me, and helping me off the wrong track, and do please continue correspondence so that I may understand all of what the neutered lemmings have come to understand as fact.

P.S. What in the hell is the tinfoil hat for? I'm pretty sure my black latex suit and skullcap will do just fine... Your wife has suggested it is appropriate for all occasions. 

Report this comment
#11) On April 19, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Deepfryer (27.64) wrote:

AjaxofTelamon (< 20) wrote:

a.  The ice caps are not melting.  See http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Yes they are. Your reference looks only at global sea ice by area (not depth). The most accurate measure to use is "sea ice extent", which accounts for both the area and the depth of the ice. The trend is very clear: although there has been a slight increase in the Antarctic ice, the decline in Arctic ice has been quite rapid. See http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

b.   Sea levels are not rising. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

Yes they are. The link you provided does not seem to support your opinion at all. Come back to me when you have found some respected scientists who can support your claim that, "sea levels are not rising".

If you want to see the truth, just look at the IPCC Report for yourself, and scroll down to Figure 1.1.

The relevant quote is right here:

Increases in sea level are consistent with warming (Figure 1.1).
Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm
per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4
to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003. Whether this faster rate for
1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longer-erm trend is unclear. Since 1993 thermal expansion of the oceans
has contributed about 57% of the sum of the estimated individual
contributions to the sea level rise, with decreases in glaciers and
ice caps contributing about 28% and losses from the polar ice sheets
contributing the remainder. From 1993 to 2003 the sum of these
climate contributions is consistent within uncertainties with the total
sea level rise that is directly observed. {WGI 4.6, 4.8, 5.5, SPM, Table
SPM.1}
Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent
with warming (Figure 1.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual
average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]%
per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]%
per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have
declined in both hemispheres. The maximum areal extent of seasonally
frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern
Hemisphere since 1900, with decreases in spring of up to 15%.
Temperatures at the top of the permafrost layer have generally increased
since the 1980s in the Arctic by up to 3°C.

Report this comment
#12) On April 20, 2010 at 4:08 PM, ByrneShill (76.48) wrote:

OT: Hey Deb, you're from Van, right? Maybe you can get 16/16 at this lil game:

http://www.crackshackormansion.com/

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement