Precisely, besides, if the temperature difference between the cold and warm water areas gets to be too small we loose many weather regulating mechanisms, like the gulf stream.

I think that climate and global warming are two different things. The concentration should be upon the effects of the climate on the globe; forget the people, people are obstructions. By their weight alone, they contribute to the deep pressure of the globe; they are taking earth and moving it. An automobile is what? Metallic and non-metallic elements from the earth, the globe; the oil of the car is pulled from the earth and lighter in weight from that that has come out of the earth, same with the gas. These two work together to cause another substance of some minute weight and probably the three, oilt, gas, and carbon monoxide equals the weight of the crude oil. How many Toyotas were made in Japan last year.
In your lifetime, how many Toyotas were built in Japan and shipped over here?
Japan shut down all Toyota production because of earthquake damage.
So, maybe 10% of the world's car lots will have 5% less Toyotas.
The damage is done, though. Cars are magnetic! The core of the earth is magnetic! I think that the more cars we put on this earth, ohhh! Guess what they are making in Geneva, Switzerland! A 17-mile wide ring of magnets; a supercollider! Huge magnets! Women wearing manetic earrings will start leaning toward Geneva!
I mentioned that the core of the earth is magnetic. I say that because we are protected from the full force of the sun's rays by a field that surrounds this earth caused by the core.
I reported in this thread that sometime in th 1700s or 1800s there was a collosal solar eruption that turned the magnetic field of the earth back upon itself and cause some peculiar heat damage.
What will happen when the charge the supercollider and try their experiments? They will, in effect, cause a second magnet with a separate field possibly disrupting the first field and even for a brief minisecond allow the sun's force in.
That is one scenario that would stop me from even build something like that, let alone a car.
How many plants can root on the roof of a car?
For that matter, methane is highly combustible. Everything that is anything that can be consumed through natural processes produce methane as a by-product of consumption. That's why landfills are off in the distance and when the cover them up, it is usually a clay type of soil. See, the damage is done! All we can do is wait.
Sit down, watch TV, drink a beer or two . . .

ESSAN... you have answered the question that I asked of THEODORE and CAMLAX. They never answered.
These processes have nothing to do with Solar radiance, but are affected by gravity.

I am still waiting for THEODORE to tell me why Venus' climate is so different, in more depth than just saying that it is not a "water" planet.

You are silly, I never saw you ask me any question about solar radiance. Can you show my post in which I claim that earth's only power is solar? Please, refresh my memory and link my post where I state that. You are obviously on a witch hunt. Geothermal energy would not work if we only got power from the sun.


edit: Grow up, Stop attempting to lump everyone in 1 category.

Another choice, well found argument. I actually asked this question of all people on your side of the GW debate, never got an answer from anyone. Care to answer the post above from me, the one about "nifty" formulas manipulating raw data. That appears to be your last statement

Hmmm....

Theodore is right on the money. I put my money on him.

Your hired as my assistant.

I am the assistant to the assistant to the assistant, but we're all right.

Now we need to figure how to overcome the pressure that is driving the earth's protection onto itself.

Thanks, hun!

QUOTE(Essan @ Jul 18 2007, 12:51 PM)
Provides most of the energy and is the primary driver of climate

You forgot about Earth's internal energy and volcanoes
__________________________

First, the volcanoes are no longer putting out lava. Undersea volcanoes may be putting out mud and gas and the last killing eruption was a villiage that was covered in mud. So, the eruption may have ended. There are still earthquakes, a lot of them in places that have volcanoes, such as hawaii and the area around Cuba. The last lava eruption was Mt. Saint Helens in the U.S.; they're rumbling, but not as much as the other two. And there was the Kiril Islands next to Japan. There was about 75 earthquakes. On Hawaii there is constant earthquakes around 3 on the Richter Scale; constantly. Is the earth storing energy for the next orgasm, pardon the French or Latin. We just don't know.

The question is, 'What would cause lava to come out of the earth?'

I'm sure someone has said something similar, but I don't have time to browse all 48 pages before I leave work, so...

The earth has been on a warming trend since the last ice age. This is nothing new. The earth is getting warmer and has been measured, so saying it isn't getting warmer is ridiculous. Global warming itself isn't a myth unless you specify that it is entirely created by humans, which is also ridiculous. It's obvious we are contributing to it. However, the earth itself is contributing. Mount Pinatubo and Krakatoa released more pollutants into the atmosphere than we have. But again, yes we are contributing in a big way.

However, it is inevitable that the earth will warm. It's part of a natural cycle. It's happened over and over and over in the history of life on earth. The real problem is, do we want the warming to come faster or slower? Do we want to have a more hostile environment (for us) sooner rather than later?

The issue is way more complicated than either side makes it out to be. One says it doesn't exist, one says it exists because we caused it. Anyone who's spent any time studying earth science can see that it's not that simple, as much as we wish it would be.

Gah...I, uh, guh. How can I even respond to something so...so...

Someone help me out here before my brain asplode.

Edit: I'm talking to a vulcanologist right now who would like to have a word with you.

implode is the word, 'cause it is contagious

What question is that? Please format your posts and make them more comprehensible in English. What I took from your repeated question of "Ok with "nifty" formula though?" is you think I agree with the formula? I am not sure, maybe you meant that to sound tricky or something. If you go back through and your ability to comprehend what you are reading you should take away that I think its dangerous for the people with the most invested to be adjusting their own data. Especially when we tend to think as UHIE as a function of population, but there are case studies like Vienna floating around.

