Factors other than CO2 that affect Earth's temperature.

[gsvol]

Interesting non political consideration of some important scientific facts.

 

[gsvol]

Don't know about anyone else but here are
some things that jumped out at me:

One solar inertial motion model predicts that
a prolonged solar magnetic activity minimum
will occur somewhere between 1990 and 2013.
This prolonged minimum is expected to end
around 2091.

Matters like barycenter shifts and 11-year
sunspot cycles were still unknown. Even Benjamin
Franklin's pithy geophysical observations were
ignored. But according to Percy Bysshe Shelley,
one thing is certain:

The fountains mingle with the river
And the rivers with the ocean.
The winds of heaven mix forever.

Astronomers have observed sunspot structure
and solar cycle length varying in the same way
over the last century, which indicate a peak in
solar luminosity in the late 1930s and minima
around 1880 and 1975. These changes in solar
luminosity have closely paralleled changes in
Earth's temperature, suggesting a physical
cause-effect relationship.

The Maunder Minimum coincided with some of
Earth's coolest climates of the past millennium.
The most recent grand minimum was the Dalton
Minimum, which occurred around 1790-1820. It
was much shorter than the Maunder Minimum,
and astronomers observed low levels of solar
activity nearly every year. The year 1810 was
the last full calendar year without any sunspots
being observed. Solar cycles during the Dalton
Minimum lasted about 14 years on average,
compared with the modern average of 10.7 years.
This solar behavior is consistent with a reduced
solar luminosity and should be accompanied by a
cooler climate on Earth.

 

[TennTradition]

So...the sun may buy us 80 or so years to deal with our CO2 emissions? Good...we may need it.

 

[gsvol]

So...the sun may buy
us 80 or so years to deal with our CO2 emissions?
Good...we may need it.

That was an educated guess, we don't know when
we may go into another cold period lasting hundreds
or even tens of thousands of years.

I had no idea you were so sold on Goremania!

Volcanic activity can and does dwarf the amount
of pollution caused by mankind.

There's nothing humans can do about it except to
be prepared.

One thing is for sure, when the next major eruption
comes, we won't have to worry about global warming.

KENNETH SUSKIN

Yellowstone Tremors Subside For Now


The nearly 300 small earthquakes that have rumbled
underneath Yellowstone National Park during the past
week seem to have subsided for now, according to
data from the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory.

Yellowstone National Park sits atop a super volcano.

Geological records document eight known supervolcanic
eruptions, but there may have been more.

To be sure, a super volcano eruption at
some point in the future is inevitable.


Link to current news about active volcanoes worldwide.

Last eruptions reported on groundhog day, 2009.

Two volcanoes in Japan and another in eastern
Russia erupted overnight, spreading ash as far
as the Philippines and Vietnam, the Japan
Meteorological Agency said on its Web site.

Alexei Ozerov, the leading scientist of the
Volcanology and Seismology Institute of Far Eastern
Branch of the Russian Academy of Science has
recently reported about this to RIA Novosti.

“As compared to the eruption of 1956, the only
one in the history of modern observations, the current
eruption started in a more impetuous and powerful way”

Posted by geologist Christopher C. Sanders on January 1, 2009.

"I am advising all State officials around Yellowstone
National Park for a potential State of Emergency. In
the last week over 252 earthquakes have been
observed by the USGS. We have a 3D view on the
movement of magma rising underground. We have all
of the pre warning signs of a major eruption from a
super volcano. - I want everyone to leave Yellowstone
National Park and for 200 miles around the volcano
caldera."

What did you think of RMS?? Or did you not get a
chance to check them out yet??

 

[TennTradition]

What did you think of RMS?? Or did you not get a chance to check them out yet??

I've looked at some material...but not enough to give it a fair shake one way or the other yet. I haven't had much time recently to post or read....but the weekend is almost here.

 

[gsvol]

I've looked at some material...but not enough to give it a fair shake one way or the other yet. I haven't had much time recently to post or read....but the weekend is almost here.

Hope you had a productive week.

Off hand can you compare the rough figures for CO2
released by human activity and the same from just
volcanoes annually??

Then of course we have everything else from cow
flatulence to natural oceanic transfer sources to
factor in.

 

[TennTradition]

Hope you had a productive week.

Off hand can you compare the rough figures for CO2 released by human activity and the same from just volcanoes annually??

Then of course we have everything else from cow flatulence to natural oceanic transfer sources to factor in.

I do not know this as a fact, but my *understanding* is that volcanoes have very little CO2 release per year. That is not to say that there are other natural sources of CO2. (If fact, I think that volcanoes have a net cooling effect because of sulfur emissions, though this is only temporary and drops off after a few years because the sulfur will fall to the earth, unlike CO2). It is my *understanding* (again, not necessarily fact..I've just read this, not studied it) that natural sources of CO2 far outweigh man-made. However, those natural sources were at equilibrium with the CO2 uptake of the environment, with a concentration of CO2 at 280 ppm. When human emissions from burning fossil fuels were added, a disequilibrium was presented and this is leading to an increase in atmospheric CO2. Ultimately, the total amount of CO2 released isn't the factor that matters, it is the CO2 released vs. the CO2 that is absorbed naturally...and because we are releasing more than is being absorbed, CO2 is accumulating.

