Go to BeeHiveSites.com to learn more!
Celebrate Earth Day!
By Greg L | 22 April 2008 | Humor & Satire | 68 Comments
Today is the official observation of “earth day.” To the extent your schedule allows, go out and enjoy God’s creation, think about being a responsible steward of His gift to us, and then visit CarbonCreditKillers.com. For a small fee, they’ll cut down a tree for you (which I hope they’ll put to productive use), send you a t-shirt that will let you tell the world that you offset a “carbon credit”, and send Al Gore a letter telling him that you’ve managed to un-do someone’s paying of a modern-day indulgence to the new Church of Man-Made Catastrophic Environmental Change.
There are other things you can do to celebrate “earth day”. Here’s a few ideas to get you started:
- Enjoy a fine cigar.
- Support our local economy by eating out tonight. Bonus points available for driving out of your way.
- Help supress crime by leaving your porch light on all night.
- Do some deferred maintenance on your PC by “defragging” your hard drive, or scanning for viruses. Mac and linux users will have to be more creative, perhaps by backing up their hard drives since they don’t need to scan for viruses or “defrag”.
- Print some hardcopies of the photos you’ve taken with your digital camera and share them with your friends.
I’m sure there are lots of other ways to put the resources at your disposal to productive use, and counter the impact of environmentalist wackos who will spend today in a state of pre-historic self-denial as they atone for their sin of living in a prosperous world. With a little bit of thought, you too can come up with simple ways to offset their efforts, and maybe even ensure they’re aware of the futility of their sacrifices.
I’d be fascinated to see what readers come up with. The rules (to the extent there are any) are that your use of resources must be productive to some end, but that you use energy and resources that you might not have otherwise used on this particular day. If you can come up with a way to do this that will enrage the eco-fanatics, all the better.
I’ll email all your ideas to Al Gore. It’ll make his day, and that’s a productive use of energy, to boot.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
68 Comments
Views: 1243
Loading ...
I’m Going to drain a swamp…
Can’t see the forest for the trees? Just cut them down, give “Sparky” a call, and while you’re at it, take two trees and criss-cross them, and hang it where appropriate, say Calgary.
I have to disagree with the satire here. I’m conservative in most respects, and God knows I share everyone’s passion for sending illegals back. But I think there is very compelling science that indicates global warming is real. This is one issue I wish our conservative pundits like Rush, Levin, Hannity, and Beck would stop mocking.
I look at this way. Gasoline is very noxious stuff. If it will kill you to drink it or inhale the fumes, then it’s probably not a good idea for the world to burn like what, 10 million gallons a second - as a guess. This is one issue that, if it’s real, can’t be fixed with a resolution. Man does have the ability to alter the planet in very dire ways. We’re talking about the basics of long term survival and it can’t be ignored. We need to look at the science very seriously.
What I have done to reduce my carbon footrpint? I traded in my SUV a year ago May 31 for a Honda Fit which gets 33 miles to the gallon. I switched all our light bulbs to CFLs, and I purchase half our electricity from wind power. If I buy a bottle of water or juice at lunch, I take it home and recycle it. I’m not totally granola, but I do what I can within reason to at least not be wasteful.
I agree mdman. All of us should do what we can to prevent destroying our planet. Who cares what is causing these environmental issues! The point is that they are happening and we need to deal with them. People get to caught up with semantics of who is causing the problem and forget about the problem itself. Every day I drive down Ffax County Parkway I am disgusted by the trash that I see on the side of the road. Trash blowing around my neighborhood pisses me off more than anything. On my way to work today some jackass in a V8 Chrysler was dogging it at 80mph weaving in and out of traffic and gets caught at the same light as me, rolls down his window and tosses out a poptart wrapper on to the street. I would have smacked him in the face if I could have reached him. No respect for anything. Just remember that every one of us needs to do what we can to keep our planet clean and beautiful. Forget about global warming and whether you believe man is causing it, blah blah blah and concentrate on the REAL problems that are happening. People that complain about global warming science being bunk I would equate to not being able to see the forest for the trees.
Global warming is a hoax and is being used by liberals to enhance socialism, government regulation, massive shift in wealth and to destroy capitalism.
Wow, I’ve got to say, that I do agree with just about everything here regarding illegal immigrants. Yet, to be honest, I am in favor of Earth Day. I seriously enjoy the environment and nature. I am an avid fisherman and camper. I am sickened by all the “forward progress” development in this state. Great tracts of land are now turning into what….more shopping centers. This State has enough places to shop! I say Hooray for Earth Day, but See Ya! to Mr. and Mrs. Illegal!
I must agree that this world would be in a huge crisis if Earth Day hadn’t occurred, and got traction back in 1970. I remember driving past the oil refineries in Philadelphia for the first time in 1970, and actually took a picture of the black cloud of smoke that covered the entire area. Coming from the suburbs, I’d never seen anything like that. That made a believer out of me!
I am an environmental engineer with over 20 years experience. Yes, we should be good stewards of the Earth, but the fact is that our growing economy uses materials and pollutes less than a lot of the more “controlled” economies in other countries.
As far as “global warming” is concerned, I believe there is too much uncertainty (and contradictory evidence) out there to destroy our way of life over it. The models give results all over the map and are constantly being revised. What gets presented in the news (and the executive summaries of UN reports) are the most severe model results whether or not these are based on plausible scenarios. We also see problems with temperature measuring stations that are not run according to approved scientific protocols, and tepperature results that fly in the face of model predictions.
I liked the quote I saw a few months ago that went something to the effect of “If those who claim to be so concerned about climate change acted in a way to be so concerned, then maybe I would be more concerned too!” The fact is that the high priests of climate scare tactics take a “Do as I say, not as I do” approach to the issue, which makes this much less credible. What a surprise!
One more thing on the topic. For a while I’ve been fixing to take a travel mug in the morning for my cup-o-joe, instead of wasting a paper cup every day. I finally dusted it off and did it today. I’ll make this change part of my routine now.
Every l’il bit counts I guess…
CarbonCreditKillers.com is nothing more than a money-making scam that plays off ultra right-wing sympathies. It’s asinine, it’s pointless, and it just show’s Greg’s complete moral bankruptcy that he accepts their advertising and then shills for them in a post. Grow up.
Federation for American Immigration Reform
>
> April 22, 2008
>
> America’s Ecological Future Will Be Determined by
> Immigration Choices We Make Today
>
> (Washington DC ) As Americans commemorate Earth Day on April 22, the
> country’s ecology and resource base continue to be imperiled by mass
> immigration. More than any other factor, population growth in the
> United States is adding to the stress on our environment, and nearly
> all of the nation’s projected population growth over the next 40 years
> will be a direct result of current and future immigration.
