• Monday-What'sUP January 8 - 10:27 pm

Over on the western end of the U.P., where Z-Man calls home, they’ve been getting a bit more snow than we here on the tip of the Keweenaw. Spotting this picture in Z-Man's Guest Gallery Album, I was surprised at how much more. One of the things I love about winter and snow on the ground is how clean everything looks, along with how the covering of white makes colorful things stand out even more. Like this barn, with the snow ready to slide off its metal roof. Without the snowcover, you might not give this building a second glance, but that red paint job looks so much brighter, just grabbing your attention now!

What a great picture - like you said, Mary, everything looks so clean & that red barn stands out so nicely.

Great shot by the Zman as usual, but I am partial to him anyways! I love all of the pictures here on Pasty.com.

Zman this is a great shot. Just looking at it I can smell the fresh air. That was my first thought. And how I wish I was there:)

Geez, there IS a lot of snow there.

Z-Man always does the best. Now this is a winter scene.

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas (there anyway)!

Z man.... where do you call home? I was in Ontonagon this weekend with a nice drive up to Houghton via Donken, Trimountain, Toivola, and Painesdale.... and I saw your "unforgiven" bridge !! hahaha funny.

I really love this picture. I especially like pictures of barns and churches and Z-man has some great pictures of both.

I love barn pictures! This one does look great in the fresh, white snow!

In case you were wonderin', www.reference.com says:

In the 1800s, the most popular color for barns in the United States was red. The tradition began in Europe and migrated with European farmers to America. Farmers painted their barns red because red paint was easy and inexpensive to make, dried quickly, and protected the wood. By combining milk, linseed oil, lime, and ferrous oxide or rust, farmers were able to create a paint that hid dirt well and protected the wood by killing fungus, mold, and moss. The tradition continued after commercial paints became readily available because red paint was inexpensive to manufacture. White paint, also inexpensive to make, is another popular color for barns.

Love the red barn!!! Perfect RED for the Ohio State jersey's. Go Bucks.!!

Very good eye Z-Man as always.Wish mine was half as good as your other eye.
Who was that person who came on here with the fancy words, that after most of us(me anyway) read his/her post never knew what he/she said?

So does anyone know EXACTLY why the Bridge Cam is no longer a live view ?

This is almost Christmas card quality. Very, very good. Love it, Z-man.

Excellent photo! Not only does the snow make the barn
look more red, but notice the cloud cover behind the
barn. It appears that more snow is on the way!

Having lived in Dollar Bay in the early 80's I have enjoyed the Bridge Cam immensely. I would love to see it back on live. Here in NW-PA we haven't had much snow either. THINK SNOW everyone.

Yes, the bridge cam has been down lately, but there is another link by Michigan Tech. Here ya go.............

http://www.admin.mtu.edu/urel/cams/fund/still.html

Lovely picture. I keep looking at it. It is very soothing. Z-Man's photos always seem to evoke a peaceful feeling. I also very much like the different shades of gray - from the mist on top of the trees and on downward to the barn roof. The red barn compliments those shades very well. Nice shot!

Great to see the snowflakes flying here in lower Michigan. Keep on TINKING SNO and have a great day everyone.

Snow is prettiest when it covers all the branches like it does in the picture behind the barn.

Love that Photo Zman. There is something very peaceful about a barn in the snow. Everyone in da UP keeps commenting on the lack of snow... I know where it is! Over a 15 day period we have had 3 major storms that left >53 inches of the white stuff where I live here in Colorado and another storm is predicted for later this week. Today, even though it isn't snowing, the wind is blowing so hard (hurricane force) it has created 12-foot drifts closing many of the roads. I have to admit, there is something I love about bundling up against the cold and going out at night to shovel the snow with my dog Molly. And afterward, sitting by the fire with a cup of hot chocolate spiked with a wee bit of peppermint schnapps. Maybe it reminds me of the winter of '78-'79 back in Marquette when it snowed almost every day for about six weeks. I hope you all get enough snow for good sledding and of course the winter carnival. Who knows? Maybe this is all related to global warming...

Wonderful picture for a Monday morning. Either I am a purist or my Michigan childhood had a great impact, but I have always felt barns should be red. Here in N/W Il most barns are now pole buildings and every color imaginable except red.

A couple of nights ago NBC news had a gentleman from NOAA on the evening news; he had been a meteorologist for thirty-some yrs. and he said that the mild winter that we are experiencing was definately not due to global warming but rather to El Nineo[sp].

My Dad worked for many years at Wyandotte Chemicals (now BASF Wyandotte) in SE Michigan, and I remember touring the facilities in the 1970s and seeing their great wooden vat of ferrous oxide, which would eventually become paint. It was the same color as that barn and about two stories high. Hope the barrel hoops were strong or Y&. would see a Red Tide flowing down Biddle Ave.

David H. You are thinking of "Wheatman", as he called himself.........

Dccloutier, I wish we could get some of your snow and that you could get a break. Reminds me of the joke about the man with his head in the freezer and his feet in the fire: on average, he's at a comfortable temperature.

In '78, I think, when I was living in Kalamazoo, we had a huge snowstorm where it took days to dig out. I was living downtown, and the ploughs had gone by once. I went out cross-country skiing, using the hard-packed stuff left by the plough as opposed to either the deep powder in the yards or road with its risk of the occasional car. Al of a sudden my pole went "tunk". "Hmm, sounds like I'm hitting metal" I thought. Then I realized I was on top of a car.

That's a respectable snowfall.

To DaveofMohawk,
I am a environmental scientist and I agree with you in that the mild winter in some parts of the country is related to El Nino, but remember that El Nino is caused by warming of the oceans, and the fact that the oceans are warmer is due to global warming. Anyone who denys that global warming is occuring simply isn't looking at the historic data concerning global temperatures and the concentrations of green house gases. The historic climatological data shows natural cycles in temperature and green house gas concentration, but the current concentrations of green house gases are several time higher than they have ever been during the past 650,000 years. Further, the rate at which they are increasing is accelerating at an alarming rate. At the current rate that these gas concentrations are increasing we are in BIG trouble. We must find a way to act now to reverse this change. Every single scientific article written over the past ten years agrees that global warming is occuring and it is directly related to green house gas concentrations. Do not believe the lies the current administration is putting in the media. They are lying to protect their personal agenda to promote oil and gas. What they are doing is morally reprehensible!

kathyl,
Well your story might explain how that poor guy got a hole in the roof of his car...

Zman I hope you dont mind but Im going to use this as a desktop. And I think it could go on a christmas card :)

I do not mind Robert. I sent the picture out as a new year greeting from the Z-Man.

Dccloutier, I agree with you 100 percent, (oh, oh, forgot how to do it again), on the global warming issues. We have a certain place nearby that when they exceed their emmissions standards, they just get another renewal. How sick is that? It's basically another money game.

Ironically, in April 1975 there was a article in Newsweek in which all the scentists were concerned with "global cooling" and that by rights we should be in an ice age by now. As it stands the cooling trend reversed after 1979 and we are back to the levels that we were at in 1940. Perhaps it is just called "weather"....

Hmmmm....because many scientists don't agree on the cause(s) of global warming, we should blame it on the current administration?? What's morally reprehensible is the introduction of politics into science. El Nino has been around much longer than man's generation of greenhouse gases. What about the rise of sunspot activity and other naturally occurring phenomena? The jury is still out on man's influence on global weather patterns.

FJL; Thanx,that be him i was thinking off.We haven't had a post from ( Wheatman )in a long time.
David The Scientist; The Ocean's are number one cause of global warming.Man is about nimber eleven.Animal manure somewhere in between? And David, i had a uncle Frenchy lived in Clio,Mi.born in Hubblle,he spelled it Clouthier.
Sorry, this oughta be on the What's Up page.

If you want to see a great documentary on global warming; even if you're not a democrat, even if you're not a conservationist, even if you're not a liberal, you should see "An Inconvenient Truth". Or even "Who Killed the Electric Car". Both are really excellent. Actually I think they should both be required viewing for all Americans.

What a lovely picture Zman. I feel like jumping right into the scene and making a few snow angels. But then...I'd ruin the scene wouldn't I?

David C Cloutier (Dccloutier),
Do you live near Laramie, WY? My 19 year old son is flying there today so I am concerned about the high winds (up to 41 mph today). Not quite like the scene in Zman's picture. Just think...if he had chosen to visit my parents in Ontonagon instead he'd see a scene like Zman's today instead of 12 foot drifts.

