Global Warming Watch

The flash frozen mammoths and wooly rhinos found in Alaska and Siberia (with green grass preserved under their frozen bodies) pretty much shows that rapid climate changes can naturally occur, as well as demonstrating that green grass and flowers were growing near the north pole within the model's timeframe of having permanent ice caps for the past 100,000 years. :)

So far as I understand it, the findings of preserved mammoths are rare and there is no indication of herds suddenly being frozen and preserved to us due to massive environmental changes on earth.

Instead, there are isolated incidents of preservation, which more likely suggest variations in immediate local conditions helped with preservation (such as the body being sheltered in a ravine, where it may be less subject to good enough conditions to allow normal rates of decay).

So I really don't see any suggestion of flash freezing on any scale.

As an example, it's worth considering Otzi, the frozen iceman of the Alps - I don't believe there's any argument given of rapid climate change being responsible for his death, but instead, the unique conditions of the area where he died allowing his body to remain relatively preserved long enough for it to become eventually integrated into the Alpine Glacier he died on.

In terms of vegetation in the Ice Age - so far as I understand it, in the last Ice Age the northern hemisphere was indeed covered with massive thick sheets of ice. However, these prevented any significant precipitation of snow within their near geography, which allowed grasses and shrubs which could withstand winter cold to proliferate.

So rather than the north being ice and tundra as we have now, research as I understand it points to huge cliffs of ice below which grew meadows of hardy grasses, which fell away to tundra only once they were out of reach of the glacier's protection against precipitation, the tundra being subject to far more extremes of climate.

2c.
 
The mammoths were found with food still in their mouths (unswallowed) and the plants only grow in tropical type climates plus the mammoths skin structure shows that they are not capable of living in cold climates.
So they were flash frozen in an instant.
The tundra itself is made up of a homogenized mix of dirt, rocks, trees, plants, animals, all mashed together into a puree and frozen in layers dozens of feet (and more) deep.
This all speaks of a massive catastrophe.
Maybe an asteroid strike, maybe something else.
All we have is speculation, but the evidence is still there.
 
The mammoths were found with food still in their mouths (unswallowed) and the plants only grow in tropical type climates plus the mammoths skin structure shows that they are not capable of living in cold climates.

There are certainly different species of Mammoth, but I'm under the impression that the mammoth carcasses found were from the Woolly Mammoth, a species known to be specifically adapted for the cold:
Woolly mammoth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you have any references to the species of tropical mammoth claimed to have been "flash frozen"?
 
It seems as an increasing number of study results build we can conclude that climate and sea level changes are often rapid, yet the scale of what we are doing is still not consciously comprehensible as it is still to slow to individually perceive. We are already doing enough to push our planet to being hotter and having less ice than for 3 1/2 billion years, since it was last in the grip of serious meteorite bombardment. So far we do not even have a collective goal of carbon neutrality. It is all pussyfooting around reducing growth in emissions. Truth is we need hundreds of thousands of these scrubbers operating in place right now just to hold it at the 1000 year prediction. Millions of trees would be far cheaper and productive though!!
 
Rise in sea levels could be faster than previously thought:
London beachfront property if sea level rises 25 meters
From your article, this is the drum I keep beating:
While the change in sea level would happen over the next thousand years, according to researchers who worked on the project the disconcerting fact is that even if the world stopped emitting CO2 today it would not be enough to change the coming reality.
Our choice as a species is simple, adapt, move or die.
 
From your article, this is the drum I keep beating:Our choice as a species is simple, adapt, move or die.

It's not that simple, IMO.

Just because rising sea levels are likely doesn't mean that our only response should be to roll up our pants, move a little more inland and bid a fond farewell to homes, schools, businesses, factories and farms built on low lying coastal land.

We still need to make efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change to spare future generations from it repercussions. We are leaving our children (thankfully I did not add any to the world) a broken economy, an enormous debt, and a polluted atmosphere. We owe them and future generations our best efforts in minimizing the damage that they'll be responsible for when we are peacefully sleeping in our graves.
 
Namaste CZ,

I'll agree, that something should be done. But the something should be done folks prefer to think that electric cars, lower carbon footprint, yada yada is actually going to change something. I don't believe it is to any degree. I believe the change we are seeing now is from deforestation and overpopulation and burning of wood and coal from several hundred years ago.

Yes again, something needs to be done, changes made, but they will not stop the rollercoaster that we are on right now, they will affect what happens several hundred years from now, when our great great.... great..... greats are around.

What we need to do NOW is pass laws that say...we are not funding the repair or replacement of property that gets encroached on by oceans or rising rivers. Miami, Florence, Bangladesh, NY, Washington DC.....stay in your homes, companies at your own risk. Go ahead and sell, speculators will buy your property...but we won't buy out the speculators...and when it goes under water or the Empire State building becomes the leaning tower of NY...not our problem...move now.

Otherwise if we follow the Bush/Obama agenda of bailouts we truly will bankrupt our nation and world....
 
