Serious climate change

[jim king]

I have never heard this before, the arctic was once a jungle.

By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer Alicia Chang, Ap Science Writer – Thu Dec 16, 2:21 pm ET

LOS ANGELES – On a remote island in the Canadian Arctic where no trees now grow, a newly unearthed mummified forest is giving researchers a peek into how plants reacted to ancient climate change.

That knowledge will be key as scientists begin to tease out the impacts of global warming in the Arctic.

The ancient forest found on Ellesmere Island, which lies north of the Arctic Circle in Canada, contained dried out birch, larch, spruce and pine trees. Research scientist Joel Barker of Ohio State University discovered it by chance while camping in 2009.
"At one point I crested a small ridge and the cliff face below me was just riddled with wood," he recalled.

Armed with a research grant, Barker returned this past summer to explore the site, which was buried by an avalanche 2 million to 8 million years ago. Melting snow recently exposed the preserved remains of tree trunks, leaves and needles.

About a dozen such frozen forests exist in the Canadian Arctic, but the newest site is farthest north.

The forest existed during a time when the Arctic climate shifted from being warmer than it is today to its current frigid state. Judging by the lack of diverse wood species and the trees' small leaves, the team suspected that plants at the site struggled to survive the rapid change from deciduous forest to evergreen.

"This community was just hanging on," said Barker, who presented his findings Thursday at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.

The next step is to examine tree rings to better understand how past climate conditions stressed plant life and how the Arctic tundra ecosystem will respond to global warming.
Since 1970, temperatures have climbed more than 4.5 degrees in much of the Arctic, much faster than the global average.

Barker also plans to conduct DNA tests on the remains.

[northwoods1]

There have been many dinosaur fossils found north of the arctic circle which would seem to indicate climatic conditions were much different when they were around. But they have also found many different kinds in Antarctica. And from what I understand they were able to live in antarctica  , even at the south pole , only because at one time what is now the south pole was located near the equator and it has moved due to continental drift? Yes that is what the scientists say... ???
Around here where I live I am constantly reminded of how much the climate has changed in the last 20,000 years. Almost every land feature that exists here has been created by the receding and advance of the last glaciation, all this land here was covered under ice as deep as 1 mile thick and relatively not very long ago It is not uncommon to find trees under the layer of clay called The Valders Till, which is mostly 20-30 ' deep all along the eastern edge of this state. They were crushed and buried under the advancing ice, mostly all fir trees.

[jim king]

northwoods1 :

As I have said before I for one am quite pleased with climate change or my farm near Balsam Lake in Northern Wisconsin would still be under a mile of glacier as you said.

[Toolman]

Core samples drilled years ago found evidence of that. That is why there are huge oil reserves up there. You need plant and animal life to make it. I'm with Northwoods, if not for climate change, we certainly would'nt be living here right now.

[Bandmill Bandit]

Climate Change is an indisputable fact of evolutionary history.
Global warming is a figment of a scientific imagination that reside in a none winter climate. That 4.5 degree warmer temp occurred ONCE in 1998. The last 3 years have been colder, longer to the point that the Polar Bears, seals, Narwalls and other norther wild life have been stressed more than any of the few warmer years leading up to 1998  stressed them. Enviroment Canada's temp tracking in the north has that region at just a little colder ( half a degree or so)  now than it was in the 40s and 50s. That put the temp about 5 to 6 degrees colder than the propaganda would have us all believe. Just talk to any one working up there I the oil patch. They will tell you that the last 2 winters have been the coldest they have ever drilled in up there and this winter is setting up to make last winter look like a "holiday in Hawaii" . Snow fall seems to be less but the cold is deeper and longer according the people that work there.

   

[easymoney]

 it is starting to be a colder winter in tennesse than in a lot of years past.
i wonder what explanation the folks that have been preaching globol warming will have for it.  they have been saying that the glaciers are melting and that the ocean waters is rising and soon some of the low lying cities will be under water.

[SwampDonkey]

There has been different finds up there for years, what was this a few metres/kilometres north of the last find?  ;)

Some of the hype you see in these so called documentaries on the north are a bit exaggerated. They are claiming some places never thawed, well they did maybe not every year. Take the site of the York Factory in Manitoba. That place has shifted and changed in the 200 years the site was established. The river has even shifted which is natural for any darn river long before cars, aeroplanes and coal fired electric plants. Heck, the HBC recorded in it's journals that they couldn't use the rivers in parts of the prairies to float furs down stream, they dried up about 160 years ago. Some summers later on they couldn't use paddle wheels on them. Suzuki said we were heading into global cooling back in the 70's. :

[Bandmill Bandit]

Most of the Environmental crap is evaporating methane from the pile of BS that most of it is. Especially when It comes to atmospheric pollution. I do believe it is something that we need to be aware of and implement responsible stewardship to protect. How ever as has been the case through out history NO ONE is willing to address the real core issues. On this planet there is one system upon which all the rest depend for its life giving power to release their own life supporting power. Without it everything dies. If we look after that one resource everything else will look after it self because this resource is the one resource that the entire infrastructure of this planet is built on. It is the corner stone of all that lives. WATER. H2O.

no one is willing to step up to the plate and really be counted when it come to addressing the care of that resource.

The sun looks after a large portion of air borne pollutants that are light enough to be drawn to the outer layers of the atmospheric system through the "HOLES" over the polar regions. That why we have the Aurora Borealis and Australis. I wont go in to the science be hind it but it is profound and amazing and yet no one will talk about it because it contradicts the environmental pundits credibility.

