Earth hotter than at any time in historygreenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread |
Earth hotter than at any time in history
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Correspondent
30 April 2000
The earth is now hotter than at any time in recorded human history, according to worldwide research published by the Royal Swedish Academy of Science.
The research is a vital piece of evidence in establishing that pollution is heating up the planet, and that the warming that has been taking place over the last two decades is not merely a natural fluctuation of the Earth's climate as some global warming sceptics have claimed.
Last night Oxfam issued an urgent appeal for international aid as a third year of drought threatens India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Crops are failing and livestock dying across southern Asia, says the charity, putting tens of millions of lives at risk. Drought has also hit the American Midwest, which produces grain for more than 100 countries.
Despite the increasing growing evidence of global warming, many scientists have believed up to now that the earth was hotter in the early Middle Ages, when vines grew as far north as York. Some scientists have argued, as a result, that nothing out of the ordinary is happening to the climate now.
The new research b
-- Greenhouse Gus (@ .), May 01, 2000
And when, exactly, did they start keeping these records? And waht records are they? My recollection from reading various histories of the times is that in the United States, the "dust bowl days" of the 1930's were generally warmer then anything we are seeing currently.
-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 01, 2000.
Do you have a link for this report?
-- Sure M. Hopeful (Hopeful@future.com), May 01, 2000.
I think that the US government only started keeping records about 100 years ago. Read it somewhere.
-- Just passin through (nobody@nowhere.com), May 01, 2000.
The evidence I've read about that establishes a substantial warming trend is massive and incontrovertible. The earth's atmosphere is getting warmer. No question. None. There is not one thread of evidence that does not show an unmistakable uptrend over this century.The theory that this warming is caused by the release of carbon (mostly hydrocarbons) into the atmosphere through the combustion of coal, gas and oil is very persuasive to me. Some don't buy it. But, among scientists, they tend to be few. Eliminate the interested scientists who are getting funded by corporate or foundation grants from sources biased in favor of fossil fuels, and you have eliminated more than half of that minimal dissent.
I think a lot of "lay" folks do not understand what global warming would look like. Some of them think that whatever climate is 300 miles south of them will move north and they'll enjoy a balmier climate similar to whatever lies at that latitude today.
It is more accurate to think of global warming not as the tropics heading north, but in terms of the total energy in the atmosphere. Warmth is a form of energy. More of it makes for more energetic weather. Steeper temperature gradients. Higher winds. More rains here. More droughts there. More motion. More energy working itself off.
Furthermore, it could be very problematic for long-lived plants, like trees. They are adapted for a particular climate. They can't move. Their reproductive cycles are slow. If the climate changes too quickly, they'll just die in place. Until the climate settles, far fewer trees will reach maturity anywhere.
My problem is that I am pretty sure that humans won't change their economic behavior away from fossil fuels even with massive evidence of impending disaster. It's too cheap and easy. Pump it up. Pipe it to a refinery. Burn it up. It's a dream come true. We'll cling to it as long as we can, even if it means a slow ride down the whirlpool. I wish I could be more optimistic about it.
-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 02, 2000.
"1998 Was a Hot One - Warmest on Record, Researchers Say"http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/hotyear990111.htm l
"First 3 Months Warmest in 106 Years"
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000419/pl/warmer_earth_1.html
Wednesday April 19 2:18 AM ET
First 3 Months Warmest in 106 Years
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - The first three months of the year were the warmest in the nation in 106 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The latest data also shows that June 1999 through March 2000 was the warmest June through March period ever in the nation, NOAA Administrator D. James Baker said Tuesday.
The January through March average temperature in the nation was 47.1 degrees. That is 1 degree warmer than the previous record set in 1990.
One degree of difference is a ``very robust'' margin, said Baker, adding that global data is still being assembled.
A warmer earth means sea level could rise 20 inches in the next 100 years, he said.
``Ignoring climate change and the most recent warming patterns could be costly to the nation,'' he said. ``Small changes in global temperatures can lead to more extreme weather events including, droughts, floods and hurricanes.''
That prediction of additional disasters concerns James Lee Witt, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
``We are seeing extremes in weather that will impact us physically, mentally and emotionally,'' said Witt, who joined Baker for a news conference Tuesday on the New Orleans lakefront.
The two men were in town for the weeklong National Hurricane Conference.
-- (It's@warming.up), May 02, 2000.
We're all going to die.
-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 02, 2000.
This topic and the commercial I saw this morning about depleting our national forrests drive me crazy.We are NOT warmer than any time in history. Scientists took deep earth samples (back 1,000 years) and found that we are actually cooler than the average high. We are about 74 degrees while during the last 1,000 years, the average was as high as 77. (It seems that this article conflicts with the one I read, funny huh?) Further, if you look at a chart showing over a million years, you find that the earth goes through cycles (very normal) of warming and cooling. Currently we are nowhere near the earth's highest temperature.
You'll have to prove to me that this is a result of greenhouse warming. Sigh, the sun is responsible for making the ozone layer, we are too insignificant to affect the normal cycles of our solar system. And if our weather does warm, think of the benefits. The dry and cold places (80% of Russia) will be able to grow food.
Now on to the tree huggers cry. We have more national forests than we ever had in the past. We have more trees now than back in the days of the pilgrims. During those times, people just built their homes with the natural resources. Today we can't do that. Our logging comes from tree farms, not the national forest. If you ever think that we don't have enough trees, drive through the national parks. The trees are doing fine.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 02, 2000.
Report of the Ad Hoc Panel on The Present InterglacialICAS 18b-FY75, Aug. 1974
Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences
Federal Council for Science and Technology (NSF, et. al.)
V. Conclusion:
"Warm interglacial periods, such as that which the world has been enjoying for the past 10,000 years, have been but rare events during the last two million years.... There is a growing volume of evidence that the extraordinary warmth of the early 20th Century is drawing to a close... Warmth-loving animals in Europe and North America are shifting their ranges southward...hardwood forests are encroaching southward...CAREFUL ANALYSES OF BOTH SURFACE AND UPPER AIR TEMPERATURE RECORDS INDICATE A DISTINCT GLOBAL COOLING TREND SINCE ABOUT 1940."
