Oceans clearing greenhouse gases faster than expected
Ian Sample
guardian.co.uk,
June 26, 2008

Greenhouse gases over the tropical Atlantic are disappearing faster than expected, according to the first comprehensive measurements taken in the region.

British scientists working at the Cape Verde Observatory on the volcanic island of São Vicente believe chemicals produced by sea spray and tiny marine organisms are speeding up natural processes that destroy the gases.

Detailed measurements taken over a year revealed that levels of one greenhouse gas were substantially lower than climate models predicted.

The observatory, which was recently set up by British, German and Cape Verdean scientists, has given researchers an unprecedented ability to study climate change in one of the most remote regions in the world.

In the tropics, intense UV rays in sunlight trigger reactions that effectively scrub greenhouse gases from the air. Without this natural cleaning process, atmospheric levels of the gases and other pollutants would be substantially higher than they are.

One of the most important cleaning reactions destroys ozone, which contributes to global warming at lower altitudes. A byproduct of the reaction, called hydroxyl, cleans the air even more by breaking down methane, the third most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. The study, led by scientists at Leeds and York Universities, revealed ozone levels over the tropical Atlantic were 50% lower than expected.

...continued

.

this is still a theory and no reason to give up on what we're doing.

This isn't helping with CO2, which is our problem gas.

Well, the whole concept of "global warming" and it's causes is only theory...

So all these scientists.... scientists that have committed their entire lives to the pursuit on knowledge and academia.... they.... the experts have it all wrong. You on the other hand have the monopoly on truth. Why are you here???? Doesn't Rush have a blog that you can go play on????



LINK

You go ahead and hang out.... do nothing.... consume consume consume.... give all of your money to the fucking oil companies. You go right ahead.... when it all goes down.... don't come knocking on my door, because I won't share my food with you!

there are also scientist, that have committed their entire lives to the pursuit on knowledge and academia, that say it ain't so.

I don't have a monopoly on truth - and neither do you. These are only opinions.

Find one paper recently written by the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Organization that says it's all fantasy. Find one article in a reputable scientific journal. I presented evidence with cited sources.... where are your sources? Fact 8 out 10 scientists says the jury is in on climate change and we are contributing.

The one thing I don't get about you repigs is this.... You are supposed to be all about fiscal conservatism. Right? Why the hell do you want to give ALL of your money to big oil and gas???? I just don't get it.... it is beyond comprehension. Every change that I have made to go green has actually SAVED me money. I would much rather do the responsible thing and save money for my baby's college instead of giving my money to people who already have more than they need.... rather than depending on the government to pay for my son's education. It's a no brainer.

One thing I don't get is why you would assume what I am.. you don't know me..

Just because I don't buy global warming and you label me a repig?

You want to come off all enlightened and caring yet what you're really about is calling those who don't agree with you names..

Yes, and they are in the overwhelming minority.

Naomi Oreskes did a meta-analysis of scientific papers published on climate change

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

[snip]

You're right... I apologize for the repig comment. Maybe if you had another argument besides that is "your opinion" I would take you more seriously? Climate change is the only thing that I feel enough passion to get angry about. My child's future is at stake. It may or may not be the calamity predicted....and a lot of that depends on our current response..... but it will be lifestyle changing that is for sure.

No , sorry to say your wrong, it's fact. Our planets changing and it's a bet a lot of us will too.

i wont call you names, but I absolutely believe 100% the only reason you dont buy global warming is because al gore is a spokesman and certain repubs and right wing talk show hosts tell you not to buy it


which is why you need to listen to the republicans that do buy it, if that is what it will take, because it is real and it is a problem, just like evolution is real and so on and so on....


otherwise, what possible logical reason is there for a person not schooled in the subject to choose to believe the minority opinion...what reason could someone do that if not political...i too have to rely on expert opinion and i choose to rely on the vast majority in this case

And unlike CO₂, ground-level ozone is toxic to humans and can trigger asthma attacks (it's summertime in Atlanta again...yeccch).

Yes, and I say that those who dislike Rush are a minotity, so what??

The minority who disagrees with you is wrong but the minority that agrees with you is right?

