Ancient forest emerges mummified from the Arctic

Dec 15, 2010 by Pam Frost Gorder
Ellesmere Island National Park in Canada. Ohio State University researchers and their colleagues have discovered the remains of a mummified forest that lived on the island 2 to 8 million years ago, when the Arctic was cooling. The remains could offer clues to how today’s Arctic will respond to global warming. Credit: Photo by Joel Barker, courtesy of Ohio State University.

The northernmost mummified forest ever found in Canada is revealing how plants struggled to endure a long-ago global cooling.

Researchers believe the trees -- buried by a and exquisitely preserved 2 to 8 million years ago -- will help them predict how today's Arctic will respond to global warming.

They also suspect that many more mummified forests could emerge across North America as continues to melt. As the wood is exposed and begins to rot, it could release significant amounts of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere -- and actually boost global warming.

Joel Barker, a research scientist at Byrd Polar Research Center and the School of at Ohio State University and leader of the team that is analyzing the remains, will describe early results at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco on Friday, December 17.

Over the summer of 2010, the researchers retrieved samples from broken tree trunks, branches, roots, and even leaves -- all perfectly preserved -- from Ellesmere Island National Park in Canada.

"Mummified forests aren't so uncommon, but what makes this one unique is that it's so far north. When the climate began to cool 11 million years ago, these plants would have been the first to feel the effects," Barker said. "And because the trees' is preserved, we can get a high-resolution view of how quickly the climate changed and how the plants responded to that change."

Barker found the deposit in 2009, when he was camping on Ellesmere Island for an unrelated research project. He followed a tip from a national park warden, who had noticed some wood sticking out of the mud next to a melting glacier. This summer, he returned with colleagues for a detailed study of the area.

Analysis of the remains has only just begun, but will include chemical and .

A mummified birch leaf discovered on Ellesmere Island in Canada. Ohio State University researchers and their colleagues have discovered the remains of a mummified forest that lived on the island 2 to 8 million years ago, when the Arctic was cooling. The remains could offer clues to how today’s Arctic will respond to global warming. Credit: Photo by Joel Barker, courtesy of Ohio State University.

For now, the researchers have identified the species of the most common trees at the site -- spruce and birch. The trees were at least 75 years old when they died, but spindly, with very narrow growth rings and under-sized leaves that suggest they were suffering a great deal of stress when they were alive.

"These trees lived at a particularly rough time in the Arctic," Barker explained. "Ellesmere Island was quickly changing from a warm deciduous forest environment to an evergreen environment, on its way to the barren scrub we see today. The trees would have had to endure half of the year in darkness and in a cooling climate. That's why the growth rings show that they grew so little, and so slowly."

Colleagues at the University of Minnesota identified the wood from the deposit, and pollen analysis at a commercial laboratory in Calgary, Alberta revealed that the trees lived approximately 2 to 8 million years ago, during the Neogene Period. The pollen came from only a handful of plant species, which suggests that Arctic biodiversity had begun to suffer during that time as well.

The team is now working to identify other mummified plants at the site, scanning the remains under microscopes to uncover any possible seeds or insect remains.

Now that the forest is exposed, it's begun to rot, which means that it's releasing carbon into the atmosphere, where it can contribute to global warming.

Team member David Elliot, professor emeritus of earth sciences at Ohio State, said that the mummified forest on Ellesmere Island doesn't pose an immediate threat to the environment, though.

An outcropping of mummified tree remains on Ellesmere Island in Canada. A melting glacier revealed the trees, which were buried by a landslide 2 to 8 million years ago, when the Arctic was cooling. The remains could offer clues to how today’s Arctic will respond to global warming. Credit: Photo by Joel Barker, courtesy of Ohio State University.

"I want to be clear -- the carbon contained in the small deposit we've been studying is trivial compared to what you produce when you drive your car," he said. "But if you look at this find in the context of the whole Arctic, then that is a different issue. I would expect other isolated deposits to be exposed as the ice melts, and all that biomass is eventually going to return to carbon dioxide if it's exposed to the air."

"It's a big country, and unless people decide to walk all across the Canadian Arctic, we won't know how many deposits are out there," he added.

Explore further: Atmospheric boundary layer exacerbated mega heat waves

Related Stories

Western Canada's Glaciers Hit 7000-Year Low

Oct 30, 2007

Tree stumps at the feet of Western Canadian glaciers are providing new insights into the accelerated rates at which the rivers of ice have been shrinking due to human-aided global warming.

Recommended for you

Atmospheric boundary layer exacerbated mega heat waves

1 hour ago

The extreme nature of the heat waves of 2003 in Western Europe and of 2010 in Russia and Eastern Europe even surprised scientists at the time. NWO Veni researcher Ryan Teuling from Wageningen University says ...

Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

Apr 18, 2014

A powerful magnitude-7.2 earthquake shook central and southern Mexico on Friday, sending panicked people into the streets. Some walls cracked and fell, but there were no reports of major damage or casualties.

User comments : 78

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

A_Paradox
3.5 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
Hmmm,
2 to 8 million years ago

seems like rather a large ball park.

I did wonder briefly if the growth rings in the tree trunks could be compared with others from similar deposits. Long term study, in every sense, of that sort could possibly result in an unbroken basic tree ring record - dendrochronology - going back a couple of million years or more.

If every body, who can do so, takes a digital image of a cross section of every such fossil they find and sends them to a repository then eventually digital image matching software ought to be able to discover any overlaps.
GSwift7
3.1 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2010
As the wood is exposed and begins to rot, it could release significant amounts of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere


Why do they throw these little nonsense comments into every article about climate science? This is a triviality compared to a single hour of coal and oil burning.

Is he really suggesting that land slides with just the right set of circumstances to mummify a SMALL PIECE of a forest are widespread and common? It even says that the forest was sparse and on the verge of death.

If anyone is buying this nonsense, I'll be dumbfounded. I don't even think Caliban is gullible enough to fall for this one.

What really upsets me is that finding a mummified forest like this is really interesting, and they spend 3/4 of the article talking about BS, and the guy even qualifies his own remarks because he knows it's BS.
Shootist
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 15, 2010
Ancient forest emerges mummified from the Arctic


Dayam, the planet was warmer then? But globull warming is bad, right? That's what the lying techno-bureaucrats/industrialists keep saying, right? Warm is bad?