Yes, raw manipulation of data does occur. Lets look at an example. In medicine, drug tests must be independently verified, you dont want the company making the drug, marketing the drug, and testing the drug. That leaves lots of room for bias to creep in, are you aware of any studies done on bias?

A study was done in which genetically identical mice were sent to two different labs. Lab A was told the mice were smarter than the average lab mouse and would run the maze faster, Lab B was told the mice were less intelligent than the average lab mouse and would run a maze slower. The results come back, Lab A's mice run it faster, Lab B's slower. Theres lots of studies done like this about ethics and bias in science. When you start having certain expectations and you are responsible from start to finish it leaves the possibility of bias creeping in. In medicine we do double blind studies, in 2002 when mu and tau neutrinos were observed it was sent right off to other labs for verification.

In climatology you have people that believe in man made global warming, controlling the data from start to finish. Whats worse is data access from other institutions is often blocked. I am not saying all climatologists are unethical or purposefully mess up data, I'm just saying in other fields we do these things so the possibility is not there. Why would it be hard for an institution or government or IPCC to fund 2 or 3 simultaneous studies at once on the same thing, with different sets of researchers who are not affiliated and preferably from different countries? Am I to take it you are against independent verification?


Edit: Again your lumping keith. You are mad because I question, yet you claim to be scientific. If you ask your doctor for a second opinion and he gets hostile what does that say?

Noted, poor wording choice on my part, guess would have been better suited. Regardless that is not the point. People see and hear predictions based off computer models, the average Joe I don't think realizes these are guess about future climate. A guess is not proof of future climate.


Yes solar cycles do follow well describe patterns as per the gas model. Although you just finished yelling at Theo about how the sun is not the only source of heat for this planet, thus not the only climate forcer. Many things effect climate, you have been arguing this till you are blue in the face, climate is a chaotic and complex system. The best thing we have for a climate cycle is the milankovitch cycles, which occur over a time period so large we cannot even begin to guess at the thousands of years fluctuations between them. If you think climate is cyclic to point of it being predictable I suggest you hit the literature.



Have you read anything that I post, let alone understand the words I am typing? I agree with you on many subjects, you are so caught up attacking anyone that questions any piece of man made global warming hypothesis (which is really what it is) that you can't seem to understand anything anyone types no matter how sensible. Not as a slight, but is language barrier a problem?




.....that was my point.....



....See my above post, seems to be a reoccurring theme of reading comprehension.



Again see above post. You bet it is, but with the utmost regard for credibility. If you have no regard for things like bias, well then, you may preach sound science but you are not practicing it.




Whoa, Whoa, Keith, have a coke and a smile man. Not every time I post am I targeting you. This is a forum for the discussion of man's effect on climate. There are plenty of people in the world who until recently (probably many still and some that don't even know what UHIE is) thought basing UHIE reductions on population was a perfect way of doing things. Its a valid point that need addressed when talking about GW.

....There is a volcanic eruption every two weeks somewhere on earth. (averaged of course)

Edit: Earth quakes on earth are continuous, theres a 5.0 quake every 6 hours. Tsunamis cross the pacific every 3 months, Cyclonic storm occurs every every four days, Tornadoes touch down every 6 hours.

Our environment, its weather and climate are never static, never in a state of equilibrium. We live on a very geologically violent planet.

Yep, this also means we have more time than people say. More time we can learn before we make rash actions. The problem is its never portrayed that way.

When you hear in the media Sea levels could rise 7m, they conveniently leave out the part that says at current trends (which were really 90s trends warming has almost stopped since 02) over the next 1000 years. Not really a head line then I suppose.

I am happy to "bury the Hatchet", lets simply debate on the Science.

Greggk I cannot find the enthusiasm to reply to though, perhaps I should just mention Iceland, sub-sea vents, and leave it at that.
I would like to spend a few posts debating the Climate on Venus, and the extremes there. I believe in some senses the concentration of gases on that planet are driving, have forced, the climate on a one way path to self destruction, not the planet per se, but the climate, and atmosphere. Vulcanism, concentrations and make - up of the atmosphere etc. Also, I will need to confirm this before quoting it as fact, but my understanding is that the North Atlantic Drift has reduced in volume by almost 30% since records began. i have no problem with language comprehension, I am native from England, where my family have lived since 1066. Dont have time to go any further as work gets in the way

Amen. That is one of the major problems Keithco has, along with Reincarnated, they are intent on basing everything into "for" or "against" and then go about lumping others in categories. Obviously, they're not serious about discussions on climate change, and I wish they would grow up because having to read through their posts is giving the rest of us a headache.

To begin with, I answered that, but will do so again. Venus' climate is much different than that of Earth, and water, heat, C02, and surface pressure, among other things, has much to do with this. The only features Venus and the Earth share is that both planets are about the same in size and mass; however, the similiarities end there. Venus surely had water in its past, but did not allow it to condense.

Venus is just slightly smaller than the Earth, about 95% of Earth's diameter and 80% of Earth's mass. Both have few craters that show relatively young planetary surfaces. Densities and chemical compositions are similiar. But when you look closer at Venus, you see that it is very different from the Earth.

For one thing, Venus' orbit is almost perfectly circular, more than any other planet and has an eccentricity less than one-percent. Most people don't know that Venus' rotation is retrograde turning in an opposite direction than all the other planets in our solar system, with the exception of the planet Uranus.