>
> Since the first Earth Day in 1970, U.S. population has grown by more
> than 100 million people, driven by ever increasing levels of
> immigration. The Census Bureau projects that our current population of
> just over 300 million will increase to about 435 million by 2050,
> exacerbating many of the resource and environmental crises we face in
> this country.
>
> “It is unrealistic to believe that we can address issues like
> pollution, urban sprawl, and the depletion of water and other vital
> resources, while continuing on the population path we have been on
> over the past several decades,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR.
>
> FAIR was founded in 1979 to address concerns about the role of
> immigration in U.S. population growth. On Earth Day 2008, the
> organization is renewing its call for a rollback of excessive
> immigration to the United States and a thoughtful consideration of how
> these policies will affect the long-term environmental health and
> security of the nation.
>
> “Unless government acts to alleviate the pressure for ever-increasing
> levels of immigration, Americans will face a future that holds
> worsening environmental conditions, dwindling resources, and greater
> dependence on foreign energy sources. This was not the sort of future
> envisioned by people like the late Senator Gaylord Nelson who
> initiated the Earth Day celebration,” Stein said. “As we observe Earth
> Day, we call upon our nation’s leaders to get off the immigration and
> population growth spiral that can only lead to further environmental
> degradation.”
>
> About FAIR
>
> Founded in 1979, FAIR is the country’s largest and oldest immigration
> reform group. With over 250,000 members nationwide, FAIR fights for
> immigration policies that serve national interests, not special
> interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national
> security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment,
> and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.
>
>
>
> To receive more information from FAIR, visit us on the web at
> fairus.org.
> http://www.fairus.org/site/R?i=oA4ByrbJ-kPfRYOMJ8LS3w..
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from all future email, paste the following URL into your browser:
> http://www.fairus.org/site/CO?i=F77FapwQF49QIG79PBtqyLYcm6__QTik&cid=1002
>
Every little bit helps and doesn’t make anyone a girlie-man.
I guess I would rather not take my chances in the event all those warnings were right and the nay-sayers were wrong. My posterity will thank me. Not crapping up the earth even further should not be a political issue.
Happy Earth Day and thanks to everyone doing their fair share.
Ron - Nobody is out to “destroy our way of life”. And I’m just as amazed as Jeff that Greg has such little regard for our planet AND for the coming generations. I too say: GROW UP. And just because other nations dirty the atmosphere more than we do, is absolutely NO excuse. Let’s put them to shame as best we can.
Most conservation just makes good sense. I communte 75 miles per day so I drive a hybrid. I have a water filter instead of buying bottled water. I use a mulching mower becuase it makes my lawn greener. Recycling probably cuts my trash bag usage in half. To save on electricity and natural gas, I’m very mindfull with my thermostat. All that little stuff adds up to alot of saved money.
VDOT is doing their part to celebrate Earth Day. Today (and every day) you’ll get stopped at every single light on 28 between Manassas Drive and Route 7. The lights have been specially timed so you can see the next one changing to red as the one you’re stopped at turns green.
Krusty,
Some of the recommendations are contradictory. For example, the compact florescent bulbs contain mercury. Mercury is a toxic substance. If you break a CFB you are exposing yourself and the environment to a toxic substance. Don’t be too hard on Greg. I believe that is why he catagorized this thread as humor and satire.
Supposedly the amount of electricity the CFL saves reduces the mercury emissions from a coal-burning plant (like the one in Dumfries at Possum Point) by an amount greater than the mercury in the bulb.
But..one thing I don’t get..why pick on the CFL bulb? Regular fluorescent tubes have the same issue, and I don’t see anyone suggesting that office buildings and schools go back to incandescent lighting.
I think there is higher chance of breaking a CFB than a bulb in an office building or school. This made the news a few weeks ago. They were advising people to wear protective gloves or using newspaper when cleaning up after a CFB and not touch anything with bare hands.
Yes, Patty, I know I’m too darn serious. I don’t use the new bulbs; don’t fit most of the lamp shades. Everything we use in our daily lives makes waste. It’s just a matter of making LESS.
Also, I don’t think Greg cares one way or another abt what I say. It would take A LOT to be too hard on Greg. He has a tough hide, I’m sure.
Anyway, one thing I do hate to see is all the leveling of land that’s been taking place for development. Look out over the acres and acres of parking lots near the shopping centers! Lucky if there are some trees and bushes planted. Think of the heat it absorbs and the groundwater that is not seeping into the soil. We can’t do w/o cars, we need a place to put cars, we need roads on which to drive cars. More and more land get paved. Better quit….
“I think there is higher chance of breaking a CFB than a bulb in an office building or school.”
What about the 4 foot flourescent tubes used in most household kitchen light fixtures since the mid 80s? Break one of those, it’s the same issue as a CFL, if not more so because the larger tube has more mercury in it.
Not to mention that any bulb which requires a ladder to change has a higher likelyhood of being broken than a bulb that can be changed without a ladder.
The long tubes are usually housed. This is not the case with CFB’s. I’ve rarely seen one of the longer tubes broken in any of the offices where I’ve worked but personally I’ve broken many compact bulbs in my home.
Look, I’m just relaying information that was in the media not long ago. Evidently they felt that this was a problem.
Krustis, what is your vendetta against Greg? Every single post you leave is a criticism of him. He can’t even post something as satire without you getting your undies in a bunch? What’s your beef (or should I say chalupa) with him? I don’t see what you get out of this site; seems like you are so anti-Greg that you would want to avoid BVBL completely.
In regards to Earth Day, I think the thing that turns many people off is the shift from conservation and litter clean ups to the abstract issues like global warming. I don’t think people see any sense in throwing out perfectly good light bulbs and replacing them with energy efficient ones. People don’t see the wisdom in hamstringing our economy with carbon recuction regulations when countries like India and China (our competitors) are allowed to grow and pollute virtually unchecked.
“The long tubes are usually housed. This is not the case with CFB’s. I’ve rarely seen one of the longer tubes broken in any of the offices where I’ve worked but personally I’ve broken many compact bulbs in my home.”
The only time I’ve ever seen either type of bulb broken is when they are being changed and they’re dropped. This is far more likely to happen when you have to climb up a ladder to get to the bulb.
I don’t know what goes on in your house to cause so many CFLs to break but I’ve only broken one CFL bulb and..suprise..it happened while I was changing it and it was a fixture that was difficult to reach. (I didn’t need a ladder to get to it but in retrospect I probably should have gotten something to stand on).
“I’m just relaying information that was in the media not long ago. Evidently they felt that this was a problem.”