All those poor dead trees . . . dying from the cold.

This is a triviality compared to a single hour of coal and oil burning.


Actually man's contribution of 'greenhouse' gases pales in comparison to ONE medium sized volcano (St. Helens, Pinatubo). But facts never seem to matter when trillions of dollars is at stake.
gunslingor1
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2010
As the wood is exposed and begins to rot, it could release significant amounts of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere


Why do they throw these little nonsense comments into every article about climate science? This is a triviality compared to a single hour of coal and oil burning.

Is he really suggesting that land slides with just the right set of circumstances to mummify a SMALL PIECE of a forest are widespread and common? It even says that the forest was sparse and on the verge of death.

If anyone is buying this nonsense, I'll be dumbfounded. I don't even think Caliban is gullible enough to fall for this one.

What really upsets me is that finding a mummified forest like this is really interesting, and they spend 3/4 of the article talking about BS, and the guy even qualifies his own remarks because he knows it's BS.


Read the article moron (as usual), 2nd to last paragraph.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
@ paradox:

The wide range could be due to the fact that it's landslide debris, so there are multiple layers of sediment all mixed up together, as a modern landslide debris field will have new and old stuff mixed up together.

As to your tree ring idea: It's not quite that simple. Two trees within sight of each other can have vastly different rings, so comparrison isn't that easy. One tree could have been on top of a hill and another in the shade at the bottom of the hill. One can be near a stream and another not. Streams move over the life of trees, surrounding vegetation, like other trees which compete for water and light, can grow and die. Exposure to wind can change as surrounding trees grow and die. It's almost impossible to match up exact years from different trees in different places, and mummified trees like this are nowhere near abundant enough to construct a continuous record.
Jonseer
4 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
i have to agree with gswift7. The discovery is fascinating in and of itself.

Yet the article spends so much time about the on pointless uninformative speculation about the methane release potential.
tkjtkj
5 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2010
@ paradox: ... It's almost impossible to match up exact years from different trees in different places, and mummified trees like this are nowhere near abundant enough to construct a continuous record.


Thanks for putting this so clearly in the context of just how difficult such work can be.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
Oh, I love name calling.

@gunslingor: I will respond with a comment you can understand, and I'll type slow so you can keep up. I'm typing in red crayon, just for you, and I drew a picture of your face on my monitor. You have a funny nose, just so you know. And my response to your comment is "I know you are, but what am I?"

In a more serious response, I'd like to direct you to the last sentence of the comment you quoted from me. I said: "and the guy even qualifies his own remarks because he knows it's BS"

When I said that, I was talking about the second to last paragraph of the article.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
In case you're having trouble with understanding my original comment, here's the meaning of qualify:

"4. To modify, limit, or restrict, as by giving exceptions.
5. To make less harsh or severe; moderate. See Synonyms at moderate."

from thefreedictionary dot com.

When people do that, it's a sign that what they said in the first place is BS. Qualifying your own remarks is something people in a moderated debate are trained to avoid. You take away your own credibility when you qualify your own remarks. Name calling is also frowned upon as a debate tactic, just so you know.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2010
Actually man's contribution of 'greenhouse' gases pales in comparison to ONE medium sized volcano (St. Helens, Pinatubo). But facts never seem to matter when trillions of dollars is at stake


Yeah, that's exactly right, but I really didn't want to get into all that. My point is that it would have been really cool to hear more about what kind of stuff they see in the forest remains, in stead of what they printed here. Maybe they should have picked a different person to be the spokesperson for the press release. I'm just sayin'.
gunslingor1
4 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2010
Actually man's contribution of 'greenhouse' gases pales in comparison to ONE medium sized volcano


-somewhat true, but misleading. Your average medium sized volcano doesn't erupt 24 hours a day 7 days a week year round for decades, cars and coal plants do. Also, your camparing the instanious rates of emission of a volcano to the instantanious rates of emissions of ALL cars combine, then your statement is somewhat right; what you said is misleading because it could mean one eruption="all human emissions ever" which is totally untrue. A large mountain contains a years worth of coal for a large plant, a volcano can release a large mountain of matter in a few days.

And FYI, it is proven that volcanic eruptions can effect cilmate for a couple weeks, including carbon content which increases then slowly decreases over a few weeks. Why is it so hard for you to believe 500M cars can't do the same thing? Do the fuel consumption calcs, instantanious masses are comparable.
lengould100
5 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2010
Shootist makes a completely unsubstantiated claim about the comparability of volcano emissions of CO2 to those of humans, and for some foolish reason a bunch of others get captured by the followup. Ridiculous.

Bottom line, Shootist. Provide evidence that the level of volcanic activity has suddenly increase in the past century sufficient to explain atmospheric CO2 levels rising from 280 ppmv to 390 ppmv. Of course it hasn't, so therefore your troll thesis is pure bunk.

Go back to pestering your grade-school teachers with such nonsense, please.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2010
OH good point gunslingor. I certainly don't believe volcano's make more ghg than coal plants all year long. If that's what shootist was saying then I don't agree.

I was only really talking about the comparrison as it relates to this story and the claim that this mummified forest, and others like it, would amount to enough GHG emission to be worth talking about. I don't have numbers to reference, so don't kill me if this is wrong, but an average eruption episode of an average volcano "probably" accounts for more GHG than these mummified forests ever will.

I actually feel more comfortable with my initial comparison to an hour of global coal plant exhaust. As I said above, the volcano thing wouldn't have been my first choice for an example.
gunslingor1
3 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2010
Gswift,

- I suspect your right in an unscientific approximation hocky pocky, somewhat kinda way... who knows really, we have zero hard numbers here. I suspect you could say something along the lines: The amazon rain forest CURRENTLY cantains as much carbon as a volcano puts out in an average eruptions. Remember, just a couple weeks after an euroption, carbon levels go down, some from ash precipitions, some gets absorbed by trees. Funny thing, if we all stopped driving and burning tomorrow, it would only take two weeks for the planet to correct our • of our atmospheric mistakes. Calcs are based on CO2 absorbtion rates by trees; confirmed by carbon rate measurements during the US Eastern blackout.