I'm telling you, it's "El Nono!

Sandra:
The weather front that is causing our wind is set up between Denver and Laramie, so the wind shouldn't acceft Laramie.

Heikki:
The fact is the jury is not out on that point! Look closely at what I wrote. I said that ALL scientists who have studied the data do agree that global warming is directly related to green house gas concentrations. ALL Scientists! Only the current administration is questioning the relationship between global warming and green house gases. They are not scientists. They are politicians with a personal agenda.

In the scientific community we refer to those people as "Spin Doctors". They take scientific data and twist it around to make it sound like there is some doubt. This is a deliberate attempt on their part to cast doubt on the facts so that there oil and gas buddies can continue to reap huge profits. At our expense.

Trust me. There is no doubt within the scientific community! Global warming IS occuring. This is not just another "normal El Nino cycle" This is way out of control! The current concentrations of green house gases are several times higher than the highest concentrations ever seen during the past 650,000 years and climbing at an increasing rate. Quite simply, if we do not force our government to reduce green house gas emissions immediately, we are screwed!

If the ice sheet that covers Greenland melts, it will raise the ocean level 20 feet. If you think hurrican Katrina was bad, just think, most of Florida is less than 20 feet above sea level, along with huge areas in China, Manhattan, and India. If the ice covering Greenland melts it will displace more than 60 million people around the world.

Unfortunately, the problem is much worse than that. The ice sheet covering Antartica is also melting at an alarming rate and it contains way more water than Greenland.

Anyone who doubts this now, remember you were warned! We have the information we need to show that global warming and green house gases are related. We know that the current concentrations of green house gases are already way higher than ever before. We know what is going to happen if the global temperture rises only a few degrees.

This administration is deliberately trying to suppress this information and they are placing our lives and our economy in grave danger. We need to mobilize as a people and force our government to make changes that will reduce green house gas emissions.

You have no idea how frustrating it is to know what is going on and know how grave the situation is only to hear people who know nothing about science tell you it really isn't a problem. FOOLS!!

This reminds me of a recent song by John Mellancamp: "People believe what they want to believe when it makes no sense at all..."

I've always liked the statement, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."

Global warming is a topic I lecture on every semester. When trying to understand climate, I always remind my students to think about three things:
1. The earth has a VERY long history beyond just the most recent ice age.
2. People (Homo sapiens) evolved during an ice age, so we are used to cooler climates.
3. Climate changes. Period. End of story. It has changed before people, it will keep changing after us. We need to stop viewing climate as an unchanging part of the earth.

I'm going to keep politics completely out of this, because, as Heikki pointed out, politics has no place in science. So here's the facts:
1. Back in the 1970s many prominent climatologists were indeed worried about global cooling.
2. During the Climatic Optimum (4000-6000 B.C., roughly) the temperature was several degrees warmer than today. During this time, the Sahara desert and Mesopotamia received more rainfall, due to greater evaporation from the oceans and altered wind currents, allowing the first agrarian civilizations to rise.
3. Carbon dioxide levels have been much greater in the past. Modern levels are approximately 300ppm. During the Cretaceous (a time period when dinosaurs lived, little mammals wandered around, flowering plants evolved, etc.) the carbon dioxide levels were around 4000ppm.
4. In fact, most of earth's history has been warmer than today. In the past 600 million years there have been only 3 glacial periods. Temperatures today are still below the average for the past 600 million years. Some scientists believe the earth may just be returning to a non-glacial period.
5. Scientists rarely use absolute terms like "all," "always," and "never." MOST of the scientific articles I have read about climate do indeed agree that global warming is occurring. What they do not agree on is the absolute cause of this warming.
6. If you want to know more, take a geology class.
And those are just a few fun facts. I could lecture about this for days...

Please don't yell at me. I'm just a scientist...

Dccloutier, I have been telling my friends about global warming for years - - - they kind of push it behind the shelves. Don't you people care about the polar bears sinking to their deaths? Thank you so much for all you're care, Dubya!

