Marijuana.com

goldberry · 02-19-2005, 01:53 AM

Quote:

A parcel of studies looking at the oceans and melting Arctic ice leave no room for doubt that it is getting warmer, people are to blame, and the weather is going to suffer, climate experts said on Thursday. New computer models that look at ocean temperatures instead of the atmosphere show the clearest signal yet that global warming is well underway, said Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.

"The real place to look is in the ocean," Barnett told a news conference.

His team used millions of temperature readings made by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to calculate steady ocean warming.

"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.

The report was published one day after the United Nations Kyoto Protocol took effect, a 141-nation environmental pact the United States government has spurned for several reasons, including stated doubts about whether global warming is occurring and is caused by people.

Barnett urged U.S. officials to reconsider.

"Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.

His team used U.S. government models of solar warming and volcanic warming, just to see if they could account for the measurements they made. "Not a chance," he said. And the effects will be felt far and wide. "Anywhere that the major water source is fed by snow ... or glacial melt," he said. "The debate is what are we going to do about it."

Other researchers found clear effects on climate and animals.

Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that melting ice was changing the water cycle, which in turn affects ocean currents and, ultimately, climate.

"As the Earth warms, its water cycle is changing, being pushed out of kilter," she said. "Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet."

A circulation system called the Ocean Conveyer Belt is in danger of shutting down, she said. The last time that happened, northern Europe suffered extremely cold winters.

She said the changes were already causing droughts in the western United States.

Greenland's ice cap, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels globally by 23 feet, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly, Curry said. Already freshwater is percolating down, lubricating the base and making it more unstable.

Sharon Smith of the University of Miami found melting Arctic ice was taking with it algae that formed an important base of the food supply for a range of animals.

And the disappearing ice shelves meant big animals such as walruses, polar bears and seals were losing their homes.

"In 1997 there was a mass die-off of a bird called the short-tailed shearwater in the Bering Sea," Smith told the news conference. The birds, which migrate from Australia, starved to death when warmer waters caused a plankton called a coccolithophore to bloom in huge numbers, turning the water an opaque turquoise color.

"The short-tailed shearwater couldn't see its prey," Smith said.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66651,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3

Quote:

A Bush administration spokesman greeted news of the study with indifference.

"Our position has been the same for a long time," said Bill Holbrook, spokesman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "The science of global climate change is uncertain."

Zilos · 02-19-2005, 02:39 AM

Considering it was raining here a couple days before Xmas when we used to have nearly 18 feet of snow, this has really got me wondering. The winters here are seeming warmer and warmer every year. The local ski hill in town didn't even open yet and may not open, since there just isn't enough snow!

Quote:

The report was published one day after the United Nations Kyoto Protocol took effect, a 141-nation environmental pact the United States government has spurned for several reasons, including stated doubts about whether global warming is occurring and is caused by people.

Quote:

"Our position has been the same for a long time," said Bill Holbrook, spokesman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "The science of global climate change is uncertain."

And this just right out pisses me off! The US government just doesn't seem to give a damn one way or the other, aslong as they keep rolling in the money. How much proof do they need? Perhaps once the damage is irreversible, then they will acknowledge it!

PotShot · 02-19-2005, 06:36 AM

Quote:

"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.

Solar panels over Antarctica! Or maybe massive planting of trees, and other vegatation, to "breathe" up all the excess CO2? Maybe a reduction in paper use, improvements in communication skills is doing just that.

Legalizing hemp to be grown in the US might be a good idea too.

Or maybe solar panels on a small scale? Like developing countries? Or is the technology not adequate?

02-19-2005, 07:14 AM

That was the theme of my as yet unwritten novel...

To counteract the greenhouse effect ...a crop of cannabis was mass planted over all deforested areas of the globe (the Amazon, the almost arid areas soorrounding the Nile, the upper reaches of the Alps, etc.) as the most likely plant to take in every subniche and re-green the planet in order to avert mass Global Warming...

...it would work too... and supply an energy sauce with it's oils and textile source and pharmeceautical source...and oh yes, make the world a shiney happy place...

.
.
.
.

But being that thi si an unexact science

it would by needs be an unexact Science FIction novel, at least when sold to the Republican majority

S2 · 02-19-2005, 10:42 AM

Quote:

"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.

yet Irrational Poeple like These offer irrational debate like This

And naturally to assert that these bozos can compare with anyone who says anything contrary is to be an uncaring republican.

The growth rate of major greenhouse gas emmissions peaked around 1980 and has fallen since; CO2's growth rate has been relatively flat since the mid-1970s—a fact that Barnett's projections do not take into account. True, the data show shor term warming, but the absolute link between observation and cause is not a slam dunk for many scientists--some of them quite rational. Barnett's model does not account for solar output at all--output that is coming off of a recent period of solar maximium

Could there be global warming caused by humans? Sure. Is the debate over? Not for me.

Human activities may have averted the next ice age

goldberry · 02-19-2005, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S2

Could there be global warming caused by humans? Sure. Is the debate over? Not for me.

Human activities may have averted the next ice age

You don't concede that global warming is caused by humans, but if it is then it might even be a good thing? Is that what you're saying?