Classical astrologers have always been fascinated by Venus and its cycles. A strange planet, it always rotates retrograde and has a nearly circular orbit about the Sun. Its orbit is synchronized in an odd way so that Venus always shows the same side of it face towards the Earth when both planets are at their closest to one another. There are metaphysical/deeper astrological matters connnected to this, but I won't go into that here.

Basics of Venus ~
Orbit: 108.200.000 km (0.72 AU) from the Sun
Diameter:12.103.6 km
Mass: 4.869e24 kg
Density: 5.243 kg/m^3
Minimum Distant from Sun: 108 Million km (67 million miles)
Maximum Distant from Sun: 109 Million km (68 million miles)
Minimum Distant from Earth: 40 Million km (25 million miles)
Rotation period about Axis: 243 days (retrograde)
Revolution period about the Sun: 0.62 years
Tilt of Axis: 177.178 degrees
Surface Gravity: 8.87 m/s^2 (0.90 x Earth's)
Average Temperature: 457 C degrees (855 F degrees)
Average Surface Temperature: 730 K degrees
Satellities: 0

Intensive scientific observations of Venus started in back in the 1950s, when it was discovered that the energy emitted by the planet, in radio wavelengths, measured Venus' surface temperature at almost 900 degrees F. That's very, very, very hot. Venus' surface pressure is 90 times that of the Earth and its atmospheric composition is 96.5% CO2, with almost no H2O whatsoever. Very different from our lovely planet.

In Venus' case the term "runaway greenhouse effect" is applied to describe the planet. Venus has a very rich CO2 atmosphere but even if Venus had any water in its past, the intense heat would have evaporated it. We know water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so adding it to the atmosphere would increase the greenhouse effect, causing more evaporation, raising the effect even more. From there it takes off ~ choking the planet.

However, the Earth is just cool enough to have water that doesn't immediately evaporate. The CO2 here on Earth also dissolves into the oceans, with the rest cast off by a process we know as the Urey Reaction named after the nobel prize winning chemist Harold Urey.

According to Urey, Co2 on Earth is locked up its rocks. But if the outer layers of our planet suddenly became molten, then enough carbon would be released to increase the Earth's surface pressure to about 30 atm, and we all would experience a rapidly cascading greenhouse effect like seen on Venus. The Earth recycles CO2, like that shown in plate subductions that melts to release CO2, like we see during volcanic eruptions. However, even this amount of CO2 release is so tiny that our planet's Urey Reaction solves it. Venus doesn't have this process.

Planetary scientists who've studied Venus stated that the majority of "water vapor was broken apart by Solar ultraviolet light into H and D (deuterium - heavy hydrogen - 2H) and OH (and OD)." H and D are light enough to escape the planet. D is heavier of the two, and its rate of escape is less. Analysis of the ratio D/H by planetary scientists helped them determine how much water Venus once had. The D/H ratio of the atmosphere suggests there may have been water on Venus in its past, in the form of vapor, or what can be called a "wet greenhouse."

There's been very good mapping of Venus' surface with imaging radar. Scientists have seen impact craters, volcanoes, lava domes, coronae, and lava channels, but continue to state that there's no evidence for huge amounts of water in Venus' past from that data, or from the probes that have landed on Venus.

So, Keithco, as you can see, Venus is not a true water planet like our Earth surely is. Most of the clouds on Venus are made up of droplets of concentrated sulfuric acid. Venus has a very extreme greenhouse effect, and is not a place where you would want to live. It is extremely hot and burning, and you wouldn't be able to breath, much less survive the surface pressure. Earth has a much kinder, highly fluid, cooler, wetter, and better balanced atmosphere compared to that of Venus.

I am not sure why people see Venus as such a good model for Earth. The two planets are very different, Venus has no known mechanism to deal with CO₂. Furthermore, Venus lacks a similar magnetic field as Earth's. This makes it very vulnerable to solar wind erosion.

I think Venus is often used as a scare-tactic of what could happen to earth. On Venus CO₂, makes up between 96-98% of the atmosphere, or 960,000 ppmv. On earth CO2 is closer to 300 ppmv. CO2 is deadly in concentrations at or above ~ 5,000 ppmv, so I would think at that point warming would be the least of our worries. I would rather not hang out here even if CO2 concentrations were only 1000 ppmv, your mouth, nose, throat and eyes would all be burning very bad at this point.

I am not sure what you want to debate, that Earth could end up like Venus? Venus' climate and problems are more than just CO2. The CO2 concentrations are only as high as they are because of the differences of Earth and Venus.




You would have to find the studies on NAD decreasing that much. The whole mechanism though is not understood, I don't think anyone knows whether NAD is decreasing because of climate change or whether the decrease helps force climate.

It is one of those things that are damn near impossible to study over a geological time scale, so like with the cloud example, we guess.

You'd be wrong...



Nature is their classroom. They don't need books... Their opinions are much more valid than reading a book or magazine then passing that info off as your own opinion...



I still don't believe you...



Yes. No.

<snip>

See above - nature is their classroom. If more were like them we wouldn't be in this toxic mess we're in...



My eyes must've glazed over. So, you agree that spewage can impact weather/temperature?



In your opinion... BTW - I think I've pushed your buttons when you reduce your musings to name calling...



...and *millions* of people who disagree...