The panel carefully studied the effects of CO2 pollution and concluded that it could only postpone the dominant trend towards GLOBAL COOLING! Note the time period they examined, not years, nor decades but THOUSANDS of years! Climatic VARIATIONS are common during such extended periods of time.
Of course this study was conducted before other political 'agendas' were in vogue. So sad that science and the TRUTH suffers when the Globalist NWO agenda is supreme over all.
-- Gonna (GetCOLD@Soon.com), May 02, 2000.
Assuming evolution instead of creationism, We have only been here for a few 10s of thousands of years. Where do we get off thinking we are important enough to matter in the greater scheem of things? 200,000 years ago the Sahara desert was a vast inland lake and the Amazon jungle was a desert.
-- Just passin through (nobody@nowhere.com), May 02, 2000.
Maria wrote:>> We have more national forests than we ever had in the past. <<
This is a fact, but a pretty useless one. National forests didn't exist until Teddy Roosevelt's administration. But we didn't have any more trees the day after they were designated "national" than we had the day before. And calling them "national" doesn't protect them from exploitation.
>> We have more trees now than back in the days of the pilgrims. <<
This is the kind of "fact" that needs careful evaluation. Obviously, the pilgrims were too busy to count trees. This is based on some kind of modern estimate. Who made that estimate? How? Who paid them? What size of trees are being counted?
This "fact" also ignores a very vital truth that a forest is something altogether different than "trees". As an Oregonian, I know instantly when a stand of trees is a healthy forest and when it is a hodge-podge of random vegetation that grew up on cut-over land.
>> Our logging comes from tree farms, not the national forest. <<
Very true in Georgia. Partly true in Oregon and Washington. Not true at all in Alaska.
The national forests in Oregon and Washington were truly hammered in the 1970s and 1980s. I spend a lot of time in those forests. The biggest reason that the cut in those forests have been reduced is that so much timber has already been taken out of them that dozens of species of animals and hundreds of species of plants are in danger of extinction. Believe it or don't. It's true.
>> If you ever think that we don't have enough trees, drive through the national parks. <<
Yes. The national parks have healthy forests. And the national forests that border the parks are cut all to hell, right up to the park boundary. In lots of places it's slashes, gashes, mud and stumps right up to that pretty wall of green trees.
So, what's "enough trees"? Enough to go visit and look pretty for you when you go on vacation? Enough to ensure a good supply of calendar photos?
-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 02, 2000.
Aswan dam may trigger ice age, say scientists ----------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1997 Nando.net Copyright 1997 Agence France-PresseLONDON (July 24, 1997 02:21 a.m. EDT) - Egypt's Aswan Dam could cause such oceanic and climatic changes that they trigger a new ice age, according to reports Thursday. Bob Johnson, of the University of Minnesota in the United States, said in the "New Scientist" magazine that his theory, which he described as "pretty far out ... but quite serious", has been backed by researchers at Colorado and Quebec universities. Johnson said that as the dam, built in 1968, stops fresh water entering the Mediterranean, the sea becomes saltier. The more saltier the water, the heavier it gets, and the bigger the flows from the sea through the Straits of Gibraltar into the Atlantic. These extra flows, claimed Johnson, move north, and meet the warm Gulf Stream, pushing more of the Gulf Stream into the Labrador Stream, and causing more snowfalls in the Arctic, and so a huge expansion of ice sheets. Johnson proposed a barrier built across the Straits of Gibraltar to counteract the extra flows.
Copyright 1997 Nando.net -
-- - (x@xxx.cQm), May 02, 2000.
Future Shock wrote:>> We're all going to die. <<
Sure. I knew that. Always was true and always will be. So what pertinance does this have to the topic under discussion?
If you think that dying relieves us of responsibility for the consequences of the actions we took when we were alive, say that.
If you think that the topic reflects hysterical thinking, say that.
If your meaning was something else, say that.
Otherwise, your contribution to this discussion does not exceed the value of the average post from Manny.
-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 02, 2000.
Brian:Why are you coming after ME? I was being totally tongue-in-cheek. You have not been the kind of participant here that lowers himself to do this. We had good exchanges on the Time thread and others.
Is this topic of particular importance to you, emotionally? If it helps any, I agree with you on the forest issue; I am a card carrying member of The National Resource Defense Council, and other conservation agencies. I just saw a few posts, first thing in the morning, which reminded me of doomers and that was my response.
Comparing me to Manny is a bit below the belt; You are a regular here, so you know that I have rarely if ever trolled and usually move a thread forward. I do not know why you chose this opportunity to "call" me on a frivolous statement. Can't I have a little fun and be sarcastic one in awhile?
Help me out here, because I do not think any of the regulars would consider me in the Manny vein.
Thanks.
-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 02, 2000.
>> Why are you coming after ME? I was being totally tongue-in-cheek. <<Sorry. A bit testy today. Stress coming out in humorlessness. My apology.
-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 02, 2000.
>> Is this topic of particular importance to you, emotionally? <<The forest issue: Absolutely. I'm a 3rd generation Oregonian. My wife is a 4th generation Oregonian. Her dad was a saw filer at a mill. My grandfather worked for years as a lumber inspector at a yard. My dad spent several summers pulling sticks off the green chain at a mill. (I doubt Maria even knows what those jobs are.) I hike every year when the trails clear of snow.
I've spent a lifetime living in the middle of this issue. I have seen Oregon change drastically in my lifetime. Our forests have taken a lot of damage due to short-sightedness and greed. It makes me both mad and sad.
The global warming issue: It just exemplifies for me the improbability that humans will ever bring their appetites under control and the eventual consequences of that fact. Ken Decker would probably find the idea that we should control our appetites to be laughable, except when one of his dark moods comes upon him.
-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 02, 2000.
I think we're going to see the average life expectancy decreasing rapidly over the next couple of decades. By 2050, we'll probably be lucky to live past 40. I certainly wouldn't think about having any more children until we learn how to take care of ourselves first.
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 02, 2000.