You natural oceanic transfers point is an important one....no doubt. Over time, the ocean can uptake a lot of CO2 and deposit it on the ocean floors (at least some of it). So, if human emissions were to stop...it is entirely feasible that CO2 levels would *drop*. That is the idea behind if human emissions can level off....CO2 levels can *stabilize*.

Edit: PS..thanks...it was a pretty good week...though I hope to string together several more .

 

[orangeblooded2]

I do not know this as a fact, but my *understanding* is that volcanoes have very little CO2 release per year. That is not to say that there are other natural sources of CO2. (If fact, I think that volcanoes have a net cooling effect because of sulfur emissions, though this is only temporary and drops off after a few years because the sulfur will fall to the earth, unlike CO2). It is my *understanding* (again, not necessarily fact..I've just read this, not studied it) that natural sources of CO2 far outweigh man-made. However, those natural sources were at equilibrium with the CO2 uptake of the environment, with a concentration of CO2 at 280 ppm. When human emissions from burning fossil fuels were added, a disequilibrium was presented and this is leading to an increase in atmospheric CO2. Ultimately, the total amount of CO2 released isn't the factor that matters, it is the CO2 released vs. the CO2 that is absorbed naturally...and because we are releasing more than is being absorbed, CO2 is accumulating.

You natural oceanic transfers point is an important one....no doubt. Over time, the ocean can uptake a lot of CO2 and deposit it on the ocean floors (at least some of it). So, if human emissions were to stop...it is entirely feasible that CO2 levels would *drop*. That is the idea behind if human emissions can level off....CO2 levels can *stabilize*.

Edit: PS..thanks...it was a pretty good week...though I hope to string together several more .

REGARDING VOLCANIOES

Just on my understanding of theories involved.Their is way to much evidence to point to the opposite side of this assumption.Upon futher study Their is a variable
cornucopia of information to support either side of this argument.

REGARDING HUMANS

However the majority of scientific opinion not only supports The Human C02 footprint model.It demands
we need to take immediate action to undo and correct
What is transpiring before our very eyes.

The on going Politicalization of the facts,contrary to scientific knowledge is delaying what needs to be a clear and definable resolution to the problem.

 

[gsvol]

REGARDING VOLCANIOES

Just on my understanding of theories involved.Their is way to much evidence to point to the opposite side of this assumption.Upon futher study Their is a variable
cornucopia of information to support either side of this argument.

REGARDING HUMANS

However the majority of scientific opinion not only supports The Human C02 footprint model.It demands
we need to take immediate action to undo and correct
What is transpiring before our very eyes.

The on going Politicalization of the facts,contrary to scientific knowledge is delaying what needs to be a clear and definable resolution to the problem.

I'm really trying to have a thread without the politics,
centering only on scientific knowledge (pardon my
redundancy) so why not start another thread and I
would be extremely happy to argue the relative merits
of various political stances on that topic??

Action previously demanded gave us the ethanol
legislation, how could we have been more
stupid??

1) that legislation increased rather than decreased
CO2 emissions.

2) that legislation sent a ripple effect throughout the
world food supply like throwing a large rock in a small
pond.

Politicalizing science is nothing new, forty years ago
some tried the same thing with 'CO2 and the next ice
age' scare and then there was 'silent spring' which led
to the worldwide banning of DDT which went against
all known science but was sold to the politicians and
public which has led to untold, needless suffering of
mankind worldwide.

I vehemently disagree with your statement; "The on
going Politicalization of the facts,contrary to scientific
knowledge is delaying what needs to be a clear and
definable resolution to the problem."

First off, 'politicalization' isn't a word and the rest of
the statement is just as ignorant.

Nothing personal, but why can't we have a discussion
on scientific fact rather than the politicized 'what we
need to have government do for us?'

Clue, we can have a discussion without it being an
argument.

 

[Dustin4Vols]

i dunno, i think global warming is a crock of s***

 

[gsvol]

i dunno, i think global warming is a crock of s***

And I think you are right on the money! (money being the key word that is the prime motivation for pushing an agenda.)

 

[jdsa]

Politicalizing science is nothing new, forty years ago some tried the same thing with 'CO2 and the next ice age' scare and then there was 'silent spring' which led to the worldwide banning of DDT which went against all known science but was sold to the politicians and public which has led to untold, needless suffering of mankind worldwide.

The persistence of DDT in the environment and its negative effect on birds and crustaceans require that it be banned. Even if there's some debate about global warming, there are plenty of examples of man having lasting negative impacts on the environment.