The point was - science isn't always right ..."more the fool you"... ; )

This is good stuff. OK, I have read various reports and publications that suggest Venus did at some time, I mean geologocal time, have an abundance of water. Obviously something went very wrong (if the reading I have done is correct), any suggestions? Can I seriously use Venus as a corollary to earth at some point in time when both had oceans of water. And why is there a preponderance of CO2 in the atmosphere, why only trace amounts of nitrogen.... can we assume that that due to denaturing of other compounds as a result of higher Cosmic energy (as a result of long term radiation without a protective magnetosphere) actually allow for the effusion of CO2? Does anyone know what these compounds may have been, these are important questions I think.
What is the potential for the massive stores of carbon in our own world, largely in sinks that may not be stable, being released. At what point do these sinks release their CO2? Simply stated, there is a point when the Oceans warm sufficiently to become incapable of absorbing any more CO2 and they begin to become major contributors to CO2 gases in the atmosphere.
I am more honstly comcerned to keep methane and CFC's out of the atmosphere because they considerably more potent as Greenhouse gases, fortunately shorter lived though.

YES!, I have told this to sooo many people, most of them look at me like I am stupid.

See Keith, you are a sensible guy!

Sure thing, your welcome to believe that.With that I think its time we had a talk. Loving nature, caring for nature, being with nature etc, is all nice and well in the world of RW Emerson romantic era novels. Unfortunately we live in the real world and in the real world two things matter. Knowledge and results.Lets look at an example of people who were "in tuned with nature and cared for nature"In 1872 President Grant set aside Yellowstone as the first formal nature preserve in the world. More than 2.2 million acres.In 1890, it was believed elk were going extinct. Park rangers fed and nurtured elk herds till the population exploded.Even Teddy Roosevelt noted on his 2nd trip the elk herds had grown considerably. By 1914 there close to 35,000 elk in the park. Rainbow trout had been introduced, even though they were starting to crowed out the native cut-throat species no one cared b/c fishing was great. By 1915 Roosevelt realized their was a problem with the elk herds and urged for "scientific management" (He really means culling). He was ignored, instead the environmental park rangers continued to nourish the herd. Results get predictable.Antelope and Deer began to die, flora starts changing from overgrazing by the herd. Aspen and willow disappear from the park, Large and small animals begin to vanish. Park rangers in an effort to save herbivores start shooting predators, w/o the public knowing.Wolf and cougars were completely killed off, coyotes almost too, but then a national scandal about a scientific study broke out. It showed over predation was not the problem, it was over grazing from the elk herds. So killing off predators only made things worse.The environment continued to change, Aspen trees were gone, really gone. With them gone, the beavers had no similar quality of wood trees to build dams from. Beavers died out.As it turns out, what no one realized before, beavers were essential to water management in the park. Without the dams, the flowing meadows vanished in 1 summer, they did not return the following spring, more animals disappeared. Lots of those meadows are still gone today. By 1930 almost all major predators were gone from the park. It was a relief when people started seeing wolves in the 1960's, even though they, the park rangers, had been shipping them in and they were a different species.The problem though, wolves feed on smaller animals. During the majority of the year, the pack is not together and incapable of bringing down big game. Without the beaver and other rodents the wolves soon vanished again.Pretty soon the park service initiated a PR campaign to prove that excessive elk were not responsible for the problems in the park, even though they were. The campaign went on for about a decade, during which time the bighorn sheep virtually disappeared.So that brings up to about the 1970's. Bears are becoming a problem, they used to be considered fun loving fuzzy little creatures, and their close association with human beings was encouraged within the park. Bears regularly browsed trash, so people made sure to pile up their trash for tourist attractions. It got so extreme people even set places fat picnic tables for the bears. Except now there were too many bears and lots more lawyers in the US. So the rangers moved the grizzlies away, or shot them. The grizzlies became endangered; their formerly growing numbers shrank instead. The park service refused to let scientists study them, but once they were declared endangered, the scientists could go in.By now we are about ready to reap the rewards of our forty-year policy of fire suppression, Great job Smokey the Bear. The Indians used to burn forest regularly, and lightning causes natural fires every year. But when these are suppressed, the branches that drop to the ground and accumulate over the years make for a very low, very hot fire that sterilizes the soil. And in 1988, Yellowstone burned, bad. All in all, 1.2 million acres were scorched, and 800,000 acres, one third of the park, burned. Bare spots of flora still exist today, 20 years later, b/c of that blunder.And so on and so on. Anyway, It becomes a clear, cold, hard, inconvenient truth that no one, since the Indians were able to correctly manage 2.2 million acres of land. By the way, No one ever asked Indians how to manage the park, that they had been living in for thousands of years until they were kicked out by President grant, because the Indians managed the land very aggressively. Hunting some species to near extinction and holding them there, setting fires etc etc. People dont like this, People tend to think of nature as this serene static thing, unfortunately its not. Species, constantly rise and fall, Climate constantly changes, There is no such thing as a stable ecosystem here on this planet we call home.So whats my point?These people were some of the founders of environmentalism. Many of the first rangers live in nature, some right in the park itself. They did not set out to cause all these blunders they merely wished to protect nature. Well ok.Wait, you dont speak for all native people? So do all native people report the destruction of their environment due to man made global warming?I think you have rather idealistic, simple view of nature and living in it. This happens a lot, people want to "return to simpler times". If anyone here is a psychologist could they maybe throw out some guess as to why that is?Anyway, Graylady, How much time have you spent in a 3rd world country? Spent much time living in nature? Society, technology etc, protect us from nature. Many, many people die every year because they go off to visit nature and forget the rules. Nature is not mean, but nature can be cruel, nature is very unforgiving. All these people run around saying, we need to get back in touch with nature and go live in nature like this or that group of village peoples. Three questions for you, number one; If village life and nature living is so serene then why are the vast majority of people around the world stuck in these living conditions trying to get out? Really, take a trip to Africa sometime, and stay in a village. Have to worry about things like, diphtheria, malaria, hunger etc. Number two, do you think people, even in small villages dont alter nature for their purposes? All animals alter nature, ever see a termite mound? Number 3, If everyone lives more like "them", I would think that many areas of previously unmolested wilderness would be in danger of being inhabited by humans, kind of contradictory. Some kinds, you bet. I am not sure though you are following what I was originally posting, Dr. Hanson, seems to think that the majority of anthropological warming was caused by soot, from unclean fuels etc. Which makes a lot of sense since we do know that climate nor temperature is directly forced by CO₂. The saying CO₂ increases, so does temperature is not quite that simple. It is not actually a bad thing if say 60% of the anthropological contributions were from Soot. Soot levels are cheap to manage, easy to fix, and not relatively accumulative in the environment. Sorry, If my soot mechanism explanation was not clear, tell me what you are confused about I will attempt to clarify anything that needs clarified about it for you.Honestly I am not going to provide examples of this maybe someone else can give a nice long coattail list of names of people who support AGW and their politicization of the issue. If you think only "deniers" make the issue political, well then I dont know what to say. I'm not sure if there would be a word to describe that, maybe, selective-payer-attention-of world events? No my buttons aren't pushed, sometimes I get carried away in my sarcasm getting a point across. The point though, is that is wrong for you to assume that because I dont see oral history as valid scientific evidence, does not mean I think native people are uneducated. I happen to be African American, Italian and Anishinabe. That last one there means I am part Native American, in case you dont know who the Anishinabe are.Numbers don't matter, only what you can validate in the realm of science. I am really tiered of this consensus thing, also with the numbers thing. The vast majority of Europeans and Americans believed in Eugenics, doesn't make it right.No science, is not always right. What science does though, is attempts to correct itself for a better understanding. Using global warming as a political issue, interferes with good solid research and on pushes us down the path of ignorance. I am not sure why people are so uncomfortable saying we should study something more, politicians should not be interfering with the studies etc.Yea good questions Ill post more later but wife is rushing me out the door.

So you're saying that a college education is worthless? I mean, since it uses books, magazines, scientific journals and all that lernin.' I guess I'll just throw away that degree. If I had known that all I needed to have a valid opinion (cause scientific data means nothing, I guess) was to just stay in the woods, living off the land where I grew up rather than spend all that money on tuition, I could have saved myself a lot of time and money.



Yes, I'm glad the natives respect the earth and would never do something like, oh, allow an open pit diamond mine to be created on their land? Yup, those natives are waaaay more better than the ignorant, wasteful non-natives. You have convinced me.

Arrrrghhhhh! It is NOT man made global warming! It's humanity assisted global warming. That distinction has been made clear time after time on this thread - still it doesn't sink in.
What in hell good is that degree of yours if you can't get something so simplistic correct?



If everyone was more like them we'd all be respecting this garden we live on. It has nothing to do with anyone relocating to the northern realms. You're putting your spin on my words...and it's dizzying to the point of being sick from, and of, it...

I'm not prepared to respond to your entire post. It's far too lengthy and I have a job to get to...

If there's one thing that irks me to no end it's people putting their words into my mouth. I'll repeat myself *again* - it leaves a bad taste.



Why is it so important that strangers know you have a degree? It's seems a common affliction among many people here, on this particular thread...which is bloody weird, imo.



LOL! Have you any idea about those mines? Do they pollute the country side with the water they use in the process of acquiring those diamonds? Considering how toxic our waters are becoming (*not* from mining)... I guess it's possible, but not probable ; )
Diamond mining is far cleaner than other mining operations. But, I'd hazard a guess and suggest you, with your flaunted degree, just assumed diamond mining was as dirty as other mining ventures. You'd be wrong.

Diamond mining is closely monitored by a mixed board of representatives, including Natives, for environmental reasons. Too bad that can't be said of other mining ventures...or major corporations which continue to toxify the waterways and land.

FYI - because the northern lifestyle is changing - not only due to warming, but also because their food source, which is mostly from the regional waters, is toxic - alternative jobs are needed to sustain them. Diamond mines have to employ approx 70% of the native population. They have to live somehow, being as their traditional lives are going the way of the buffalo.

I would humbly suggest you read up on diamond mining.




Ok I can rephrase, Do all native peoples report the destruction of their environment due to man assisted global warming?



I wasn't spinning your words to suggest we all move North, the point is to live in nature and be in tune with nature such as you suggest people would need to move to nature, whether its the N or some rain forest. More people living in nature means intrusion upon unmolested habitat. Part of the problem with geothermal heating, allows people to build houses in more remote areas and in "untouched" wilderness.

And "If everyone was more like them we'd all be respecting this garden we live on" that is silly. Most people respect the environment. Altering your environment does not mean you dont respect it. This is the 21st century, almost every environmental protection board has representatives from "big industry" on their boards. You do realize that companies like Shell and exxon spend more money on protecting the environment than big conservationist organizations such as the Sierra club.

A complex question I am not sure anyone knows the answer too for sure. But lets take a shot.

We know Venus had water at some point, and we know oceans are key for dealing with CO₂, so that begs the question; Where did Venus' water go?
We have two possible answers.

1. Venus never had enough water to form oceans....or
2. Venus had enough water, but lost it at some point.

We know Earth and Venus as planetoids were very similar. Earth got most of its water via Asteroid and comet impact. Me personally, I think it is unlikely that Earth was hit that many more times than Venus. So I think number 2 is a better hypothesis. But why would Venus lose its water?

This is where position could have been key. Venus is closer to the sun than earth, so it receives more high energy radiation and it is naturally hotter than earth. Most of Venus' early water would have remained as vapor in the atmosphere. Here the H-O bond is very vulnerable to radiative reactions. We know through experiments that exposure of H₂O to higher energy radiation breaks one of the O-H bonds and leaves you with OH^- and H⁺ ions.

This is where our magnetosphere plays a key role. Solar winds are more than capable of ejecting small light weight ions and particles from a planets gravity well. On Earth this reaction happened as well, but our magnetosphere protected us from Solar wind. This kept OH^- and H⁺ ions in the atmosphere and allowed it to react again and reform water, eventually condensing as water back down into our oceans.

On Venus, the magnetosphere is tiny (compared to earth). Solar winds would have ejected much of the H⁺ ions into space. This leaves a very reactive species, OH^-. Which will react with other elements on the planet. The loss of water was all that was needed to kick start the "run away" greenhouse effect. So on Venus, oceans never got to form to the degree on earth, which would have been needed to deal the primordial CO₂, let alone CO₂ obtained through chemical reactions.





Yes they are important questions. Ones I am not sure will ever be able to be fully answered. Much of what we know about Earths early atmosphere is speculation and geological records. The problem with Venus, is ever getting to the surface to attempt to study its geological history.

I am willing to bet at one time Venus contained as much N as earth. Though as you said Cosmic energy plays a key roll here. Nitrogen ionizing to for Nitrogen radicals would have happened, but where did the Nitrogen go? N weighs 14 amu, while OH weighs 17. I don't think its safe to assume that the 3 amu difference kept OH on Venus, while N was lost. This small weight difference could not have been the only reason. I would speculate that the reasons for loss of nitrogen is due to the Venusian pressures.

N on Venus is a lifting gas. Much like He here on earth. On earth Nitrogen gas exists everywhere because of the lower atmospheric pressure. If you take a He filled balloon and let it go what happens? The balloon rises. On Venus, a balloon filled with nitrogen would do the same thing. At one point much of our atmosphere was He, but was blown off into space. If Nitrogen was once an integral part of Venus' atmosphere it would have existed very high (not all nitrogen, but the majority). The positioning could have more to do with it being blown off into space.

If you could somehow prove Venus was still losing its N and verify this, I am sure you would win a Nobel prize.




A good point and something that deserves much study. I would think, that a 2 billion year history would lead us to believe that sinks are fairly stable, yes they fluctuate with temperature, but not collapse. We know of times through our history where the temperature was much hotter than today, if our sinks would have collapsed then the runaway greenhouse would have started. This gives me some confidence that, while we can contribute to warming, collapse of earth's systems for dealing with CO2 is highly unlikely.

You also have to consider, that the earth deals with CO2 in more than one way. The oceans alone would never have been a solution to our current atmosphere. Photosynthetic bacteria and primitive plants are the reason our atmosphere is the way it is today.

There is actually what seems some sci-fi answers to Mans atmospheric CO2 contributions. I have heard some people kicking around the idea of engineering bacteria for High altitude life and "seeding" the atmosphere with them to aid in the removal of CO2.

At first glance this seems far out there but actually isn't.

We know there are some bacteria that traverse the atmosphere. We have also seen bacteria around toxic dumps evolve to break down very harsh substances, In fact we have even engineered some.

If we could put all those together we could easily solve the CO2 aspect of the problem.

Oh, so when you said that a native person's opinion is more valid than someone who has read about the subject, you weren't saying that the uneducated backwoodsmen who live in nature know more about science than, say, a scientist who learned from books?



Now it's you who are putting words into my mouth. I wasn't sitting here going OMG I HAS A DEGREE!!11! I was pointing out that you have essentially told me that I do not have a valid "opinion" on global warming because I chose to educate myself in the subject rather than remaining in the woods where I grew up (and had been living off the land). Which is so completely stupid, I wonder if you've ever read a book.



Yes. I do. Environmental geologist, remember? I'm also well-acquainted with geologists (some family) who study mines professionally. I have worked in National Parks studying the mines there (quarry, gloryhole, and open pit). I've also worked closely with people involved in the P&M open pit coal mine and people who work in Colorado kimberlite pipes. How do you know about those mines? Sorry to "flaunt," but you did ask if I have any idea about those mines.



I didn't assume anything. See above. I guess my "flaunted degree" in geology means nothing. See? Again, you're declaring that environmental education is worthless. Specifically, you said:



Becoming educated on a subject is to seek out all the information available, which yes, requires reading now and then. Someone who reads "a book or magazine" is helping themselves to make an informed opinion of whatever subject. You have a very mistaken idea of what it means to be educated. It is not solely "books and magazines," but it is also not solely life experience or living with nature. You strike me as someone who chooses to remain ignorant or doesn't care to learn beyond what's already entrenched in your head.