Excuse me Brian, I didn't know I had to take a test on logging employment before I could comment on this topic. I was responding to a commercial that cried out about the ever decreasing national forests. My comments were to highlight that our national forests are not decreasing but increasing. How many trees are enough? I'd say we have enough now.I'm sorry you feel sad about the forest issue but maybe you're too close to the issue and can't see the forest for the trees.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 02, 2000.
"Now on to the tree huggers cry. We have more national forests than we ever had in the past. We have more trees now than back in the days of the pilgrims."LOL!! Did the pilgrims drive poison-spewing automobiles?? Trees are keeping us alive Dearie, we don't need them just for wood.
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 02, 2000.
Uh, Maria,I think most of the quotable quotes about 'more trees now than ever before' come from outfits such as Weyerhauser & other commercial ventures.
As for national forests on the increase, that's a land use designation change.
Don't get me started on the status of the native forests in Califorina, trust me - you don't want to go there.
-- flora (***@__._), May 02, 2000.
>> Excuse me Brian, I didn't know I had to take a test on logging employment before I could comment on this topic. <<As I've said before (and will no doubt say again) no force on earth is going to stop you from commenting on this topic if you so desire. I wouldn't dream of stopping you. But, if what you say seems ignorant or foolish to me, I'll damn well say so. Twice, if I feel like it.
That's the deal. You get your say. I get mine. Devil take the hindermost. If you got a problem with that, go tell it to the Marines.
>> ... maybe you're too close to the issue and can't see the forest for the trees. <<
Cute. Maybe you're so far from the issue you can't tell truth from fiction.
-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 02, 2000.
Wow, seems I hit a nerve with the tree issue. flora, yeah, in California I would expect lots of tree huggers.Lighten up Brian, you have every right to say whatever you want and so do I. I'm digging (pun intended) on the comment about not knowing the jobs you and your relatives have had. You agree that national forests have a healthy dose of trees. You just don't like my comments on tree huggers or my attitude toward stupid commercial not presenting all the facts.
Hawk, well duh, do they give off valuable oxygen during daylight?
So what's enough trees? And are we there yet?
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 02, 2000.
Cute one about the tree huggers, gee who coulda seen that coming?!I'm gonna put a part of this in a way maybe you can relate to since I remember you've spent time in the military. Lots of bases have been 'decommisssioned' in the past twenty years, right? Where do you think that land went? Check into the amount administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and other public agencies. Then come back & we'll discuss if natural habitats are really increasing.
Environmental factors affecting forests in my area happen to be natural climate changes; an incurable fungus - now estimated to wipe out upwards of ninety percent of the dominant species within five to ten years; bark beetles; 'silent extinction' genetically reengineered species interbreeding with natives {which -by the way, had replaced the Doug fir as the most valued timber tree, used extensively in international tree farming}; and of course habitat destruction.
Because we have no controlled burn policy, we lost 80,000 acres to a wild fire last year. In the long run, that will probably have a beneficial affect on that habitat. We seriously should attend to managing that particular resource better.
You want me to continue...I'm just getting warmed up?
-- flora (***@__._), May 02, 2000.
"So what's enough trees? And are we there yet?"That all depends. We have plenty of oxygen, that isn't why we need more trees. We need them because they absorb CO2, remember, the stuff that is causing the planet to heat up? If you want to keep driving your gas-powered car, then we are not even close to "enough", we need a lot more trees. Since it doesn't look like anybody is willing to make sacrifices for transportation, I'd suggest you start planting trees real fast. I wonder if you'll still be ridiculing "tree-huggers" when the average surface temperature is 120 degrees and the air is filled with suffocating poisons.
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 02, 2000.
Maria,I'm gonna back off here because I think you were reacting to some information that may have not intentionally been misleading, but...
Lots of us know that feeling lately.
Do you care about watershed issues? Sorry...I slipped...
-- flora (***@__._), May 02, 2000.
Maria, your conclusions about the national forests is so bizarre that I tend to discount your conclusion about global warming.I am personally skeptical of a lot of recent studies by government studies, having worked for the Forest Service. I've seen studies which were rigged in order to reach the person't predectermined bias.
That's not to say that I disbelieve the global warming studies, though, because it seems pretty obvious that we've increased the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by a very large percentage, and this SHOULD lead to global warming.
But, having "driven through the forest" for over thirty years, I can tell you that the national forests in MY part of the country (southern Oregon) are seriously depleted. I can alsos tell you that a some national forests, along with BLM and some large private timber companies, spare a bit of timber land along popularly travelled roads. I call these "P.R. strips" While you're driving through the national forest next time, Maria, get out of the car, walk a hundred or two feet into the forest, and see if you have come out the far side. Better yet, fly over the forests, and you may be shocked at the huge clearcuts, and partially reforested clearcuts.
I admit that there are probably more trees now than ever before, but how many seedlings is a "virgin" forest worth?
I also am unable to speak for the country as a whole; I have heard that the forests back east are finally getting back to a point similar to where they were in the seventeenth or eighteenth century. I don't know. But here, NOT.
Maria, as far as your comments to Brian, do you think your television habits qualify you to judge the forests better than those of us who live and work in them? What is the basis for your conclusion that there are "enough" trees? Should we stop replanting all the clear cuts, because there are "enough" trees, according to Maria, the great timber seer?
JOJ
-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), May 02, 2000.
There is no doubt that the 1998-99 year was the hottest recorded in the past 20 years, as would be expected follwing the strongest El-Nino for the same period. But this year the average global temperature has returned to below the normal line as shown by How does this claim compare with the data from Yellowstone National Park which shows that there has been no significant change in temperature, and even backs up E.H. Porter's recoolection that the 1930's were hotter. Just look at the record for 1934.If we consider data over the past 18000 years, as shown here, then it becomes obvious that there has been a warming trend that peaked around 6000 years ago. At the present time the earth is almost as warm as it was then, but is now in a cooling phase.
So, please, where is the data to back up the claims of global warming. Once that data is presented, and if it does show continued warming, then we can start debating the reasons.
-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), May 02, 2000.
Malcolm,I usually try to stay out of the Global Warming mudpit, but I do know of one study that has been used of an intertidal creatures census, followed up after about 70 years by a fellow named Baxter at Stanford's Hopkins Marine Lab. Granted, that's a short period over geologic time, but I thought you might want to check it out. I can dig up a link tomorrow, but have to go for now.
-- flora (***@__._), May 02, 2000.
Oh dear, I messed up those links. Try again. There is no doubt that the 1998-99 year was the hottest recorded in the past 20 years, as would be expected follwing the strongest El-Nino for the same period. But this year the average global temperature has returned to below the normal line as shown by this data. So far I have seen no evidence to back up the claim that "Earth hotter than at any time in history". How does this claim compare with the data from Yellowstone National Park which shows that there has been no significant change in temperature, and even backs up E.H. Porter's recoolection that the 1930's were hotter. Just look at the record for 1934. If we consider data over the past 18000 years, as shown here, then it becomes obvious that there has been a warming trend that peaked around 6000 years ago. At the present time the earth is almost as warm as it was then, but is now in a cooling phase. This graph which shows the tempearture over 160,000 years indicates that we are experiencing a very warm period, but that it is not "Hotter than at any time in history", nor is it likely to last. So, please, where is the data to back up the claims of global warming. Once that data is presented, and if it does show continued warming, then we can start debating the reasons.
-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), May 02, 2000.
Malcom, the logic that you use to support your conclusion is amazingly naive. Over the last 18000 years, how many times has there been an industrial revolution? How many times has there been 6 billion people on the planet, and approximately 1 billion CO2 producing vehicles? How many urban heat islands did the planet have even 500 years ago? How many millions of square miles of black asphalt covered the surface of the planet even 100 years ago? A "trend" will no longer be a trend when humans do things to throw it way off course. If you still need more evidence that the drastic changes we have made over the last 200 years are changing the trend, before you are willing to stop destroying the planet, I only hope that you are among a very small minority of the population. It may already be too late to reverse the effects of the damage we have already done, and this time it isn't quite as easy as Y2K. When you're dealing with the biosphere that supports our very existence, there will be no opportunity for "fix on failure".
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 02, 2000.
Glad to see you guys are still at it. This discussion will only gain momentum and prominence as more evidence is discovered.Some serious discussions of trees as carbon sinks is taking place among some qualified astute members of the [energyresources] list on eGroups.com. Simple mathematical calculation, based on a tree's ability to absorb CO2 times per capita CO2 production in the USA, indicates that we need to plant an area the size of Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachsetts with trees EVERY YEAR to absorb our CO2 effluent. No opinion---just math.
Why do global warming sceptics habitually generalize from a small, unrepresentative data set, Malcolm? World climate history is particularly difficult to assemble, but climatologists are seriously looking into it. I assure you---paranoid political rants to the contrary notwithstanding---nothing would please the UCS and IIPC more than to be proved wrong. Scientists can handle it; it goes with the territory. Government and industry, on the other hand.....
In any case, not to worry; this is a self-fixing problem. Professional petroleum geologists (not in the pay of fossil fuel interests) warn that world oil production will peak by the end of this decade, falling thereafter by about 3% per year. As there is no apparent, significant planning or forethought (or $$) being applied to alternatives, one might conclude that CO2 reduction will be a concomitant result of our economic decline.
Hallyx
"We wait, breathlessly, for a Deus ex Machina, realizing only to late that our intelligence is a sword made of feathers and our faith but a gossamer shield for our vanity."
-- (Hallyx@aol.com), May 02, 2000.
As far as I know, the collection of reliable information on global temperature started about 1979 [the values provided by this data have led to the arguments that are displayed in the press]. I notice that people with an agenda reference different temperatures [and different measurement systems] for different time periods.It really makes no difference what is causing the possible global warming. Our money should be spent in preparing society to deal with it. If it comes, nothing that we do now will stop it. If we waste our economy to stop what will happen in 200y, none will be alive by then.
Best wishes,,
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 02, 2000.
Hawk,Malcom, the logic that you use to support your conclusion is amazingly naive. The only conclusion I have reached is that I have seen no data that supports the claim of Global Warming, and that is why I asked for some. The logic behind this claim is that the tempeartures we are experiencing right now are in line with natural occurances, (eg El-Nino/La-Nina) and are quite normal. We did experience high temperatures in the 1998-99 year, and they are now back to below average. But I must concede that 50% of all temperature records are above average.
Over the last 18000 years, how many times has there been an industrial revolution? How many times has there been 6 billion people on the planet, and approximately 1 billion CO2 producing vehicles? How many urban heat islands did the planet have even 500 years ago? How many millions of square miles of black asphalt covered the surface of the planet even 100 years ago? A "trend" will no longer be a trend when humans do things to throw it way off course. If you still need more evidence that the drastic changes we have made over the last 200 years are changing the trend, before you are willing to stop destroying the planet, I only hope that you are among a very small minority of the population. It may already be too late to reverse the effects of the damage we have already done, and this time it isn't quite as easy as Y2K. When you're dealing with the biosphere that supports our very existence, there will be no opportunity for "fix on failure".
Like you, Hawk, I also believe that we are damaging our planets environment with our modern industry, and overcrowding, but that does not prove that the earths temperature is rising. So come on Hawk and answer the question asked. Where is the temperature data that shows Global warming even exists? I will accept temperature data measured by satellite, temperature data from radio-sonde balloons, or even from ground based sites that are not affected by UHI (eg the Yellowstone site).
Midway through last year I challenged you on this, and I even went so far as to predict that this year would be cooler than average, and by how much. So far my prediction is coming true, but No-one has presented any unaffected data to show any warming trend.
-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), May 03, 2000.
"I even went so far as to predict that this year would be cooler than average, and by how much. So far my prediction is coming true"This year is COLDER than average??? Are you nuts? I'll have to ask you the same thing, where are you getting YOUR data?
You keep saying that that the reason it is getting warmer is because of El Nino, and now you're saying it is getting colder? What is your explanation for the CAUSE of El Nino, and why have the recent occurrences been getting warmer, more severe, and lasting longer than ever before? Did it ever occur to you that El Nino is a SYMPTOM of global warming? Did you know that it has recently been verified that the ocean water temperatures are increasing in many areas far away from the El Nino occurrence?