And sorry I called you a moron, I got you confused with marjon. We differ in our reasons, but we are on the same side, that of technological progression past that of the cave main... FIRE BURNING GOOD! BURN BURN BURN FIRE!
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2010
lol!! I assure you that I'm not marjon. I have way more free time to waste looking up refrences than marjon. I actually only have one identity here, and I even put my real name and my picture on my profile. Does anyone else who comments on this site do that, or am I the only one?

Okay, I take back my comment about your nose then. As long as you don't turn sideways, it's hardly noticeable at all, ...really. (grin)

Really? I have never heard that about the east coast blackout before. Are you sure that's good data? I'd like to read more about that. Wouldn't the power plants keep making power, and burning fosil fuel, even if the power didn't make it to the consumers? Cars certainly didn't stop. Any idea where I could read up about that, so that I don't have to go searching?

Yes, since I can't imagine humans will change much in terms of energy consumption habits, the solution is technology. Crippling US/EU industry, where all the technology is paid for, is counterproductive.

Justsayin
1 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2010
"He followed a tip from a national park warden".... Would be nice to give credit where credit is due, I would prefer to know the real name of the person responsible for the golden nugget of a tip!
Caliban
not rated yet Dec 15, 2010
As the wood is exposed and begins to rot, it could release significant amounts of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere


Why do they throw these little nonsense comments into every article about climate science? This is a triviality compared to a single hour of coal and oil burning.

Is he really suggesting that land slides with just the right set of circumstances to mummify a SMALL PIECE of a forest are widespread and common? It even says that the forest was sparse and on the verge of death.

If anyone is buying this nonsense, I'll be dumbfounded. I don't even think Caliban is gullible enough to fall for this one.

What really upsets me is that finding a mummified forest like this is really interesting, and they spend 3/4 of the article talking about BS, and the guy even qualifies his own remarks because he knows it's BS.

Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2010
Is he really suggesting that land slides with just the right set of circumstances to mummify a SMALL PIECE of a forest are widespread and common? It even says that the forest was sparse and on the verge of death.

If anyone is buying this nonsense, I'll be dumbfounded. I don't even think Caliban is gullible enough to fall for this one.


Small landslides are frequent occurences the world over, and just because one didn't happen in your back yard in the past week has no bearing whatsoever on their relative abundance.

For this reason alone, it is indeed a virtual certainty that many of them occurred in the Canadian Arctic during this cooling phase.

It's too bad, GSwift7, that you waste so much effort on these knee-jerk anti-AGW screeds, because if that weren't the case, you would probably have enough processing capacity to understand the scientific merit of an article such as this, instead of distorting its import by viewing it through your ideological AGW Denier lens.
Caliban
not rated yet Dec 15, 2010
Apologies for the long, pointless quotation, above. Server error.
jjoensuu
not rated yet Dec 15, 2010
"Researchers believe the trees -- buried by a landslide..."

[...]
"But if you look at this find in the context of the whole Arctic, then that is a different issue. I would expect other isolated deposits to be exposed as the ice melts, and all that biomass is eventually going to return to carbon dioxide if it's exposed to the air."


That is like saying that the researcher expects there to be many fossilized forests like that around the entire Canadian arctic.

Or in other words, that ancient forests buried by mudslide in similar conditions as this one, would be a bit everywhere in the arctic.

Either sounds crazy or that they are a result of some large scale event...oops wait I guess they happened so long ago that it could be multiple events...supposedly at least...
hylozoic
1 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2010
:
Crustal displacement in conjunction with tectonics, or BUST.
:
Howhot
2 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
@GSwift7 and the other AGW deniers; How much are you getting paid to troll here? It has to be a pretty good wage otherwise you wouldn't drop this junk on us. OK; so 2-8 million years ago Canada had burch trees with drought induced narrow tree rings. So what; Kansas was a salt water ocean. Personally I think you an your kind are creationists that couldn't be happier than to see humanity burn up in a toxic fog of CO2 and poison soup of salt-water on oil.
ormondotvos
3 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
No, actually they're paid by C02 producers, especially the Clean Coal Coalition, to make CO2 reduction legislation difficult to pass. Just like the legislators braying to their money tune. Times are hard, with a lot of lab techs out of work. It isn't hard to keep hammering the weak points of the human psyche. It isn't about science, it's about social psychology. The word you want is Science Quislings, betraying their own species for their own gain, working for amoral corporations. I have a friend in Tolman Hall doing these kind of experiments. Human cognition is unbelievably plastic. Ask any priest.
Howhot
2 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
I have asked a priest and he just said "Damn you all to hell" That is where we will all be if WE (as in WE The People Of Earth) don't get of our butts and demand some pain. Pain to not use coal; then oil; then gas. And the AGWd'S know it; because that is what they are wishing on us. The AGWD's are so into LA-LA Land that it makes a sane man cry. I have my biggest finger directed at you, you smarmy criminals.

Howhot
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2010
Basically all I'm saying is that it is plain out stupid to not see that our industrialism will kill us. Industrialism without planning or concern for environment will kill us if not regulated to some beneficial standard. That means regulating CO2 like there is no tommarrow. And doing it NOW!!!
FainAvis
3 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
@GSwift7
So now we all know you know nothing about generators.
Consider a small tradesman generator like those used on construction sites. A generator running with no load needs very little throttle. Switch on a circular saw and the generator slows slightly, which in turn tells the speed control mechanism to open the trottle. The generator strains to push the saw till you switch off then over runs. Over run cuts the throttle.
So the amount of fuel used is always proportional to the amount of electricity generated.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2010
OK, how about some numbers to compare volcanic eruption CO2 to human produced CO2. This source says 150 to 1 with 1 being all volcanoes. This is per year.

http://www.geolog...cts.html

There are a lot more sites out there with similar numbers and I can't find a single one with any science to back them that say otherwise. I don't expect this to put the issue to bed because the next time we start talking volcanoes someone will mention the volcanoes put out more CO2 than humans because they heard it from Rush or Fox?news?. This source says 100 to 1.

http://volcanoes....mate.php

The bottom line is that volcanoes produce less than a single percent of what humans do. Please try to remember that. The next time you bring it up as a fact volcanoes produce more than humans we will know you are just lying.
Howhot
1 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2010
Yeap. I agree; lets force CO2 regulation down the throats of these atmosphere killers and polluters right now. Do you pollution lovers realize how thin the atmosphere really is? Like it will last forever when mountains of coal are burned choking everyone. My god man; have you no empathy for your god given birthplace?
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2010
thermodynamics, good post and I concur, but 150 deffinitely seems low to me, there really aren't than many eruptions in a year. That being said, I suspect the instantious rates are somewhat comparable but, again, volcano's aren't erupting 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a hundred+ years.

Industrialism without planning or concern for environment will kill us if not regulated to some beneficial standard.


-couldn't agree more. Republicans love self regulation, lol, thats an oximoron for you.
Quantum_Conundrum
2 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
Howhot:

Do you understand that it would take millenia of burning pretty much everything available to make a really catastrophic AGW impact? A millimeter here or there is not going to matter, as ocean levels and global temperatures have swung naturally both ways by much larger margins just in the past thousand years.

However, in 20 to 50 years or so the CO2 level isn't going to matter because technology will exist that will not only NOT produce greenhouse gases, but will actually use CO2 as a raw material to mass produce carbon-based composite materials (graphene, diamond, nano-tubes,) which will be the backbone of all manufacturing, construction, and computer technology. The only by-product will be pure O2.

I suppose that eventually there will be alarmists complaining about the "toxic" levels of O2 in the atmosphere a few hundred years from now...
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
@GSwift7
So now we all know you know nothing about generators.
Consider a small tradesman generator like those used on construction sites.


That's not how coal plants work. Coal plants heat water into steam and then run turbines. There is a cost for them to "throttle down" and then "throttle back up", so it's not as simple as a gas powered direct generator. Go read more about coal plants and stop throwing out meaningless examples. You are comparing apples to oranges.

The idea that I am paid by coal producers is great. I will be looking forward to that check. This flood of new AGW posters seems fishy to me though. I suspect some group or club has decided to organize a campaign of disinformation here. For the record, I don't deny AGW. I deny the idea that AGW is the only thing making climate change. We are in an interglacial you know. The climate would be warming even if we weren't here, and the climate NEVER stays the same. It has a proven natural history of rapid changes
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
That's completely off topic though. As usual, the AGW trolls attempt to change the topic and spew useless nonsense.

However, mummified forests are too small and too few to amount to a hill of beans as far as GHG emission. The mention of decomposition gasses in this article is stupid. Making the main focus of the article GHG emissions is even more stupid. Landslides are not ubiquitous. Only certain locations have the right conditions. Landslides tend to happen over and over in the same places. Furthermore, mummification doesn't happen in every landslide. This further reduces the commonality of this kind of site. They are also not a danger if they aren't exposed on the surface. One that's burried under the ground isn't going to emit much GHG.

Also consider that if that region is warwming, trees and animals may return. That area hasn't always been a baren scrubland you know.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2010
Do you understand that it would take millenia of burning pretty much everything available to make a really catastrophic AGW impact?

-Millenia, really? how do you explain the FACT that CO2 levels are 2 times higher than another time since the great bombardment, and this is only after 50 years? Do you have anything to support your arguement, or is this based on personal beliefs and desires?

...as ocean levels and global temperatures have swung naturally both ways by much larger margins just in the past thousand years.

-It is true that climate changes, but never as fast as it is changing currently and, potentially, never as drastically. Life can adapt, but rappid changes (few hundred years) always dictates a mass extinct; evolution takes 10s of thousands of years, not hundreads.

...because technology will exist that will not only NOT produce greenhouse gases

-We have this technology now, how long do you propose we wait and why wait, seriously?
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
Also, why the hell are you ignoring the FACT that carcinogens are produced by burning organic material, especially million year old fermented organic material?

Cancer rates for the human race up until 1900 were around 25% of the population would get cancer, in 2000, it was 35%, in 2010 38%. Also note, this was when 60% of the US smoked and had wood/oil/coal stoves in the house, now only 20%. Ask any doctor, the large majority of these cases are caused by pollution, primarily from the air. Doctors estimate living in Manhattan is equivalent to smoking 5 packs of cigaretts a day, and yes, large polluted cities have much higher cancer rates than 38%.

I do not think you have a clear understanding of the mass of burning we are doing. A large coal plant will burn 3 tons of coal every second, there are thousands of plants; add cars to the equations. Do the math, compare it to CO2 absorbtion rates, and there is no way you cannot be scared. The calculations are really quite simple dude.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
As for volcanos; I don't give a crap about volcanos. And that's all I have to say about that.

I see no reason to dispute the fact that burning fosil fuel is the main reason for increased CO2 and other, more damaging, gasses in our air. I only dispute the magnitude of the effect that has on climate.

It is true that climate changes, but never as fast as it is changing currently


That's not a provable fact.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2010
For the record, I don't deny AGW. I deny the idea that AGW is the only thing making climate change.

-Good, because no one intelligent who believes AGW does. This is a non-issue Gswift. No one believes that humans are the only thing that can cause an ice age. Seriously, if this is the only reason your attacking people who follow science and reason, stop it. No one is claiming this, unless they are being paid by big oil to make people like me look stupid and this has been done. Google Bush's Greenpeace infiltrators, he actually tried to get them classified as a terrorist group, that failled, but he was succesfully in implanting sentinals to discredit the organization. some info:
http://www.greenp...enpeace/

That should get you started.

That's not a provable fact.

of course it is dude. Temperature is recorded in geology, temperature is critical to geology and affects it directly.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
The other side of the coin here is that if we are willing to assume that something should be done about pollution, which I think is reasonable, then what should we do? The kinds of actions we can possibly take cover a very wide range of cost vs. benefit. What are the most effective things we can do? Is a carbon cap and trade system the most effective way? Would we do more in a shorter time by having a huge nationally funded project like the Manhattan Project to find a few silver bullet technology solutions like cheap solar power? Without being able to accurately determine the risks and the time scale of those risks, it's difficult to judge whether it's worth spending money in various ways. I know for certain though, that it doesn't help anyone if wealthy millionairs make millions more than they already do by skimming money off the top of a carbon credit market without any regulation to prevent fraud.

I also doubt it will help to send millions to Zimbabwe.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2010
The other side of the coin here is that if we are willing to assume that something should be done about pollution, which I think is reasonable, then what should we do? ....


-nuclear is FAR more profitable than coal, even with over regulation and construction costs. Its a no brainer if you understand the nuclear and coal processes. Nuclear isn't 100% perfect, but compared to coal, its 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 perfect.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2010
The other side of the coin here is that if we are willing to assume that something should be done about pollution, which I think is reasonable, then what should we do? ....