Back to water
Sea water is the single most critical purifier for everything that supports life on this planet. While the rain forest are important there would be no rain  forest with out the massive kelp forests that occupy the ocean. The oceans produce between 60% and 70% of all our oxygen, Hydrogen and a log list of other elements and gases that make our air usable including methane. With out CO2 the rain forests would cease to exist as would the Kelp forests.

Now add to that the human factor that dumps all manner of synthesized man manipulated products in that system and you have a recipe for disaster. Add a few organization like Monsanto and Pfiser and a long list of other completely irresponsible organization that have ZERO regard for human life much less any other life form and you have a prefect environment for a prefect environmental disaster of proportions that would make the worst Nuclear disaster seem like a minor brush fire started by some careless camper.

I could write a book on this topic and i know i would get the support of most of the people on this forum.

I would ask all of you to look around your place of birth and life. How far do you need to look to see the effects of the chemistry that has become so common place on this planet? Tell me you don't see an ever increasing reduction in common native vegetation that was the habitat of so many of the little critters right on up to deer, moose, elk, bear, cougar and the rest. There are no sky scrapers for miles and yet the critters are gone. The brush is drastically reduced or gone. where is the silver sage, the wild roses, crocuses, buffalo beans etc etc  that were so common 50 years ago on the vast plains of this continent? 

It is not the hunters  that have caused those reductions and while urbanization has had an affect, it is not urbanization that has affected those animals 100s of miles from the nearest metropolitan area. Indeed many of those very critters are adapting to life in the city be cause we are make our metropolitan park and recreation areas free of the very chemistry that is destroying and emasculating our rural areas to a point that they will one day have a hard time supporting the wind that will sweep the desert that they will be come. The rain will be be driven by that wind but the water will have no life giving power be cause it will be a soup of man made chemistry that can not live or give that life to a dieing planet. With out the water we might as well have an H2S atmosphere. It wont matter. Clean up the water and the air will be purified because the water will be able to do the job it is designed to do.

     

         

[mrcaptainbob]

Global warm is a FACT!!! Why else are there no more glaciers as far south as Kentucky?!! And Al is right. They're all gone now because of us! We've been depleting them for thousands of years before we were even here!

[Bandmill Bandit]

Oh Yes i did forget about all the farts produced by all that great southern cooking. That is the one thing i did not account for. :D

[Texas Ranger]

Yup, those bean burritos are tough.

[northwoods1]

I'm always a little puzzled when I sit back and listen to people talk about global warming, climate change, the weather and this entire topic.

The discussion always seems to degenerate in to a lot of jokes about how cold it is here and there, "how could the globe be warming when it is so cold" "record snows" and "record cold" and the like... all that talk designed to give doubt to the theory that the globe is "warming."

more or less because they are making a political or social statement about who should run this country and how....

that is all a waste of time as far as I am concerned and I'll also say that the climatic changes that are occurring, have been occurring and will always be occurring on this planet is something

everyone needs to be concerned about!!

Anyone who wastes there time trying to disprove the idea of global warming is not spending there time very wisely. The fact is it is warming... and it is is cooling in places... but in a nutshell, it IS changing! And these changes are gonna effect everybody,, hello.... The way we live, what we eat, where we live, the whole ball of wax. This is not debatable at all, just a fact. Nothing to do with political parties.

I don't see enough people talking about the important issues they just want to take sides on the "global warming" issue... it shouldn't be about taking sides we should be talking about how we are going to adjust to the changes that are coming, who cares about why it is happening? Even if you don't think the climatic changes are caused by mankind they are still changes and they are still going to effect everyone on this planet. This is a fact! Plain and simple...

If a person looks into and learns about the changes in climate the earth has undergone in even the past few thousand years it is easy to see and apparent that there where times when the climate did change, and quickly at times. Why? Who knows... but it did.

[Bandmill Bandit]

I'm always a little puzzled when I sit back and listen to people talk about global warming, climate change, the weather and this entire topic.

If a person looks into and learns about the changes in climate the earth has undergone in even the past few thousand years it is easy to see and apparent that there where times when the climate did change, and quickly at times. Why? Who knows... but it did.

You are correct in most of your statement Northwoods but as a Canadian I really don't give 2 hoots who runs your country. Hell we cant even find some body to a half decent job of running this one and it has 1 tenth the people and about half a again as much land to look after. Quite frankly I don't think either of the parties in your country have the ability to run it either. Both parties have become exactly what it is they set sail to escape from on a little boat called the May Flower over 300 years ago. Our country is headed the same direction. Go figure! The more things change the more the are the same! the human race is not capable of pulling up its own socks regardless of how educated we THINK we are. so far EVERY society that has ever had the privilege of occupying the surface of this globe ultimate denigrates to the lowest possible common denominator and then vanishes from the planet. Following generations find the remnants of these great and powerful societies and then interpret what is buried in context of the time that they live in, through extrapolation and fanciful theories that are based on ASS U ME ptions perpetrated by people that never walked in the shoes of the people that lived back in the historical time. Are these theories right? Probably not! Are They wrong? probably not! So where does that leave us? We have no way of knowing for sure.

Hell we don't even know for sure what happened in Dallas TX on the November 23, 1963 and many of us on this site where sitting in a school room some where when it happened. All we know is that a man was shot and he died.  Once you attempt to get past that point, every thing else is speculation.          

Yes we need to be responsible in regards to climate change but the eternal evolution on this planet very cleary demonstrates that the human factor is in deed a non factor when it come to that issue.

Water how ever is another matter. The irresponsible chemistry that "We The People" are allowing will kill this entire planet long before climate change will have even a minute affect on how we live. Now that scares me.  