Are you trying to say that you think there is some kind of conspiracy to spread disinformation that the planet is getting warmer? Who would benefit from such a plan?
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 03, 2000.
I figure you guys won't like the source, but my old bookmarks are on a disk around here somewhere...Haven't turned up the links I want yet, but here's an interpretation that cites the study I was referring to above:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/news/pubs/wwf_ocean.htm
Will take another shot at it tomorrow, but this might give y'all a tidbit to chew on until then...
'night all--
-- flora (***@__._), May 03, 2000.
Hawk,You asked where I get my data. I provided a link to the graph in my previous post, so I won't repeat it here, but if you want to see the raw data, it is available from the NOAA satellite data.
So far from El-Nino being a symptom of global warming, it is the exact opposite. Changes in global temperature are an effect of the SOI.
As for your claim that increases in temperature causes El-Nino, what has caused the La-Nina that we have had for the past year? Surely the cause comes BEFORE the effect rather than the other way around?
If you are genuinely interested in the cause of El-Nino then have a look at Dr Theodore Landscheidt's research paper, and the following open peer review.
-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), May 03, 2000.
Hallyx,I cannot fault your maths, and if anything the data is posibibly too conservative as it uses official data on CO2 emmissions and land clearing, and may not adequately allow for tree felling and additional burnoffs that are occuring on private farm land around the world. I would be happier to see an even grater number of trees re- planted anually.
However what I am disputing is that there is any unusual trend towards global warming. I do not dispute the CO2 or SO2 or NO3 emmisions that are occuring, and it is my opinion that these emmisions are causing serious harm to our environment. Where my concern lies is in the simple chemical reactions that occur in the atmosphere. CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3 or Cabon Dioxide plus water vapour results in acid rain. This is a much more serious harm that is happening right now, and can be proved. Global warming is still in dispute.
-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), May 03, 2000.
http://www.global- warming.net/Computer models indicate the ice is not disappearing because of natural changes in conditions.
A Washington Post report
The amount of sea ice in Arctic waters is shrinking annually by about 14,000 square miles - an area larger than Maryland and Delaware combined - probably because of global-warming caused by human activity.
That is the potentially controversial conclusion of a new international study that combined 46 years of data documenting the declining extent of Northern Hemisphere sea ice and analyzed the information using two leading computer programs that simulate world climate.
At issue is one of the most ominous questions in science and environmental policy: Is the disappearance of so much ice the result of ordinary natural variations in Arctic conditions? Or is it the by product of global warming caused by civilization's release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?
The results indicate less than a 2 per- cent probability that the melting of the past 20 years is due to normal climate variation. That is, a decline that large would be seen only about two out of 100 times in computer models that calculate the long-term interactions of water, air, land, sunlight and the like to simulate the way the world's climate changes naturally over time. The authors further found only a .1 percent chance that the whole 46-year-trend could have occurred in the course of natural fluctuations.
But when they compared the same data to the output of models incorporating recent greenhouse-gas and aerosol emissions, the computer and observed results were almost identical.
This strongly suggests that the observed decrease in northern hemisphere sea ice is related to [human-caused] global warming, wrote the team of nine scientists headed by Konstaritin Y. Vinnikov of the University of Maryland in today's issue of the journal Science.
Other researchers have suggested the shrinking Arctic ice may be related to global warming but the new study is the first to bring together five independent data sets and show that the trends in each are extremely similar. The computer analysis technique the authors used is familiar In other global-warming studies, but has never before been applied to Arctic ice.
The amount of the measured ice decline hasn't been in dispute, but whether the shrinkage is unnaturally large is a different matter.
<:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 2000.
What the EPA has to say:http://www.epa.gov/globalwarm ing/
And the Environmental Defense Fund:
http://www.edf .org/pubs/Brochures/GlobalWarming/
How about the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucs usa.org/globalresources/index.html
But here's something to really think about:
http://www.globalwarming .net/aims.html
For the first time in history, man has possibly permanently altered the energy balance in our general circulation (GC) system which includes two major elements, air and water through anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Both air and water have excellent heat capacities. They are the main heat transfer elements around us which keep the changes in temperatures at any one locality to a minimum. Atmospheric and oceanic unrests are due to both the large quantity of heat, and the anthropogenic greenhouse effect of the greenhouse gases modern societies pour into the GC system.
The man-made alteration of energy balance in the GC system determines how chaotic our atmospheric and oceanic systems will be. At the present time, we measure this man-made Greenhouse Forcing to be at 2.4 - 4.3 W/m2. A change of 7.5 to 10 W/m2 will completely alter seasonal characteristics, e.g. from winter to spring. Thus, 2.4 - 4.3 W/m2 of Greenhouse Forcing is quite a significant alteration of energy balance.
The result of this Greenhouse Forcing is not a simple parallel shift in the climate of our well-known ecological zones, simple thermodynamics predicts an OSCILLATORY NATURE of the change in climate in any one ecological zone due to global warming. Global warming causes "extreme events" and bad weather in the near term. In the long term it may cause the earth to transition to another equilibrium state through many "oscillations in climatic patterns". The magnitudes of these oscillations could easily "exceed" the difference between the end points.
<:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 2000.
Sysman,Many thanks for the articles, and for the links to the origional material where possible. I have booked amrked all those that contain or refer to actal data, and in most cases they re-inforce the data available from NOAA, NIWA or CSIRO.
Your first link ties in with resarch performed by Rothrock and Maykut (1999) in which they investigate the thinning of the artic sea ice cover. It is unfortunate that in both cases the period of research starts in the early 1960s during a particularly cold era in the arctic as this data from Jan Mayen Island on the edge of the sea ice clearly shows. I will continue to follow this research with interest. Oddly enough, neither study makes mention of Antarctic sea ice. Recent papers suggest that even though Arctic sea ice has decreased over the period specified above, Antarctic sea ice has actually increased in extent. many studies choose to highlight Arctic sea ice, but omit to mention Antarctic sea ice.
The climate section of the EPA site starts with "The earths climate is predicted to change because human activities are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases -", then later on states "Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.6-1.20F since the late 19th century". This is around 0.010F per annum which is even less than the amount shown to be caused by UHI effect.
The environmental defence site contains mainly emotive blurb with little actual data, and adds little to the debate.
The Union of concerned scientists is a very site as it does refer to verifible sources and links to actual data. It also has a much ore balanced view as shown by the statement Current computer models incorporate recent improvements in scientific knowledge. For example, climatologists now know more about the atmospheric role of aerosols -- tiny particles suspended in the atmosphere -- and the circulation of oceans. The match between predictions from these models and 150 years of global surface temperature measurements (more reliable in climate terms than the brief satellite record) is close, though not exact. This discrepancy indicates that scientists still have more to learn about what influences the climate system." This is the type of statement I would expect from such a reputable body. They are stating that global warming may be occuring and that it may be assisted by man's indifference, and hence we should be doing something to reduce any man made influence. I fully agree with their concerns, but for different reasons.
I had to laugh at the introduction to the GWIC site. "It sponsors unbiased research supporting the understanding of global warming and its mitigation." If it only sponsors research supporting global warming then how can it be unbiased?
In return for your information would like to refer you to these sites:
Center for the study of Carbon dioxide and global change:
The IPCC controversy:
http://www.sepp.org/ipc ccont/ipcccont.html
Global Warming information page:
Obviously with so much information both for and against the concept of global warming, the conclusion must be still in doubt. That is why I say lets first of all determine if global warming is occurring at all, and if it is what proportion s natural and what is man made.
Then and only then will the consequenial debates have any meaning.
-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), May 03, 2000.
Good morning Malcolm,Thanks in return for the links. I'll check them out later. Now, I've got to wrap up a project, and update my work 'puter.
This is a good area for debate, and I'll keep an eye out here, and your new "on trial" thread.
Belated Happy May Day... <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 03, 2000.
"shrinking Arctic ice may be related to global warming" I was wondering when this would be thrown into the pot as evidence of global warming. So the ice is melting? This is jus another example of how doomers believe the end of the world. Take one, one little data point, and extrapolate to the end of the world. One spot of ice is melting and so we believe that we have global warming and if we believe what Hawk says, it's due to CO2. (let's see we have increasing CO2 and decreasing trees (not in fact) and increasing gas emissions and increasing temperature (not in fact), ergo they are all related). Here we go again, knowing nothing about a topic, and concluding as kinds of harsh events. Just because you're little area of the world has a few dead trees, then we must be doing some horrible things to our planet, and we need more trees.One question for ya, if the ice is melting why isn't the ocean rising? Sorry, I can't get my shorts in a bunch about a dead tree. You guys point to a few slanted studies and conclude, because a few data points correlate, then there's an actual cause and effect.
Yeah, our polution sucks, lets try to clean it up, not screw it up. Remember the measure that Bush passed to clean up the air, then they found that this particular gas emitted more toxins than regular gas? :) Just another way we jump to conclusions, not knowing all the parameters (and there are many) and end up chasing our tail.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 03, 2000.
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.htmlhttp://www.co2science.org/journal/1999/v2n12c1.htm
The history of the Earth is far larger than human history. Enlarge your perspective. Look further into the past, and you may well find the keys to the future. Ice Ages are the norm on this planet for the past several million years. A colder, dryer earth will have far more dire consequences for humans than a continuation of the warmer, wetter interglacial period we enjoy now.
Stay war
-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), May 03, 2000.
Hi, Hallyx,Much to the future delight of Government and Industry, ("We wait, breathlessly, for a Deus ex Machina) it appears that our Deus ex Machina has already arrived. This is undoubtedly to the detriment of our environment.
The Deus in this case is called "Orimulsion". My friend from Venezuela was blown away when I told her I'd never heard of it, a couple of years ago. I feel partially vindicated now; my next door neighbor, retired vice president of Unical Oil Co. had still never heard of it, until I told him about it a few weeks ago.
Orimulsion is apparently a contraction of "Orinoco" (as in Orinoco River, and Orinoce Belt) and "emulsion". It is a bituminous product which contains an estimated 1000 times the energy reserves of Saudi Arabia. It is made by puming a gas into the bituminous formation (steam, I think), and forcing the bitumin out in a state of emulsion.
I don't know why it has not received any significant amount of press in the USA.
Maria, I certainly agree with you that some knee jerk reactions to our environmental problems have caused additional problems. However, I am not a "doomer", never was. And yet, I am perturbed at your statement that "Just because you're little area of the world has a few dead trees, then we must be doing some horrible things to our planet, and we need more trees."
If you are referring to the "little area" that Brian and I have experience in (the Pacific Northwest), I can assure you that its importance in the timber industry is more than "little". Before it got hosed over so badly, contained 72% of the timber resources of the United States, according to the New Standard Encyclopedia, c. 1970.
As I told you before, you'd have to see the condition of the forest now in person, in order to believe it. And that doesn't mean seeing it at 75 mph from the window of your SUV.
There's a fairly simple solution to all the global warming. We need to take a realistic look at number of people the planet will support. I think we've already surpassed this number. Others will disagree. But no one can seriously argue that the Earth can support an unlimited number of people.
JOJ
-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), May 03, 2000.
"Hawk says, it's due to CO2. (let's see we have increasing CO2 and decreasing trees (not in fact) and increasing gas emissions and increasing temperature (not in fact), ergo they are all related). Here we go again, knowing nothing about a topic, and concluding as kinds of harsh events."Excuse me Maria, but do you have ANY education beyond high school level? I have two college degrees and have taken several classes in Physical Geography and Environmental Science. It has been established for several decades that the Greenhouse Effect is generated by anthropogenic activities, and it is a well known FACT that this phenomenon produces abnormal warming within the biosphere. Where have you been all these years? Your comments are so out of touch with reality that I can only conclude that you have absolutely no knowledge or education on this subject whatsoever.
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 03, 2000.
"decreasing trees (not in fact) "What this dimwitted broad fails to mention is that she considers a 2-month old seedling and a 400-year old redwood as "a tree".
-- J. Appleseed (@ .), May 03, 2000.
J, do you have more to say than name calling? Yes a tree is a living entity; they grow, become old and die. If you've counted trees (big and little) a hundred years ago and counted them now, what would you find? What's your point, moron.Hawk, Yes I do have an education. Yes, I've been around for a few years. Greenhouse had been established, give me a break! Geesh, we take records for a few decades and conclude global warming, WHAT?! The solar system has been around for five billion years. You've seen the data for two decades; that's like drawing a dinosaur with only a bone fragment. How do you do that? You must be extremely intelligent. I humble in your presence.
I used to think middle of the road on this issue. I wouldn't go as far as some, like the nutcase living in a tree for a few years. But I thought that we shouldn't deplete the earth of it's natural resources. Then the environmentalists push Bush into this measure and it does more harm than good. Yet, you claim they have established FACTS for decades. WOW, then how could they do this? How do you know your FACTS? How do you know if the earth has enough trees? You don't.
Then I took a trip to British Columbia, I became convinced that you guys are a bunch of fruitcakes. Nuff said on this boring, can't-get-my-shorts-in-a-bunch topic.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 04, 2000.
Future Shock,I took you comment about "we're all going to die" as humor. Hopefully we aren't always going to need to add grins to such things in order to draw people a picture. IMHO hose who have been reading your posts for a while should have been able to discern this.
-- Observer (Observer@lots.to.observe), May 04, 2000.
And another thing... Hawk asked, "Where have you been all these years?" Well, I've been to England, France, Germany (West), Italy, Belgium, New Zealand (both islands), Tahiti, Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, California (lived there), Utah, Arizona, New Mexico (lived there), Colorado (lived there), Wyoming, Montana, British Columbia, Texas (lived there), Pennsylvania (lived there), New York, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey (lived there), Florida, Carribean Islands. I've visited many wilderness areas and parks and drove through ("with my SUV") many other areas across the US.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 04, 2000.
Maria,You've got apples & oranges here. I know it's easy to link these issues together & form a knee-jerk response based on personal biases. I think it may have started on this thread where Mr. McLaughlin postulated on possible impacts of the theory in question on natural systems that most folks can relate to, and have an emotional response to.
Then it tied in with a TV commercial that generated an emotional response from you. Then all hell broke loose. In the field, forestry practices are not currently tied into the theory of Global Warming.
Malcolm, I understand and appreciate your perspective. I am now going to try to extricate myself from said mudpit - though I must say I also am thankful for the responses that your 'global warming on trial' post generated from others. Wish I had the time & inclination to devote to more the topic, but I too am not married to the results at this point. {"I could be wrong, it may be worse" - remember that!}.
Now morphing into Princess of Spain mode;
Gawd, Maria!
All that traipsing around the globe!!! -- Now we know where all that hot air came from. Our only hope is that 'Stop' will convince you to stay home in your rightful place {barefoot & pregnant} and then we won't have anything more to worry about.
-- flora (***@__._), May 04, 2000.
"And another thing... Hawk asked, "Where have you been all these years?" Well, I've been to England, France, Germany (West), Italy, Belgium, New Zealand (both islands), Tahiti, Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, California (lived there), Utah, Arizona, New Mexico (lived there), Colorado (lived there), Wyoming, Montana, British Columbia, Texas (lived there), Pennsylvania (lived there), New York, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey (lived there), Florida, Carribean Islands. I've visited many wilderness areas and parks and drove through ("with my SUV") many other areas across the US."As I suspected, you're obviously a retired person, on permanent vacation, touring the world. That would explain why you don't seem to have any education, it's been so long since you've been to school you've forgotten everything. Also, the Greenhouse Effect didn't really become a serious problem until the 60's or 70's, after you were finished with school. Still, if you have not even heard of it over the last 20 years or so, you must be doing nothing but partying and completely ignoring any kind of news. You might be a good source of knowledge about travelling, but not much else.
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 04, 2000.
Flora, :)Hawk, bite me. My your are extremely intelligent to conclude, I'm retired, vacationing constantly with no education, and that I have never heard of the greenhouse effect. No I'm not retired, wish I were. No, I didn't complete my education in the 60's. My most recent degree I obtained in 1990. And yes I have heard of the dreaded greenhouse effect but don't believe we know enough about it to conclude what you've obviously concluded, namely we're all going to die, SOON.
I didn't engage in any of those threads about your escapades but now i've come to realize you are a most pompous twit.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 04, 2000.
Hawk:. Also, the Greenhouse Effect didn't really become a serious problem until the 60's or 70's, after you were finished with school.
Serious question! I do read the literature daily in this area. It is related to my work. Are you talking about global warming or global warming being caused by greenhouse gas? I haven't seen any literature proving a cause and effect relationship for the latter; just statistical correlations. It may not be in the 40 or so scientific journals that I follow.
Fortunately or not, it is a mute point. If human activity is causing the warming, any change that we make now will not be corrective. We need to spend the large amount of required money getting ready to adapt. NJMO [not just my opinion].
Best wishes
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 04, 2000.
However, Hawk, you didn't conclude the one thing that can be concluded from my list of travels... I never spent any time in the Pacific Northwest living in a tree protesting some such cause.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 04, 2000.
Z,"If human activity is causing the warming, any change that we make now will not be corrective."
Soundin' pretty doomy there fella.
About it being a moot point, how does the funding for plans on adapting for the future get cut loose without more data points?
-- flora (***@__._), May 04, 2000.
Howdy Flora:Actually, I said a mute point; but moot point will do as well. Not a doomer, just a realist.
The data are clear. If all life ceased to exist today, the level of carbon dioxide and methane would continue to increase [probably faster because of all of the decomposing bodies; of course if all life ceased we wouldn't decompose; just a human-centric slip]. The change in lifestyle that would be required to decrease the output of greenhouse gas would be extremely expensive. It wouldn't effect the atmosphere for a very long time. If greenhouse gas released from human activities is causing the warming, then stopping the output will not stop the predicted warming.
Hence, the money is better spent in adapting to the warming. Simple analysis of the data as it stands. If it turns out to be wrong in the future, I will change my opinion.