-nuclear is FAR more profitable than coal, even with over regulation and construction costs. Its a no brainer if you understand the nuclear and coal processes. Nuclear isn't 100% perfect, but compared to coal, its 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000% perfect.

That was wierd.
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
Gunslingor: I was addressing the people above who commented that I am a denier and that I am some kind of government plant. As for rapid natural climate change:

http://en.wikiped...e_change

Second paragraph, second sentence. That's way faster than what we see now. There's a source link there too.

I do not doubt that there are MANY instances of corruption and lies in regard to this topic, on both sides. There are litterally trillions of dollars at stake here. Never in history has there been large amounts of money like that at stake without people being murdered over it. The stakes are so high, that if anyone is willing to believe that either side is innocent and completely honest, then you have WAY TOO MUCH FAITH IN YOUR FELLOW MAN. It's plain stupid to believe anything either side says without question. Oh and for the record, Limbaugh is a moron. Almost nothing he says is fully true.
GSwift7
1.3 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2010
Yeah, nuclear is the way to go. I'm not sure why Obama is so anti-nuke. I'm proud to live in South Carolina. We have the first new nuclear reactors being built in decades; three of them. This despite the president closing down the yucca mountain storage site that was promised as a place to store our waste, and which we paid millions to fund. Our Governor elect asked Obama to give that money back. lol. Fat chance of that, but I'm proud of her for asking.
gunslingor1
not rated yet Dec 16, 2010
Three quasi indepentant approaches employed in this work all give the same result of +10 deg +-4 C warming in several decades or less.

*from the source of that info, as referenced on wiki.

'Was the Younger Dryas global? Answering this question is hampered by the lack of a precise definition of "Younger Dryas" in all the records.'
http://en.wikiped...er_Dryas

it might have been global though. It sounds to me like it was a kick back of the positive feedback effect, making the iceage restablish itself for

another few thousand of years when it temperatures were starting to warm prior to this; probably caused by an influx of fresh water affecting that

big water converyor thingy (in a rush, no time to be scientific, lol). But I could be wrong. Interesting though.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
Good, because no one intelligent who believes AGW does. This is a non-issue Gswift


Actually, that is THE issue. It's obvious that we're increasing CO2 levels. It's obvious that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What isn't obvious is how much that is effecting the climate. Since we don't really know what the natural state of the climate would have been without human influence, it's hard to judge the magnitude of human influence. If climate has warmed by a couple degrees in the past century, then how much of that is a natural part of the interglacial cycle? How much of sea level rise is due to human influence and how much of it is due to changes in the shape of the earth and interglacial warming? Is there even an accurate estimate of whether the ocean basis are growing or shrinking? They never stay the same size you know, so they must be either growing or shrinking. That's going to effect ocean level.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2010
I agree completely Gswift. No one who knows anything about AGW is saying they know exactly what is going to happen and exactly who caused what by what means.

What we are saying is that the danger is real and we think we have identified the worst and best case senarios, and the best case senarios aren't that good anyway. Add to the fact that, as you agree, modern technology is better for obvisous reasons like cancer, profit, simplicity, etc.... and there is no question regarding our next course of action.

Seriously man, no one serious knows for sure... but you have to admit there is a real danger of a single species destroying the planet in a few hundred years, and its just not worth the risk so afew oil men can make massive profits, maintain control of the global economy and hold back technology.

best case scenarios of our effect on the environ aren't terrible, but they aint good when combined with deforestation, poaching, water pollution, population explosion, etc. air is 1st
Quantum_Conundrum
2 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2010
We have this technology now, how long do you propose we wait and why wait, seriously?


I'm a "denier" and even I have been wanting solar power and other alternatives for years now. I've been complaining ever since all these "stimulus" bills give so much money to crooked "financial" corporations, instead of spending it on infrastructure and alternative energy R&D, and incentives for people to modernize.

I don't know why anyone who isn't an AGW alarmist is somehow automatically labeled as some sort of "big oil" supporter.

I can't stand the oil companies and I hope for a future where we are all producing our own energy, including the panels themselves, for free.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2010
Quantum_Conundrum,

we are on the same side for only slightly different reasons, your reasons are a subset of mine. We are allies my friend.

The reason you take a lot of crap probably is as follows. Us AWG believers get a lot of false hope constantly, from companies like BP saying they are investing in cleaner alternatives, lieing to the public; of course BP is a deniers. We get politicians who are deniers of AGW, trying to push the arguement to the side of energy indepence (i.e. oil and gas from new sources) rather than health/cancer and environment. Considering cancer alone and ignoring AGW, the costs are too high.

If you are a true AGW denier and a true beleiver in the extinction of fossil fuels, that's 100% fine with me buddy, but I think you need to make this clear at the beginning of every conversation, you are a rare breed.
GSwift7
1.3 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2010
If you are a true AGW denier and a true beleiver in the extinction of fossil fuels, that's 100% fine with me buddy, but I think you need to make this clear at the beginning of every conversation, you are a rare breed


The silent majority always lies somewhere in the middle. I don't think most people agree 100% with either Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh. Most people aren't that extreme. Most people understand that cheap clean power is a good thing. Everyone would like to see energy bills get smaller. The cost of energy drives the cost of everything, from water and food to satellites. It doesn't take global warming alarmism to drive the search for clean cheap power and more efficient ways of doing things. The rich and powerful people trying to force cap and trade arn't altruists. They want to make billions at our expense. They aren't going to spend that money on research either.
gunslingor1
4 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2010
Al Gore is a politician, not a climate scienctist. He was great in that he made a lot of the least educated people in the US beleive the science, but he does not at all represent the scientific community. There is really nothing extreme about him. He hasn't suggested anything along the lines of a manhattan project, like a hydrogen economy, at least not pushing very hard. He toes the line of big oil as well, probably because he likes the money + the fact that he may have made promises to get where he is, or perhaps he simply has been threaten, or... he's a phony. He is extremely status quo.

It doesn't take global warming alarmism to drive the search for clean cheap power and more efficient ways of doing things.

-stop saying search dude. no more searching is needed, I thought you knew this. Its about the switch, and it should have happened 50 years ago.

The rich and powerful people trying to force cap and trade arn't altruists.