You know, one is a matter of taste... and you know what they say ... De gustibus non est disputandum

Unfortunately, science doesn't devolve around matters of taste, but instead things like facts, evidence, and data.

There is a small minority of scientists who believe the current theory of flight is wrong. And that things like this contraption can fly.



I'll go with the majority of scientists.

Apology accepted - and thank you.

I form my own opinions based on my observations and studies that I partake in. I have been an avid student & researcher of history, archeology and earth science all my life.

I also realize how political types manipulate data towards their own benefit.

The earth has gone through massive changes in topography and weather all on its own.. it will continue to do so.

The Indonesian earthquake changed the shape of the earth, affected rotation and SHIFTED THE POLES.

Science has always supported "facts" that were subsequently proven untrue.

Scientists have also been known to be "manipulable".. ask those that supported the cigarette makers in the 40's & 50's...

Another wrong assumption, I'm afraid...

don't be so defensive..

G. K. Chesterton:

The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.

Using a quote from a notorious anti-semite does not solidify or even further the theory of global warming..

Is man caused Global Warming a Scientific fact?

I personally think it would be better if we relied less on burning petroleum for several reasons. My personal belief, does not change the reality of the science. While some things can be measured (UAH(University of Alabama, Huntsville) - is the publicly archived source of the data graphed below),

it is my take that the the claim of significant man caused global warming can only be called speculation at this point in time (2007).


Here's the story

What does a company that sells computer equipment know about climatology? I'm not going to list every thing I have on the fact that mankind is causing our current climate change. It would take up too much space. However you'd have to be a fool to believe that everything that is happening, and as rapid as it is happening, isn't mans fault. The only variable between now and 1000 years ago is man and our need for consumption. You can't assume, as fragile as our ecosystem is, that it's not mankind that's responsible.

Since there's little disagreement that the planet is warming, & that the ice is melting, especially in the north, that debate is over.

Now the disagreement seems to be over whether it's human or nature induced. The naturalness of the phenomonon is of utmost importance to some on the Phar right, for some reason. The reich wing has been espousing the idea that THE CHOICE IS REAL SIMPLE: IT'S EITHER HYDROCARBON BASED FUELS OR IT'S ECONOMIC DESTRUCTION & the resulting death & mayhem.

There could be some fine, but important points to discover, which is why research should continue, but the choice of solutions is likely the same.
Either way, if it's caused by human or nature, the solution set is generally the same. We have to change the amount of sunlight reaching the earth via geo-engineering, or through changing the atmosphere by capturing & sequestering the GHG.

If "climate change" today meant a rapidly advancing global ice sheet, would we let the naturalness of it convince us to do nothing?

Solutions to the problem are predicated on the belief that humans prefer the present-day climate to any other. Certainly other species do, given that they need as a very slow enviromental change. About 1/2 of all species alive today will be gone by the turn of the century, due to changes on many fronts - climate is just one of them - that are occuring too fast for adaption to occur.

Our species has been around for about 3 million years. Civilization for about 10,000 years or so. Intuitively, no one should be surprised if we are just a few centuries away from extinction.
Ice ages, asteroids, super volcanoes, nuclear conflagration, there are several ways that we could disappear. Handling global warming is just a practice run.

Let's choose the less risky path of doing something. The energy security benefits alone are worth it. A diverse energy portfolio is preferable.
And the more diverse, both geographically & in energy type, the better, because it will be more secure, & we all want security of supply.

Not that I agree or disagree with that or any particular scientist. However I don't see how someone being an anti-semite has anything to do with the science of global warming unless they are claiming the Jews are solely responsible.

Ha ha.

that is your opinion and of course, you're welcome to it.

and I don't see how someone quoting an anti semetic has anything to do with global warming - your making the leap to blaming global warming on jews is simply sublime

again, you are advocating an outlook the perception of which is: "man can defeat mother nature and change the world:..

myself, I go by the old saying: "don't mess with mother nature"..