Fear mongering goes on so often you don't know who to belive.After Algore said he invented the inernet how can he be belived when he speaks on this topic.But realy man is number 11 on the list of the cause for global warming.Insects are a higher cause.All the insects in the world out weigh the people on it.What do you think we ought to do? Happy Birthday Elvis.Use his song "In The Getto to sing the fowling....
In a used car lot on the other side of town
a liberal guy and a libeal gal buy a Yugo
And they drive with pride..

Cause what this world needs is environmental friends who will take the lead in a Yugo..
Then one night on the inerstate they turn to miss a baby duck and get hit by a produce truck in a Yugo...

Well, yet another interesting debate going on here. Love it!!

DrNat:
With all due respect, the data I referred to is during the past 650,000 years (basically a few hundred thousand years after humans evolved. While it is technically correct that at some point in the distant history of the world global temperatures were higher than they are today, I believe it is more relevant to look at the the environmental conditions during the time that humans have existed (as opposed to when we did not), since I really hope that we can continue to exist.

I agree that during the Cretaceous global temperatures were much warmer,and so was the average global temperature. But please remember there were no humans living back then. During the time that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were 4000 mg/L the world was dominated by dinosaurs and insects that lived in swamps, and much of what is our land surface today was covered by a huge inland sea back then (for example, the entire middle portion of the United States, remember geology 101?!). Now granted there has been some uplifting of the central portion of the US that will prevent it from becomming inundated this time, however, as I mentioned, a 20 foot rise in the present day sea level will displace more than 60 million people world wide.

The reason the oceans were so much larger back then is the polar ice caps were much smaller than they are today because the average global temperature was several degrees warmer. I for one do not believe we can afford to lose that much land mass. Especially since tens of millions of people live on it and we need it for crop production to provide food for our growing population.

I really am not too worried though. I live in Colorado and while the mountains are nice, I wouldn't mind being closer to the beach! With all the global warming skeptics, I may soon have a very valuable piece of land that is close to the beach! Bummer for anyone on the present-day coast though...

well, myself, i think i'll just wait another
5000 years to find out what's really
going on.

Food for thought...

What happens if Al Gore is wrong and global warming really isn't a problem, but we made changes to reduce green house gas concentrations anyways?? The worst thing that could hapen is we may have wasted a bunch of money to make changes that were not actually necessary and in the process we made the world a bit cleaner.

On the other hand, what if he is correct and global warming is as serious as he believes it is and we do nothing?

Which mistake would you rather make?

What can be done by humans to stop this from happening that will not have a inpact on the way we live our lives today? Anyone see Oprah today? She had a Doctor on that said each human passes gas (Farts)14 times a day!

One last point. I do not use the work "all" very often, and only when every single data point in a given set of data meets a specific set of criteria.

As an example: "all reported concentrations were less than than maximum contaminant level(MCL)."

The data set I referred to when I said "ALL scientists" included a random set of 928 articles (of the many thousands) written by a wide variety of scientists who had studied the global warming/green house gas data during the past ten years. None of those articles doubted the relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming. ZERO out of 928. That is ALL.

Of course everyone is welcome to draw their own conclusions from the data. But as you can see I fall in with the vast majority of scientists who are concerned about global warming.

Unfortunately, the decisions that would protect us from the results of global warming are being made by the skeptics. Let us hope that they are not wrong...

The point I was trying to make is that climate changes, whether or not humans are involved.

When looking at sea level changes, it is also important to understand that there are different order changes, meaning variations in sea level of different magnitudes. Melting ice caps of course cause sea level rise, however, the very large magnitude rise in sea level seen during the Cretaceous and other times in history is actually due to the rate of sea floor spreading. Generally this is taught in Geol 102 (at least that's when I cover it).

As great a site as the pastycam is, and as fantastic and intelligent as all the participants are, I don't think this is an issue we will be able to solve on this forum.

Goodness, and all this over a little red barn.....

Thank you, Dr. Nat. You put irregular weather patterns in perspective much better than I could, because I'm not a scientist. To Dave Cloutier.... I don't mean to demean your position. Again, because I'm not a scientist. Please accept my apology if offended. However, when someone interjects political statements from either side of the aisle when discussing science topics, my bovine excrement sensors kick into action. You sound well-informed, as does Dr. Nat. While watching NBC national news tonight, there was disagreement between a 30 yr veteran of NOAA and a Stanford Univ. professor on this very subject. That is why we laypersons who question "facts" remain skeptic, and hesitate supporting costly measures on something that may or may not be factual.(i.e.: Kyoto Treaty) I apply the same logic to the medical profession, or any other field of study when experts disagree.

Capt. Paul (Eclogite) I agree with you. I am chuckling at your statement!

I must admit I am a bit of a global warming skeptic myself. Global warming or not though, we should treat our environment with respect. As far as administrations go, I do not see a whole lot of conservation by any side. In my opinion it is up to each person to do their part for the environment. The question is: Are we all willing to make radical changes in our lifestyles to protect the environment? We all like our vehicles, our recreation, our vacations, our houses, our medicines, our clothes, and all our other unnecessities of life. I used to call myself an environmentalist but the more educated I get, I realize that I'm just as guilty as the next. And thanks David for the info about Laramie. I feel much better now about my son being there.

Yeah, Z-man, thanks a lot. You should have known better than to take a picture of that little red barn :)

I certainly respect everyone's opinion on climate; we are all entitled to one although everyone may differ.

Heikki:
Thank you and I also hope I did not offend anyone. I suppose we could all sit back and watch and hope that global warming is a big hoax. But if it is not, then we had better start changing our ways. There are many meaningful things that every person can do to help reduce green house gas emissions. Remember back in the 1970's when the government lowered speed limits to save gasoline? By slowing down from the posted limit of 75 mph to approximately 62 mph my car gets 50% more miles per gallon! If everyone would improve their fuel economy by just 20% that would make a huge difference. There is a lot of information about what each of us can do. The key is we must start soon!

IF you want to make a difference every day with little effort to reduce emissions, install compact fluorescent bulbs in your home. They cost about two bucks, last longer than incandescent, and use less energy. If we all used them, it would decrease emissions significantly. My eco-tip for the day. For more, see http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/01/how_many_blogge.html

How was that saying, put three scientists together to get at least five opinions? No offense meant - sometimes I'd be the one providing at least two.

I think David Cloutier put it best when asking about what error we'd want to make.
It's correct, as far as I can say, that the connection between human input, as in emissions, and temperature development is not proven. There is, however, reason enough to believe it is to consider taking action. Not to avoid climatic change, which we can't, but to grab the chance of avoiding drastic climate change, which we might, and which would allow us, like any other species, to adapt over a longer period of time.
Whoever thinks that climate change means doomsday scenarios for mankind has got it wrong, but it sure could mean interesting times for those who reap the results of what we leave behind.

Sorry. Wrong page. Had forgotten I wasn't on What'sUP.

So, who was writing down and recording that data 650,000 years ago?

I'm no scientist, but wasn't there a time when the Earth was uninhabitable due to the sulfur in the air? What administration was responsible for that debacle? While you're spouting your "facts" and espousing your "wisdom", why don't you say what the number one "greenhouse gas" actually is? Maybe you fear that people won't accept your agenda when you tell them that more than 95% of it occurs naturally and it is widely regarded as plant food.

Excellent picture Z-Man.

A lot of elements and chemicals that occur naturally are quite toxic, administered in the right (or wrong) dosage and place.
The fact that without CO2, and a lot of the other greenhouse gasses, there'd be no life as we know it doesn't change the dynamics of this world as it is.
If you want to know how to get climate and atmosphere related data from millenia ago, I would suggest some research - namely on glacial cores, dendrochronology and pollen analysis, for starters. No need to be a scientist to do that.

Let's tie this all together with the subject of
this thread.

I think global warming caused the snow to slide
off the right side of the roof of that beautiful red barn.

there all tied together nicely now. ;-)

As usual great shot Zman.

I'm sorry Mike B, I should have explained it better. I am just a messenger, I'm not making this up. I am just trying to let people know what is going on so they can understand and hopefully make the necessary changes.

There are 2 primary green house gases that have been correlated with global temperatures; carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Scientists have analyzed samples of ice that was deposited in Antarctica 650,000 years ago. These ice cores are made up of many layers, sort of like the layers in tree rings. The different layers have trace concentrations of atmospheric constituents including CO2 and CH4; along with several isotopes of oxygen that can be used to accurately predict what the atmospheric temperature was when the ice was laid down. This is because the concentrations of the different oxygen isotopes change depending on the temperature.

By determining the concentrations of green house gases (primarily CO2 and CH4) and correlating those concentrations with the concentrations of the various oxygen isotopes they have characterized the relationship between the green house gases and global temperature (how the green house gas concentrations affect global temperature) There is a very strong correlation between higher concentrations of green house gases and higher global temperatures.

And you are correct in that there were long periods of time that the earth was uninhabitable, at least to humans, because of various toxic conditions. And others have correctly stated that climatic change is a normal function - at least within a certain range. It is also true that the earth has a remarkable capacity to heal itself. But one of the fundamental principles of ecology is that "everything is connected to everything else".

What does that mean? It means that you simply can't add huge volumes of gases to the atmosphere and not expect to change the natural dynamics of the system. Whether or not you and other skeptics want to believe it, the data we have collected suggests (strongly) that we are changing the natural system.

So what is going to happen? No one knows exactly, but we do know that if the global temperature goes up only a few degrees the ice caps will melt.

There will be other changes too. Each plant and animal species has developed certain characteristics that give them a competitive advantage in their niche. The natural system is in a very delicate balance (or equalibrium) based on the current environmental conditions. By changing the natural dynamics of the system (i.e. make the earth warmer) we will disrupt the balance and create conditions that are more favorable to certain species and a disadvantage to others.

This dynamic is common to gardening. Some plants require moist humic soil and others do better with drier well-drained soil. If you try to grow a plant in the wrong type of soil or give it too much (or too little) water it usually dies. (at least that is my experience).

With that in mind we should be very careful not to change the dynamics of the natural system or we could cause changes that would create conditions that are unfavorable to humans. In fact, we have done this in the recent past. In the early 1900's dozens of people in the Pittsburgh area died from toxic air emissions from burning coal. Events such as that were why we passed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. That is why certain chemical pesticides have been banned.

We finally realized that man had the ability to create hazardous conditions and industry, if left unregulated, would place profit over human health. It is our governments job to protect the people from dangers caused by other nations, terrorists and industry.

The skeptics say that we don't know for sure how green house gases affect global temperatures so we shouldn't do anything to reduce those types of emissions. But I do not believe that we understand the complex inter-relationships of the earths climatic system well enough to continue to haphazardly change it by adding millions of tons of CO2 and CH4 to the system. Doesn't it make more sense not to randomly change something if we really don't know what those changes will do? That seems like pure folly to me...

Thank you, David. That is an excellent explanation of the facts involved.

I appologize, also, to you. In rereading my post, it is a bit vitriolic, and was not intended to be.

I do not disagree with global warming. We know, based on the very research you have documented, that the climate of the Earth is an ever changing thing. It has gone through numerous incarnations throughout the past billions of years, and I believe this is another of them. What I disagree with the the claim that the current trend is the fault of our behavior. While there is plenty of proof that concentrations of CO2 are higher, there is no proof that it would not be that way regardless of our behavior. As you said yourself, there is evidence of higher concentrations of green house gases and higher global temperatures thousands of years ago. There were no Americans driving Hummers back then. The truth is, global warming could just be a naturally occurring phenomena that is going to happen whether we like it or not.

America has some of the most stringent emmission control standards of the world. Yet we are constantly told we must adjust our behavior, while the rest of the world is permitted to go unchecked.

Places like China, Africa, and Russia pour hundreds of thousands of times, the amount of polution in our atmosphere. Yet there is never any commentary about their 'administrations' blindly supporting an oil agenda. China is the number one purchaser of foreign oil in the world. The only thing you hear anywhere is how the U.S. is ruining the world and must curtail their CO2 output.

The problem is, most groups that are trying to accomplish change (or claim to be) are using extreme leftist tactics or are associated with extreme leftist groups. In doing so, they will never speak negatively about a leftist leader or nation. You won't see any marches in Seattle or Berkeley with protestors carrying anti-China signs. See how politics allows the real message to be lost?

I agree with Al Gore, when in his film he says this is a moral issue, not a political issue (can't remember the exact quote). Whether this current state is caused by human behavior or not, we cannot know. But we can ensure change. The problem is, the people that are truely concerned are using the wrong methods and that will accomplish nothing.

What does a red barn have to do with global warming, than the warming of the heart of the picture? It sure went along around from the red barn picture category. :->

Lahelo, what is wrong with this picture? Poor Z-Man's talents were just swept under the rug, eh? I know I made a few comments but at least I appreciated the picture! You can sit around and talk about all the problems of the world, but ya sure as heck can't solve 'em!

Information:

Someone asked the question "what can people do to help stop global warming?" Here is a link to some information by a noted physicist who is a leading expert - http://aip.org/history/climate/SWnote.htm

And for the skeptics a link to a comprehensive "history of the research showing that CO2 is the key force behind global warming - http://aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

It is a rather long article because this research has been ongoing since the early 1800s! If after reading this information you are still a skeptic, well, I really don't know what to say...

We Americans claim to be the leaders of the world. This is a chance to lead!

I still love that red barn Zman! :)

1. CO2-levels are up because of human input (vast amount of tons of organic matter burnt, land use change). So are levels of other, even way more efficient greenhouse gasses (ghg)(some created by us, not naturally occuring).
2. Pumping ghg into an atmosphere will result in a greenhouse-effect, which means temperatures will rise. (basic knowledge)
3. If we rise the levels of ghg in our atmosphere, the resulting increase in temperature is a result of our action, unless another factor that has more of a greenhouse-effect comes into action. No such factor has ever been shown to exist.
4. The point is not the level itself, the point is the rapidity of change.
5. Higher global temp does not mean this world is going to die, it'll just settle into another balance, maybe so quickly we, and the ecosystems we depend on, are hard put, to keep up.

I absolutely would not mind that occuring naturally, but as a result of our action? Of our continued action despite strong indications to the throwbacks? I don't think so.

Don't mess up CO2-emissions with other pollution. Emission control standards do basically nothing about CO2-emissions, the point in question here is over all consumption. A Yugo might be the dirtier car regarding other stuff (NOx, SO2, ...), but CO2-wise, it's the superior vehicle to a Hummer.

There are people working on the behaviour of India and China. One maior problem is the argument " ... but the US keep consuming like there's no tomorrow ...". Which shows two things - lack of information flow, both ways, and how seriously all efforts were thrown back when the US left the Kyoto protocol. That was not a great idea.
Hey, we're still in it, others are even better at it, and know what? Still here, and still not starving, despite all efforts to reduce emissions. Which could be greater, and still wouldn't kill us. The whole affair is a chance, not a threat.

They just announced 2005 was the warmest year on record.

Very well said Danbury.

Kathy, not only was 2005 tied with 1998 for the warmest year on record, but read this excerpt form an article from NOAA:

"Scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., today said the 2005 global temperature was statistically indistinguishable from the standing record set in 1998. Using two global data sets developed at NCDC, scientists determined that the 2005 average temperature was part of a string of very warm years – nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995."

I don't just make this stuff up- honest.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

I heard it on the radio.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009001/

Wow! Here is one of today's headlines:

"Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics"
Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases

Updated: 1 hour, 14 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.

Maybe there is hope afterall...

Dave,

I sure hope so.

I heard a report that the average temp for the World last year was 55 F Is that a fact?

Sounds a little low - i would've expected around 59°F. The reference is 15.08°C, and '06 was I think higher.
Temperature here is air temperature.

Ok, numbers from Nasa, in °C, unfortunately without further information as to which temp it is (perhaps air?) and how it was produced:
'05: 14.77 (warmest)
'06: 14.66 (more than 55°F)
Not much of a difference, but: during the last ice age, global mean temp was supposedly just a few degrees below what it is today (don't remember how it was determined). Also, temperatures are but an indication - the dynamics are way more fun, and way more complicated.

2005: 14.77°C, 2006: 14.66°C That's 0.11° cooler.
Why, it must be ... Global Cooling!!!

Maybe this expert is correct???

"Will the sun cool us?" - "The science is settled" on climate change, say most scientists in the field. They believe that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the globe to dangerous levels and that, in the coming decades, steadily increasing temperatures will melt the polar ice caps and flood the world's low-lying coastal areas. Don't tell that to Nigel Weiss, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a scientist as honoured as they come. The science is anything but settled, he observes, except for one virtual certainty: The world is about to enter a cooling period." (Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post)