posted February 18, 2005 10:40 PM              

TINK if you would listen to rush limbaugh you would know there are more trees now than there ever were before in history...

and anyway since people kill each other over the chance to cut them down, the proportions of trees to people ought to stay stable for the forseeable future....

*********
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

posted February 19, 2005 04:32 PM            

quote:

---

see how you ask a question, and suddenly again jwhop wants your "model" so he doesnt have to answer.

---

Yes Petron, it was a sinister plot, a conspiracy even, that I didn't point out that those optimum CO2 conditions occurred in an enclosed environment.

Given that the average CO2 level in earth's atmosphere is 350ppm, it just never occurred to me that anyone would think there is any place on earth that is out in the open, which would have a CO2 level of 1000-1500ppmg. I apologize to you Petron. I always overestimate your knowledge and logical reasoning ability.

Anyone who has ever grown anything outdoors would know conditions are never optimal for what they are growing. Seed germinate best at optimal soil temperatures and moisture, seedlings grow best at optimal light, moisture, soil, air temperatures and fertilization rates. Plants mature best at optimal light, moisture, soil, air temperature and fertilization rates. Farmers and gardeners take what nature gives them Petron and that is almost always less that optimal. They and the rest of us know we can't control light levels, soil and air temperatures, rain or CO2 levels outdoors. Sorry you were so far in the dark you thought it a conspiracy...to conceal what virtually everyone already knows or would be able to logically deduce from what was said.

Again Petron, my apology for overestimating your level of knowledge and logical reasoning ability.

quote:

---

some1 without a clue of what jwhop was conveying here might think that a co2 of 1500 ppm would be good because "plants like it"
what he purposefully conceals is that he is actually reffering to sealed greenhouses or barometric chambers where tanks of co2 are supplying those levels...levels that have never been seen in any ice core....

---

Let's put your knowledge and logical reasoning abilities to the test Petron.

Do you think it prudent, reasonable and logical for those involved in monitoring CO2 atmospheric levels to use a monitoring station on an active volcano? An active volcano which belches CO2 into the atmosphere? An active volcano for which no baseline emissions of CO2 can be established? An active volcano which those monitoring CO2 emissions do not know how much CO2 is being belched out or if the CO2 emissions are at a constant rate or fluctuating?

Do you think it prudent, reasonable and logical to use results from that monitoring station to forecast general rising CO2 levels, either in that specific location or by extrapolation, world wide?

By the way Petron, Kilauea is a bulge on the side of Mauna Loa, the largest volcano in the world. You know Petron, Mauna Loa where the CO2 monitoring station is located....Mauna Loa Observatory. http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/maunaloa.html http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/kilauea.html

posted February 19, 2005 06:45 PM            

quote:

---

Jwhop how reliable is that information, I tend to question any sources on the internet, and I think you should too.
As someone trained in science I'm skeptical and I don't believe studies until they are replicated multiple times with statistical significance...and I just haven't seen this yet with global warming.

---

I agree with you BlueRoamer that studies or experiments should produce the same results when replicated...hopefully by others using the same criteria.

The problem with global warming...if there is a problem with global warming, is not that it occurs but the argument over what causes it and what should be done about it...if anything should be, or if anything can be.

There is complete hysteria by those who refuse to review the historical records which show warming and cooling are natural occurrences. I'm for warming and against the long ice ages between the brief warming trends So are my trees, grass and flowers.

posted February 19, 2005 09:59 PM            

The Pu`u `O`o-Kupaianaha eruption of Kilauea, now in its nineteenth year and 55th eruptive episode, ranks as the most voluminous outpouring of lava on the volcano's east rift zone in the past five centuries. By September 2002, 2.3 km3 of lava had covered 110 km2 and added 220 hectares to Kilauea's southern shore. In the process, lava flows destroyed 189 structures and resurfaced 13 km of highway with as much as 25 m of lava.