[barbender]

The problem for me is when debates turn political, like Northwoods is saying. I can't tell fact from fiction in a lot of the climate change controversy because the parties sharing the information all have an agenda. I think the climate is changing, is it man made? Maybe a little, I don't really know. But I'm not getting behind some cap and trade policy some stand to get rich from. It's obvious to me that the climate has been in a constant state of fluctuation, really I'm more concerned about real pollution like mercury, fertilizers, people's lakeshore septics leaking into the lake, etc. We can't even get a handle on these types of things and we think we can go and alter the make up of the atmosphere?

[mrcaptainbob]

I agree, Barbender and Bandit....It's been going on for ever. Humans most likely affect it, but to what degree? (No pun intended..). I'm not a fan of indiscriminate waste, as I'm sure most of us feel that way, too. Using what's available is just a natural thing to do. The planet has and will change. Whether we like it or not.

[Don_Papenburg]

Global warming will flood the coastal towns ??  As the polar caps melt ?  No buy that house on the coast without worry .  You see as ice melts the water volume is smaller than in its solid form. Your beach property might even expand.

[SwampDonkey]

They say the Canadian Shield is still rebounding from the last ice sheet that slid across the continent. And it's about 40-100 km thick in places. Them big lakes out in the midwest are getting shallower they say. ;D I think someone pulled the drain plug if you ask me. If I was going to run from the sea, I guess I would head to the high spot of the Shield, which was the first dry land after the first flood. ;)

[DouginUtah]

Don,

It's not the ice that is already in the oceans, it's the ice/snow that is on land that could melt and raise the ocean's levels, i.e., Greenland and Antarctica. There is a tremendous amount of frozen water on Antarctica. At one time I thought that ice melting would be trivial as far as raising the level of the oceans so I did the calculations and was surprised at what the effect would be.   

[Toolman]

The idea that these politicians think that they can stop something that has been occuring since this planet was born is unbeleivable arrogance. We can be responsible stewards without getting extreme and resorting to environmental socialism. One major volcanic eruption on this planet could be all it takes to change this planet for hundreds of years. It's happened many times before. This planet could shake us off as quickly as a dog shakes off water from his fur. This planet has changed,will continue changing and there is'nt a *DanG thing we can do about it.

[Gilman]

If all of the ice on Antarctic and Greenland melted (5.4E6 + 0.6E6 mi^3 of ice) and the ocean area didn't increase then the oceans would raise by 22 feet (7 meters)

[Warbird]

If all of the ice on Antarctic and Greenland melted (5.4E6 + 0.6E6 mi^3 of ice) and the ocean area didn't increase then the oceans would raise by 22 feet (7 meters)

No they wouldn't.  You have not calculated in the land masses shifting and raising due to the billions of tons of ice that are no longer weighing them down.

[Kansas]

I still go back to the same thing I said on another thread. I don't know if carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. I really don't care. Lets use those emissions and create oil from algae. Pull the plug on Chavez and the Arabs. The technology is there. If we use that CO2 then it becomes irrelevant whether it is the cause of it. Plus we don't have to put our soldiers in harms way defending the Middle East. Not to mention drastically improve our trade imbalance.

[SPIKER]

I still go back to the same thing I said on another thread. I don't know if carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. I really don't care. Lets use those emissions and create oil from algae. Pull the plug on Chavez and the Arabs. Not to mention drastically improve our trade imbalance.

at current design stages getting fuel of any real amounts from the algae growing is still all wet :D  :   While it can be useful in an experimentation stages and could make use of vast south west dry areas that are full of sun the ability and costs to keep air CO2 going into and through the water systems costs a great deal of power that must be generated.   Using that power to generate Hydrogen is a better more direct use for a fuel source.   that hydrogen can be burnt, or stuffed through fuel cell tech and turned into electricity remotely.   

We would be far better off to begin making synthetic diesel fuel with Nat Gas and converting new production vehicles to a straight Nat Gas as a fuel.   Check up on RTK stock (RENTECK) company making jet and car/truck ready drop in diesel using a process known as "Fischer-tropic" and can make fuel with just about any type of carbon feed stock including residential trash, commercial trash such as Bag-ass from sugar cane making.  then CLNE is Clean Energy (think Boone Pickens guy) which is the company converting cars & trucks to run on Nat Gas directly and also make the fueling stations to re-fill the cars/trucks.  both are lower carbon footprint companies.  There are several others but these two seem to be farther ahead on the actual production phases.

Mark

[SwampDonkey]

I thought Pickens threw in the towel, no Government handouts.

[Brucer]

If all of the ice on Antarctic and Greenland melted (5.4E6 + 0.6E6 mi^3 of ice) and the ocean area didn't increase then the oceans would raise by 22 feet (7 meters)

Check your numbers, Gilman. My ice volume calculations are in the same ballpark, but when I divide by the surface of the worlds oceans, I get an ocean rise about 10 times as high -- either that or the earth is about 24,000 miles in diameter.   :D

Greenland ice alone would cause the oceans to rise 7 metres (20+ feet) if it were all deposited in the ocean. That's enough to incapacitate every major seaport in the world.

No they wouldn't.  You have not calculated in the land masses shifting and raising due to the billions of tons of ice that are no longer weighing them down.

Which would make the situation worse. But current thinking is that it will take a very long time for the land masses to rebound.

Lets use those emissions and create oil from algae.

There's a lot of good research going on with "oilgae". It has a number of things going for it:

• it can be made using seawater.
• it uses atmospheric CO2 and sunlight, so it won't increase atmospheric CO2 significantly.
• it would use the massive existing infrastructure that we use to distribute liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Experts talk a lot about electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, but the don't mention the problems of distributing the electricity and hydrogen.
• there are plenty of suitable locations in North America to grow and process it.

It's not the whole solution by any means, but it's an important part of the picture.

[SwampDonkey]

No they wouldn't.  You have not calculated in the land masses shifting and raising due to the billions of tons of ice that are no longer weighing them down.

Which would make the situation worse.

Only way that it would be worse is if the volume of land changed, which it wouldn't.  I submerge a block of wood with my hand in a tub the water level rises. Then take my hand off the block, doesn't the water level drop? Decreased displacement. ;) The surface of the earth shifts since it's riding on molten material. While there are areas of subduction along fault lines the result is something gets uplifted elsewhere. Volume decreases as ice melts to water, liquid water is denser. Salts in the water increase density to. And what is the average temperature of the water globally after this melting? This could only be predicted. Density is 62.4 lbs/ft³ (avg) in the range of 40-70 degrees F, but increases from below freezing and decreases after 40 F again. I bet it's a lot colder in the bay of Fundy than it is at Daytona Beach. It also gets colder with depth. Then obviously the temperature is increasing to melt this ice, so a whole bunch of this extra water is going to saturate air. Did this get factored in to? Nope!  Get your rain coats on. :D

[northwoods1]

Then obviously the temperature is increasing to melt this ice, so a whole bunch of this extra water is going to saturate air. Did this get factored in to? Nope!  Get your rain coats on. :D

This is a good thread , everyone is really thinking 8) and I think swampdonkey may be right. If you read in the bible the book of Genesis it talks about how from whence the river came it shall return, and how important the water is on this planet. If the ice begins to melt it will be releasing all this HO2 back in to the system to be falling as precipitation or be evaporating in the natural cycle. It could cause it to rain more or precipitate more severely. We could be even seeing that happening now. The problem with judging weather patterns is we do not have enough accurate information over a  long enough period on this planet for our observations to mean anything. Record highs and lows, record snowfall, record rains, droughts... we are only talking a couple hundred years of detailed observations on the north American continent,  what is that supposed to amount too? we can only look at records of the past to know for certain that a lot of major changes have occurred in the climate.
I am also puzzled when some people are of the opinion that humankind is not able to affect the climate ??? I think I can give a number of examples how this can happen :

[Warbird]

I am also puzzled when some people are of the opinion that humankind is not able to affect the climate ??? I think I can give a number of examples how this can happen :

Me, too.  Like when I belch.  It definitely effects the micro-climate in my general vicinity.  Farts are much worse.  Catastrophic, in fact. 

[northwoods1]

I am also puzzled when some people are of the opinion that humankind is not able to affect the climate ??? I think I can give a number of examples how this can happen :

Me, too.  Like when I belch.  It definitely effects the micro-climate in my general vicinity.  Farts are much worse.  Catastrophic, in fact.  

If I lived up in AK I would walk outside everyday and feel privileged, more than anything probably, that I would for the most part be able to see the land as not had been touched and changed by the hand of man. You should see where I live :D :D and how much it has changed! In what... since about 1840 actually! :D :D 1st they came and cut down all the trees. And I don;t mean some.... I mean all. Then it was the period of forest fires that came. Where I live you could stand and not see a tree above waist high for miles. That affected the climate here. Can you see how? Now it is all wooded here again. Those kinds of changes are changes. To think they are small and insginificant, well how do you know for sure?

[Warbird]

I have similar feelings, northwoods.  There is a very good chance my feet have walked on earth that no other human feet ever have.  This means something to me.  It bothers me that Alaska has become a 'fad' and people keep moving up here.  The harsh winters keep many away, yet the population still grows.  You should see how "touristy" they've made Denali National Park.  A part of me thinks it is a travesty.

However, none of that has anything to do with whether or not what mankind is doing to this planet is wrong or unnatural.  We are to be good stewards and we should use what we have responsibly.  Does this mean that if our normal activities change the climate, we are all bad and should stop breathing?  Down with the pesky humans?  I think not.  ;)

[SwampDonkey]

The ermmmm  : uninformed used to say a certain area here in central NB was untouched by man. These same folks didn't realize that they were walking and taking pictures and driving to lakes and forest now accessible by roads that were used extensively by guide outfitters before their grandfathers were even born.  They canoed and hoofed their way in and all the oldest camps have since burnt from forest fires. :D :D I've got tons of photos here in these books that show a whole whack of camps that have been gone a long time ago. It might surprise a good many where man has been. ;D

[Warbird]

The odds are pretty high I've set food on at least a tiny patch of land where no other human has walked.  Unless we all walked exactly the same path through Arctic tundra where there are no paths.    It isn't that important.  The point was that I've been to extremely remote and lonely places.

[crtreedude]

Mankind's impact on the world is a numbers game. One person can't do much, heck, one person has a problem keeping his lawn from going back to nature if I am any indication...  :D But, to give an example, here in Costa Rica, 40 years or so ago it was nearly all forest, now it is down to 23 %. It has effected the climate without a doubt because all those trees in a jungle used to make the rain fall so regular you could just about set your watch by it. Now, not so much. People in the tropics all over have observed this, heavily forested areas stabilize the weather patterns, especially rain.

Anyone who doesn't think mankind impacts nature in a big way, just go out and start drinking straight from streams and rivers and let me know how it works for you. (please don't, I am just making a point). It used to be you could, don't go trying it now. You still can in some places here in Costa Rica, but not around urban environments, in fact, don't eat the fish either.