Who exactly are you proposing?
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
He hasn't suggested anything along the lines of a manhattan project,


Lindsey Graham has suggested it. I think it's a good idea.
gunslingor1
not rated yet Dec 16, 2010
cap and trade is more complicated than your letting on. It was a good idea to gradually reduce the credits issued each year to force the change, until dam near zero credits are issued each year. The idea was originally developed by a true faithful environmental party, but the design was corrupted by oil companies... yet another tactic to make it look like they care and make it look like they are reducing emissions. They do this by making it a voluntary program and by eliminating the requirement to reduce the emissions issued each year. They also made this system unworkable by allowing plants to offset there emissions do doing things like, buying land with trees or using ash as road filler. Trust me when I say the only people who are going to make money off cap and trade are coal plants and oil refinaries, a bonus of there distortion of an original good idea.

Which design did she suggest? I hope your not talking about a study. The orig MP was to build a predesign a-bomb, no study don
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
Lindsey Graham is a man. He's one of the Senators for South Carolina. The first step is ARPA-E, the energy equivalent of DARPA, which is a funding agency focused on developing high-impact but high-risk research that's too risky for commercial investment.

The next step is a hoover dam or appolo project focused on any big results they might get from ARPA-E research. There's a handful of potential game-changers that are really close to being ready for the real world.

Here's an article that talks about it in more detail:

http://www.scient...volution

Howhot
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2010
@Gswift7 and kind;
It's obvious that we're increasing CO2 levels. It's obvious that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What isn't obvious is how much that is effecting the climate.

So the question in your mind is not that CO2 effects the climate, but by how much??? You like to gamble too I'll bet. And you want to bet your kid future that CO2 doesn't correlate that much with the global warming. Let's see; I just saw a NASA report (I'm a geek) that has everyone about 1C warmer that in the 70s (due to CO2 and man=made green-house gases). Man that is a lot happening really quick. A normal person would be concerned.

I'm stunned that there a people like GSWift7 that are paid to propagandize sites like this

gunslingor1
not rated yet Dec 20, 2010
Gswift, im confident isn't paid, if he was, he wouldn't be pushing new technology while opposing AGW science. He is just uninformed. No matter, he is on our side.

But Gswift, stop with the studies man. No more studies needed, the technology exists now to solve this problem.
GSwift7
1.3 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
I really don't see enough technology that's ready for mass market right now. There are some that are ready to help a little, but not ready for mainstream. Solar, for example costs too much to produce, both in terms of dollar cost and in terms of pollution caused by producing them. Solar is also too inefficient to be used in less than perfect conditions right now. Concentrated solar thermal is the closest to being ready, but needs to be proven on a large scale for a full plant life cycle (which is under way right now in several places) before investors will buy in.

I hardly think I'm uninformed. I'll bet I've read more of the IPCC reports, NASA and NOAA studies and technology assessments from 'independent' groups than almost anyone here.

Howhot's reference to NASA is an example of someone who isn't well read. NASA has lots of different groups who say different things about this topic. GISS is very pro-AGW, while NASA Goddard in Maryland and JPL is more neutral and a bit skeptical.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2010
For the record Gunslingor: I think it would be more accurate to say that my 'opinions' (underline that word because that's all they are), aren't really against the science. Science is all about asking questions in the search for truth, isn't it? I just cringe when I see people (scientists included) who draw conclusions and make public statements as if their opinion is fact, when there are still significant questions that need answered before anyone can make confident conclusions. I also cringe when I think of the US imposing some crazy cap and trade scheme while the major polluters like China, India and Mexico will do nothing.

If we in stead spend our money on developing a more efficient computer chip, better batteries, cheaper more reliable solar panels, more efficient industrial processes, more efficient agricultural practices, etc, then China will adopt those things because it will save them money to do so. That's the global answer. Not cap and trade.
gunslingor1
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
people (scientists included) who draw conclusions and make public statements as if their opinion is fact

-agreed, but I think it is fair to say 90% of this occurs on Fox News, not by scientists.

while the major polluters like China, India and Mexico will do nothing.

-Mexico will follow our lead, they are our lapdogs, as will the UK. China is already passing us in green technology production.

-As for proving the science:
http://www.global...wer.html

http://en.wikiped..._Systems

http://www.treehu...ave2.jpg

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/

http://www.greenb...-x-prize

http://www.popula.../3374271

http://www.100mpgplus.com/

http://green.yaho...010.html

http://www.popula...s/423240
GSwift7
1.3 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2010
1) Ever listen to NPR?

2) Mexico follows our lead on clean air/water or vehicle standards?

3) Tidal power only works at select locations. Ecological nightmare to boot.

4) All kinds of solar are limited to select locations, but also:

4-a The SGES site covers 1600 acres, gives 75MWe. Typical nuclear plant +600WMe.

4-b Power tower CTS is unprooven. No experience with football-field-sized tanks of corrosive 1000 degree liquid salts. Many engineering questions there.

4-c Dish CTS is prohibitively expensive to install and maintain.

5) That 1st car is a death trap. You drive it.

6) Solar power on a prius is a negative sum. Solar panels aren't cheap and they don't last long on a vehicle. Batteries are hard on the environment too. If everyone did this, it would be a problem.

7) Avion: +100 mpg decending 400 ft altitude (with a tail wind?) Kidding. Is it leagal in the US?

8) VW Aptera? Again, you drive that death trap.

your last link is broken.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2010
I have to ask what you mean when you say China is passing us. In what regard? The latest CO2 map from NASA shows east central China as a huge red splotch. The US is nowhere close, even in NYC or LA.

We're so far off topic that we may as well start talking about religion or facism. Any thoughts on God?
gunslingor1
not rated yet Dec 21, 2010
China is passing us in all production, including that of renewables. Search three gorges dam.

As for your cretiques of my few of many examples of proven technology, the critiques are inconsequencial unless you do a direct comparison to existing technologies. For example, the extremely unscientific statement "That 1st car is a death trap" has no meaning; what would be meaningful is a comparison to the number of people you suspect will die in accidents in this car, compared to the number of lives that will be saved by driving this car and reducing volitle organic compounds in the atmosphere. All that being said, it is a concept car and something more in line with consumer tastes can easily be produced from this model. Proof of concept was what you were asking for and I have proven that a 100-300mpg car is possible.