 

[orangeblooded2]

I'm really trying to have a thread without the politics.

stupid??

Politicalizing science is nothing new

I vehemently disagree with your statement; "The on going Politicalization of the facts,contrary to scientific knowledge is delaying what needs to be a clear and definable resolution to the problem."

First off, 'politicalization' isn't a word and the rest of the statement is just as ignorant.

Nothing personal, but why can't we have a discussion on scientific fact rather than the politicized 'what we need to have government do for us?'

Clue, we can have a discussion without it being an argument.

I will have naught to do with a man who can blow hot and cold with the same breath.

AESOP.


That being said.The way your mind works intrigues me.

I agree,we should be able to have a discussion without it being an argument.

 

[gsvol]

The persistence of DDT in the environment and its negative effect on birds and crustaceans require that it be banned.

That is the exact opposite of the truth!!


I know you believe what you say, most people
do because that's what the media and the
government told us, they were lying and
they knew it!!

Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA
administrative law judge occurred during
1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner,
Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that
“DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard
to man… DDT is not a mutagenic or
teratogenic hazard to man… The use
of DDT under the regulations involved
here do not have a deleterious effect
on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms,
wild birds or other wildlife.”

[Sweeney, EM. 1972. ]

EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and
findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972
(40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in
Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26,
1972)]

Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA
administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in
1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single
hour of the seven months of EPA hearings
on DDT. Ruckelshaus’ aides reported
he did not even read the transcript of
the EPA hearings on DDT.

[Santa Ana Register, April 25, 1972]

After reversing the EPA hearing examiner’s
decision, Ruckelshaus refused to release
materials upon which his ban was based.
Ruckelshaus rebuffed USDA efforts to obtain
those materials through the Freedom of
Information Act, claiming that they were
just “internal memos.” Scientists were
therefore prevented from refuting the false
allegations in the Ruckelshaus’ “Opinion and
Order on DDT.”

Even if there's some debate about global warming, there are plenty of examples of man having lasting negative impacts on the environment.

True, and in places where the state was all
powerful in the last century, that was where
the worst environmental impact was found.

Environmental politics is about giving more control
to fewer people (politicos) and we are supposed to
trust them to be the best stewards of the land.

That hasn't happened in the past and we have no
reason that will happen in the future!!!

Before any implication for action can be present, additional
information is required.


In fact, if it comes, global warming, in the projected
likely range, will bring major benefits to much of the
world. Central Canada and large portions of Siberia will
become similar in climate to New England today. So
too, perhaps, will portions of Greenland. The
disappearance of Arctic ice in summer time, will
shorten important shipping routes by thousands of
miles. Growing seasons in the North Temperate Zone
will be longer. Plant life in general will flourish because
of the presence of more carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.

Strangely, these facts are rarely mentioned. Instead,
attention is devoted almost exclusively to the negatives
associated with global warming, above all to the
prospect of rising sea levels, which the report projects
to be between 7 and 23 inches by the year 2100, a
range, incidentally, that by itself does not entail major
coastal flooding.

The environmental movement does not value industrial
civilization. It fears and hates it. Indeed, it does not
value human life, which it regards merely as one of
earth’s “biota,” of no greater value than any other life
form, such as spotted owls or snail darters. To it, the
loss of industrial civilization is of no great consequence.
It is a boon.

But to everyone else, it would be an immeasurable
catastrophe: the end of further economic progress and
the onset of economic retrogression, with no necessary
stopping point. Today’s already widespread economic
stagnation is the faintest harbinger of the conditions
that would follow.

All of the rising clamor for energy caps is an invitation
to the American people to put themselves in chains.
It is an attempt to lure them along a path thousands
of times more deadly than any military misadventure,
and one from which escape might be impossible.

 

[orangeblooded2]

I will have naught to do with a man who can blow hot and cold with the same breath.

AESOP.


That being said.The way your mind works intrigues me.

I agree,we should be able to have a discussion without it being an argument.

About what I expected.

That lasted all of what,8 minutes.


The Visionary lies to himself,the liar only to others.

Nietzsche

 

[gsvol]

I do not know this as a fact, but my *understanding* is that volcanoes have very little CO2 release per year. That is not to say that there are other natural sources of CO2. (If fact, I think that volcanoes have a net cooling effect because of sulfur emissions, though this is only temporary and drops off after a few years because the sulfur will fall to the earth, unlike CO2).

So this isn't your primary area of study?

First let's acknowledge that Earth itself has some sort of balancing mechanisms that we don't fully understand.

Now, no matter how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere each year, the biosphere takes out an average of 50 percent of that extra amount. Even after we triple the amount of CO2 we produce, nature still takes out 50 percent of the extra amount.

Not only that, the Earth has experienced eras when it had many times the amount we now have and it was still very inhabitable by mankind.