There are 6+ billion people on the planet. There is a tipping point that is eventually reached where an organism has overpopulated the environment. We know it happens with rabbits, and then you get a die off. Some of us have seen it with deer. Why would we think that people are any different?

Just like it took Lake Erie catching on fire before we decided perhaps we were destroying our water supply (I am old enough to remember the attitudes back then) it is probably going to take something as dramatic before we realize that the air we breathe, and the weather is also impacted by us.

But really, we are most likely going to start cutting back on oil due to it getting harder and harder to extract (which means costs more) before people start willingly changing. After all, the military is predicting that by 2015 significant shortages of oil will become a problem for them.

[SPIKER]

In the last few years OIL consumption in the USA has actually gone down as have the mileage driven.   Many think it is due only to the great rescission but it has actually been going down for farm more years than many think.  the curve had decreased in the way it was increasing not yet peaked and leveled out stayed steady then since 2006 it has decreased.   This has as much to do with the better produced cars EPA regulations on power plants and the like as well as an overall better use of pollution controls in factories ect.   

While Carbon emissions are increasing in China & India there are little WE in USA can do other than try & get them to agree to not do what we did in the early 20th century.    It is already late for China as the amount of waste created is easily overwhelming the ability to deal with it.  Open pit dumping is creating all sorts of nasty problems that we rarely if ever hear about.   One thing is they have sort of sen the problems we created here and seeing it happen there at a much higher rate and are starting to push for cleaner & greener tech such as wind, solar energy generation & higher use of water dams ect.   They are still building a lot of coal fired plants though many are looking to be converted later to gas from what I have heard on rumor mills.     What we need here is more push for cleaner tech such as the wind & solar tech to force the change here from Coal at least.   EPA has already pushed for better mileage from our cars and people are one of the biggest changers as we are doing more with less and conserving more than ever.   I drive as little as possible and try & keep everything tuned up and tires inflated ect as I cant afford the 3buck gas as it is let alone waste it.  20 years ago the attitude was totally opposite as it is now in 1/2 a generation we are making the needed changes.  Just think what happens in 20 more years?@?

help out if ya can recycle dont waste dont want more than is needed ...

Mark M

[Bandmill Bandit]

Hey CR
You pretty bang on the money. But take a look at most of what you wrote. I can reduce it to one word. WATER.

Yes the air we breath is important but it is the water that makes all the infrastructure work to clean the air and every eco system on this planet needs water to perpetrate it system and/or species.

Water is to this planet what blood is to every living thing on this planet and water is the main ingredient of that blood regardless of colour, type, plant or animal.

With out it we are just another mars or one of the other planets.

If we look after the water the rest will look after it self because what must be implemented to restore and maintain our water supply is much more drastic than any thing that we can even try to do to clean the air. Every thing that we do to clean the water will have an immediate impact on the air. not so much the other way around.

On the forests and jungles; if we want to clean up the water we need to restore the forests and jungles so that the in earth systems to process and hold water to allow the above earth systems to process/produce water vapour and atmospheric gases.

Yes there are near 7 Billion people on this planet but less than 1 billion of them are producing in excess of 90% of the water system pollution that is affecting the whole planet. That doesn't include the ONE company that is playing with our genetic foundation of food production that will not only assist in the destruction of our water system but will render much of that food supply toxic to life on this planet.

I will point out just one condition that is called Celiac disease. Preliminary data from research coming out of Europe and Canada is indicating that the condition is a response to a build up of Glycosates primarily in the liver and possibly other organs in the body.  The project has 4 years left to completion but Monsanto is trying hard to get the project stopped. Glycosates are the main ingredient in round up and the preliminary data is showing that a small amount ends up in the gluten part of the grain kernel.

You might ask how that is possible since RoundUp is a "systemic non-selective herbicide" that kills every thing it touches?

Glycosates have an interesting chemical and bilogical make up that I do not completely under stand as I am neither a chemist or a biologist.

What i do know is this. Monsanto was the first to market with the RoundUp version of a glycosate base herbicide over 30 years ago. Monsanto will never publish the fact that round up for weed control was not the ultimate goal. Indeed; It was but the first step in a process of genetic modification of the "herbs" that were being genetically redesigned to LIVE through the application of a NON-SELECTIVE herbicide to be used in our food supply.

Enter the "RoundUp Ready" group of cereal and oil seed that our governments have ALLOWED patents registrations for and then LICENSED them for use in the Agriculture Industry and ultimately our food supply. Monsanto is driving for patents on all of the most common grains and crops on this planet. This is the real threat to life on this planet.  

Just think what that means and how the water  system of this planet will spread that garbage throughout the entire planet. Super "WEEDS" are already identified in Canada.

May be we should classify them among the first of the new Dinosaur species that will one day ravage and destroy this planet.

Perhaps the first Dinosaurs were not the product of an evolutionary process but rather the mis-adventure of a genetic engineering project run a muck.        

             

[Cedarman]

 On Fox News, Piers Corbyn an astrophysicist from the UK, predicted we would be in a mini ice age in 25 years.  Supposedly he predicted this cold winter.  He says our weather is mostly influenced by the sun and we should expect colder weather in the future.
Anyone in the east disagree today?
Short term, (a few years weather) can vary widely from the long term trend.  Average temps have been going up for quite a few years, but supposedly leveled off the last few with the poles being colder the last few.
Proof is in the future.  You can pick whichever "scientific" group you want to agree with for now.