I agree. Ignorance is no excuse. Unless you live off the land, apparently. Then you can get away with all kinds of unsubstantiated, ignorant claims. Again, all that tuition money wasted. I wish someone had told me that years ago.

Yeah, Its almost like of those master card commercials...

4 Degrees~ 200,000 debt
Being told your degrees are worthless and you just should have lived in nature...Priceless.

...and I would suggest you read up on diamond mining in the north, which is what I was speaking about. You'll find that processes used in other mines do not apply to the northern mines. Again, it's much cleaner. Ecological studies were done *before* mining was permitted. Wildlife habitat being one of the concerns and air quality another. The land not being ravaged by the mining which would hinder it returning to its natural state after the diamonds are depleted.



"All native peoples”? ??? I'm speaking about Northern tribes, particularly my own...which certainly doesn't account for "all"...And yes, most northern tribes are impacted by pollution. The ocean is a feeding ground and is rife with toxic waste that fish and whales inhabit, which are staples for the indigenous people. Did I suggest destruction of their environment? No, I didn't. I said their lifestyle was being compromised due to pollution and *humanity assisted* global warming.
How can we have a debate when you can't seem to get what I'm writing, right?



Oh, Geezuz... I said the northern natives are in tuned to nature because it’s a matter of life and death for them...that is a fact. We're not. Which is another fact. I said *if* we were more like them - which means *respecting* this planet, as previously explained to you - we wouldn't be in such a toxic mess. Now, how does that translate into me saying we should live in nature's wilds? Again - that is your interpretation of my words - and, as usual, you're wrong.

You've discounted the oral history of the northern native elders (fyi-they pass the history along, not the children) - I said I'd trust their opinions before I'd trust some science book or scientist. Especially when it comes to dealing with their environment. What's not to understand? You're taking my words and putting your spin on them, then challenging me to defend my position, which you've gotten wrong. It's absurd!



If you believe even a scintilla of this, and the majority believe as you do, we're in big trouble. Most people didn't/don't give the environment a second thought, until Al Gore’s bandwagon approach – now it’s trendy to be environmentally conscious.
"Altering the environment"? You're joking, aren't you? We're *poisoning* it, irrevocably...imo. How is that “respectful”? Whatever Shell and Exxon are doing isn't enough. They're a few of the main polluters of our environment - why in hell shouldn't they be spending more? How can you possibly defend the indefensible? The production of oil and all byproducts is this planet's nemesis...still, here you are patting them on the back for supposedly cleaning up what is their mess to begin with… Unbelievable.

*Heavy sigh* Would you please show me where I stated anything remotely like what you're suggesting? Thank you. It would be appreciated.
My belief is hands-on knowledge is far more practical than computer out put.



I never said your opinion wasn't valid - that's completely untrue. I said I'd trust an elder's opinion before some scientist's... How did this become about you?



Talking with you is like playing a game where the rules get changed midstream. *You* brought up the diamond mines in the north - not me. Now, suddenly, you're talking about Colorado and the National Parks...???



I did "see above" - and was left with my mouth agape.
How can you even suggest I stated your environmental education is worthless? I never said such a thing. For you to suggest I did is completely fallacious. You put the spin on that when you went off on the "backwoodsmen" tangent... BTW - there are very few trees up there.





This is so absurd I can hardly believe it. Did I say I lived off the land? Yet, here you are, *again*, assuming things - like "unsubstantiated, ignorant claims" being made by me... My people live off the land. I respect my elder's and their knowledge, knowing they have no agenda, except to teach us to respect our land and not take more than we need from it. Which, imo, is respectful *and* honorable...
Camlax took a statement of mine and bastardized it for his own agenda. Now you're doing the same thing. The question begs *why*?

BTW – when I stated they “don’t need books” – it was reference to the oral history of the tribe, and their knowledge of the land, which doesn’t require reading books. Too, I realize it was a bit over the top – it’s not as if the children up there don’t go to school and learn from books. Obviously they do. I should've clarified, and didn't.
Too – they also learn the oral history passed down by the elders.

Amateur cracks iceberg secret

Untrained Person Triumphs Over Academia

it dosent matter man will kill itself with nukes before we die of global warming

That's the only thing left they can do. Like a last defense.

i can agree with that to a point

also if the the world is warming up why has it been one of the coldest winters on record here in southern Australia

Well, considering you said this farther down your post:



I think it's pretty clear that you would take the word over someone who happened to be "living in nature" over someone educated on the subject. I'm not saying that a native is uneducated, what I'm saying, if you had read, is that education requires much more than "living in nature." Sure, you can learn a lot, but it's a very one-sided, incomplete view. You can live in the Northwest Territories all your life and know the environment better than you know yourself, but that tells you nothing about the environments in the rest of the world. And if a scientist specializing in desert environments is next to a native who's lived in a rain forest all their life and I want to hear an "opinion" (as you keep using) on deserts, I'm not going to go to the rain forest native. But still, if there was a desert native next to a scientist who studies deserts, the most useful information I could get from the desert native (provided he hasn't done anything more than live in the desert) is whether or not he has noticed how his environment has changed. I'm going to ask the scientist what he knows, from scientific study, about deserts because he has made it his life's work to study them.

Again, I'm going to remind you of what you said:



I think the "they don't need books" is the most telling part of your post. You're welcome.