Let's acknowledge too that when environmental fanatics say; "we are treating the atmosphere like a sewer," (by burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2), we are still just a part of the total equation and a very small part at that.

True volcanoes have a cooling effect that is temporary but what of super volcanoes tipping some balance that
reverses the trend of our current warming period?

It is my *understanding* (again, not necessarily fact..I've just read this, not studied it) that natural sources of CO2 far outweigh man-made.

I agree.

However, those natural sources were at equilibrium with the CO2 uptake of the environment, with a concentration of CO2 at 280 ppm. When human emissions from burning fossil fuels were added, a disequilibrium was presented and this is leading to an increase in atmospheric CO2.

True again, if man were not on Earth there would be no disequilibrium, however the theory that CO2 drives the global temperature is like another theory but,

it just ain't happening.

Another fact is that world per capita production of CO2 in the last century has declined dramatically and likely will continue to do so.

Ultimately, the total amount of CO2 released isn't the factor that matters, it is the CO2 released vs. the CO2 that is absorbed naturally...and because we are releasing more than is being absorbed, CO2 is accumulating.

But not something to go into a hand wringing fit of hysteria over either.

So we should invent a CO2 eating machine that will insure we maintain the CO2 status quo??

Your natural oceanic transfers point is an important one....no doubt. Over time, the ocean can uptake a lot of CO2 and deposit it on the ocean floors (at least some of it).

True and do you think all those wind turbines might throw the earth out of balance, I know it would on Cape Cod.

So, if human emissions were to stop...it is entirely feasible that CO2 levels would *drop*. That is the idea behind if human emissions can level off....CO2 levels can *stabilize*.

The idea that mankind might entirely stop all CO2 emissions looks to be like something lifted from a science fiction book.

Does anyone stop to think about what things would be like if that were to happen.

Edit: PS..thanks...it was a pretty good week...though I hope to string together several more .

When you're hot you're hot!!

 

[IPorange]

When one looks for the ocean's CO2 sink as the solution to the higher CO2 concentrations we currently have, one has to consider ocean acidification. That is also a concern whatever one feels about global climate change.

 

[gsvol]

When one looks for the ocean's CO2 sink as the solution to the higher CO2 concentrations we currently have, one has to consider ocean acidification. That is also a concern whatever one feels about global climate change.

Your assumption is wrong; causation runs in the opposite direction. Increasing temperatures due to solar radiation cause more CO2 to come out of solution in the oceans, increasing atmospheric CO2 content. The increased CO2 in the air does not redissolve because higher ocean temperature reduces CO2 solubility.

Real science vs anecdotal political claptrap.

excerpts;

As the atmosphere's CO2 content continues to rise, the pH of the world's oceans is expected to decline, driving a phenomenon described by climate alarmists as ocean acidification, to which they are already ascribing a host of imminent catastrophic consequences.

After detailed review of several scientific studies that were not alarming.......

We agree. There have been more than enough speculative predictions of catastrophic negative impacts due to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content with regard to the ability of earth's oceans to sustain their many different lifeforms, as well as impassioned calls for immediate actions to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions, when for all we currently know, elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations could well prove to be a net benefit to the marine biosphere, just as they are a huge blessing to earth's terrestrial lifeforms.

(Hint, if little Nemo is going to be in big trouble, Mickey Mouse would already be extinct and Bambi would have outlawed all hunting.)

Perhaps we should not drink any more carbonated soft drinks, it might kill us. (can I laugh at my own jokes?)

Look I do not object to using alternative energy sources, if we could harness the energy of just one lightning bolt and store it for later use, we could supply the electrical needs of a fair sized city for a year.
-------------------------------------------------

The big thing, the foremost thing is that (including human made) CO2 emissions aren't going to 'cause' runaway global warming.

How much has it risen in the last century??
1 degree F?

As for ocean acidification, when you crunch the numbers you will find this isn't something to be alarmed about either, despite the dearth of disinformation put out by environmental organizations.

And the CO2 level has risen by perhaps 100 parts per million since 1850. Imagine that. And the oceans aren't warming at depth, another recent regurgitated claim by the global warming demagogues.

(remember much of this is a replay of the debate of the '60s and '70s, only back then they were going to protect us from an ice age.)
---------------------------------------

"Carbon dioxide may be thought of as the most important substance in the bioshpere: that part of the earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere,and solid crust in which life exists. It has supported the existence and development of life by serving as the source of carbon, the principle element of which all living things...are made.

In past times it was a source of the free oxygen in the air and the ocean that makes animal life possible.By absorbing and backscattering the heat radiated from the earth's surface, it maintains, together with atmospheric water vapor, a sufficiently high temperature in the air and the sea to allow liquid water, and therefore life, to exist.

Earth's uniquely benign environment for living things depends fundamentally, of course, on its relationship to a small, steady star, the sun; but this relationship is modulated in essential ways to carbon dioxide."
Roger Revelle (1985)



Another factor;

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H20), followed by carbon dioxide (C02) ...

In 1999, the largest-ever swarm of quakes on a mid-ocean ridge was recorded, on the Gakkel Ridge in the east Arctic basin.

To explain the destruction his team found, Reves-Sohn says the lava must have contained 10 times more carbon dioxide than the highest value ever measured in mid-ocean-ridge rocks. He suggests that the CO2 bubbled out of the rising lava and built up in a chamber beneath the seabed.

----------------------------------

The state of the biosphere at any time is a function of the rate of flow of energy from the sun to earth, and on to outer space. Variations in the carbon cycle influence the solar-earth-space (S-E-S) flow rates. Great volcanic events release greenhouse gases (water vapor and carbon dioxide) onto earth's surface, thus influencing the carbon cycle, and the S-E-S flow system. Thus, volcanism exerts control upon the state of earth's biosphere in ways to influence bioevolution and extinction.

Dewey McLean PHD

The hotspot volcano that produced the Deccan Traps lava pile still exists today on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean. Known as Piton de la Fournaise, it is one of the world's most active volcanos with more than 100 eruptions in the past 300 years.

......This convection also transports materials and greenhouse gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide to earth's surface via volcanoes, fumaroles, and hot springs. These greenhouse gases trap heat from the sun, allowing earth to warm sufficiently to support life. Through time, earth is losing its internal heat to outer space. As the earth loses its internal heat, the great spheres must evolve along with it. This includes the bioshpere.

Water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases because they trap heat from the sun, warming earth's surface. Because these gases are always present in the atmosphere, earth is a perpetual greenhouse planet. Without them, earth's surface would be frozen solid. As it is, earth's surface is about 30 degrees K warmer than it would be without them, allowing earth to support life.

 

[jdsa]

Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA
administrative law judge occurred during
1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner,
Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that
“DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard
to man… DDT is not a mutagenic or
teratogenic hazard to man… The use
of DDT under the regulations involved
here do not have a deleterious effect
on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms,
wild birds or other wildlife.”

Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA
administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in
1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single
hour of the seven months of EPA hearings
on DDT. Ruckelshaus’ aides reported
he did not even read the transcript of
the EPA hearings on DDT.

One person (apparently not a scientist himself) disputing the dangers of DDT doesn't override the bulk of actual scientific information concluding that there should be some concern. Can you cite any scientific studies showing that DDT in the environment doesn't have any negative effects? I haven't been able to find any.

Secondly, it appears that what you've quoted grossly distorts the facts, ie Ruckelshaus was aware of Sweeney's findings and that Sweeney did acknowledge the dangers of DDT but thought the benefits out weighed the dangers (which wouldn't be an issue today as we've developed plenty of just-as-effective alternatives to DDT).

Here's some counter-spin for you to support that: Some are Boojums Blog Archive Ruckelshaus, Sweeney and DDT

As far as your claims that Global Warming will bring about paradise, that's just as speculative as those that claim that life on the planet will end due rapidly increased temperatures.

 

[gsvol]

One person (apparently not a scientist himself) disputing the dangers of DDT doesn't override the bulk of actual scientific information concluding that there should be some concern.

The first law of holes: when you're in one, stop digging.

Who testified before his commission for all those months? Don't tell me they weren't scientists.

DDT is probably the single most valuable chemical ever synthesized to prevent disease.

After decades of extensive study and use, DDT has not been proven to be harmful to humans.

If you want to believe Rachel Carson was using actual scientific information and not environmental scare tactics, go ahead and believe, it's easier to believe than think.

"If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France

Can you cite any scientific studies showing that DDT in the environment doesn't have any negative effects? I haven't been able to find any.

Where is your study showing the bad effects???

The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.
- Joseph Goebbels (Nazi propaganda minister)


For many countries, DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) is still an ''effective and affordable'' weapon against malaria, according to United Nations agencies.

There are other important studies of those exposed more recently. Chris Curtis of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has studied the health of Brazilian and Indian insecticide sprayers who had been exposed to DDT. He found that their health "was similar to other men of their age"--in other words, DDT spraying did not noticeably affect their health.[32]

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the agency in charge of evaluating the health effects of hazardous substance exposure. ATSDR reviewed DDT's association with breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, Hodgkin's disease and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, prostate and testicular cancer, endometrial cancer, and the occurrence of any other cancer. One of its assessments was that "taking all factors into consideration, the existing information does not support the hypothesis that exposure to DDT/DDE/DDD increases the risk of cancer in humans."[33]

Leading U.S. toxicologists Bruce Ames (a 1998 recipient of the U.S. National Medal of Science) and Lois Gold (of the University of California at Berkeley) place the cancer risk associated with DDT in broader perspective. Their research shows that even at the height of DDT's use in agriculture, the cancer risk associated with the chemical was far lower than the cancer risks of everyday foods.[34] Ames sums up the risk of pesticides and their carcinogenic threat to man as follows:

You would certainly put your attention on cups of coffee before you'd put your attention on dietary residues of pesticides. You get more carcinogen in one cup of coffee than from a year's worth of potentially carcinogenic pesticide residues. Pesticides just aren't something that inherently seem very interesting as possible causes of human cancer.[35]

Some observers attribute the devastating effect of malaria to the limitations imposed by governments and environmentalists on the use of DDT.