Beginning in 1983, a series of short-lived lava fountains built the massive cinder-and-spatter cone of Pu`u` O`o. In 1986, the eruption migrated 3 km down the east rift zone to build a broad shield, Kupaianaha, which fed lava to the coast for the next 5.5 years. When the eruption shifted back to Pu`u `O`o in 1992, a series of flank-vent eruptions formed a shield banked against the uprift side of the cone. Continuous eruption from these vents undermined the west and south flanks of the cone, resulting in large collapses of the west flank.

posted February 19, 2005 10:00 PM            

Mauna Loa, an active volcano is ringed on three sides by other active volcanos, Loihi, Kilauea and Hualalai

Notice that there were eruptions on Mauna Loa in 1984 and on Kilauea in 1983, 1986 and 1992 and lava was still flowing in 2002.

They built the Mauna Loa Observatory astride one of the largest and most active volcano areas in the world.

Now, along you come and post something from teacher speak saying that Mauna Loa was built away from local sources of CO2. The Mauna Loa Observatory was built right on top of one of the biggest series of emitters of CO2 in the whole damned world. The whole mountain range is emitting CO2 into the atmosphere constantly through vents and rifts.

There is a poor chart on this page but it shows how much CO2 is vented into the atmosphere from various volcanos. Note the 2800 tons from Kilauea....per day. And Kilauea is on the side of Mauna Loa.
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geop/mevo/geochem/co2.html

Yep, they built Mauna Loa Observatory away from local sources of CO2. I guess they meant local retail sources but who needs retail sources for CO2 when 2800 tons a day is being spewed into the air by Kilauea...not counting what's vented from Mauna Loa...the largest volcano in the world.

posted February 20, 2005 12:05 AM              

Mauna Loa Observatory is located on the Island of Hawaii at an elevation of 3397 m on the northern flank of Mauna Loa volcano at 200 north. Established in 1957, Mauna Lao Observatory has grown to become the premier long-term atmospheric monitoring facility on earth and is the site where the ever-increasing concentrations of global atmospheric carbon dioxide were determined. The observatory consists of 10 buildings from which up to 250 different atmospheric parameters are measured by a complement of 12 NOAA/CMDL and other agency scientists and engineers.

*******

posted February 20, 2005 07:06 PM              

1)because Petron has no values, he is irrelavant in any serious discussion,he's a deranged idiot!!!!
2)because Petron's a deranged idiot, with no values, he is irrelavant in any serious discussion!!!!
3)because Petron's a deranged idiot, he is irrelavant in any serious discussion he has no values!!!!

i'm sure he will agree with your evidence about that.....and i wont deny it either.......

"yea yea yea youre right!!!,oh and speak up wouldja jwhop!? i can barely hear you!!! "

*********

February 19, 2005

Why global warming is not natural
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent
Report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science



THE strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a study of rising temperatures in the oceans.
The rise in marine temperatures — by an average of 0.5C (0.9F) in 40 years — can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, research has shown. The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.

“The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people,” said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. “The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable.”

Dr Barnett’s team examined seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and compared the patterns with those predicted by computer models of potential causes of climate change.

Natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases matched the observations almost precisely.

“What absolutely nailed it was the greenhouse model,” Dr Barnett told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Washington. Two models, one designed in Britain and one here in the US, got it almost exactly. We were stunned.”

Climate change has affected the seas in different ways in different parts of the world: in the Atlantic, rising temperatures can be observed up to 2,300ft below the surface, while in the Pacific the warming is seen only up to 330ft down.

Only the greenhouse models replicated the changes that have been observed in practice. “All the potential culprits have been ruled out except one,” Dr Barnett said.

The results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, should increase pressure on the US Administration to sign the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force this week, he said. “It is time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join,” he said. “The debate is not — have we got a clear global warming signal; the debate is — what we are going to do about it.”

In a separate study a team led by Ruth Curry, of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut, has established that 20,000 sq km of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995. Further melting on this scale could be sufficient to turn off the ocean currents that drive the Gulf Stream, which keeps Britain up to 6C warmer than it would otherwise be. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1490248,00.html