You did not initially say "hands on knowledge." You said things like "they don't need books." Scientists have hands on knowledge. To become a scientist, you have to go out into the field and get your hands dirty. It's a lot of hard work and takes years. And what do you mean by "computer out put?" Where is this magic computer that outputs information? (I could have used one and saved myself a lot of nights eating spam around a campfire). That data the computer has is collected by people during field work. And it's just as practical as hands-on knowledge because someone can come along later, look at the data collected by someone out in the field, and not have to tromp around collecting it all over again. If they want to collect it again, that's fine, but having information is essential. It would be like studying Calculus if no one had written books about it.



I didn't make it about me. I used me as an example when I took offense at your statements insinuating learning from books (etc) is to be discarded over some elder native's opinion. I could have just picked some random scientist out of the air, or used scientists in general, but I know from experience that people on internet forums will easily blow that off because it's some nebulous person that may or may not exist. I was trying to say "hey, from my own experience, this is what I know. Here's a very real, first-hand account." You turned it into me somehow "degree flaunting." I don't like even mentioning my education because I'm always afraid that I am somehow flaunting it. But sometimes, it's necessary to show that yes, I do know what I'm talking about.



Yes, I brought up the diamond mines, as an example of how natives are not always "living with nature". You brought up the "flaunting" of my degree (see above if you forgot) and then you asked me (condescendingly and with a "LOL" I might add) what I know about diamond minds. So I told you exactly what my mine experience was. I'm not "suddenly" talking about Colorado and the National Parks.

You asked me:

And I said that yes, I do have an idea about those mines and here's why. I'm not sure how that's "changing rules in midstream."






Again, if you didn't mean they "don't need books" and that their opinions are "much more valid" than someone who's read on the subject, please say so. To clarify, I'm not saying that a native's opinion is worthless or should be discarded either, but there really is a difference between someone knowing that the environment has changed in the history of their people and someone who knows why it has changed. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there historically very few trees in the Northwest territories to begin with, due to environmental conditions?)



I never said you lived off the land. If I used a "you" in that, it was merely general "you" pronoun flummoxing and I apologize. I didn't know that you were part o a native tribe. If you said it before and I missed it, I apologize. It actually makes much more sense to me now, knowing that you are part of that culture. I probably wouldn't have been so quick to jump on what you said if I had known that. But let me once again point out what I said above about speaking from my own experience. I was speaking from my experience as a scientist who has studied environmental science and you were speaking as someone who has close ties with the natives you were speaking about. I respect (now that I know) that you know what you're talking about from your own experience, but I hope that you would do the same, instead of accuse me of degree "flaunting" (since you were aware that I have studied this subject).

For the record, I never once said living off the land or respecting and honoring the earth is a bad thing. I took exception with your claim that a scientist's "opinion" on environmental science should be discarded in light of an elder native's "opinion" on environment, simply because the elder native lives there. You've shown that you have that view over and over again. If that's not what you mean, then clarify that, add a qualifier, or something. Don't just say "they don't need books" and expect the rest of us to chime in and agree (for those of us educated in environmental science). Again, knowing your background makes more sense now, but I still take exception to your initial statements, how they were presented.



You said, very clearly, "They don't need books" and "I'd trust an elder's opinion before some scientist's." Nowhere did you qualify that with anything other than flat out saying that you wouldn't take a scientist's "opinion" (again, your use of the word) because they haven't been living like the natives. From your initial statements, it seems clear that you have a lower opinion of people who have made it their life's work to study environmental changes, just because their lives haven't been spent with "nature" as "their classroom." Which is odd, considering above where I pointed out that science is hands-on, and to become a scientist takes years of field study.

But the fact that you accused me of degree "flaunting" still speaks that you aren't innocent of "bastardizing" either.



Yes, you should have clarified that. I had already acknowledged (in a PM to Camlax) that I don't agree with his statements that oral history isn't evidence. I've worked with historians and law enforcement (not to mention enough court dramas) to know that oral testimony is evidence and for most of human history, it's all we have (Read The First Fossil Hunters for a good example on how oral folklore has helped paleontologists).

I know that natives go to school and learn, but try to look at it from my point of view for a second. I have spent all my life studying the environment, from examining trees as a kid, to higher education. I tend to get a little prideful of that sometimes, but still, to see someone essentially say things like "they don't need books," and equating scientific study to mere "computer out put" is one hell of a slap in the face. For someone who's spent their life on the very subject this thread is about, to be pushed aside because a native says "stop screwing up the earth" (which is what we all know already), is insulting at the least. For me, it's especially stinging because I do come from an area where people live with nature, respect the land, etc, but those same people view "book lernin' " as a useless waste of time. They say the beans didn't grow this year because it didn't rain as much, and that's all there is to it. I want to know why there wasn't as much rain, but they don't care because the reality is that there's not as much rain and that's "all there is to it."

Again, I'm sorry if I reacted too strongly. I saw in you another one of those people who don't care enough to learn anything beyond a small section of the world, while I think acquiring knowledge is the most important thing we can do. It's essential for survival, growth, and making sure we don't screw things up.

Edit: stuff

Yes, that's what causes the lava to come out of the earth, the magnetism. The magnetism of the earth is condensing. We are 'choking.' Watch what happens when they fire up that atomic collider in Geneva, Switzerland.

atomic collider? whats that

I think he means CERN's accelerator, but who knows.

Off topic:

is that that thing with the thing that goes around fast and it borders like 3 countries or something weird. They stick atoms in it and they collide

The Large Hadron Collider I think.... but still not sure why