It’s hype. Which the media is good at creating.
The overpopulation policies of certain organized religions have done more harm to the earth than all the parking lots and shopping centers and large bore gas guzzling engines and everything else combined.
To my friends who enjoy a glass of wine.. And those who don’t.
> As Ben Franklin said: In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria.
> In a number of carefully controlled trials, scientists have demonstrated that
> if we drink 1 liter of water each day, at the end of the year we would have
> absorbed more than 1 kilo of Escherichia coli, (E. Coli) - bacteria found in
> feces. In other words, we are consuming 1 kilo of poop.
> However, we do NOT run that risk when drinking wine & beer (or tequila, rum,
> Whiskey or other liquor) because alcohol has to go through a purification
> process of boiling, filtering and/or fermenting..
> Remember: Water = Poop
> Wine = Health
> Therefore, it’s better to drink wine and talk stupid, than to drink water and
> be full of shit.
> There is no need to thank me for this valuable information: I’m doing it as a
> public service.
I absolutely agree with MdMan that the environment is critical issue and must be protected RATIONALLY, if not for us then for our progeny. They will surely curse us if we wastefully destroy our planet for our immediate comfort and convenience.
That said there is one critical environmental issue that hasn’t been mentioned yet…the rapid clear-cutting of the rainforests of South America. As they are sending us their poor and uneducated, they are also rapidly destroying this planet’s ability to renew its atmosphere in its ability to produce oxygen, for which the rainforests are the primary source. In their defense, they are doing this for economic reasons to raise their standard of living, fully complicit with multinational corporations who are benefiting far more economically than the citizens of those South American nations (I’m very pro-small business…mega big business is actually a danger to us all, economically).
THIS is an issue for which the United Nations was supposedly created…the protection of our planet and the people on it. If technologically advanced nations assisted those third world countries vis a vie the UN to advance their economies (I don’t mean with money which would be wasted, but with technology) into the 21st Century with modern conservation techniques, not only they but the world would benefit. So where are they?
What goes on in my house? Kids and dogs.
By the way, I haven’t used up my incandescents.
Anybody that believe in manmade global warming is a FOOL that doesn’t understand the climate cylces the earth has been through over the last several million years.
Conservation != “Environmentalism”
The difference is the key here. I’m simply not interested in feel-good save the planet knee jerk cults.
Krutis said:
“Anyway, one thing I do hate to see is all the leveling of land that’s been taking place for development. Look out over the acres and acres of parking lots near the shopping centers! Lucky if there are some trees and bushes planted. Think of the heat it absorbs and the groundwater that is not seeping into the soil. We can’t do w/o cars, we need a place to put cars, we need roads on which to drive cars. More and more land get paved. Better quit….”
Maybe you want to move to the Ron Paul retreat out in who knows where? Or is the the “Turn on, tune in, drop out” kind of thing? LOL
Let’s see, maybe if the District of Columbia had decent schools, more people (especially families with young children) would want to live there! After all, DC went from 800,000 people in 1950 to under 600,000 today (while other cities grew over the same time period). Maybe if DC had lower taxes more companies would want to locate there instead of out in the suburbs. And maybe if DC would deliver high quality SERVICE for those taxes, that might help a bit, too. Heck, maybe we should shut down a lot of government programs so fewer people would want to live around here. So you see, Krutis, smaller government is better for the environment!
DISCLAIMER: I generally walk to a bus which takes me to the Metro. So most days, I do not drive at all to work.
Advocator said on 22 Apr 2008 at 12:04 pm:
The overpopulation policies of certain organized religions have done more harm to the earth than all the parking lots and shopping centers and large bore gas guzzling engines and everything else combined.
Another attempt to hijack the thread with anti-Catholic rhetoric….
Greg, its an erroneous blanket assumption that conservatives must be against global warming, climate change and smart energy, because Al Gore and the Dems have this issue “cornered”. This stubborn “loyalty” for big energy and anti-global warming, is making Virginia the industrial dumping ground for the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast.
Other states like MD, NJ, DE, NY and DC have more energy consciousness citizens (Democratic-leaning) who push their politicans to raise their air quality standards. Since most of Virginia is conservative (Republican-leaning), they are more likely to be against the idea of global warming and climate change and therefore question or oppose smart energy policy, such as air quality standards, ozone protection, RPS and renewables.
This in turn has not created the type of pressure on our state politicians to raise our state’s air quality and energy standards. Hence, as other states north of VA are retiring their old and most polluting power plants, because the cost to operate them are now too expensive, they are requesting our state to export her power capacity to them because of our lower state’s standard. Lower standards equates to cheaper costs which with the cost of transmission, makes the electricity more affordable. This is forcing our state to construct new utility infrastructure to meet this demand. Our general assembly is in favor of this because our main state utility is for it, while not enough citizens are pushing against it for higher standards. Only the utilities, its shareholders and the citizens north of Virginia benefit.
New infrastructure results in the condemnation of land owned by citizens in this state, it devalues property nearby, it ruins this state’s scenic beauty, it lowers the quality of air you breathe, and it raises utility rates because more fossil fuels resources are being used to meet the expansion.
As it stands now, I do agree with you the church of global warming is making a mockery of the matter. Many folks who are loyal Republicans, see their support of the war has gotten them less respect or less votes, so more and more them are accepting Al Gore’s global warming concept as a way to rehabilitate their political standing.
The fact is, however, we can not assume all of the emissions we are creating from our manufacturing industry, our power plants and all the vehicle and airplane exhaust, has zero affect on our atmosphere.
The belief that it does have a serious affect, does not rule out that our Sun has more of an affect. This issue is still unanswered, and recent analysis by the skeptic world is raising the concern the Sun may indeed have the primary influence affecting climate and not humans. In the meantime, there is no shame or no “giving in to Al Gore” if make your living more efficient to reduce your physical footprint.
I don’t know about you, but I have been living “green” since I was a kid. During the early 70’s I was hooked on the environment and issues like reviving the Chesapeake Bay before it was hip. As everything become politicized, somewhere about a decade or two ago, granola-types recognized that the term conservationist was a label more identified with environmentally conscience folks who leaned to the right. This is when the term “environmentalist” was borne to differentiate the lefties from the righties.
If the right continues to ignore the environment, they’ll continue to lose the argument as they have, no different than the left has ignored immigration reform, and is now losing on this issue to the right.
We should all want to improve our living standards; so don’t let the liberals and the Democratic party “own” this topic merely because you can’t stand Al Gore!
No, Ron, I’m not a drop out and those other things. I was lamenting what IS. And, like you, I don’t understand what’s going on in DC. I was in there a couple of days ago near Embassy Row. It was beautiful. Wouldn’t mind living there (not with young kids though)if I weren’t so rooted where I am.
Moved here because of husband’s job. Pretty sure we wouldn’t have stayed married, if he had had to commute to DC. Not very patient in traffic. He used to ride bike to work, weather permitting. We never lived farther than 5 miles fr his job.
As for “smaller government is better for the environment!”
I don’t know. Maybe there ought to be decentralized government; Agriculture in Omaha; Interior in the interior somewhere; Defense in Seattle (might as well be w/ Boeing there). Spread them out to the Rust Belt towns and so on.
Glad you’re able to use public transport to work.
I’m going to go plant chufa for the Wild Turkeys, It makes them taste awesome.
When’s dinner?
Gainesville Resident said on 22 Apr 2008 at 12:33 pm:
“Anybody that believe in manmade global warming is a FOOL that doesn’t understand the climate cylces the earth has been through over the last several million years.”
Anyone who assumes that man has no impact on the planet and no impact on global warming, to me, is more of a fool than I can even imagine.
“Anyone who assumes that man has no impact on the planet and no impact on global warming, to me, is more of a fool than I can even imagine.”
Man has no impact on global warming. This charade is coming to an end as global temperatures continue to fall. Get up to date on the facts. I have studied this topic (down to the raw data in numerous studies) in extreme detail.
Anybody that believes in something like global warming without understanding the data is a FOOL.
I’m wearing a non-organic cotton Earth Day t-shirt
Gorebalism knee jerk environmentalism = 21st. century opiate for mindless “chicken littles”.
Belle - It’s supposed to be poly-ester! Get it right, will you
A bunch of people must have left their hibachis on Mars, Pluto and Triton (Neptune moon) too ’cause they’re heating up!
It is really sad to see such an important issue as global warming and conservation being policitized in this manner. Remember that the evil twin of communist tyranny is corporate malfeasance. Both are out to enslave mankind. Corporate interests are what drive the counterenvironmentalist argument. There is no trust in twisted data. People like Rush Limbaugh are not uncovering truths, they are being paid money to do the bidding of large corporations who have infiltrated every sector of the government , including the EPA, so that they can poison us and the planet without fear of punishment. It is the same corporate ethic which uses illegal immigrants as slaves and has bestowed the plague of unregulated immigration upon us which is behind the attempts at suffocating the ever growing and imperative need to save the planet. Those staunch republicans who are buying corporate propaganda are the same ones who are poisoned by pharmaceutical companies, chemical industries like Monsanto and other corporate giants who are poisoning the food chain or allowing China to do it for them in the name of FREE MARKET CAPITALISM which is denying those very rights which republicans are trying so hard to defend when they are trying to uphold the constitution. I was a staunch republican until the current corruption reached intolerable levels and I refuse to have the wool pulled over my eyes in the name of party allegiance. What do you think is more important that guns remain in the hand of the people or that chemicals are poured in every step of the food chain?
It is sad that we criticize corporations for hiring illegal immigrants but ignorantly aide them in their attempts at curtailing expenses to safeguard our future and that of the environment.
I’d love to see a cartoon featuring Al Gore as Chicken Little running around in circles screaming, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”
Line Breaker said on 22 Apr 2008 at 5:36 am:
Can’t see the forest for the trees? Just cut them down, give “Sparky” a call, and while you’re at it, take two trees and criss-cross them, and hang it where appropriate, say Calgary.
Why would you want to hang it in Calgary? Have something to do with the big rodeo there?
Dolph said on 22 Apr 2008 at 3:45 pm:
Then the world is full of fools (on both sides of the issue.)
PWConservative said on 22 Apr 2008 at 2:35 pm:
I’m going to go plant chufa for the Wild Turkeys, It makes them taste awesome.
Corn-fed squirrel ain’t bad either and I got tons of them!
jfk said on 22 Apr 2008 at 2:22 pm:
Advocator said on 22 Apr 2008 at 12:04 pm:
The overpopulation policies of certain organized religions have done more harm to the earth than all the parking lots and shopping centers and large bore gas guzzling engines and everything else combined.
Another attempt to hijack the thread with anti-Catholic rhetoric….
Advocator seems obsessed with his anti-Catholic tripe. Perhaps he has a personal issue that he would like to share?
This is the kind of anti-environmental, pro-extinction stuff I expect from republicans. I was confused for a bit on the anti-littering post. It seemed for a minute that you cared about the land. And when you cut down that tree to piss off a environmentalist remember to pave it over otherwise it will just grow right back. You would want that cause it might please a liberal.
The carbon credit killers appear to be thinning out a tree farm to me, and ripping off some city folks.
Just News, my problem with the entire global warming problem is, if it’s truly a problem then why is Al Gore flying all over the world in a private jet, and living in a huge energy draining mansion in Tennessee? Isn’t Al Gore getting richer by being the spokesperson for this issue, as are the Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Fund, and Sierra Clubs?
Krusty, I would still like to hear what your beef is with Greg. Where are you?
Earth Day was dreamt up by Ira Einhorn, murderer from Philadelphia. Left wing feel good nonsense. I’ll celebrate Earth Day when the elite lefties give up their private planes and multiple mansions.
Remember the old saw from our European friends: “The Green tree has Red roots.”
Che’ - I don’t have a beef with Greg. He makes my day. I disagree with him most of the time and sometimes he acts like a YOUNG teenager. His sense of humor differs greatly from mine, and - I like to needle him. When he refers to me by name, I feel like a victor. Should I be forced to stay away from BVBL I’d be having major withdrawal pains.
Do you, Che’, feel like you have to protect Greg from me because I might hurt his feelings? A retorical question, naturally. He’s a big boy and I’m sure he’d make hamburger of this old lady, should he decide to take off his gloves.
I’ve got to keep my mind sharp to avoid letting my brain go stale. Greg and crosswords are my means for mental exercise. - Bedtime - better put on my night cap and cuddle up to be ready for the morrow.
Jfk
I don’t give a hoot what type of plane Al Gore flies and I’m sure that a person with hundreds of speaking engagements a year may have a bit of a hard time always flying American Airlines? (Ahem)
What is more important is that the focus is on the environment and if you are waiting for a Jesus to come and do the job or some saintly figure, who would not use a private jet or reside in a small abode you may have to wait a long time. As far as Greenpeace or the Sierra Club you are proposing that the only reason for these organizations to operate is for lucre. That is sad indeed. The Sierra Club has been around for a much longer time than the present debate. It is even sadder that instead of at least considering the scientific and rational aspect of the changing and diminishing environment, you are more interested in finding fault, even where there may be none, because you are listening to people whose interests are far from your welfare. As far as Al Gore is concerned, as long as he keeps trying to bring attention to the destruction of the environment and the issues of global warming or even climate change, I don’t care if he uses the space shuttle.
Think about your future and open your eyes. The people who are trying to turn you away from these issues are only trying to prolong the time in which the inevitable expenses of the necessary changes to protect the environment and more importantly the people of this planet will be due. Read important books, written by scientist, not propaganda. The rivers and lakes are being poisoned, your food is poisoned and your health is being played with. Do you honestly think that the constant reduction of green spaces and the cutting down of trees is not going to impact your life? You must travel to India or China and then you will get some enlightenment. Did you know that in Mumbai a citizen of that city has triple the chances of lung cancer than a normal person? That is the same chance as if you smoked two packs a day for all of your life. What else do you need? We have to stop this lock stock and barrel adherence to the republican party. There is no reason why you should be less of a republican unless to buy all of their propaganda pall mall. There is no reason for this kind of ignorance. Demand that your party do what is best for you and stop letting your party erode your rights in the name of corporate profit. Take back your party and demand that the welfare of the people come first. Do you think big corporations care about your beliefs? your religion? No.
Try Sodoku.
I guess pot stirring is a good aerobic exercise; you must have forearms like Popeye.
Thanks for the answer, I thought you were going to chicken out on me.
Overpopulation, congestion, urban sprawl, pollution, environmental damage, crime, diminishing resources, Diseases, lack of affordable housing, depressed wages, underground economic, fraudulent documents, identity thief, tax invasion, soaring crime rate, increased tax burdens, overcrowded schools, uneducated children, overcrowded prisons, inadequate health care, the balkanization of our communities and a large and growing population with loyally to other Nations, and the overall decline in our quality of life are the result of unconstrained illegal immigration! America cannot accept the worlds population of other Nations Criminals, Undesirables and Uneducated Peons. Too many people chasing too few resources is not sound economic, social or cultural policy. This is not racism but pragmatism & common sense! Every industrialized nation has taken steps to end illegal immigration and to limit legal immigration to only that which is prudent, demonstrably necessary, and above all other concerns, in the best interest of their native population, not of the Catholic church, business owners looking for cheap labor, subsidized by tax payers, or other special interest etc. Its insane to suggest that America should not do likewise!
The illegal invasion can only be understood by the corrupting influence on politicians of money for cheap labor for the Republicans or the Welfare votes for the Democrats that makes them dishonor their Oath of Office, the US Constitution against Invasion, and Enforcement of our Immigration Laws!
Very well said, BL!
Hmm Earth Day and Lenin’s bithday just happen to be on the same day, hmm.
I wish some people would just do some very basic research before they make conclusions with no thought process other than they heard it from some liberal or conservative talk show or congressman or political activist committee. This is a long post so I’ll do it in parts, to lessen the “offense to some”
Global warming: lets start with the oxygen loss problem. It’s at 21%. Has it changed in the last few hundred years from the last few thousand? Yes
http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/envsci/visual/visual.php?shortname=oxygen_levels
Oxygenic photosynthesis arose long before O2 became abundant in the atmosphere. Fossil evidence of cyanobacterial ecosystems appeared before 3.0 billion years ago. Sulfates (at 3.4 billion) and oxidation of organic matter (3.0 billion) indicate that O2 was present locally around photosynthetic ecosystems. Atmospheric O2 levels rose substantially between 2.2 and 2.07 billion years. Oxygen-sensitive detrital minerals (FeS2, UO2) disappeared, iron was retained as Fe3+ in soils, and redbeds and O2-requiring eukaryotes arose. Banded iron formations, Fe2+-rich finely-laminated deposits, disappeared by about 1.8 billion years, indicating that O2 had finally permeated the deep oceans.
The history of O2 increases reflects planetary and biological change. Sources of O2 strengthened. Oxygenic photosynthesis evolved; cyanobacteria proliferated over widening continental shelves; and plankton arose. Stabilized continents enhanced the preservation of photosynthetic organic carbon. Sinks of O2 weakened, as fluxes of reduced volcanic species (H2, Fe2+, sulfides, etc.) decreased.
Earth’s history offers insights for a survey of extrasolar planets. Life arose very early and depended upon reduced volcanic emanations. Even after oxygenic photosynthesis arose, perhaps 1 billion years or more passed before O2 became a substantial atmospheric constituent. A dependable O2 supply was essential for the development of complex (plants and animals) and intelligent life.
Oxygen levels have since continued to more-or-less rise, peaking at 30% of the total atmospheric content during the Carboniferous era some 350 million years ago. During this time, the burial rate of organic matter was rapid, preventing oxygen from combining with carbon in dead organisms and keeping it in the atmosphere. The high availability of oxygen during this period may explain the enormous insects of the Carboniferous era; if more oxygen is available to the absorbed into the blood, the blood may deliver the oxygen further in the body, supporting larger body structures.
The world nearly suffocated about 250 million years ago, according to a new study of oxygen levels drawn from sediments laid down around the time of the biggest mass extinction in Earth’s history.
Not only did plummeting oxygen levels over a 20 million-year span directly contribute to an event called the “Great Dying,” but the changes also made most dry land above sea level uninhabitable for many animals and plants for millions of years.
“Oxygen dropped from its highest level to its lowest level ever (during the time Earth has supported life) in only 20 million years, which is quite rapid, and animals that once were able to cross mountain passes easily suddenly had their movements severely restricted,” said Raymond Huey, a University of Washington biology professor and co-author of the report. It was published yesterday in the journal Science.
Scientists calculate that 90 percent of all marine life and three-quarters of all land plants and animals became extinct during the episode of low oxygen, greenhouse conditions and lowered sea levels at the boundary of the Permian and Triassic geological periods.
Huey and co-author Peter Ward, a paleontologist at the university who specializes in extinction events, say that global warming, triggered by massive volcanic activity and a lower sea level, was the biggest contributor to the Great Dying.
Then there was a spike to about 23 percent during the Eocene period between 55 and 38 million years ago. Over the past 10 million years, the concentration of oxygen declined slightly to today’s 21 percent.
Half of the world’s oxygen is produced via phytoplankton photosynthesis. In the process of photosynthesis, phytoplankton release oxygen into the water. The other half is produced via photosynthesis on land by trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants.
More than 320 million large trees were destroyed when Hurricane Katrina ripped through the Gulf Coast region in 2005, releasing some 105 million tons of carbon - almost the same amount as all the forests in the United States are able to draw down in a year.