^_^truth · 02-20-2005, 12:15 AM

S2....yeah....you are scaring me a little here buddy

Please say you are joking. Please!

To argue that Global warming doesn't due partly to human growth is full hearty. Humans, by our vary existance influence nature. As we grow in numbers and use resources and convert them into currently un-usable substances we are also creating bi-products of elements that break away the ozone layer. As this breaks down we allow more energy from the sun to reach the planet than it has done in human past. And what does energy bring with it: Heat!

Please reconsiter your beliefs on this one S2, there is enough evidence saying their is global warning than their is to counter the claim. Unless you have some experimental data that we can all replicate in the lab leading to the conclusion that global warming isn't happening, concide to our point.

Higher Logic · 02-20-2005, 01:32 AM

I for one don't think global warming can be blamed on human intervention. I'm with the group of people who think global warming is a natural phenomenon that has been occuring in cycles since this planet was here. And I'm also with the crowd that says global warming is good for the planet, because plants thrive off of C02, thus releasing more oxygen into the air, which can, rationally, only be good for us.

The article was written poorly, someone needs to learn how to argue to appeal to someone, he turned off a big section of his audience by claiming anyone who doesn't agree with this theory is irrational.

Zilos · 02-20-2005, 01:52 AM

Are you kidding me?!? It's like your implying these scientists have some sort of deviant ulterior motive other than making sure we don't destroy our planet! Why the hell not try and lower green house just to be safe?

Havn't you ever heard of the saying "Better safe then sorry"?

goldberry · 02-20-2005, 02:01 AM

Quote:

And I'm also with the crowd that says global warming is good for the planet, because plants thrive off of C02, thus releasing more oxygen into the air, which can, rationally, only be good for us.

Eh thought you were joking there for a sec but I guess you're serious. More CO2 doesn't result in more oxygen. More plants result in more oxygen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Higher Logic

The article was written poorly, someone needs to learn how to argue to appeal to someone, he turned off a big section of his audience by claiming anyone who doesn't agree with this theory is irrational.

The "irrational" part of the article was a quote by the scientist. He did a scientific study on a problem and he's sure of his solution. I'm a programmer (and work together with other programmers) so I know where he's coming from. It's not about being pc, it's about coming up with a solution and if you're certain someone else is wrong you better make it clear (or it WILL cause problems).

Quote:

Originally Posted by S2

Barnett's model does not account for solar output at all--output that is coming off of a recent period of solar maximium

It does account for solar output. The article specifically mentions it!

02-20-2005, 12:15 AM	#7
^_^truth Sr. Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 429 Grams: 2,696.50 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	S2....yeah....you are scaring me a little here buddy Please say you are joking. Please! To argue that Global warming doesn't due partly to human growth is full hearty. Humans, by our vary existance influence nature. As we grow in numbers and use resources and convert them into currently un-usable substances we are also creating bi-products of elements that break away the ozone layer. As this breaks down we allow more energy from the sun to reach the planet than it has done in human past. And what does energy bring with it: Heat! Please reconsiter your beliefs on this one S2, there is enough evidence saying their is global warning than their is to counter the claim. Unless you have some experimental data that we can all replicate in the lab leading to the conclusion that global warming isn't happening, concide to our point. __________________ Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. Nietzsche

02-20-2005, 01:32 AM	#8
Higher Logic Web Developer Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 6,123 Grams: 5,802.63 Groans: 3 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 2 Thanked 58 Times in 33 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	I for one don't think global warming can be blamed on human intervention. I'm with the group of people who think global warming is a natural phenomenon that has been occuring in cycles since this planet was here. And I'm also with the crowd that says global warming is good for the planet, because plants thrive off of C02, thus releasing more oxygen into the air, which can, rationally, only be good for us. The article was written poorly, someone needs to learn how to argue to appeal to someone, he turned off a big section of his audience by claiming anyone who doesn't agree with this theory is irrational. __________________ Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

Remove Advertisements Marijuana.com Sponsor
Marijuana.com Advertisement	<a rel='nofollow' href='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a78e9dba&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE' target='_blank'><img src='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=6&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&n=a78e9dba' border='0' alt='' /></a>

02-19-2005, 07:14 AM	#4
Mamabudz Posts: n/a Grams: 0 [Check] Stock Portfolio Total Value: Gain/Loss: %	That was the theme of my as yet unwritten novel... To counteract the greenhouse effect ...a crop of cannabis was mass planted over all deforested areas of the globe (the Amazon, the almost arid areas soorrounding the Nile, the upper reaches of the Alps, etc.) as the most likely plant to take in every subniche and re-green the planet in order to avert mass Global Warming... ...it would work too... and supply an energy sauce with it's oils and textile source and pharmeceautical source...and oh yes, make the world a shiney happy place... . . . . But being that thi si an unexact science it would by needs be an unexact Science FIction novel, at least when sold to the Republican majority

02-20-2005, 01:52 AM	#9
Zilos Seasoned Activist Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,111 Grams: 2,784.12 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	Are you kidding me?!? It's like your implying these scientists have some sort of deviant ulterior motive other than making sure we don't destroy our planet! Why the hell not try and lower green house just to be safe? Havn't you ever heard of the saying "Better safe then sorry"?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Marijuana.com

Hot Products: