Every breath you take
Douglas B. McGaw
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
NORMALLY, I would not comment on Ron Brockleman’s response to my “ramblings” on global warming, but he attempts to perpetuate at least two fallacies. One is that the recent cold spell here puts the lie to the “myth” of global warming. To take local and short-term aberrations in weather patterns as symptomatic of a centuries-long global trend is scientifically unsound and self-deluding.
The other fallacy is that human respiration has much at all to do with global warming: I am advised to cease exhaling. I guess the facts need retelling:
The figures cited by Mr. Brockleman translate into 4 trillion grams of CO2 exhaled daily. Fact: This is miniscule compared to the amount of industrial CO2 emitted by industrial societies. Fact: Nearly 25 percent of the world’s human-caused CO2 comes from the United States alone, a country containing only about 5 percent of the population. Clearly, human respiration is not a major factor.
Fact: The major cause of CO2 pollution is the burning of fossil fuels, followed by deforestation. Human and other animal respiration is way down the list. Fact: Since the start of the industrial revolution in about 1800, CO2 levels have gone from about 270 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to today’s 380ppmv, and the rate of increase is accelerating. A ratio of 500ppmv is considered harmful, and 1000ppmv is downright dangerous. The danger of warming due to overpollution from CO2 is not a fantasy. Already the warming is adversely affecting the plankton levels in the oceans, and plankton produces about 75 percent of the oxygen we breathe. And CO2 is only one of the numerous pollutants we are spilling onto our planet faster than nature can cope with them.
It’s interesting that when you agree with someone, he is engaging in meaningful discourse. When you disagree, then he is “rambling.”
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Why pick on Ron. What he wrote was quite funny and quite true. Political minds roll in a different circle than the common person. They are content to line their pockets while the rest of the world tries to make things right for all. Global warming is an issue that needs to be studied. I fear for the children of today and their children. By the time the higher ups get done with all the spending, raising gas prices, food prices, taxes, etc. the common man will not be able to survive. Global warming will not be an issue because the majority of people will not be able to purchase gasoline so there will be less emission into the atmosphere. (Maybe that is what the politicians want to happen). I still wonder if the gasoline station owner in Wisonsin had to close because the Consumer protection and his state government told him he had to raise his prices because the bigger companies had already done so. Maybe this is another way to weed the little man out.
May 15, 2007 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dbmcgaw (anonymous) says...
It looks like snake is trying to insult our intelligence long and loud enough to change both the facts and our minds. Interesting that he talks about the deforestation in Vietnam, assuming that I supported it. I was there as an infantryman. I did not and do not agree with defoliation... there or anywhere else. But that's beside the point. Global warming is an ongoing ecological - NOT political - problem that is going to affect our descendants for many generations.
The diatribe is so disorganized as to defy making any sense of it. Frenchie? Neckties? And he doesn't even read the original article well enough to spell my name correctly.
He signs himself as "American", implying that all who disagree must somehow be less than that. If being an "American" requires presenting illogical, incorrect and preconceived prejudices as fact, then it is not a good thing to be. I have, however, earned the right to call myself an American in a better sense of the word. As a veteran who has spilt his own blood for his country, I have the right to insist that we use our minds in intelligent and free inquiry and that we take responsibility for reversing the excesses of a wasteful society.
Go ahead, snake... Yell and scream your nonsense; it won't change reality and it certainly reinforces my low estimation of your intelligence.
May 16, 2007 at 7:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Bravo Mr. McGaw!
M
May 16, 2007 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Ice core samples have shown that historically, warming trends PRECEDE rising CO2 levels by several hundred years. And scientists all agree we have been in a warming trend for the last several hundred years.
So I'm confused. Given this, how is it that Gore has convinced everyone that suddenly the reverse is true, that rising CO2 levels are the cause of global warming, and not the other way around as has historically been proven the case?
May 16, 2007 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Another interesting point: I added this same comment last night, along with a few other questions - I was polite, didn't call anyone names or degrade anyone (didn't reference any posters at all), pointed out a few facts, asked a few questions.... and today my post has disappeared.
So have the Gazette "gods" decided that they are above the Constitution and have the power to limit my free speech, since it may not "agree" with their point of view? Or is it just another example of "everyone agrees we are the cause of global warming", and the many who do not agree with that are ignored, shouted down, shutup, unfunded, etc...???? Can anyone give me a good reason why my post mysteriously disappeared?
May 16, 2007 at 10:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
If we are really in a global warming, I have the soulution, but it would take all of the true working class of people in America to work together. We should all quit our jobs, then we would not need our vehicles (that would cut down on carbon emission). Then we could all go on welfare which would give us food stamps (it would help with the price of groceries). Then we could go on medicaid (it would take care of our medical expenses). We quit mowing our lawns (helps the oxygen in the enviroment and cuts down on the use of gasoline). Sounds good eh? If everyone would do this just think of all the good we would be doing for the world.
May 16, 2007 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
To open-eyes, maybe you did not post correctly. The gazette has been very conservative on illimating what people post. I think that you made a mistake. The gazette is really doing a great job by allowing the opinions
May 16, 2007 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Oh sorry, I will go to my room in a few minutes after this comment. Believe what you want but things do go to "LaLa Land" and no one ever knows what happens or why it gets lost. Please do not put the blame on the gazette. I work on a computer all day and things like that happen quite frequently.
May 16, 2007 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Thanks davedailey, but I viewed my post afterwards. I will assume for now there was just a mixup somewhere...
I also commented on how we currently may not be living in the "optimal" climate. Back in the Iron & medevil ages, Iceland was farmable, and Britain had many vinyards. Northern climates are again experiencing more land that can be put to agricultural use and longer growing seasons. Somehow the human race survived the "catastrophe" of those periods, which I seriously doubt were brought on by overpopulation, manufacturing, or HumVees...
Everyone agrees the earth IS warming, and while I (and many reputable scientists who have their funding pulled if they dare disagree or show any facts to the contrary) am not convinced that the current trend is all MAN's fault, I do care about the environment, and specifically pollution - so regardless of the cause, if the fallout of any of this causes us to keep our environment cleaner and more pollution-free, I'm for it.
May 16, 2007 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
I encourage the readers to research the topic of global warming. There are so many books, articles in publications, and films on the subject, and the Oscar winning film "An Inconvenient Truth" is well worth watching.
It's disheartening to hear doubts spoken and written about the research of global warming. It's not myth. There are so many ways that we, individual by individual, can help to ease the strains on our planet. Sure, not everyone can help in the same ways, but what is important is there are ways.
http://planetsave.com/ps_mambo/index....
http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedFor...
Additionally, I see not any necessary reason to draw lines of division in regards to this topic. White collar or blue collar, Republican or Democrat, what does that matter?
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
May 16, 2007 at 1:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
As I stated earlier, NOBODY disagrees with the fact that the earth is warming. What is in dispute is the CAUSE of it. Also, seems NOBODY wants to talk about why the Mars polar caps are melting faster than normal, also the ice on Triton, Pluto, etc... I have a gut feeling they may be related, but, I'm not a scientist, so I won't make any claims. I, too, find it disheartening that anyone that disagrees with man being the cause of global warming, and presents facts and findings to support their position (which, are open to interpretation and discussion, just as the arguments FOR warming are) - suddenly find themselves out of funding.
I would also recommend people watch the BBC Documenary "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It also is well worth watching.
May 16, 2007 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dbmcgaw (anonymous) says...
"open eyes" makes a good comment that nobody (at least nobody with at least half a brain) disagrees that the earth is warming. He goes on to say, however, that he doubts that humans are a major cause of this.
I bring his attention to what I reported in my original article, based on statistics from a number of scientific sources: "Since the start of the industrial revolution in about 1800, CO2 levels have gone from about 270 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to today’s 380ppmv..." What I did not elaborate upon due to space constraints was that 60% of that increase has happened just since 1945. That's less than 1/3 of the time since 1800. It is naive at best to think that the advance of industrialized, fossil-fuel-burning society during this period and the increase in global warming is just coincidence.
May 16, 2007 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bob (anonymous) says...
Mr. McGaw...will you be attending the G8 Summit in June to report on you findings?
May 16, 2007 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Thank you dbmcgaw, you bring up a valid point worthy of further consideration & debate. I would like to add this to the findings:
"A spike in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere between 2001 and 2003 appears to be a temporary phenomenon and apparently does not indicate a quickening build-up of the gas in the atmosphere, according to an analysis by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate experts. NOAA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
As measured in air samples collected from over 60 sites in NOAA’s Global Cooperative Observing Network, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by nearly 5 parts per million (ppm) between 2001 and 2003. The increase in 2002 was 2.43 ppm; the increase in 2003 was 2.30 ppm. In other words, more than two additional carbon-dioxide molecules were added to each million molecules of air each year during that period. The annual increase was higher than the long-term average annual CO2 increase of approximately 1.5 ppm.
But, according to David Hofmann, director of NOAA’s Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL) in Boulder, Colo., the rate of carbon-dioxide increase returned to the long-term average level of about 1.5 ppm per year in 2004, indicating that the temporary fluctuation was probably due to changes in the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere."
Now, I'm not aware of any large-scale combined/coordinated effort by humans across the planet yet to combat CO2 levels. Al Gore still flies around in his private jet, and lives in one of his several mansions consuming 20 times the national average of electricity. So, I don't believe the decrease in the rate of addition was due to anything wrought by humans, either.
I also am not aware, from what I have managed to find about historical records, that although long-term trends can be "averaged out" statistically, that historically there have never been any short-term upticks or downticks. In other words, basically, yes we can show that over a, say, 1,000 year period, the earth warmed or cooled by this much, which averages out to so many degree per century, or that CO2 levels changed this much, which averages out to so much per century... etc.... but within those periods there have been many abrupt spikes both directions. It seems we have had abrupt spikes given that 30 years ago, we were fast headed into the next ice age. The earth was cooling "much faster than historical averages would show that it should be".
I guess what I'm saying is that climate changes in earth's history have been both slow/gradual and abrupt. I'm glad I didn't stock up on heaters and drill down to tap the earths molten core for heat 30 years ago when we here undoubtedly headed into the next ice age... :)
You do bring up a good point, worthy of consideration & debate. Thanks again.
May 16, 2007 at 11:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Dear Openeyes,
I've been out of the office for a day and am just now catching up two days of posts. I cannot find any evidence that a post you made on May 15 was deleted. What I can find is that you posted at 10:39 a.m. May 15 to the article "Warming is real." I've copied the first paragraph of that post here:
"One thing to note, as "equatorial nations lose yet more agricultural production and countries like ours do, too", northern climates are gaining agricultural production and longer growing seasons. Maybe once again Iceland will be fertile, and vinyards will be plentiful in Britain, as was once the case in the past."
If this is the post that you believe disappeared, please note that it was posted to a different global warming article rather than this commentary we're in right now.
If you have any other concerns about your posts, please contact me.
Gwen Larson
Managing Editor
larson@emporiagazette.com
May 17, 2007 at 6:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Gwen - I've since discovered that the post I thought was missing I actually posted under the "Warming Is Real" thread, I momentarily forgot that there were 2 threads. My sincerest apologies, and thank you.
May 17, 2007 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Open — not a problem. Believe me, reading all these threads can be confusing sometimes!
Gwen
May 18, 2007 at 7:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
midnight_rider (anonymous) says...
mcgraw - did you ever stop to think that if there really is such a thing as global warming, it is caused by HELL EXPANDING?
You are so stuck on yourself, get over it.
May 20, 2007 at 8:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
After years of looking at climate change beginning in the 1970’s at KU, I am convinced that this trend is driven by human behaviors and pollution rather than being a wholly natural cycle. Moreover, I am truly concerned that if we do not act, the future consequences will be drastic.
Such a complex issue deserves to be questioned and these discussions include such challenges. The information provided by open_eyes, for instance, is valuable and worth consideration. That what he has provided has not changed my own mind is in no way an indication that the data which served to validate his own position should be discarded. On the contrary, it should be retained and used with additions to continue consideration.
The contributions of others such as snakey are different and should be ignored as imbuing the obtuse arguments that confound reasonable discussion. Describing what one is not is hardly the same as making a positive statement. For those who have nothing to actually say, being quiet is the only polite policy, not to say the only intelligent course.
For the rest, let us continue to discuss root causes, possible consequences, and potential ameliorating actions. Together, even if we do not always agree with each other, something positive may well come of these valuable conversations and I look forward to seeing them continue.
Craig French
May 21, 2007 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Snakey! Did you say, “tree sucking global warming democrats”? Did you really?
Good heavens, that was pretty clever, I must admit.
But, listen, this is getting old. Notice, please, that all you did in that post was insult people, make up presumptuous fictions, shout some, flirt with obscenity, and misspell words. There was nothing in that screed that had any value at all because you did not actually say anything. Nothing. There was nothing to think about, nothing to discuss with anyone. If you wish to have conversations - which is what these discussion boards are all about - by all means, do so, but there is no reason at all to do that upper case shouting, or any of the name calling. After awhile, you just get ignored for being irrelevant and unpleasant. We’re about there now.
So, please, change your approach unless this really is what you are about. It is very difficult for me to understand that anyone would wish to be so disrespected as you attempt to be. Surely, you can see other ways to interact. I hope so.
Craig French
May 22, 2007 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoahjoe (anonymous) says...
FACT: According to the UN livestock is more responsible for global warming than ALL the cars in the world combined.
The UN report goes onto note that methane gas from cows is twenty times more responsible for global warming than carbon dioxide.
May 23, 2007 at 8:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Thanks Craig, I appreciate your comments, and it is nice to be able to have a decent, adult discussion while still disagreeing. I do have another honest question - this is not a sarcastic question, I have been trying to find some answers to this and honestly have not been able to - so if someone could answer, I would appreciate it.
My question is: Since the global warming theories all predict massive/catastrophic rises in sea level, and we know that the earth was much warmer in times past that were not so long ago that we did not have written records, are there historical records of sea levels being higher during these times? In other words, do coastal villages back during warmer periods have historical records of "being left far inland", and/or "gravitating towards the receding shoreline", as the ocean levels supposedly dropped as the earth cooled?
May 23, 2007 at 10:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I do have a few interesting facts I have ran across during my research - I'll post both the link and the comment(s) below:
from http://natureinstitute.org/txt/mda/wa...
"Another interesting phenomenon is the suspected link between forest fires and global warming. These fires may play a significant role in contributing to global temperature changes. At least one study suggests that up to 40% of the global greenhouse gas emissions may result from combustion due to forest fires that occur around the world. The report notes that forest destruction further reduces plant absorption of carbon dioxide (7).
The link between global temperature increases and increased levels of carbon dioxide is actually quite complex and not without its share of uncertainty. By analyzing gas bubbles trapped in ice core samples, one group of scientists found that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, previously thought to be constant, actually varied significantly during the last 11,000 years prior to the industrial age.
They also found that, during some earlier periods, the temperature increased before the carbon dioxide levels began to rise, sometimes with as much as a 400-to-1000-year lag (8). While this does not imply there is no link between global temperature and carbon dioxide levels, it does suggest that other mechanisms may help determine global temperature variation over time. "
By the way, this article is not an anti-global warming one. It further states "In sum, atmospheric warming -- the warming for which we currently have the clearest evidence -- is a local and regional phenomenon more than a global one, and it appears to be due more to human-caused energy production and water emissions than to carbon dioxide emissions.".
A worthwile read for inquisitive minds.
May 23, 2007 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And I ran across this while trying to find some data on the size/melting of ice caps/glaciers in the past and how they related to elevated sea levels:
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graph...
"According to Villalba (1990, 1994), and Soon & Baliunas (2003), the mediaeval warm period was
warmer than the current warm period by up to 3C. From c.1000 AD, ships were recorded as having
sailed in parts of the Arctic where there is a permanent ice-pack now (Thompson et al. 2000; Briffa
2000; Lamb 1972a, b; Villalba 1990, 1994).
In 1421 a Chinese Imperial Navy squadron sailed right round the Arctic and found no ice anywhere. It
is possible that at that time there was less of an icecap at the North Pole than there is now, particularly
in summer. Yet the polar bears survived. Though there has been much discussion of the supposed threat
posed by the warmer Arctic, the polar bears are thriving in the current warm period. Eleven of the
thirteen principal known families are prospering as never before.
Greenland in the Middle Ages: Eric the Red had named Greenland “Greenland” to encourage Danish
settlers, because in his time south-western Greenland was indeed green. It was ice-free, and was
extensively cultivated until c.1425 AD, when the farms were suddenly overrun by permafrost.
The Viking agricultural settlements remain under permafrost to this day – a powerful indication that the
Middle Ages were warmer than the present, and that there is little cause for alarm at the current melting
of Greenland glaciers because they are very likely to have melted to more than their present extent
during the mediaeval warm period."
May 23, 2007 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The above link is a very interesting read. It has sections broken down pertaining to sea levels, historical records, sun activity, etc.... a few more quotes I found interesting:
"Soon and Baliunas (2003) reviewed more than 200 proxy studies and concluded that the 20th Century
is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium. Their paper
was heavily criticized by “consensus” scientists on the ground that the data in several of the studies
were not temperature data. Four of the editors of the journal that published the paper resigned in protest
at the failure of the peer-review process to prevent publication. Their reaction is in strong contrast with
12
that of the editors of Nature, none of whom resigned once they knew that the “hockey-stick” graph
which they had published was defective, and of the UN, which failed to publish any correction after the
six-times-repeated graph was confirmed to have been defective, and, as noted above, continues to use
the defective graph in its publications."
"Solanki and Fligge (2003) deduced that in the past half-century the Sun has been hotter, and for longer,
than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years.....On this analysis, the
Sun may have contributed more than half of the 1900-1998 warming. So low a direct forcing would
imply halving the temperature effect of greenhouse-gas forcings. Using the very high forcing-totemperature
conversion factor implicit in the Stern report, the Sun could have caused almost all the
increase in temperature observed in the 20th century, allowing no room for any contribution from
greenhouse gases. Later in this discussion, when the forcing-to-temperature calculations are considered
in more detail, the two model runs which assess the effect of additional solar forcing will assume more
conservative estimates than this.
I conclude that the Sun is very likely to have contributed rather more to the past century’s warm period
than the UN has assumed, and that assumptions about the contribution of greenhouse gases to warming
should be revised downward accordingly."
May 23, 2007 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Open_eyes: You are a tireless researcher and pretty thorough, too. Your latest postings will take me a day or so to digest, but I will look at it and be back with some thoughts.
I know of some archeological findings, particularly in southern England near the Channel where villages that were on the former coast are now far inland. These were prehistoric and little was learned about them in regard to their adjustment to climate changes when the ice age ended. I am unaware of any “modern” cities or towns that would have had to deal with such changes, but I will look into that, too, since I know someone who might well have the information. No promises, but I’ll ask.
Your observations regarding the rolls of “greenhouse gasses” versus other polluting phenomena and the roll of solar changes is astute (very insightful) and a strong argument that we may not have all of our information in order. Again, I beg a little time to respond. However, it appears to me generally, that while we may have some of our information a little wrong or, in the case of carbon dioxide, more than a little, the concatenation of all these factors results in the climate change we are experiencing. I suspect that our progeny will, in a few hundred years, recognize natural cycles enhanced by human activities and a long list of contributing causes.
At the moment, we are not seeing all that very clearly, but we know that, if things continue as they are developing now, there will be some really major problems in the relatively near future. Thus, we single out this, that, or the other and concentrate all our energies in that direction. I will attempt to take a wider view when I check back in.
Craig French
May 23, 2007 at 5:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )