Global Warming In Thailand

[canuckamuck]

I remember back in the 70's people began talking about Global warming. Mainstream media was having a field day. It was one of the reasons I began to get interested in Solar technology.

Then one day a scientist did a calculation and discovered that one single volcanic eruption pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind has since the beginning of civilization. For me it was Case Closed. How do you argue after that?

That alone is good argument, but you need a lot more than facts to dissuade the faithful. I think maybe you will have to start an alternate religion called: The Holy order of the Earth is doing what it always has done, change.

[JR Texas]

I remember back in the 70's people began talking about Global warming. Mainstream media was having a field day. It was one of the reasons I began to get interested in Solar technology.

Then one day a scientist did a calculation and discovered that one single volcanic eruption pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind has since the beginning of civilization. For me it was Case Closed. How do you argue after that?

That alone is good argument, but you need a lot more than facts to dissuade the faithful. I think maybe you will have to start an alternate religion called: The Holy order of the Earth is doing what it always has done, change.

"Excuse me, but I am due back to planet earth."

You are like a broken record.......totally ignoring the huge volume of scientific evidence that informs us that climate change is real and primarily human induced.

The debate is over and your side lost........get over it and start working on solutions that do not involve BIG OIL.

[bonobo]

Fact--Global Warming is the gerneal trend at the current time

Fact--if Global Warming continues, it will affect a large precentage of the population, and quite a few of these effects will be bad

Fact--pollution is bad

Fact--dependancy on foreign fossil fules is bad for a nation

Still up for debate--how much or little man has an impact on Global Warming.

Forget about the still-up-for-debate issue.  Whether mankind has zero or 100% effect on GLobal Warming, it relaly doesn't matter.  If we implement procedures to limit CO2 emmissions, for example then we will also be attacking pollution and foreign energy dependancy.  If it really does not have that much effect on Global Warming, who cares?  Pollution will be cut down, and a whole new industry will be developed.  And if it does affect Global Warming, then all to the better.

[teatree]

No. Taxing us into a state of eco-feudalism isn't going to free us from having to use fossil fuels. It will probably reduce the use of oil etc by the everyday person - people simply won't be able to pay $100 C02 tax for a few hours drive - but it will do nothing to stop the industrial pollution, which will just move overseas where there are no controls and regulations.

If you want to get off fossil fuels you have to develop alternatives, taxing is just a scam.

[Garry9999]

Fact--Global Warming is the gerneal trend at the current time

Fact--if Global Warming continues, it will affect a large precentage of the population, and quite a few of these effects will be bad

Fact--pollution is bad

Fact--dependancy on foreign fossil fules is bad for a nation

Still up for debate--how much or little man has an impact on Global Warming.

Forget about the still-up-for-debate issue.  Whether mankind has zero or 100% effect on GLobal Warming, it relaly doesn't matter.  If we implement procedures to limit CO2 emmissions, for example then we will also be attacking pollution and foreign energy dependancy.  If it really does not have that much effect on Global Warming, who cares?  Pollution will be cut down, and a whole new industry will be developed.  And if it does affect Global Warming, then all to the better.

Fact - Carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2) is a chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state.

Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be consumed in respiration or used as the raw material to produce other organic compounds needed for plant growth and development. It is produced during respiration by plants, and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms that depend either directly or indirectly on plants for food. It is thus a major component of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is generated as a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels or the burning of vegetable matter, among other chemical processes. Large amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted from volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as hot springs and geysers and by the dissolution of carbonates in crustal rocks.

Fact - The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has deemed carbon dioxide a health risk! Why?

[JR Texas]

From JR Texas to the person who said this:

Fact - Carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2) is a chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state.

Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be consumed in respiration or used as the raw material to produce other organic compounds needed for plant growth and development. It is produced during respiration by plants, and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms that depend either directly or indirectly on plants for food. It is thus a major component of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is generated as a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels or the burning of vegetable matter, among other chemical processes. Large amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted from volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as hot springs and geysers and by the dissolution of carbonates in crustal rocks.

Fact - The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has deemed carbon dioxide a health risk! Why?

The problem is that many molecules/chemicals are toxic in high concentrations (e.g., as in a confined garage with a car engine running).

Here are a few reasons the EPA considers excess CO2 a health risk (yes, taken from a Google search):

The primary health dangers of carbon dioxide are:

- Asphyxiation. Caused by the release of carbon dioxide in a confined or unventilated area. This can lower the concentration of oxygen to a level that is immediately dangerous for human health.

- Frostbite. Solid carbon dioxide is always below -78 oC at regular atmospheric pressure, regardless of the air temperature. Handling this material for more than a second or two without proper protection can cause serious blisters, and other unwanted effects. Carbon dioxide gas released from a steel cylinder, such as a fire extinguisher, causes similar effects.

- Kidney damage or coma. This is caused by a disturbance in chemical equilibrium of the carbonate buffer. When carbon dioxide concentrations increase or decrease, causing the equilibrium to be disturbed, a life threatening situation may occur.

Bonobo's post is right on target (once again).

Teatree......we are paying NOW for our support of BIG OIL.....much more than the pump price indicates.

Future generations will pay far more if we do not do something to stop climate change now........those are all costs that you are not looking at.

It is possible to create a new energy system that solves both the climate change problem (no CO2 emissions) and economic problems (cheaper energy).

To do that.....to develop it.......will cost money. And that is not unusual. Every invention costs money. Large projects often are shared via Federal Tax dollars (e.g., dam building, road construction, going to the Moon, developing the atomic bomb).

The next energy system will be developed by scientists worldwide.........costs will be shared..........it will be done. When? One of the main unanswered questions is whether we will demand a centralized or decentralized system.

I hope it is small and decentralized...........cheap, clean, powerful and portable. I would like to see personal energy systems.........you have a personal car, personal TV, personal computer, etc. It is time for personal energy.

The new energy system will change us.........it will be an evolutionary leap for our species.

In down to earth terms, it will create much needed high-tech jobs worldwide.........taxes will be paid as a result of these new jobs.......offsetting the cost of the research project.

Wars and ethnic conflicts will diminish as a result of the new system being deployed worldwide.........that will reduce military expenditures worldwide (now well over a trillion dollars per year).........that represents saving tax dollars that can be used on more productive things (e.g., medical research or improving higher education).

I just want to ask one question: What if you are wrong?

[Harcourt]

Fact--Global Warming is the gerneal trend at the current time

Fact--if Global Warming continues, it will affect a large precentage of the population, and quite a few of these effects will be bad

Fact--pollution is bad

Fact--dependancy on foreign fossil fules is bad for a nation

Still up for debate--how much or little man has an impact on Global Warming.

Forget about the still-up-for-debate issue. Whether mankind has zero or 100% effect on GLobal Warming, it relaly doesn't matter. If we implement procedures to limit CO2 emmissions, for example then we will also be attacking pollution and foreign energy dependancy. If it really does not have that much effect on Global Warming, who cares? Pollution will be cut down, and a whole new industry will be developed. And if it does affect Global Warming, then all to the better.

I was going to say that whatever the arguments for or against and when nobody can be absolutely certain, when the potential is dire and/or irreversible, it is wisest to err on the side of caution. JR Texas has just effectively said the same thing.

My stance is complementary to Bonobo's. Together, the two rationales form a "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" argument.

[ace]

Fact--Global Warming is the gerneal trend at the current time

Fact--if Global Warming continues, it will affect a large precentage of the population, and quite a few of these effects will be bad

Fact--pollution is bad

Fact--dependancy on foreign fossil fules is bad for a nation

Still up for debate--how much or little man has an impact on Global Warming.

Forget about the still-up-for-debate issue. Whether mankind has zero or 100% effect on GLobal Warming, it relaly doesn't matter. If we implement procedures to limit CO2 emmissions, for example then we will also be attacking pollution and foreign energy dependancy. If it really does not have that much effect on Global Warming, who cares? Pollution will be cut down, and a whole new industry will be developed. And if it does affect Global Warming, then all to the better.

I was going to say that whatever the arguments for or against and when nobody can be absolutely certain, when the potential is dire and/or irreversible, it is wisest to err on the side of caution. JR Texas has just effectively said the same thing.

My stance is complementary to Bonobo's. Together, the two rationales form a "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" argument.

Why aren't "Global Warming Deniers" given the same askance, aghast looks as Holocaust Deniers? They are both just as delusional.

You just got a report for that post - And now an ignore. I would argue with you but evidenced from this post that would be wasting my time as you probably would not comprehend the science.

[Harcourt]

Fact--Global Warming is the gerneal trend at the current time

Fact--if Global Warming continues, it will affect a large precentage of the population, and quite a few of these effects will be bad

Fact--pollution is bad

Fact--dependancy on foreign fossil fules is bad for a nation

Still up for debate--how much or little man has an impact on Global Warming.

Forget about the still-up-for-debate issue. Whether mankind has zero or 100% effect on GLobal Warming, it relaly doesn't matter. If we implement procedures to limit CO2 emmissions, for example then we will also be attacking pollution and foreign energy dependancy. If it really does not have that much effect on Global Warming, who cares? Pollution will be cut down, and a whole new industry will be developed. And if it does affect Global Warming, then all to the better.

I was going to say that whatever the arguments for or against and when nobody can be absolutely certain, when the potential is dire and/or irreversible, it is wisest to err on the side of caution. JR Texas has just effectively said the same thing.

My stance is complementary to Bonobo's. Together, the two rationales form a "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" argument.

Why aren't "Global Warming Deniers" given the same askance, aghast looks as Holocaust Deniers? They are both just as delusional.

You just got a report for that post - And now an ignore. I would argue with you but evidenced from this post that would be wasting my time as you probably would not comprehend the science.

A report?.... ok, but I wonder what for.

I would relish a debate with you, however, as evidenced by THIS post, (n.b the slight correction in grammar), your ivory tower must be so much higher than mine that indeed you would be wasting your time.

[sukeroku]

I don't know about globally, but it's cooler right here right now in Southern Thailand than usual this time of year. Enjoy!

[Harcourt]

Fact--Global Warming is the gerneal trend at the current time

Fact--if Global Warming continues, it will affect a large precentage of the population, and quite a few of these effects will be bad

Fact--pollution is bad

Fact--dependancy on foreign fossil fules is bad for a nation

Still up for debate--how much or little man has an impact on Global Warming.

Forget about the still-up-for-debate issue. Whether mankind has zero or 100% effect on GLobal Warming, it relaly doesn't matter. If we implement procedures to limit CO2 emmissions, for example then we will also be attacking pollution and foreign energy dependancy. If it really does not have that much effect on Global Warming, who cares? Pollution will be cut down, and a whole new industry will be developed. And if it does affect Global Warming, then all to the better.

I was going to say that whatever the arguments for or against and when nobody can be absolutely certain, when the potential is dire and/or irreversible, it is wisest to err on the side of caution. JR Texas has just effectively said the same thing.

My stance is complementary to Bonobo's. Together, the two rationales form a "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" argument.

Why aren't "Global Warming Deniers" given the same askance, aghast looks as Holocaust Deniers? They are both just as delusional.

You just got a report for that post - And now an ignore. I would argue with you but evidenced from this post that would be wasting my time as you probably would not comprehend the science.

An "ignore" also! Excellent: I won't have to politely rebuff you any time soon.

[teatree]

Someone compared global warming/cooling/climate change deniers to Holocaust deniers. Well, in some European countries Holocaust deniers are jailed and now many people are standing up and saying that global warming/cooling/climate change deniers should be put on trial.

Does the truth need such paranoid protection? Hardly the scientific way, but then global warming/cooling/climate change has nothing to do with science and everything to do with propaganda, control and money.

What does the truth have to fear?

[Harcourt]

Someone compared global warming/cooling/climate change deniers to Holocaust deniers. Well, in some European countries Holocaust deniers are jailed and now many people are standing up and saying that global warming/cooling/climate change deniers should be put on trial.

Does the truth need such paranoid protection? Hardly the scientific way, but then global warming/cooling/climate change has nothing to do with science and everything to do with propaganda, control and money.

What does the truth have to fear?

Yeah. I have no idea why my comparison of global warming deniers to holocaust deniers, and stating that they are both delusional, is offensive.

I maintain that denying global warming is as ignorant and arrogant as denying the holocaust.

[Harcourt]

I ask the moderator that censored me to explain why my words were offensive so that I can reflect and apologise if appropriate.

(grammar edit)

Edited July 28, 2009 by Harcourt

[JR Texas]

Someone compared global warming/cooling/climate change deniers to Holocaust deniers. Well, in some European countries Holocaust deniers are jailed and now many people are standing up and saying that global warming/cooling/climate change deniers should be put on trial.

Does the truth need such paranoid protection? Hardly the scientific way, but then global warming/cooling/climate change has nothing to do with science and everything to do with propaganda, control and money.

What does the truth have to fear?

The truth does need paranoid protection. The truth (or an approximation of it) has surfaced via a massive amount of scientific research and subsequent publication in peer review journals.

You are free to express your views about climate change. But, at the moment, given the scientific consensus, your views seem a bit off. But nobody is throwing you in jail because you want to create doubt or even actually have doubt.

There is not one government body anywhere on the planet that is putting people who disagree with the consensus on global climate change in jail or seriously suggesting such an outrageous act.

What does the truth have to fear? That is an interesting question you posed. My answer would be a massive lie that the public believes to be true..........especially a lie that harms both present and future generations.

Some believe that BIG OIL is behind a "propaganda machine" whose purpose is to spread misinformation about climate change in order to keep the masses supporting BIG OIL (throwing more money at them).

There are others, apparently like you, who think BIG GOVERNMENT is behind some conspiracy to raise your taxes via propaganda about climate change.

People are free to express themselves.

Let's leave Hitler out of it.........but if I remember history, it was his propaganda minister who said, "Tell a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth."

That example alone is enough reason for responsible people to stand up for what they think is true. Sometimes mistakes can be made that cost human lives if people believe the wrong thing.

[JR Texas]

Someone compared global warming/cooling/climate change deniers to Holocaust deniers. Well, in some European countries Holocaust deniers are jailed and now many people are standing up and saying that global warming/cooling/climate change deniers should be put on trial.

Does the truth need such paranoid protection? Hardly the scientific way, but then global warming/cooling/climate change has nothing to do with science and everything to do with propaganda, control and money.

What does the truth have to fear?

The truth does not need paranoid protection......that is what I meant to say.

[Garry9999]

Someone compared global warming/cooling/climate change deniers to Holocaust deniers. Well, in some European countries Holocaust deniers are jailed and now many people are standing up and saying that global warming/cooling/climate change deniers should be put on trial.

Does the truth need such paranoid protection? Hardly the scientific way, but then global warming/cooling/climate change has nothing to do with science and everything to do with propaganda, control and money.

What does the truth have to fear?

The truth does not need paranoid protection......that is what I meant to say.

To JR and his supporters of the "what if you are wrong" theory.

Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which holds that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence.

[JR Texas]

To JR and his supporters of the "what if you are wrong" theory.

Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which holds that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence.

Uh huh..........well, let me try to answer the question. If you are wrong we are all screwed.

[bonobo]

No. Taxing us into a state of eco-feudalism isn't going to free us from having to use fossil fuels. It will probably reduce the use of oil etc by the everyday person - people simply won't be able to pay $100 C02 tax for a few hours drive - but it will do nothing to stop the industrial pollution, which will just move overseas where there are no controls and regulations.

If you want to get off fossil fuels you have to develop alternatives, taxing is just a scam.

 If this post is in response to my post which immediately preceeded it, I never once mentioned taxes. All I said was implementing procedures to lower CO2 emmissions as one possible step, but I rather like market-driven alternatives, and when the government gets involved, I tend to like policies which encourage research and implementation of alternative methods.   

[yabaaaa]

Over the last 40 million years the CO2 level in the atmosphere has fallen from 1000-2000 ppmv to a minimum of 180 ppmv 20.000 years ago. Not since the Perm period circa 250 million years ago has the CO2 level been so low.

Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct.

http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplore...ergsmaal_svar1/

Edited July 28, 2009 by yabaaaa

[JR Texas]

Over the last 40 million years the CO2 level in the atmosphere has fallen from 1000-2000 ppmv to a minimum of 180 ppmv 20.000 years ago. Not since the Perm period circa 250 million years ago has the CO2 level been so low.

Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct.

http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplore...ergsmaal_svar1/

Let me try to respond:

1) climate does change independent of human activities

2) the earth has evolved over billions of years

3) at several points in the geological past the atmosphere was once not something we could breathe

4) there have been at least six extinction events on the planet?

The problem now is the fast pace (incredibly fast in terms of geological time) of increase of CO2 and other climate change molecules into the atmosphere, especially over the past few decades.

The composition of the atmosphere, and the dynamics of it, are things that we should not take for granted. The earth as we know it today might go away.......nothing is for certain.

I would think the ozone hole development would have made people aware of what can go wrong, even when scientists think they know what is happening........nobody saw that coming. And, for now, it seems like we have arrested the problem by banning the chemicals that were causing it.

What unknown surprises to the climate are we likely to see in the future because of human activities? This is what scares me the most.........the unknown........the unpredictable..........it could be something that truly wipes us out by causing some major, unpredictable, change to the climate.

Certainly it is a MAD HATTER experiment to pour climate changing molecules into the atmosphere when we are not 100% sure of what the end game will be.

Again, what if you are wrong?

Bonobo has pointed out that we have very little to lose (and much to gain) by assuming climate change is real.............we may have everything to lose if we start to assume it is not real.

Fortunately, the debate has already taken place and the scientific community along with representative governments have embraced the notion that climate change is real and now largely the result of human activities.

[teatree]

No. Taxing us into a state of eco-feudalism isn't going to free us from having to use fossil fuels. It will probably reduce the use of oil etc by the everyday person - people simply won't be able to pay $100 C02 tax for a few hours drive - but it will do nothing to stop the industrial pollution, which will just move overseas where there are no controls and regulations.

If you want to get off fossil fuels you have to develop alternatives, taxing is just a scam.

 If this post is in response to my post which immediately preceeded it, I never once mentioned taxes. All I said was implementing procedures to lower CO2 emmissions as one possible step, but I rather like market-driven alternatives, and when the government gets involved, I tend to like policies which encourage research and implementation of alternative methods.   

I understand that you didn't mention taxes, but that what is presented as the solution by governments everywhere.

Some people may think that this is conspiracy. I suppose when we are paying $10 a gallon at the pump, when we all have meters in our cars charging us for each mile and when we have home visits to make sure that we have the right kind of light bulbs these same people will call those conspiracy theories too if CNN tells them that's what they are.

[Garry9999]

No. Taxing us into a state of eco-feudalism isn't going to free us from having to use fossil fuels. It will probably reduce the use of oil etc by the everyday person - people simply won't be able to pay $100 C02 tax for a few hours drive - but it will do nothing to stop the industrial pollution, which will just move overseas where there are no controls and regulations.

If you want to get off fossil fuels you have to develop alternatives, taxing is just a scam.

 If this post is in response to my post which immediately preceeded it, I never once mentioned taxes. All I said was implementing procedures to lower CO2 emmissions as one possible step, but I rather like market-driven alternatives, and when the government gets involved, I tend to like policies which encourage research and implementation of alternative methods.   

I understand that you didn't mention taxes, but that what is presented as the solution by governments everywhere.

Some people may think that this is conspiracy. I suppose when we are paying $10 a gallon at the pump, when we all have meters in our cars charging us for each mile and when we have home visits to make sure that we have the right kind of light bulbs these same people will call those conspiracy theories too if CNN tells them that's what they are.

Fourth Estate is a term referring to the press. The term goes back at least to Thomas Carlyle in the first half of the 19th century. Thomas Macaulay used it in 1828.

Novelist Jeffrey Archer in his work The Fourth Estate made the observation: "In May 1789, Louis XVI summoned to Versailles a full meeting of the 'Estates General'. The First Estate consisted of three hundred clergy. The Second Estate, three hundred nobles. The Third Estate, six hundred commoners. Some years later, after the French Revolution, Edmund Burke, looking up at the Press Gallery of the House of Commons, said, 'Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all.'"

[chuckd]

I found the following article on Yahoo News today. Probably planted by BIG OIL.

________________________________________________________________________________

__________

PARIS (AFP) – Creatures large and small may play an unsuspectedly important role in the stirring of ocean waters, according to a study released Wednesday.

So-called ocean mixing entails the transfer of cold and warm waters between the equator and poles, as well as between the icy, nutrient-rich depths and the sun-soaked top layer.