"Batteries are hard on the environment too." Again, inconsequencial. Every product has faults, comparison is required to make engineering decisions.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
Okay, I partially see your point about China. I am looking at both sides of the coin though. As discussed in this article:

http://e360.yale....es/2180/

China is investing heavily in the renewables industry, as it is investing heavily in all industries. The irony here is that because they don't have anything like the US Clean Air Act, they are making wind turbines with the most polluting methods and materials available. They have no controls on the pesticides and fertilizers used on their farms. Their products contain poisons long outlawed here. They still use leaded gas, for crying out loud. The list goes on and on. They may produce and install more wind turbines than we do, but if you think they are greener than the US, then I'm speechless.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
As for the list of technologies you suggested, none of those are what is called a 'mature' technology. The availability of parts and technical knowledge is one limiting factor that slows adoption of those things. When I say they are not ready, I'm not saying they won't work. I'm not saying we can't use them. I'm saying that unless someone does a lot more work to get those technologies ready for global mass market use, they aren't ready. For example, why would a country like the Phillipines or Korea build a solar plant? The cost of building a gas turbine plant is 1/10th the cost of building a comparable solar plant (cost per kWh over the lifetime of the plant). It could be cheaper to build a solar plant, but right now it's not. The time it takes to build a plant is also a factor, since you have to borrow the financing before you start building, and it doesn't start to pay off until it's complete. Because of the lack of experience, solar takes longer to build than it should right now.
gunslingor1
not rated yet Dec 21, 2010
All good points, but when you refer to making these products ready for the market, this is of little concern for someone serious about implementation with enough finacial backing. These technologies really are nothing new. The electric car was invented over half a century ago, ethanol was invented before gasoline, and fuel cells were invented in 1890, before the combustion engine I think.

If we put half as much effort into producing these technologies as we did to produce the gas engine in the 1920's, we would have had these technologies 30-40 years ago.

I'm trying to get you away from this idea of more studiying required because it has been used as an excuse to not implement for the last 40 years. Many scientists, including myself, have been put through this process; studying something to improve society, developing a solution, and having it stuffed in drawer in case some auditor comes looking to see if your working on improvements. This is what car/oil companies currently do.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2010
The technologies, including fuel cells, are ready for implementation. That doesn't mean there aren't design challenges, there are, but there are always design challenges even when building a generic bridge; if we take your stance, we would just study bridge construction until all these design challenges magically disappear. Once a concept has been proven, which it has, you need to go into the implementation design phase, which we haven't. Technological progression has been intentionally slowed to a stand still.

China is as bad if not worse than we are, probably worse. But America controls the worlds oil and China knows it, they've tried breaking into this market and we created a genocide situation in Africa by delivering guns to stupid people, making it impossible for them to develop the area. So now they want to overtake us in green tech and make oil obsolete, and we are letting em.

Since we control the oil supply, US policy has far reaching consequences, and we should change.
A_Paradox
not rated yet Dec 21, 2010
gswift, your comment/s
As to your tree ring idea: It's not quite that simple. Two trees within sight of each other can have vastly different rings, so comparrison isn't that easy. One tree could have been on top of a hill and another in the shade at the bottom of the hill. One can be near a stream and another not. Streams move over the life of trees, surrounding vegetation, like other trees which compete for water and light, can grow and die. Exposure to wind can change as surrounding trees grow and die. It's almost impossible to match up exact years from different trees in different places, and mummified trees like this are nowhere near abundant enough to construct a continuous record

Is what you say based on first hand knowledge or research?

I agree that there must be many problems confronting a dendrochronolgist [apart getting grant money and from getting relatives to take their chosen profession seriously]
A_Paradox
not rated yet Dec 21, 2010
gswift, your comment/s
As to your tree ring idea: It's not quite that simple. Two trees within sight of each other can have vastly different rings, so comparrison isn't that easy. One tree could have been on top of a hill and another in the shade at the bottom of the hill. One can be near a stream and another not. Streams move over the life of trees, surrounding vegetation, like other trees which compete for water and light, can grow and die. Exposure to wind can change as surrounding trees grow and die. It's almost impossible to match up exact years from different trees in different places, and mummified trees like this are nowhere near abundant enough to construct a continuous record

Is what you say based on first hand knowledge or research?

I agree that there must be many problems confronting a dendrochronolgist [apart getting grant money and from getting relatives to take their chosen profession seriously]
gunslingor1
not rated yet Dec 21, 2010
Paradox,

Tree ring growth is counted and averaged over given areas, its not like they only look at the ones in the shade or on a hill. He is speculating, as am I about how I would approach the use of this technique.
A_Paradox
not rated yet Dec 22, 2010
tree rings: I'm no expert, but there is a saving grace for trees in that they don't walk around. This should mean that for any given tree in its good or bad location [3 rules of real estate apply] the most significant aspect of the pattern of growth rings ought to be relative width within *that tree's* set. I read, long ago, that the construction date of a particular, stone-age, raised pathway across a swamp in SW England could be dated to 3807 or 3806 BC by dendrochronology. I thought that was *so* cool! [see http://en.wikiped...et_Track]
gunslingor1
not rated yet Dec 22, 2010
Sounds cool. I just hope these guys aren't going out there and cutting down 1000 year old trees just so they can count the rings. I've been watching recent archiology and deep sea exploration documentaries and these guys are being brutal and unprofessional with the subjects they are studying.

Like I saw these guys studying red wood trees hammering nails into them just so they could climb them cheaply. I saw the deep sea guys go down and grab an entire bush of 1000 year old tap worms that died as soon as they were brought to the surface. I've seen worse things on these shows.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
I haven't ever done tree ring analysis, but I've read quite a bit about it, recently and in the past. It's a very subjective process. Ideally you want to have a range of samples to compare and you look for patterns. Some trees have better rings than others, and tropical trees don't have discernable rings most of the time. It helps if you get a bunch of samples all from the same kind of tree as well, since different kinds of trees have different growth season patterns, so for example it might be extremely difficult to compare the rings of a broad leaf tree to the rings of an evergreen tree from the same region. The actual process of making ring comparisons is so subjective, that to the best of my knowledge there isn't a computer program that can do it very well. It takes hours and hours of mind-numbing time with a microscope, taking measurements and assembling a graph of the ring structure. You see, it's not easy to say for sure where one ring starts and the previous ring ends for examp
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
From what I have read, it's easier to use sea shells than tree rings, since shells are usually deposited in continuous layers of sediment so there's an abundance of overlapping samples to choose from. Shells are also generally well-preserved over long time spans, as opposed to wood, which decays most of the time. Of course, that doesn't work in places on dry land. :)
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2010
You see, it's not easy to say for sure where one ring starts and the previous ring ends for examp


I agree with everything except this. It is pretty easy to tell. most trees dont grow as quickly if at all during winter, this always shows up clearly in the growth rings unless temperatures are kept at summer levels.