[SwampDonkey]

As long as those fellas are getting a pay cheque they'll be happy to write about anything someone will take notice to. ;D

[Bandmill Bandit]

On Fox News, Piers Corbyn an astrophysicist from the UK, predicted we would be in a mini ice age in 25 years.  Supposedly he predicted this cold winter.  He says our weather is mostly influenced by the sun and we should expect colder weather in the future.
Anyone in the east disagree today?
Short term, (a few years weather) can vary widely from the long term trend.  Average temps have been going up for quite a few years, but supposedly leveled off the last few with the poles being colder the last few.
Proof is in the future.  You can pick whichever "scientific" group you want to agree with for now.

I don't think I will follow any "scientific group" at this point. that is tatamount to "following Jimmy Jones or David Koresh"!

As far as rising temps that trended ended in 98 and we have reversed to just a bit lower than where it said to have started to rise in the late 70s;

HOWEVER

If you look at the real Data and NOT the LOST data that the HOCKEY stick graph was based on, the actual numbers appear to be pretty much in line with what the glacial core sampling project is revealing for a trend over the last 16 or so thousand years. roughly a 60 to 70 year cycle wit ha variance of roughly 2.5 to 3 degrees with the odd nasty 1 to 7 year jump or decline. What is really interesting is that the increase in human population doesnt even begin to show and affect any where near what the major volcanic and earth quake events show for in the ice samples. some how I think i will put a lot more fauth in the ice samples then the Al Gores and David Suzukis of the world.

When the Ice core project started a few years ago those guys were both expecting big news worthy results and contributed major money to the project. they have stopped funding it and Al Gore has tried to stop the project with no luck on. His funding has been replaced and more than doubled by several governments and private organizations.

Why?

Because it seems to be the one way we can really get at some sort of factual truth on this topic and it is showing a lot of a correlation to the legends and mythology of oral tradition through out the world.

What is really interesting is that once again the legends and mythology of oral traditions left behind by historical and pre historical societies is once again proving to be more accurate than the current "scientific THEORY".       

[Brucer]

He says our weather is mostly influenced by the sun and we should expect colder weather in the future.
Anyone in the east disagree today?

Well, having seen the news and talked to my in-laws, I can see where you'd be thinking it's getting colder.

Here in the west, however, it's pretty DanG mild for this time of year. We already lost half our snowpack to a rainstorm a couple of weeks back, and now that the snow's just starting to head back to normal, they're forecasting rain tomorrow >:(.

Short term, (a few years weather) can vary widely from the long term trend.  Average temps have been going up for quite a few years, but supposedly leveled off the last few with the poles being colder the last few.

Nope, the poles sure haven't been colder the last few years. Greenland has been experiencing record ice loss and it's accelerating since 2002.

Someone from England can get away with predicting a colder climate in the future. When the planet cools down, England gets colder. If the planet gets too warm, the Gulf Stream starts to short circuit, and England gets colder. Kind of a lose-lose situation ;).

[Warbird]

And once things have cooled enough, ice forms again, the Gulf Stream corrects itself, and England warms back up...  seems almost cyclic.  Or something.

[SwampDonkey]

Just last week they complained no ice on the Arctic to seal hunt yet this year. I don't know exactly what it means. Could very well have been many years like that, they only report on the now and memory gets a little foggy looking back 25-30. I've had to go to climate records from NOAA to prove how foggy some memories about the past weather was around here. :D In 1981, we had to mildest winter ever, locust trees leaved out in February. Later they died from frost in March, but it wasn't real cold, just below freezing.



Snow at Serpentine Lake (c. 1960's). Grandfather clearing the roof.

[Bandmill Bandit]

Hey Brucer
On the Greenland thing, if you do a little research you will find that one of the primary reasons for that ice loss is most likely caused by ever increasing volcanic activity UNDER the glacial ice than from global warming of any kind. Studies under way in Greenland are pointing that direction as more and more data is gathered.

As far as the poles being cooler that last few years all you have to do is talk to a couple of the ice road truckers that work up there and you will get about the most honest and objective answer you will find. Their livelihood depends on the cold as well as their very life.

At south pole the last few years has had wider ice pack to the point that it has affected the mortality level of the penguins during the nesting and brooding season. Some of this is thought to be the marginally  cooler temps lasting from 2 to 6 weeks longer and the ocean current having deviated some what the last few years. That same deviation is affecting the great barrier reef and kelp forests along the south coast of Austrailia. for the most part he affect in the open water areas has been positive and the kelp forests are show significant signs of recovery. AND yet again it appears to be a cyclical thing that may well be occurring through out the entire global ocean.

You may well be having a "warmer" winter out there but i can tell you that this has been one of the coldest winters with and early start on this side of the rockies out here on the prairies for many years. Average snow so far is less, at least on the prairies but the mountains are slightly above average so far. Before you say it has been a warmer winter you better wait till you see when it warms into the spring time.

The number of frost free or near frost days has a much greater affect on annual average temp than the how cold the average daily temp is. We have had one very short Chinook so far this winter that didn't even get us warm enough to get barely slushy for more than 2 or 3 hours. Winter started here a week before Halloween and it been *DanG cold ever since.   

 
   

[Brucer]

On the Greenland thing, if you do a little research you will find that one of the primary reasons for that ice loss is most likely caused by ever increasing volcanic activity UNDER the glacial ice than from global warming of any kind.

I frankly dislike the term "global warming". It's completely misleading. What concerns me is the practical effects of climate change. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet, whatever the cause, is the canary in the coal mine. And so I do a lot of research on Greenland.