Of course, you could argue that if the warming is a natural climatic cycle which will end in eventual cooling, then money spent to adapt to warming would be wasted. You would be correct. Attempting to predict long term climate changes is confusing; isn't it?
Best wishes,,,,
Z
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 04, 2000.
Maria:"Yes a tree is a living entity; they grow, become old and die. If you've counted trees (big and little) a hundred years ago and counted them now, what would you find? What's your point, moron."Maria, I'm afraid that this statement marks YOU as being the moron. You obviously DON'T understand the point!
You say you've been in the Black Forest. What did you think of the Black Forest? Would you call it healthy? I know that its problems are caused by over-harvesting for a long time, and don't really concern global warming directly, but they do relate to the condition of the world's forests.
I, too, am skeptical of the global warming theory, because I've witnesses a lot of biased research, mostly while working for the Forest Service in the field of hydrology. But just because we have only a few decades of data on which to base our conclusions, compared to the Earth's billions of years in age doesn't impress me. What are we supposed to do? Wait for a few billion years before making forecasts?
Z--What is a "mute point"? One that doesn't say anything? Please clarify.
I agree with you that, if CO2 is the sole cause of global warming, we're not likely to solve the warming problem for a LOOONG time. I understand that there are also other causes, e.g. fluorocarbons and ? Obviously I'm not too up to speed on this, but isn't it possible that some of them might break down naturally, and not be replaced by us if we quit putting them into the atmosphere?
How about we plan for the global warming, while simultaneously trying to correct the problem in any areas where we can do so. Also, perhaps we need to start solving the problem now, in order to have it corrected for future generations.
-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), May 05, 2000.
JOJ:That was a joke, but in this one case they mean the same thing.
"decreasing trees (not in fact) " What this dimwitted broad fails to mention is that she considers a 2-month old seedling and a 400-year old redwood as "a tree".
What this "dimwitted broad" knows and you apparently don't is that younger trees remove more carbon dioxide than mature trees. Now if you are talking about effects on the ecosystem, you might have an argument.
Best wishes,,,
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 05, 2000.
< What this "dimwitted broad" knows and you apparently don't is that younger trees remove more carbon dioxide than mature trees. Now if you are talking about effects on the ecosystem, you might have an argument.>Z, I am pretty sure that a seedling does not in fact remove more carbon dioxide than a mature tree. Young trees are generally more "vital", and grow PROPORTIONALLY faster, thereby producing more CO2, proportionally. But not more in absolute numbers. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I got from lots of time in the Forest Circus, and it seems intuitively correct to me as well.
JOJ
-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), May 06, 2000.
Maria, recently there was a program on Discovery or a documentary, about how the earth is heating up. NASA has kept records on the climate for several years and their evidence was conclusive that the earth is heating up, and the past decade has been the worst on record.Frankly, I didn't even need to hear that from NASA, or read about it in all the enviornmental magazines I take. I know from personal experience that I've never encountered heat like we've had the last ten years. And I would have known that even if I hadn't seen the thermometer.
-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 06, 2000.
JOJ wrote, "I know that its problems are caused by over-harvesting for a long time, and don't really concern global warming directly, but they do relate to the condition of the world's forests."Thanks for not relating to global warming as Hawk did. I brought up the point because the conservatists drive me nuts. My mother-in-law has some friends who live in the Oregon wilderness. The granddaughter shot herself in the knee while hunting. Poor thing. It seems that she and her father were hunting beavers! Why? Because the beavers were destroying their trees! Drive me nuts! The beavers are only doing what comes naturally to them, build dams. Actually, I like the little creatures; they live to about twenty years and pick a mate for life. They usually have about two to three offspring and after the offspring reach two to three years old (adolescence), they literally kick them out. The parents starting biting and arguing with them, so that the kids will take the hint and leave, making their own way in the world. I'm sure these beavers (and I) were very happy the stupid girl shot herself.
Fact, there are more national forests now than there were one hundred years ago. What is enough? Well that's up to you. According to Hawk and Brian and You (I suppose) there aren't enough today. According to me, there are plenty.
Gilda wrote, "And I would have known that even if I hadn't seen the thermometer." And I suppose, since you walk out of your house and it feels warmer to you, then that certainly is enough evidence to conclude global warming. LOL
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 08, 2000.
Maria, I like beavers too. In fact, I live in the "beaver state". I like the little furry animals which go by that name, too.Just because there is some wacko going around making stupid decisions (shooting innocent beavers, in your example) does not mean that every person who has some similar views about some particular topic is a wacko. Your cousin in law (or whatever you'd call her) does not represent all of us "conservatists". I like your word by the way; it seems to be a contraction of conservative and conservationist.
As far as there being "more national forests than there were 100 years ago", I suppose you are correct, especially considering that there were NO national forests until 1891. You could also say that there are more national forests today than there were 110 years ago; 110 years ago there were NONE. Either way, I do not understand what you are trying to prove with this statement. National forests are merely a political situation. Surely they have no bearing on whether or not global warming is a myth or a reality, nor what the condition of the forest is today.
I haven't even considered whether the number of national forests which exist today is "enough" or not. I'm ok with it. Nowthe number of wilderness areas, on the other hand, does get me exited! I'd like lots more of them! It seems that they are the only vehicle which provides at least a pretty good protection of our forest resources for our progeny, our wildlife, our air, and our water supply, among other resources.
You really should come out here to the NW if you get a chance. Preferably fly over some of the national forests of Northern Calif, Oregon or Washington. I think you will be unpleasantly surprised at what you see, of what's left of our precious forests.
JOJ
-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), May 14, 2000.
Maria,You should do a little research, look at some OLD photos and see what happened to the forests 100 years ago - massive clear-cutting across the nation. It's why national forests, parks and hunting limits were put in place. The devastation was/is incredible.
Also consider what creates the oxygen we breathe - trees. Also consider the amount of medicines that are derived from plants in the forests and wilderness areas. Forests aren't just taking up space - they're saving us too...
-- Deb M (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), May 14, 2000.
Maria is the wacko when it comes to this topic. She is so completely uninformed and irrational that I've already concluded she isn't even worth my time.
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 14, 2000.