Either I'm reading you wrong or you're reading me wrong, I'm not sure which. What I'm saying is unless the scientist (and I haven't read anything about him) is saying that global warming is because of Jews, then what difference does it make if he's an anti-semite? If he's using science to support or refute a global warming argument then what difference does religious bias make? It's like saying someone can't know anything about global warming if they hate spinach.

very PEANUT GALLERY like

I'm sorry, I've got to respond to my own post here. I just realized the guy you were responding about isn't a scientist, but rather a philosopher. My mistake for butting in there. Sorry.

Actually, Lib was quoting Chesterton to make a fairly valid observation about the difference between progressives and conservatives. Chesterton died in the 30s, long before the discussion of global warming began.

As for Chesterton being an anti-Semite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton

In The New Jerusalem, Chesterton made it clear that he believed that there was a "Jewish Problem" in Europe, in the sense that he believed that Jewish culture (not Jewish ethnicity) separated itself from the nationalities of Europe.[18] He suggested the formation of a Jewish homeland as a solution, and was later invited to Palestine by Jewish Zionists who saw him as an ally in their cause. In 1934, after the Nazi Party took power in Germany he wrote that:

“ In our early days Hilaire Belloc and myself were accused of being uncompromising Anti-Semites. Today, although I still think there is a Jewish problem, I am appalled by the Hitlerite atrocities. They have absolutely no reason or logic behind them. It is quite obviously the expedient of a man who has been driven to seeking a scapegoat, and has found with relief the most famous scapegoat in European history, the Jewish people.[19] ”

The Wiener Library (London's archive on anti-semitism and Holocaust history) has defended Chesterton against the charge of anti-Semitism: "he was not an enemy, and when the real testing time came along he showed what side he was on."[20]

Chesterton condemned the Nuremberg Laws, and he died in 1936, as the Hitlerite antisemitic measures were temporarily decreased due to the Berlin Olympics, long before lethal persecution by the Nazis would start.

[snip]

I forgive him. Especially since he came to the same realization Theodor Herzl did, even if from a different "angle".

this is what I get for going OFF TANGENT

But back to bickering on topic: You are the guy who follows the popular science of the majority - yet, many of the major breakthroughs of science were unpopular views dared to be postulated by a minority - sometimes a minority of one...

That's true, but you also get people who still think the world is flat. There are those who still think that AIDS is punishment against "the gays". Sometimes the minority is just stupid on things.

I know what you're trying to argue, but the bottom line is, no climate scientist disagrees there is an anthropogenic contribution to global warming. The only question remaining is how significant it is.

So the debate right now exists on a continuum from "very little" to "very great".



If you'll study that table, you'll see a few things.

1. The IPCC acknowledges some of the current warming phase is due to natural causes (solar variation etc.); however, that is insufficient to explain the warming we've seen.
2. It's true human beings are also doing some things that are actually causing global dimming/cooling. (Note to CTs, though, the IPCC isn't saying this countereffect is a deliberate response.)
3. The problem is, the radiative forcing contribution of CO2 exceeds the countereffect, and is far greater in contribution than the natural variation.

You're right! For some reason they despise Al Gore. They can't stand progressive ex-politicians. That's why they detest Carter also.
Repigs prefer death and are extremely short-sighted. They act as if the universe revolves around their views, while a progressive considers themselves in their role of the universe.

bottom line: it's a debate.
Meanwhile, I do try to live within a "small footprint" and believe fervently that alternative energy sources must be developed.

and somehow, I just don't think Al Gore is sincere.. and don't even get me started on that dope, Carter

in my humble opinion, both the pin heads you mention act as if the universe revolves around them - or at least their "wisdom"..

the wisdom of the dim <-- my humble opinion

PS: you DON't have to be a republican to dislike those guys..

PEANUT GALLERY humble.

Thanx for bumping me again.



In that case, we should immediately cease & desist all drilling operations for oil & gas.
Don't mess w/ Mother Nature? What are you, some kind of Luddite? Pangs for Pangea?
Have you heard of controlled destruction?