''No study is conclusive about the harmful effects of DDT, but based on the precautionary principle and the apparent pressure from some big companies that produce insecticides (that compete with DDT) it was agreed to limit its use,'' Américo Rodríguez, a scientist with Mexico's Malaria Research Center, told Tierramérica.

The same 'precautionary principle' is the main philosophy driving most of the crazy headed global warming legislation today.

The counterproductive ethanol program is a fine example of such idiocy.

Secondly, it appears that what you've quoted grossly distorts the facts, ie Ruckelshaus was aware of Sweeney's findings and that Sweeney did acknowledge the dangers of DDT but thought the benefits out weighed the dangers (which wouldn't be an issue today as we've developed plenty of just-as-effective alternatives to DDT).

Ruckelshaus changed his story midstream, why?

DDT is no panacea, but it has a better track record on malaria control than any other intervention. Lives are lost every day because of continued opposition to its use. With development and modernization and, perhaps, a vaccine, DDT will one day no longer be necessary, but that day is still a long way off.

Here's some counter-spin for you to support that: Some are Boojums Blog Archive Ruckelshaus, Sweeney and DDT

Spin spin spin, that site is not only misleading, it puts forth some outright lies and produces no science other than regurgitating radical environmental political science.

Did you actually read the site I linked?? They countered all of the claims made by the Audubon society which was the big dog of the enviro movement of the time and they cited actual facts and gave references.

DDT in penguin eggs???

That was pure bull crap, not true.

As far as your claims that Global Warming will bring about paradise, that's just as speculative as those that claim that life on the planet will end due rapidly increased temperatures.

I didn't ever claim that (I notice you capitalize G and W
as if it were your religion) a warmer globe is going to produce a paradise

The environmental program would produce a hell OTOH!!!


What do you think of this piece of 'morons at work' bit of preventative medicine????

I will have naught to do with a man who can blow hot and cold with the same breath.

AESOP.


That being said.The way your mind works intrigues me.

I agree,we should be able to have a discussion without it being an argument.

Thank you professor!

About what I expected.

That lasted all of what,8 minutes.


The Visionary lies to himself,the liar only to others.

Nietzsche

I'm not a mod, I will say the mods do a very good job here, and I'm certainly not the complaint department!!

"Ye shall know a tree by it's fruits."

What did Nietzsche give us? Nazi brown shirts!

I consider him to be about as lowly as Machiavelli which is about as low as a man can go in his thinking.

In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed - but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance.

In Switzerland they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock.
- Orson Welles

Information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not music; music is the best.
- Frank Zappa

Some people take music too seriously, and some don't take it seriously enough, others take it just right...
- John Cage

They say the basic building block of the universe is hydrogen, they are wrong, stupidity is the basic building block of the universe.
-Frank Zappa

:salute:

 

[gsvol]

So...the sun may buy us 80 or so years to deal with our CO2 emissions? Good...we may need it.

Let me see if I can reason with you.

Some known facts; (that perhaps on which we can agree.)

The primary driver of Earth's mean temperature is our heat source, the sun.

We know that Earth is losing interior heat over the ages by way of transfer from it's core into space.

Might it not be wise to retain more CO2 instead of reacting in a paranoid delusional way??

We know that in times past we have lived in ice ages in which the CO2 levels were higher than they are now, doesn't that at least give some room for skepticism on the whole theory that we must fight global warming??

We know that for instance CO2 levels have risen the last ten years but temperatures have fallen. Even the UN has said it may need to rethink it's own computer modeling of future world temperature projections.

Scientific data from Climate Skeptic.

Now that is much more alarming than the threat of global climate change could ever be.

 

[gsvol]

One person (apparently not a scientist himself) disputing the dangers of DDT doesn't override the bulk of actual scientific information concluding that there should be some concern.

Concluding there should be some concern doesn't equate to taking radical action!!!!

We found the concerns were and are baseless.

And we see that radical action taken caused untold harm.

And we see the current 'concern' having already stampeded us into another boondoggle, the ethanol mandate.

Energy Keepers - Energy Killers, Roy Ennis.

World wide food manipulation translates to starvation and the murder of millions!


The creation of global warming is nothing more than crime family tactics to steal more tax money (not to mention higher food prices) from millions of Americans and create action out of fraudulent science and fear.

(with horrid repercussions in the third world)

In 2008 food riots erupted in Egypt, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mexico, Senegal, Uzbekistan and Yemen. For the 3 billion people in the world who subsist on $2 a day or less, the leap in food prices is a killer. They spend a majority of their income on food, and when the price goes up, they can't afford to feed themselves or their families.

Now back to known science.

Wow. It is amazing that the discussion of how trace atmospheric gasses might affect global temperature, and whether the climactic reaction to this is one of positive or negative feedback, has become a moral rather than a scientific question.

Though this may be obvious to readers, its worth repeating once in a while the chain of reasoning that must all be true for dramatic government action to be justified in reducing CO2. That chain is roughly as follows:

1.
Can the presence of CO2 be shown in a lab to increase absorption of incoming radiation?

2.
If so, can trace amounts (370ppm) of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere be enough to absorb meaningful amounts of radiation and if so, how much?

3.
If CO2 in the atmosphere tends to provide a heating effect, do feedback effects (e.g. water vapor) tend to amplify (positive feedback) or damp (negative feedback) the resulting temperature change

4.
What would the effect of the temperature changes be, both negative AND positive. Undoubtedly some things would be worse, while others, like longer growing seasons, would be better

5.
How are other natural effects, such as the sun, changing the climate and global temperatures, and how large are these effects compared to man’s.

6.
If the effects in #4 are net negative, and they are large enough even to be recognizable against the backdrop of natural variations in #5, do they outweigh the substantial costs, in terms of increased poverty, slowed development, lost wealth, etc. in substantial CO2 abatement.

The answer to #1 is yes, it is settled science.

The answer to #2 is probably yes, though the amount is in some doubt, but everyone (even the IPCC) agrees it is probably less than a degree per century.

Most of the warming in forecasts (2/3 or more in the IPCC cases) comes from positive feedback in #3, but we really know nothing here, except that (in reality) most systems are driven by negative feedback. In other words, this is so unsettled we don’t even know the sign of the effect.

#4 is the focus of a lot of really, really bad science. The funding mechanism at universities has forced many people to try to come up with a global warming angle for their area of interest, so it causes a lot of people to posit bad things without much proof. If you want to study grape growing in Monterrey County, you are much more likely to get funded if you say you want to study "the negative effects of global warming on grape growing in Monterrey County." Serious science is starting to debunk many of the most catastrophic claims, and history tells us that the world has thrived in periods of warmer climates. Even the IPCC, for example, projects only minimal sea level rise over the next century as increases in Antarctic ice offset melting in Greenland.

We are beginning to understand that natural variability is pretty high in #5. Alarmist might be call "sun variability deniers" as they refuse to admit that Mr. Sun might (does) have substantial effects on the Earth. They are kind of in a hole, though. They are trying to simultaneously claim in #3 that the climate is dominated by positive feedback, but the same time in #5 claim the climate without man is really, really stable. These two in tandem make no sense.

And in #6, nobody knows the answer, but a few serious looks at the problem have shown that aggressive CO2 abatement programs could have catastrophic effects on world poverty. Which is ironic, since the best correlation with severe weather death rates in the world is not CO2 level but wealth and poverty reduction. No matter how many storms there are, as poverty has declined in a certain region, so have severe weather deaths, even while CO2 has been increasing. So one could easily argue that CO2 abatement programs will increase rather than decrease severe weather deaths

So this is the trick people like the cited blogger use.

They point to good science in #1 and partially in #2 to claim the whole chain of reasoning is "settled science," when in fact there are gaping holes in our knowledge of 3-4-5-6.

 

[TennTradition]

I would argue, however, that it would be smart for a blogger to get point #1 right, since this is the first of several points that must be true before action should be taken. While it isn't a huge point, it does raise into question the overall understanding behind the post. It isn't incoming radiation that is absorbed, it is outgoing. CO2 is an infrared absorber, not an ultra-violet absorber. It is the radiation that is emitted by the earth (as black-body radiation) that is absorbed by CO2 causing the greenhouse effect.

If we sweep that under the rug, I think that there are some good points made in that post. In my opinion (as I have argued on here before), we are having the wrong debate. Everyone (led in many ways by Inhoffe) wants to debate that CO2 will not lead to global warming, that it is all a myth. I personally think that the science is quite clear that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to further warming. I also think that there are reasonable error bars on expected warming...with numbers likes 2-3 degrees C by (at 550 ppm stabilization) being probable. With some level of scientific uncertainty, I can accept these numbers. However, when discussing the EFFECTS of this warming...that is where I think that the models must get better before we can have a lot of certainty in how much action, if any, is necessary.

 

[gsvol]

I would argue, however, that it would be smart for a blogger to get point #1 right, since this is the first of several points that must be true before action should be taken. While it isn't a huge point, it does raise into question the overall understanding behind the post. It isn't incoming radiation that is absorbed, it is outgoing. CO2 is an infrared absorber, not an ultra-violet absorber. It is the radiation that is emitted by the earth (as black-body radiation) that is absorbed by CO2 causing the greenhouse effect.

I was wondering if jdsa would notice that. his interest probably doesn't go beyond saving little Nemo. At any rate forty years ago the CO2 alarmists were trying to say just what the blogger is saying and that would bring about a new ice age if we didn't take drastic action.

If we sweep that under the rug, I think that there are some good points made in that post. In my opinion (as I have argued on here before), we are having the wrong debate.

I agree the public debate (if you can possibly call it a debate, it ends up much more like indoctrination in the present climate [no pun, honest injun]) isn't where it should be.

For instance a public education bill proposed by Senator Obama last year reads;

Climate Change Education Act - Requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to establish a Climate Change Education Program to: (1) broaden the understanding of climate change, possible long and short-term consequences, and potential solutions; (2) apply the latest scientific and technological discoveries to provide learning opportunities to people; and (3) emphasize actionable information to help people understand and to promote implementation of new technologies, programs, and incentives related to energy conservation, renewable energy, and greenhouse gas reduction.

Requires such Program to include: (1) a national information campaign to disseminate information on and promote implementation of the new technologies, programs, and incentives; and (2) a competitive grant program to provide grants to states, municipalities, educational institutions, and other organizations to create materials relevant to climate change and climate science, develop climate science kindergarten through grade 12 curriculum and supplementary educational materials, or publish climate change and climate science information.

(and when he says 'other organizations' no doubt he is talking about World Wildlife Fund and other radical organizations.) And for God's sake, do we need to be trying to scare kindergarteners into the same mindset as the paranoid delusional Al Gore???

Everyone (led in many ways by Inhoffe) wants to debate that CO2 will not lead to global warming, that it is all a myth.

I thought Inhoffe is questioning the "catastropic" aspect of Earth mean temperature. Al Gore and company want to cut off all debate entirely.

Two things, in Earth's history there have been times during ice ages when CO2 is higher than present levels.

Secondly the main thing that governs Earth temperature is activity of the sun, everything else is secondary.

I personally think that the science is quite clear that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to further warming. I also think that there are reasonable error bars on expected warming...with numbers likes 2-3 degrees C by (at 550 ppm stabilization) being probable. With some level of scientific uncertainty, I can accept these numbers.

Well I agree that in the long haul, all else being equal, that a continued rise in atmospheric CO2 levels will lead to a higher mean temperature of Earth's surface.

Is 550 ppm nearly double present ppm levels??

The blogger offers a very good refutation of Hanson's alarmist predictions here (including an expose of how Hanson has manipulated data and still keeps secret data that should be public information) and
an even more detailed explanation refuting Hanson's theory here.

A footnote, some surface temperature reports originating in China have been found to have been falsified and manipulated to support the global warming theory.

However, when discussing the EFFECTS of this warming...that is where I think that the models must get better before we can have a lot of certainty in how much action, if any, is necessary.

If anything good happens out of this, I hope it will lead to more government funding of physics.

And I mean pure physics, not physics with political strings attached as is now the case in most instances.

One of my children had a choice of a free ride at any University, my wife pushed MIT for a while but at any rate during the process there was indecision as to whether to major in physics or engineering and so I arranged to seek the council of a friend of mine who runs a University research physics lab and my child and I went to discuss the matter.

He gave us the five star tour of the whole campus (it's a small, traditionally black school) which he was very proud of and the physics lab where they were studying the nature of quarks using lasers to break apart atoms.
(you would probably know the technical term for that, I don't remember but you should hear my definition of a quark.)

One thing that jumped out was how little we actually know about physics, truthfully said; "we have barely scratched the surface of all the possibilities of what can be learned in that field."

Eventually we ended up in his office and he addressed the question.

He recommended engineering because "wall street is full of physicists" because of lack of funding because government is the main source funds (and stingy somewhat while being so magnanimous in other areas) because private industry wants to research in areas where they can gain advantage by copyright or patent and physics discoveries may get you more funding, it isn't going to give you something you can sell and foundations are more apt to fund political action groups rather than pure science.

Pardon me but I am more than a bit skeptical about a university study group, funded by the government, reporting on what the government ought to do.

Odds are the study is going to say what the government wants it to say, otherwise the next time some other university will be awarded the grant money.

Writing grants is about using the proper buzz words.

I'll grant you though, the the MIT study you mentioned will probably be one heck of a lot more intelligent that anything you are going to hear out of Washingtion.

I highly recommend Amory Lovins and Rocky Mountain Institute as a top source of cutting edge information on energy efficiency.

His best recommendations sadly won't be used as much as they should, instead we will prop up the big corporations to get the support of UAW workers and union and corporate political campaign contributions and renew the cycle, because we are afraid to break from the past in that direction!!! jmo of course.

 

[gsvol]