The discovery was made by a team of scientists from Tulane University in New Orleans and the University of New Hampshire in Durham.
Satellite observations are the best way to make routine global maps of Earth’s tree-covered landscapes. Led by ecologist Matt Hansen, scientists from the University of Maryland recently created a global tree cover data set from roughly a year’s worth of observations collected by NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor. The team used the satellite data to map tree cover at a spatial resolution (detail) of 500 meters by 500 meters. In shades of white (no tree cover) to deep green (100 percent tree cover), forest cover over the region clearly varies widely both from natural and human factors. Along the eastern seaboard, what was once a vast uninterrupted forest is now punctuated by several areas of low tree cover, showing the location of some of the U.S.’s most densely populated and developed regions. The most obvious location is halfway down the east coast, where the cities of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia, as well as the nation’s capital, have created a “clearing” in the continent’s original forest. The low tree cover in the central part of the continent is now a mixture of remnant prairies and agricultural lands.
In the bottom image, the tree-cover is influenced by natural topographic and climatic factors as well as human land use. The large area at right that harbors no trees is part of the West’s arid Great Basin, which dominates most of Nevada. The Great Basin is in the “rain shadow” of the mountain ranges to the west. When moisture-laden air rises up over the mountains, condensation occurs, releasing much of the potential rain before the air ever reaches the Basin, preventing trees from growing there. Human influence is visible surrounding Mt. Shasta, where the forest appears patchy, probably due to development and logging. Shasta’s altitude—4,316 meters— puts the summit well above treeline.
Previous post would not take this so reposted…
I wish some people would just do some very basic research before they make conclusions with no thought process other than they heard it from some liberal or conservative talk show or congressman or political activist committee.
Global warming: lets start with oxygen. It’s 21%. Has it changed in the last few hundred years from the last few thousand?
Oxygenic photosynthesis arose long before O2 became abundant in the atmosphere. Fossil evidence of cyanobacterial ecosystems appeared before 3.0 billion years ago. Sulfates (at 3.4 billion) and oxidation of organic matter (3.0 billion) indicate that O2 was present locally around photosynthetic ecosystems. Atmospheric O2 levels rose substantially between 2.2 and 2.07 billion years. Oxygen-sensitive detrital minerals (FeS2, UO2) disappeared, iron was retained as Fe3+ in soils, and redbeds and O2-requiring eukaryotes arose. Banded iron formations, Fe2+-rich finely-laminated deposits, disappeared by about 1.8 billion years, indicating that O2 had finally permeated the deep oceans.
The history of O2 increases reflects planetary and biological change. Sources of O2 strengthened. Oxygenic photosynthesis evolved; cyanobacteria proliferated over widening continental shelves; and plankton arose. Stabilized continents enhanced the preservation of photosynthetic organic carbon. Sinks of O2 weakened, as fluxes of reduced volcanic species (H2, Fe2+, sulfides, etc.) decreased.
Earth’s history offers insights for a survey of extrasolar planets. Life arose very early and depended upon reduced volcanic emanations. Even after oxygenic photosynthesis arose, perhaps 1 billion years or more passed before O2 became a substantial atmospheric constituent. A dependable O2 supply was essential for the development of complex (plants and animals) and intelligent life.
Oxygen levels have since continued to more-or-less rise, peaking at 30% of the total atmospheric content during the Carboniferous era some 350 million years ago. During this time, the burial rate of organic matter was rapid, preventing oxygen from combining with carbon in dead organisms and keeping it in the atmosphere. The high availability of oxygen during this period may explain the enormous insects of the Carboniferous era; if more oxygen is available to the absorbed into the blood, the blood may deliver the oxygen further in the body, supporting larger body structures.
The world nearly suffocated about 250 million years ago, according to a new study of oxygen levels drawn from sediments laid down around the time of the biggest mass extinction in Earth’s history.
Not only did plummeting oxygen levels over a 20 million-year span directly contribute to an event called the “Great Dying,” but the changes also made most dry land above sea level uninhabitable for many animals and plants for millions of years.
“Oxygen dropped from its highest level to its lowest level ever (during the time Earth has supported life) in only 20 million years, which is quite rapid, and animals that once were able to cross mountain passes easily suddenly had their movements severely restricted,” said Raymond Huey, a University of Washington biology professor and co-author of the report. It was published yesterday in the journal Science.
Scientists calculate that 90 percent of all marine life and three-quarters of all land plants and animals became extinct during the episode of low oxygen, greenhouse conditions and lowered sea levels at the boundary of the Permian and Triassic geological periods.
Huey and co-author Peter Ward, a paleontologist at the university who specializes in extinction events, say that global warming, triggered by massive volcanic activity and a lower sea level, was the biggest contributor to the Great Dying.
Hundreds of nurseries in the United States grow over 1.5 billion trees annually, which re-forests nearly three million acres. This number represents over six trees planted for every U.S. citizen.
Forests represent a third of the earth’s land. This number is rapidly declining in recent years. On average they can support 200 trees per acre. 9.8 billion acres of forest in the world. (1995 estimate)
9,800,000,000 acres of forest X 200 trees/acre = 1,960,000,000,000 trees. Nurseries in the US replace 1.5 billion per year of these 1,960 billion trees.
Tropical rainforests cover about 6% of the Earth’s total land surface area.
Rainforests are disappearing at about 80 acres (16,000 trees) per minute, day and night or a loss of 8,409,600,000 or 8.5 billion per year. These forests are cut down due to land development at a rate 8 times faster than the total number of nurseries in the US can replace.
The earth’s trees if all logged or destroyed at this rate would disappear in 122500000 minutes, 204166 hours, 85069 days, or 233 years. Since trees provide about 1/3-1/2 of the earth’s oxygen, that would make the oxygen level around 10-14% in the year 2240. At Mount Everest Base Camp (5300m), we are exposed to about half as much oxygen as at sea level. At the summit, each breath contains about one third the oxygen at sea level and we are barely able to survive, and only then for a brief period of time. Above 21,000 feet (7000m) the body consumes itself from lack of oxygen and will not survive long.
We could barely survive in 2240 if we maintain a development rate to develop land to the extent we destroy the forests and replace it with pavement.
The Earth is heating up. A sharp increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is a major cause. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 25% since the Industrial Age began, and scientists estimate it could double in the next century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was chartered to advise the world’s governments, has predicted that if net greenhouse-gas emissions are not reduced, the average surface temperature of the Earth could rise by a best-estimate of 3.5 degrees by the year 2100 about half as much as the planet has warmed since the coldest part of the last Ice Age.
Using a variety of sedimentological criteria, Frakes et al. have concluded that Earth’s climate has cycled several times between warm and cool modes for roughly the last 600 Million years. Recent work by Veizer et al., based on measurements of oxygen isotopes in calcite and aragonite shells, appears to confirm the existence of these long-period (~135 Million years) climatic fluctuations. Changes in CO2 levels are usually assumed to be among the dominant mechanisms driving such long-term climate change.
Here attention has been focused on CO2 levels; as for the strontium and carbon isotopic signals, CO2 levels depend on weathering and magmatism with opposite signs and should therefore fluctuate roughly in sync with the isotopic signals. Because the reasoning is general, it need not be limited to CO2. Among the many possible applications, the case of oceanic phosphate concentrations is particularly interesting. Phosphate concentrations should increase with weathering and decrease with hydrothermal activity; thus the methodology in this paper may be applicable to their reconstruction. Moreover, because phosphorus is a limiting nutrient, oceanic productivity may be expected to co-vary positively with its concentration in seawater, suggesting that CO2 levels and productivity co-vary negatively at geologic time scales.
Such reasoning naturally raises the issue of cause and effect. This study indicates that degassing and silicate weathering were the primary controls on the carbon cycle for the last 500 My. But the results do not themselves indicate whether either of these mechanisms dominated, or whether weathering was driven by the diversification of land plants, continental collisions, or a complex combination of tectonic, biological, and geochemical processes
Observation at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii show levels have increased from 315 ppm to 385 ppm.
http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm
There is a small perturbation in this rise. Most of the earth’s land mass is located in the northern hemisphere, as is most of the earth’s vegetation. During autumn and winter, millions of tons of leaves fall from deciduous trees and as they decompose, they give off carbon dioxide. The trees themselves no longer process as much carbon dioxide as they are in somewhat of a dormant state. As a consequence, the earth’s carbon dioxide levels rise.
Throughout the spring and summer days, leaves grow rapidly and a great deal of carbon dioxide is consumed in the growing of the leaves and subsequent normal respiration processes - so the CO2 level drops.
Levels of several important greenhouse gases have increased by about 25 percent since large-scale industrialization began around 150 years ago. During the past 20 years, about three-quarters of human-made carbon dioxide emissions were from burning fossil fuels.
Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are naturally regulated by numerous processes collectively known as the “carbon cycle” (Figure 2). The movement (“flux”) of carbon between the atmosphere and the land and oceans is dominated by natural processes, such as plant photosynthesis. While these natural processes can absorb some of the net 6.1 billion metric tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions produced each year (measured in carbon equivalent terms), an estimated 3.2 billion metric tons is added to the atmosphere annually. The Earth’s positive imbalance between emissions and absorption results in the continuing growth in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Assessments generally suggest that the Earth’s climate has warmed over the past century and that human activity affecting the atmosphere is likely an important driving factor. A National Research Council study dated May 2001 stated, “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and sub-surface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.”
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising faster than predicted, largely due to a burgeoning global economy and the hampering of overburdened natural carbon-storage mechanisms on land and in the ocean, a new study finds.
While the United States and Europe are longstanding leaders in carbon output, scientists have in recent years cited the main reason for increasing carbon dioxide levels as the growing global economy, especially the explosion of economies in developing countries such as China and India.
This economic boom has indeed increased the number of carbon-emitting sources, especially coal-burning power plants, and has fueled a steady rise in the amount of the greenhouse gas emitted into the atmosphere, says study author Josep Canadell of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia.
But two other key factors have come into play recently and increased the growth rate of emissions from 1.3 percent annually in the 1990s to 3.3 percent since 2000, according to the study’s findings (detailed in the Oct. 22 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
As the burning of fossil fuels puts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, natural carbon sinks (such as plants and the ocean) take some of it out. So the amount of carbon dioxide that stays in the atmosphere is actually only a fraction of what is emitted.
But these sinks, especially the ocean, absorb carbon dioxide slowly in comparison to the rate at which it is emitted.
“The oceans actually have the capacity to uptake most of the carbon dioxide that we’re emitting, most of it, but it’s just that it takes thousands of years for the ocean to very slowly, but surely, do all the cleaning,” Canadell told LiveScience.
With the rate of carbon dioxide emissions increasing, these sinks just can’t keep up. The percentage of emitted carbon dioxide they absorb has declined in the past 50 years and will keep declining, Canadell says.
Carbon dioxide levels are now 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years, according to research into Antarctic ice cores published on Thursday in Science.
Analysis of carbon dioxide in the ancient Antarctic ice showed that at no point in the past 650,000 years did levels approach today’s carbon dioxide concentrations of around 380 parts per million (ppm). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could reach 450-550 ppm by 2050, possibly resulting in higher temperatures and rising sea levels
A general reduction in the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere may contribute to the development of ice ages. Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas. Decreases in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere may lead to global cooling.
Many processes can cause a long-term decrease in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. These processes include many complex interactions among organisms, ocean currents, erosion, and volcanism. Important relationships exist between ice ages and the composition of the atmosphere; however, many scientists are unsure whether the changes in atmosphere cause cool periods or whether cool periods cause atmospheric changes. Also, many scientists are not sure the magnitude of past CO2 changes was large enough to initiate ice ages.
The Earth’s orbit varies through time. Important parameters that vary include the eccentricity of the orbit around the sun, the tilt of the Earth’s axis, and the direction the north pole points. Variation in these three factors changes the amount and distribution of incoming solar radiation. Variations in the distribution of solar radiation affect and initiate glaciations. The next section of this exhibit describes and illustrates these three factors.
However, the variation of the orbital parameters seems to be on too short a time scale to explain the timing of the long, cool intervals with many glaciations. Variations in orbital factors are probably more important in controlling ice ages than they are for controlling the larger-scale patterns. An exhibit at the National Science Foundation shows the variance in the earth’s temperatures. Earth orbital factors such as precession, and passing through the various parts of the galaxy with different densities of dust have contributed to these hot and cold cycles.
Ever since the Pre-Cambrian (600 million years ago), ice ages have occurred at widely spaced intervals of geologic time - approximately 200 million years - lasting for millions, or even tens of millions of years. For the Cenozoic period, which began about 70 million years ago and continues today, evidence derived from marine sediments provide a detailed, and fairly continuous, record for climate change. This record indicates decreasing deep-water temperature, along with the build-up of continental ice sheets. Much of this deep-water cooling occurred in three major steps about 36, 15 and 3 million years ago - the most recent of which continues today. During the present ice age, glaciers have advanced and retreated over 20 times, often blanketing North America with ice. Our climate today is actually a warm interval between these many periods of glaciation. The most recent period of glaciation, which many people think of as the “Ice Age”, was at its height approximately 20,000 years ago.
Although the exact causes for ice ages, and the glacial cycles within them, have not been proven, they are most likely the result of a complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere.
Between 52 and 57 million years ago, the Earth was relatively warm. Tropical conditions actually extended all the way into the mid-latitudes (around northern Spain or the central United States for example), polar regions experienced temperate climates, and the difference in temperature between the equator and pole was much smaller than it is today. Indeed it was so warm that trees grew in both the Arctic and Antarctic, and alligators lived in Ellesmere Island at 78 degrees North.
But this warm period, called the Eocene, was followed by a long cooling trend. Between 52 and 36 million years ago, ice caps developed in East Antarctica, reaching down to sea level in some places. Close to Antarctica, the temperature of the water near the surface dropped to between 5 and 8 degrees Celsius. Between 36 and 20 million years ago the earth experienced the first of three major cooling steps. At this time a continental-scale temperate ice sheet emerged in East Antarctica. Meanwhile, in North America, the mean annual air temperature dropped by approximately 12 degrees Celsius.
Between 20 and 16 million years ago, there was a brief respite from the big chill, but this was followed by a second major cooling period so intense that by 7 million years ago southeastern Greenland was completely covered with glaciers, and by 5-6 million years ago, the glaciers were creeping into Scandinavia and the northern Pacific region. The Earth was once more released from the grip of the big chill between 5 and 3 million years ago, when the sea was much warmer around North America and the Antarctic than it is today. Warm-weather plants grew in Northern Europe where today they cannot survive, and trees grew in Iceland, Greenland, and Canada as far north as 82 degrees North.
We are still in the midst of the third major cooling period that began around 3 million years ago, and its effect can be seen around the world, perhaps even in the development of our own species. Around 2 and a half million years ago, tundra-like conditions took over north-central Europe. Soon thereafter, the once-humid environment of Central China was replaced by harsh continental steppe. And in sub-Saharan Africa, arid and open grasslands expanded, replacing more wooded, wetter environments. Many paleontologists believe that this environmental change is linked to the evolution of humankind.
Climate change on ultra-long time scales (tens of millions of years) are more than likely connected to plate tectonics. Plate motions lead to cycles of ocean basin growth and destruction, known as Wilson cycles, involving continental rifting, seafloor-spreading, subduction, and collision.
Changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are a strong candidate to explain the overall pattern of climatic change. Carbon dioxide influences the mean global temperature through the greenhouse effect. The globally averaged surface temperature for the Earth is approximately 15 degrees Celsius, and this is due largely to the greenhouse effect. Solar radiation entering earth’s atmosphere is predominantly short wave, while heat radiated from the Earth’s surface is long wave. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation. Because the Earth does not allow this long wave radiation to leave, the solar energy is trapped and the net effect is to warm the Earth. If not for the presence of an atmosphere, the surface temperature on earth would be well below the freezing point of water.
Through a million year period, the average amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is affected by four fluxes: flux of carbon due to (1) metamorphic degassing, (2) weathering of organic carbon, (3) weathering of silicates, (4) burial of organic carbon. Degassing reactions associated with volcanic activity and the combining of organic carbon with oxygen release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Conversely, the burial of organic matter removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Plate collisions disrupt these carbon fluxes in a variety of ways, some tending to elevate and some tending to lower the atmospheric carbon dioxide level. It has been suggested that the Eocene, the early warm trend 55 million years ago, was caused by elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide and that a subsequent decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide led to the cooling trend over the past 52 million years. One mechanism proposed as a cause of this decrease in carbon dioxide is that mountain uplift lead to enhanced weathering of silicate rocks, and thus removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The earth is transitioning into a rapid period of increase in carbon dioxide on the scale of much slower geological increases in the past. This is also correlating to a rapid increase in global warming temperature, seen in the warmer periods of the Eocene, but at a much faster and alarming rate due primarily to the activities of man. This is a factor nature never had to deal with before.
A map of early warning signs clearly illustrates the global nature of climate changes. In its 2001 assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that, an increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system.”
While North America and Europe—where the science is strongest—exhibit the highest density of indicators, scientists have made a great effort in recent years to document the early impacts of global warming on other continents. Our map update reflects this emerging knowledge from all parts of the world.
Although factors other than climate may have intensified the severity of some of the events on the map, scientists predict such problems will increase if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not brought under control.
On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is “unequivocal,” and that human activity has “very likely” been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had “likely” played a role.
The addition of that single word “very” did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. It also added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it. In recent months, business groups have banded together to make unprecedented calls for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. The subject had a red-carpet moment when former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” was awarded an Oscar; and the Supreme Court made its first global warming-related decision, ruling 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency had not justified its position that it was not authorized to regulate carbon dioxide.
Sorry for the long history lesson, but sometimes you just have to read before you open your mouth and think that global warming is not a reality. The issue is how bad can it get, and do we really want to live under the same conditions that supported the EOCENE development of the planet, where swaps and searing heat and deserts prevailed around the world. Such rapid changes cause evolutionary elimination of other species from the planet as it got too hot for them to survive, unless they moved north. Then there is the issue, do we want to warm the ocean to the point where the ice melts on the poles and the oceans flood some 6 feet higher than they are now covering most of our seaboard cities (see National Academy of Science at 3rd street). There is evidence that desalinization of the oceans can stop the gulf stream, causing a minor ice age (10,000 years) on top of a major heat trend. The last ice age was thought to be caused by just such circumstances.
One thing I forgot to tell you Earth Day sceptics, who just can’t rationalize facts but would rather believe in man-made doctrinal fiction, is that a 1 degree average temperature rise in the average surface temperature of the earth, equates to a differance in summer and winter highs and lows of 10 degrees or so. The last deep really cold ice age had an average temperature drop of only around 6.5 degrees colder than the average temperature now. The Eocene period average temperature was about 4.0 degrees hotter than the average temperature now. These resulted in winter temperatures as cold as -70 degrees in the ice age, and summer temperatures as high as 140 degrees (Death valley weather) in the hottest parts of the EOCENE, with 100% humidity. Humans cannot survive this. The plants and animals of the earth that could adapt to temperature extremes and plant food sources that disappeared evolved and survived either at the Equator when it was cold or the Northern tier when it was hot. Huge numbers of species did not survive these changes. THe more rapid the change, the less survived. This present change in global average temperature is the most rapid change ever recorded in the history of the Earth with a resulting disappearance of species expected to be the most rapid ever in the history of the Planet, as the food sources in the ocean and on the land change, and die off.