It plays a crucial part in marine biodiversity and, scientists now suspect, in maintaining Earth's climate.

The notion that fish and other sea swimmers might somehow contribute significantly to currents as they moved forward was first proposed in the mid-1950s by Charles Darwin, grandson of the the legendary evolutionary biologist of the same name.

But this was dismissed by modern scientists as a fishy story.

In 1960s, experiments compared the wake turbulence created by sea creatures with overall ocean turbulence. They showed that the whirls kicked up by microscopic plankton or even fish quickly dissipated in dense, viscous water.

On this evidence, sea creatures seemed to contribute nothing to ocean mixing. The clear conclusion was that the only drivers of note were shifting winds and tides, tied to the gravitational tug-of-war within our Solar System.

But the new study, published in the British science journal Nature, goes a long way toward rehabilitating the 20th century Darwin, and uses the quiet pulse of the jellyfish to prove the case.

Authors Kakani Katija and Joan Dabiri of the California Institute of Technology devised a laser-based system for measuring the movement of liquid.

They donned scuba gear and then released dye in the path of swarm of jellyfish in a saltwater lake on the Pacific island of Palau.

The video images they captured showed a remarkable amount of cold water followed the jellyfish as they moved vertically, from deeper chillier waters toward the warmer layers of the surface.

Katija and Dabiri say the 1960s investigators had simply been looking in the wrong place.

They had been on the alert for waves or eddies -- signs that the sea was being stirred up in the creatures' wake -- rather than vertical displacement of water.

What determines the amount of water that is mixed is the size and shape of the animal, its population and migratory patterns.

Churning of the seas is a factor in the carbon cycle.

At the surface, plankton gobble up carbon dioxide (CO2) through photosynthesis. When they die, their carbon-rich remains may fall gently to the ocean floor, effectively storing the CO2 for millennia -- or, alternatively, may be brought back to upper layers by sea currents.

William Dewar of Florida State University in a commentary, also published in Nature, said the new paper challenged conventional thinking.

"Should the overall idea of significant biogenic mixing survive detailed scrutiny, climate science will have experienced a paradigm shift," he said.

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

As Teatree mentioned the taxing to reduce CO2 is just a big scam. Chances are very little if any of the money will go toward the environment, it will end up in the general fund and be spent on whatever will benefit the politicians and their backers.

Do you think the bankers who receive these multi million dollar bonuses will care if the price of oil triples. It will be the little guy that has to ride his pushbike to work.

[Harcourt]

I found the following article on Yahoo News today. Probably planted by BIG OIL.

________________________________________________________________________________

__________

PARIS (AFP) – Creatures large and small may play an unsuspectedly important role in the stirring of ocean waters, according to a study released Wednesday.

So-called ocean mixing entails the transfer of cold and warm waters between the equator and poles, as well as between the icy, nutrient-rich depths and the sun-soaked top layer.

It plays a crucial part in marine biodiversity and, scientists now suspect, in maintaining Earth's climate.

The notion that fish and other sea swimmers might somehow contribute significantly to currents as they moved forward was first proposed in the mid-1950s by Charles Darwin, grandson of the the legendary evolutionary biologist of the same name.

But this was dismissed by modern scientists as a fishy story.

In 1960s, experiments compared the wake turbulence created by sea creatures with overall ocean turbulence. They showed that the whirls kicked up by microscopic plankton or even fish quickly dissipated in dense, viscous water.

On this evidence, sea creatures seemed to contribute nothing to ocean mixing. The clear conclusion was that the only drivers of note were shifting winds and tides, tied to the gravitational tug-of-war within our Solar System.

But the new study, published in the British science journal Nature, goes a long way toward rehabilitating the 20th century Darwin, and uses the quiet pulse of the jellyfish to prove the case.

Authors Kakani Katija and Joan Dabiri of the California Institute of Technology devised a laser-based system for measuring the movement of liquid.

They donned scuba gear and then released dye in the path of swarm of jellyfish in a saltwater lake on the Pacific island of Palau.

The video images they captured showed a remarkable amount of cold water followed the jellyfish as they moved vertically, from deeper chillier waters toward the warmer layers of the surface.

Katija and Dabiri say the 1960s investigators had simply been looking in the wrong place.

They had been on the alert for waves or eddies -- signs that the sea was being stirred up in the creatures' wake -- rather than vertical displacement of water.

What determines the amount of water that is mixed is the size and shape of the animal, its population and migratory patterns.

Churning of the seas is a factor in the carbon cycle.

At the surface, plankton gobble up carbon dioxide (CO2) through photosynthesis. When they die, their carbon-rich remains may fall gently to the ocean floor, effectively storing the CO2 for millennia -- or, alternatively, may be brought back to upper layers by sea currents.

William Dewar of Florida State University in a commentary, also published in Nature, said the new paper challenged conventional thinking.

"Should the overall idea of significant biogenic mixing survive detailed scrutiny, climate science will have experienced a paradigm shift," he said.

No doubt Kajita and Dubiri were very carefull in their observations....however I reject the implications of their study because those Palau jellyfish are so unique, trapped in their inland saline lakes, they migrate daily, en masse, to follow the sun.....this massive and in unison movement probably occurs rarely in the wider oceans.

[Harcourt]

As Teatree mentioned the taxing to reduce CO2 is just a big scam. Chances are very little if any of the money will go toward the environment, it will end up in the general fund and be spent on whatever will benefit the politicians and their backers.

Do you think the bankers who receive these multi million dollar bonuses will care if the price of oil triples. It will be the little guy that has to ride his pushbike to work.

You're right...but it's worse than that...I haven't reserched it but I recall the controversy when NZ signed to the Kyoto Agreement... The Ukraine (I think) getting carbon credits based on their forests as of 1979 or something ridiculous....there is a whole lot of BS about the Kyoto Agreement....especially when the biggest carbon users (US, China, and India) are not a party to it.

[heart08]

Maybe its not that felt yet in thailand

[JR Texas]

As Teatree mentioned the taxing to reduce CO2 is just a big scam. Chances are very little if any of the money will go toward the environment, it will end up in the general fund and be spent on whatever will benefit the politicians and their backers.

Do you think the bankers who receive these multi million dollar bonuses will care if the price of oil triples. It will be the little guy that has to ride his pushbike to work.

Do any of you have any idea how much we are paying in taxes now--directly at the pump and indirectly in many ways--supporting BIG OIL?

Do you believe all those tax dollars are spent wisely?

Do you have any idea how much it will cost the world to fix climate change, assuming we can?

You seem to want to dismiss everything as a conspiracy.

With just a fraction of the money the world's nations spend on the military each year, we can develop an entirely new system of energy that will create jobs worldwide and greatly save tax dollars.

Maintaining the status quo is the most expensive option!

That is especially true for future generations.......which you seem to not care too much about.

And don't tell me you care. Your willingness to gamble with total disaster betrays your level of concern.

Fortunately, scientists and most nations are moving towards solutions.

[teatree]

World's Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears

Marc Morano

Climate Depot

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:22 UTC

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming "the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established."

The editorial claimed the "consensus" view was growing "increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers." The editor now admits he is "startled" by the negative reaction from the group's scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the "world's largest scientific society."

The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that "deniers" are attempting to "derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change."

Dozens of letters from ACS members were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum's colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum's climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum's use of the word "deniers" because of the terms "association with Holocaust deniers." In addition, the scientists called Baum's editorial: "disgusting"; "a disgrace"; "filled with misinformation"; "unworthy of a scientific periodical" and "pap."

One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: "When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise."

Baum 'startled' by scientists reaction

Baum wrote on July 27, that he was "startled" and "surprised" by the "contempt" and "vehemence" of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming "consensus."

"Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming," Baum wrote.

Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists:

"I think it's time to find a new editor," ACS member Thomas E. D'Ambra wrote.

Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: "I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research - that the matter is solved."

ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: "Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!"

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: "Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"

Edward H. Gleason wrote: "Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me...his use of 'climate-change deniers' to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific."

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: "I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other 'free-market fanatics,' and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose."

William Tolley: "I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax."

William E. Keller wrote: "However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them - falsely - of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method - characteristics that apparently do not apply to you."

ACS member Wallace Embry: "I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board 'cap' Baum's political pen and 'trade' him to either the New York Times or Washington Post

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/190251-W...-Climate-Fears-