Humans have been exploiting Mother Nature for a long, long time, & we will continue to in a myriad of ways.
Clathrates = methane hydrate? What do you know about this subject?
Here's a hint, it's the largest source of hydrocarbons on earth?
Ever hear of a Pebble Bed Reactor? CTG-GTL? Water impoundment? Compressed air? Ocean thermal & wave? Bio-engineered fuels?

Were you aware that a recent study by the DOE concluded that off-peak electricity production & transmission capacity could power 84% of the 198 million US passenger vehicles if they were the plug-in hybrids?
Eventually new sources of electricity would be required if all passenger vehicles were to become electric or hybrid.

Who said anything about defeating Mother Nature?
That must originate from your own Dominionist leanings, being a Limbaugh lapdog & all.
I prefer to be a good steward of the earth, & it's flora, & fauna.
I'm sure that I could enlighten you on the subject of energy, especially the subject of drilling for oil & gas, but you seem to think that you know it all, like your cohorts who deny that GW is the real deal.
You can always tell a Limbaugh listener. . . but you can't tell them much.

Good steward? Yeah, as a matter of fact...
I have an Engleman Spuce in my front yard that is 80 ft. tall, & an equally tall Ponderosa Pine in my backyard, that together gobble-up tons & tons of CO2. How small is your energy footprint?
That's why my vehicles have been fueled by LPG for 35 years.
Also because Roughnecks used to be able to fill-up their vehicles @ the drlg. rig for free.
Eighty gals. of propane lasts for about 375 miles in a 1 ton Suburban 4x4, w/ a 454ci ICE (crew-car).
When I run out of LPG, I flip 2 electrical switches on my dash simultaneously to convert the unit to burn gasoline, until I can fill-up w/ propane again.
LPG filling stations are located all across the nation ("Homeland").

But now LPG is almost as expensive as gasoline, and it used to be only about about 1/4 the price of gasoline.
Back in the 60s, it used to be worth about $0.02/MMcf @ the wellhead.
The US has more gas in the Rocky Mountain overthrust belt, than all of the oil in Saudi Arabia, enough to last for 300 years.

But unless we start veiwing oil & gas as strategic assets, instead of fungible commodities, we will lose to China, who is buying every producing lease that they can find, & who see's everything through the lens of Lao Tzu's The Art of War.
We need to establish a national oil company for national security purposes alone. Why should we allow BigOil to put our oil on the world market, & then buy it back from them @ $140.00+/bbl?
"That's not change we can believe in."

Unless we realize the simple fact that we relish the certainty of the past, & we fear the unknowns of the future, we can never really move forward.

Afraid to tangle w/ the peanut gallery & you don't want to mess w/ Mother Nature either.

Don't wimp-out on me.

That rambling post is difficult & tireing to read.. can you make some kind of a point? Concisely?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70627110240.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70925162653.htm

I am not getting you: Some people want to put IRON intop the ocean in order to promote the growth of organisms that absorb CO2...

The Wildlife people are against it..

So it's all opinions & peeing contests - that's what I been saying..

As far as I believe; the EARTH regulates itself. We currently do not have the knowlege, insight or ability to effect the course of natural phenomena. <-- my opinion.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybodys got one.

Informed opinions are much more credible.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70627110240.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70925162653.htm

I guess the the URL is too long.
So try this... http://www.carnicom.com
http://weatherwars.info
http://www.eastlundscienc.com
http://www.cheniere.org


But screw you & the horse you rode in on, dipshit.
It's not my job to educate the wilfully ignorant, numbnutz, neocon, nicompooPNAC, ner do well, wankers.

That is rude as well as a PERSONAL ATTACK - according to the rules of this RRMB, that is bannable..

Too bad you can't handle your emotions when others do not agree with your beliefs - and cannot follow your convoluted explanations.


I won't bicker further with a refuge from the peanut gallery

http://www.eastlundscience.com

Go to Wikipedia & look up geo-engineering, or Google it.

Check out what M.I.T. says about it, or the D.O.E...

Geo-engineering is occuring right now. And like you, the "Wildlife people" are oblivious.

Ok then, so there's NO PROBLEM

Go for it. Have me banned because you can dish it out, but you can't take your own 'freakin medicine.

Waaaa, waaa, go cry to the mod.