There's a 2007 reference to a thinning crust in northern Greenland causing accelerated ice loss, and there are several recent references to increased earthquake activity (probably due to  ice loss). However, I've not come across any references to volcanic activity. If you can point me at any studies on volcanic activity, I would very much appreciate it.

There have been quite a few new discoveries this year regarding Greenland. Two independent studies in February found that there is a steady flow of warm water (i.e., 4 C / 39 F) into the glacial fjords, and that subsurface melting is about 100 times greater than surface melting. No one suspected this.

A report out this month shows that sudden surges of water (large rainstorms, sudden drainage of surface lakes) have a major effect on glacier travel. Again, completely unexpected.

And not so much a new discovery, the latest ice balance numbers show that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet continues to accelerate.

As far as the poles being cooler that last few years all you have to do is talk to a couple of the ice road truckers that work up there and you will get about the most honest and objective answer you will find. Their livelihood depends on the cold as well as their very life.

I would very much like to talk to some ice road truckers. If you have any contacts, I'd be interested.

At south pole the last few years has had wider ice pack to the point that it has affected the mortality level of the penguins during the nesting and brooding season.

Floating Antarctic ice has been increasing for a few years now. Grounded ice is decreasing. The East Antarctic ice shelf appears to be in balance, but the West Antarctic ice shelf is showing a net loss of ice. Overall, the Antarctic ice shelf is losing ice (at least for now). Floating ice doesn't affect sea levels -- grounded ice does, when it melts.

Before you say it has been a warmer winter you better wait till you see when it warms into the spring time.

I was just trying to illustrate that while the East has been experiencing colder weather to date, the opposite is happening in the West. Neither condition is a valid indicator of planetary temperature change.

We have had one very short Chinook so far this winter that didn't even get us warm enough to get barely slushy for more than 2 or 3 hours.

I read a report last year that described the Chinook as a north-south band of warm air that shifts slightly east or west. That's why it can cause such sudden temperature changes. Apparently this band has move further west (to our side of the rockies) and that's why we're seeing these sudden melting events.

[D Hagens]

Yeah so like after reading all of this I'm under the impression that it's going to keep raining for the next two weeks?  :D And how will all this global warming affect the swamp loggers. : :

[SwampDonkey]

The volcano activity is in Iceland, not Greenland. And has been a threat to settlement there for a very long time. Baffin Island in Canada is a huge store of glacial ice to and there are huge mountains there that people go and climb for recreation.

[SwampDonkey]

According to the 30 year data used to update the frost hardiness zones we haven't change any here in NB since the last updates in 1967.  ;D Our biggest threat has been higher incidence, than the national average, of cancer due to pollutants coming east in the wind from the more industrial areas. Can't see it, can't smell it, can't be.  :

[Bandmill Bandit]

Hey brucer

That 2007 study you are talking about is the same one i am talking about. I watched a discovery channel bit on green land.  I think it was 2 show event if i remember right.

One theory on the thinning crust is that there is an increasing heat build up from deep volcanic activity and that is causing the crust to turn molten because of the extra heat. So i guess it would be a combination thinning/crust deep volcanic activity.

On the chinook thing; Give that sucker a good hard push so it gets over on this side of the Rocks for a week or two.

On the ice road. My Brother has a couple of friends that drive it every winter. I will check with him and see where they are at. I don't think they would have a problem talking to you. The one that I talk to about once a year when i drive up north to visit my brother says the last 10 years or so have been colder winter temps with less snow and more wind. I guess this year the colder temps are about the same as last year so far and getting to be some pretty heavy snow as well.

One other thing i heard from a research assistant on the glacial project that is helping compile that data is that the total ice on the planet does not appear to be to be changing so much as relocating. She didn't give me the details as we were at a formal function and couldn't chat a lot but she says the data on global ice totals from ALL known ice reserves is changing but it is more shifting location than disappearing. Actual total Ice is about the same as it was in the 1950s and yes there is more floating ice the last few years but there was a lot more floating ice for a few years in the early 1900s as well 1915 still holds a significant position as one of the worst ice flow years in naval transport history. more later

I am going to Europe in March and I will be staying with her parents for a week so will get a chance to go to the university with her and talk to a couple of the profs involved in the project. Her mom is my Cousin.       

[jim king]

I just did a Google on - volcanic warming - and as always with this topic there is something there for everyone.  I think in another thousand years humans may be smart enough to know what is happening and why.

Some,  like this link are interesting:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39632361/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Greenland:
http://www.medindia.net/news/Volcano-Deep-Down-Could-Be-Melting-Greenlands-Ice-30702-1.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news96823193.html

We have a long way to go.  Just ask old Al, he seems pretty quiet these days.  The very profitable global warming scare is no longer an easy sell .

[Brucer]

On the chinook thing; Give that sucker a good hard push so it gets over on this side of the Rocks for a week or two.

Looks like it's going to be heading your way around the end of the week. Don't know if it will make it over the Rockies or not.

... the total ice on the planet does not appear to be to be changing so much as relocating.

Ice shelves -- floating ice -- don't make any difference to ocean levels when they melt. Ice sheets -- grounded ice -- do make a difference. Greenland ice alone can raise the ocean levels 7 metres, which would shut down every seaport in the world.

There's good evidence in the ice record that when Greenland ice was melting, Antarctic ice was rising (and vice versa). But right now we're seeing Greenland ice melting and West Antarctic ice melting, well East Antarctic ice is in balance. So the big question is, will one of them turn around in the next few years?

Regarding the links Jim posted ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39632361/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Basically says that Volcanic activity in Alaska in 2008 fertilized the ocean, causing an enormous growth in phytoplankton. This stuff is the bottom of the ocean food chain and it also generates about half the planet's oxygen (and consumes a great deal more CO2). The authors' say that  the extra phytoplankton in 2008 hardly made a dent in atmospheric CO2.

Well, this years record Pacific salmon run on the west coast (totally unexpected) has been traced back to the 2008 eruption and the resulting growth of phytoplankton.

However, any notion that these tiny plants could have a short term effect on atmospheric CO2 is silly. Phytoplankton get their CO2 from gasses dissolved in the ocean, and there has been a great deal more CO2 added to the ocean than the atmosphere.

http://www.medindia.net/news/Volcano-Deep-Down-Could-Be-Melting-Greenlands-Ice-30702-1.htm

This is another report on the same event reported in 2007, about the earth's crust thinning in northern Greenland. The crust is already thinner there than in the centre of the island, so this could indeed explain the faster melting of the northern part of the ice sheet.

http://www.physorg.com/news96823193.html

Here's the summary for that 2007 report:

"A team of scientists announced today confirmation of a link between massive volcanic eruptions along the east coast of Greenland and in the western British Isles about 55 million years ago and a period of global warming that raised sea surface temperatures by five degrees (Celsius) in the tropics and more than six degrees in the Arctic."

The report is incomplete. What it doesn't say mention is that the amount of CO2 generated by that volcanic activity could not possibly have produced all the CO2 in the atmosphere at that time.

There has long been a link between the high temperatures and a massive release of Methane trapped in frozen Methane Hydrates found deep in the ocean. It's believed that high C02 levels raised ocean temperatures to the point where more and more methane was released, causing more warming, leading to more methane release, etc. -- a positive feedback loop.

The only flaw in this theory was that there was no satisfactory explanation for what started the runaway release of methane in the first place. The Greenland volcanic activity supplies the missing link.

The message on that web page seems to hint that runaway heating was generated only by volcanic activity (which isn't possible). When you add in the runaway Methane release to the picture, the story is different: any major heating of the ocean, by whatever means, can trigger another runaway release of Methane.

[Bandmill Bandit]

Watched a discovery show last night on the Iceland volcanic eruptions of this past summer and what is currently under observation.

I guess the thing that should concern us the most is the way the information that is apparent is used and how the SPIN DRs try to articulate what based on incomplete data and is in reality nothing more then a theoretical opinion. With the volume of "theory" from this so called "scientific community" that is daily being debunked with much of the data proving to be out right fraud how can we really know what is truth?

do we really need this much "snake oil" in the world? Sure a lot of self appointed sales men peddling the stuff.


bottom line probably hasn't changed much over the last 10,000 (add as many zeros as you like) or so years.

[northwoods1]

bottom line probably hasn't changed much over the last 10,000 (add as many zeros as you like) or so years.

What do you mean , that the climate hasn't changed in 10,000 years?  ??? or more?

I hope that isn't what your are trying to say because that is so totally untrue it would be ridiculous.

[Bandmill Bandit]

bottom line probably hasn't changed much over the last 10,000 (add as many zeros as you like) or so years.

What do you mean , that the climate hasn't changed in 10,000 years?  ??? or more?

I hope that isn't what your are trying to say because that is so totally untrue it would be ridiculous.

I didn't say it "hasn't changed". I said it "hasn't changed MUCH". The problem with saying that way is that we then have to define the context of "much". That is where the pundits get all screwed up, because no one pundit is willing to sit down with the other pundits and define a standard context for "MUCH". There for we end up with too "MUCH" useless theoretical opinion based on too "MUCH" ass u me d theoretical knowledge.

Bottom line? NO ONE knows for sure! NEVER has! NEVER will!

Now let jsut get over it already and enjoy the beauty that there is in and on this planet and the life that occupies it.   

[Cedarman]

There is quite a bit of corn grown today where there was a mile or more thick sheet of ice just a few 10's of thousand years ago.  I do believe the climate is a tad different at those spots.  About 10,000 years ago the Mediteranian sea was rather empty because sea levels had dropped so much that land was above sea level between the Rock of Gibralter and Africa and the water in the Mediteranian dried up.  A little climate change around that area.  The Sahara desert has changed back and forth many times from lush green to arid dry.  Now that is a serious climate change.

[SwampDonkey]

A lot of the Maritimes was under sea water one time and that was before the last ice age. I've found sea fossils on the River Don, which is about dead centre of New Brunswick (east west), but maybe 20 % further north than south. Nova Scotia was attached to Africa, same rock strata as North Africa and fossil evidence.

[Bandmill Bandit]

i am not arguing any of that, but the last 10,000 years have been relatively stable according to SOME sources. Start moving out at the rate of 10,000 years per unit and the change is more pronounced but other than theoretical catastrophic events each unit of 10,000 years does not show "much" change. BUT every one does show steady change.

[Brucer]

9993 ... 9994 ... 9995

;D

[Bandmill Bandit]

9993 ... 9994 ... 9995

;D

yea you got it! 8) 9996... 9997... 9998... 9999... 10,000... opps that was a catastrophic change!
or was it?

[sharp edge]

SD
At one time the earth was smaller and water cover a lot more land. Now the earth is warming up and getting bigger. To see if this true I'm watching the hi-line wires. Look like they are getting tigher and will break. On the + side people who have 80 will soone have 81 acres.  8) 8) 8)

SE

[SwampDonkey]

I think some folk's heads are swelling faster than the earth, to much knowledge stuffed up there. Something has to give. :D :D