Anyway, most of these are subjective which is why they never give exact values, rather a range of values. The range of values given by calculation using rings should be 95% accurate, thats what a range is for; if the range is not 95%, then they are just plan lying.

The range is almost always further narrowed down by using other methods such as ice sheet samples, geology, human records, fossil remains, etc. In the end, these calculations are never perfect, no calculations never are unless you have all information which never really occurs in the real world. So I have some faith in this technique.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
OH OH OH, don't mistake my comments as trying to debunk the use of tree rings for finding dates. They can be VERY accurate. It's just that it takes a LOT of work to go back very far beyond the lifespan of live trees.

I should clarify: What I'm talking about when I say it's hard to tell where one ring ends and the next begins is not in terms of counting the rings. I'm talking about proxy methods of trying to figure out things like how hot/cold or wet the summer/winter was in a certain year by looking at the thickness of a single tree ring. They attempt to graph the thickness of a single tree ring from samples of many trees and get an idea of what the weather was like in a certain year. That's HARD to do. Figuring out the age of a building by looking at tree rings used in the building isn't nearly that hard, and it's usually dead-on accurate.
gunslingor1
not rated yet Dec 22, 2010
I agree. measuring the length of a tree rings and averaging over a given year only tells you the quality of growing conditions for that year. If a tree doesn't grow that much, it could be due to lack of rain, lack of light, lack of CO2, etc. So yeah, all these tools are useless unless used with other tools. Plus I guess it would be hard to match up the rings and say this ring on that tree is the same year as that year on this tree, but I'm sure they've figured it out.

Anyway, using these and other methods, I think they have created a fairly accurate view of the planets atmosphere since shortly after the great bombardment period. There are limitations to the model, but it is the best we got, and it does indicate danger on the horizon, regardless of who analyzes the results.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
There are limitations to the model, but it is the best we got, and it does indicate danger on the horizon, regardless of who analyzes the results


Danger on the horizon? What kind of danger, how much danger, in which places, and when? What are the causes, and to what degree? Is there anything we can do? How much can we help one place, and how much will we hurt another place if we do something, and to what degree? What are the costs of different options, and what are the benefits versus doing nothing or doing something else? How urgent is the problem for the places where there may be a problem, and is there anything we can do to help? Should we do anything to help? Are we morally obligated to help? Do we do more harm than good when we try to help? There are myriad examples of cases where our best efforts to help weren't so helpful. Who decides? Who pays? Should everyone help, or just rich people?

Do we have answers or do our answers lead to more questions?
gunslingor1
not rated yet Dec 23, 2010
The issue isn't quite that complicated. People were asking the same questions when governement started regulating the advertisment of cigarettes. The danger stems from the record of CO2 levels compared to mass extinction events, CO2 levels always rose during these times, as a result of meteors or volcanos etc. But during these times, CO2 levels were never as high as they willl be in 50 years, and that is scary. What are the causes you ask? Pretty obvious at this point, no one has proposed anything plausible other than humans to account for the increase, and I find it hard to believe this was a predicted result of pollution back in 60s that just happen to be caused by something else like natural cycles just a few years later. A lot is still unknown and it'll remain that way until the worst happens. Are we morally obligated to help? That is a personal decision, but most people are greatful for planet and care about their children, so yew, most of us are. Who decides? The people.
gunslingor1
not rated yet Dec 23, 2010
But this is all symantics when you, as you do, beleive we should modernize simply because the technology is modern and better and possibly because people are dieing. The thing you need to see clearly is that everything points in the directionof this modern tech, it has for 40 years, and still the people aren't given the right to choose the modern tech. We are only given a single option, gas. We have no say where our power comes from, most of which is coal. Is people were given the choice between electric and gas, renewables/nuclear and coal, and we still choose mutual destruction via coal, then so be it... I would move on. But the people haven't been given the choice and we have been screaming for it for years. Even when a succesfuly product is brought to market, if it was more succesful than intented, they compromise the design or simply stop producing it to maintain a cozy relationship with the fuel producers. EV-1 was pulled when we wanted to buy. Prius efficiency has dropped.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2010
Yes, and no. The issues are complex and they overlap in unfortunate ways. Look at nuclear power for example. Anyone who is worried about AGW should support nuclear power, wouldn't you think? But they don't. Lots of treehuggers are also anti-nuke throwbacks from the babyboomer hippie generation. So you get organizations like greenpeace that talk about AGW out of one side of their mouth and then file thousands of law suits to block construction of nuclear power. Heck, Greenpeace even tries to block the solar power stations by filing law suits. Then there's things like landfills and dumping trash into the ocean. Those are bad, right? But that's carbon sequestration too, so it's not all bad.

Mileage has dropped on all cars due to a change in EPA standards. The actual mileage didn't change, just the measurement system. Adding ethanol to gas also hurts mileage compared to pure gas. Prius' do get less efficient as the batteries age though, straight from the first charge cycle.
gunslingor1
not rated yet Dec 23, 2010
All industry has environmental consequences, risk analysis is required. When the risk analysis is completed in an honest manner, there is no question which way we should go.

Yes, solar can have devesting effects on local wild life as can hydro to some effect, but we are not facing a local problem, we are facing a global cancer epidemic and a global, possibly catastrophic, change in climate. Its a no brainer.

True, the uninformed environmentalist often opposes nuclear, but these tend to be the same guys who point at a cooling tower and say "look at all that smoke"; i.e. they have no clue what they are talking about. Add to the fact that Bush implainted spies in Green peace and thats that.

Risk analysis is key, and the groups you are refering to and the questions you ask are not those of the ones who have done the risk analysis for all these technologies, they have an agenda whether nodel or not. They dont desire the best solution, because it doesnt point in their direction "."

More news stories