...folks prefer to think that electric cars, lower carbon footprint, yada yada is actually going to change something. I don't believe it is to any degree...

To whatever infinitely small degree it makes, I will make a personal effort.

IMO, it's similar to the path to perfect enlightenment. What are the chances that I will be a Buddha in this life? Those chances are highly unlikely, but I will undertake the effort none the less. I think that we strengthen our character not by striving for what we know we can achieve, but by striving for what we know is nearly impossible.
 
Methane Clathrates have been known for at least 5-10 years, but if there is an efficient way to capture the methane they will be a significant source. Methane is currently used mainly for stationary power plants, for example, municipal and industrial plants. But it could be used for internal combustion with some development as well. Interestingly, by putting the hydrogen program on hold for 2010, the US will be desperately seeking new sources of energy. Hydrogen can be envisoned as the spokes on the wheel bringing the renewable sources togther.

I am particularly concerned that DOE has shut down the hydrogen program. This is a political decision coming down for Obama (other than this poor decision he is doing fine :)). What will happen is that Europe and Asia will take the lead in hydrogen because of our lack of vision in this area. And, also, DOD will try to carry the ball as well.
 
Doesn't the combustion of methane normally produce CO2??
 
It is true that the energy density of methane is lower than high carbon number fuels, but I need to check it's heat of combustion to determine the exact penalty.

However, direct methanol fuel cells (DMFC) represent an opportunity to do conversion without combustion of methanol (and higher carbon fuels as well). Methane can be processed by solid oxide fuel cells. DOE is going to find themselves in a state of limbo with respect to DMFC this year because of their poor decision about hydrogen (like many government agencies, they are again confused).
 
Posted by timothy on Saturday June 27, @07:50PM
from the just-some-random-nutjob dept.
censorship

theodp writes "CNET reports that less than two weeks before the EPA formally submitted its pro-carbon dioxide regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty 'decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.' In an e-mail message (pdf) to a staff researcher on March 17, the EPA official wrote: 'The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.' The employee was also ordered not to 'have any direct communication' with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic. In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report's author, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.' BTW, the official who chastised Carlin also found himself caught up in a 2005 brouhaha over mercury emissions after top EPA officials ordered the findings of a Harvard University study stripped from public records."
 
Wil, Wil, Wil. You have to consider the source in these matters and your source is... shall we say.. a "tad" biased. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a public interest group dedicated to free enterprise and limited government. They've published quite a lot on climate change over the years, and their archives can be found here.

For those who don't wish to wade through the muck, I'll give you a brief taste of some of their opinions...

The Bush Administration's First Year: A Report Card by CEI Staff, 
January 17, 2002
Climate Change [A-] The Administration earned points for the President’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol and not to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.  Soft support for a “voluntary” carbon dioxide exchange among some inside the White House, however, provides reason for caution.

Energy [B+] Support for domestic energy exploration including in ANWR and coastal areas bolstered the President’s score, but continued support for subsidies to inefficient “alternative” energy producers is still a problem.

Environment [C-] Allowing too many eleventh-hour Clinton-era regulations and federal land-use decisions – such as those pertaining to arsenic in drinking water – to go forward has been the Administration’s weakest point here.  Partial credit granted for removing  “right to know” information about sensitive chemical and industrial facilities from the government websites.​

Success Of New Book Shows: Many Americans Don't Believe Gloom And Doom Theories By CEI Staff, January 13, 2003
Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death (Prima Publishing 2002)

“The environmental establishment believes that our harmful impacts on the planet can only be reduced by slashing our demand—fewer people using fewer resources,” says Fred Smith, CEI’s president and one of the book’s authors.  “Environmental problems, we contend, are best addressed by expanding our wealth and knowledge.  Economic growth and prosperity lead to a cleaner environment, not poverty and economic stagnation.”​

And curiously, for a group that seems to support full disclosure of all opinions...
Updated - Institute Files Petition To Prevent Distribution Of Flawed White House Climate Report By CEI Staff, June 4, 2002
Washington, D.C., June 4, 2002—The Competitive Enterprise Institute today filed a petition with the Bush Administration to prevent the distribution of a fatally flawed report on global warming [U.S. Climate Action Report 2002].​

And this was the information the CEI was trying to suppress...
U.S. Climate Action Report 2002

Key National Findings Adapted from the U.S. National Assessment

Increased warming is projected for the 21st century—Assuming continued growth in world greenhouse gas emissions, the primary climate models drawn upon for the analyses carried out in the U.S. National Assessment projected that temperatures in the contiguous United States will rise 3–5°C (5–9°F) on average during the 21st century. A wider range of outcomes, including a smaller warming, is also possible.

Impacts will differ across regions—Climate change and its potential impacts are likely to vary widely across the country. Temperature increases are likely to vary somewhat among regions. Heavy precipitation events are projected to become more frequent, yet some regions are likely to become drier.

Ecosystems are especially vulnerable—Many ecosystems are highly sensitive to the projected rate and magnitude of climate change, although more efficient water use will help some ecosystems. A few ecosystems, such as alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains and some barrier islands, are likely to disappear entirely in some areas. Other ecosystems, such as southeastern forests, are likely to experience major species shifts or break up into a mosaic of grasslands, woodlands, and forests. Some of the goods and services lost through the disappearance or fragmentation of natural ecosystems are likely to be costly or impossible to replace.

Widespread water concerns arise—Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of the vulnerabilities varies. Drought is an important concern virtually everywhere. Floods and water quality are concerns in many regions. Snowpack changes are likely to be especially important in the West, Pacific Northwest, and Alaska.

Food supply is secure—At the national level, the agriculture sector is likely to be able to adapt to climate change. Mainly because of the beneficial effects of the rising carbon dioxide levels on crops, overall U.S. crop productivity, relative to what is projected in the absence of climate change, is very likely to increase over the next few decades. However, the gains are not likely to be uniform across the nation. Falling prices are likely to cause difficulty for some farmers, while benefiting consumers.

Near-term forest growth increases—Forest productivity is likely to increase over the next several decades in some areas as trees respond to higher carbon dioxide levels by increasing water-use efficiency. Such changes could result in ecological benefits and additional storage of carbon. Over the longer term, changes in larger-scale processes, such as fire, insects, droughts, and disease, could decrease forest productivity. In addition, climate change is likely to cause long-term shifts in forest species, such as sugar maples moving north out of the country.

Increased damage occurs in coastal and permafrost areas—Climate change and the resulting rise in sea level are likely to exacerbate threats to buildings, roads, power lines, and other infrastructure in climate-sensitive areas. For example, infrastructure damage is expected to result from permafrost melting in Alaska and from sea level rise and storm surges in low-lying coastal areas.

Adaptation determines health outcomes—A range of negative health impacts is possible from climate change. However, as in the past, adaptation is likely to help protect much of the U.S. population. Maintaining our nation’s public health and community infrastructure, from water treatment systems to emergency shelters, will be important for minimizing the impacts of water-borne diseases, heat stress, air pollution, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects, ticks, and rodents.
Other stresses are magnified by climate change—Climate change is very likely to modify the cumulative impacts of other stresses. While it may magnify the impacts of some stresses, such as air and water pollution and conversion of habitat due to human development patterns, it may increase agricultural and forest productivity in some areas. For coral reefs, the combined effects of increased CO2 concentration, climate change, and other stresses are very likely to exceed a critical threshold, causing large, possibly irreversible impacts.

Uncertainties remain and surprises are expected—Significant uncertainties remain in the science underlying regional changes in climate and their impacts. Further research would improve understanding and capabilities for projecting societal and ecosystem impacts. Increased knowledge would also provide the public with additional useful information about options for adaptation. However, it is likely that some aspects and impacts of climate change, both positive and negative, will be totally unanticipated as complex systems respond to ongoing climate change in unforeseeable ways.

Sources: NAST 2000, 2001.

Wow. I can see why they were trying to keep that from getting out. That's just CRAZY TALK!!! :rolleyes:

So Wil, did you consider the source? Or were you just hoping that no one else would?
 
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a public interest group dedicated to free enterprise and limited government.
A public interest group? Actually, it appears to be a self-identified environmental politics propaganda outfit. It has been actively promoting anti-environmental doctrine and has actively sought to undermine federal environmental protection.

CEI has received substantial corporate funding. It has received close to a million$$$ from the tobacco industry alone - a sure sign of "public interest" commitments. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: It's spokepeople have included RW luminaries like Michelle Malkin and Michael Fumento. (Neither have any expertise in environmental science.)
CEI was founded in March 1984. In 1986, it began its "free market legal program," which seeks to overturn government regulations that the CEI regards as inappropriate, such as regulations pertaining to drug safety, rent control, and automobile fuel efficiency,...
It is unclear whether CEI had any interest in scientific inquiry. It has sought to promote its agenda by attacking environmental education even though it has actively been developing its own environmental education materials for kids. Yet it has sought to effectuate an "ongoing, industry-funded campaign to eliminate funding for environmental education throughout the United States." This hypocritical agenda was from its participation in a anti-environmental summit in Spokane, Washington.
Under the theme of "Responsible Legislation Through Education: Solutions That Work," the conference showcased Michael Sanera's attacks on environmental education. Ironically, while much of the conference focused on the alleged indoctrination of school children by environmentalists, the event featured a "trade show" of industry-sponsored K-12 curricula and materials.
CEI was also active in opposing the 1997 international global warming negotiations in Kyoto. ..."The campaign against the 1997 Kyoto global warming treaty waged by right-wing think tanks has been another area where corporate America has heavily invested in right-wing policy groups that advance its interest" noted author David Callahan in 1999.
Some of CEI's propaganda program developmen has involved various forms of deception. More detail here:
Competitive Enterprise Institute - SourceWatch
 
Back
Top