350: The most important number on Earth

Leslie Carlson

I've been a fan of Bill McKibben's 350.org for awhile now. The group has been able to take a very technical number--the 350 parts per million that the vast majority of climate scientists believe is the "stable" level for CO2 in the atmosphere--and turn it into a widely understood symbol for sane climate policy. The group's first video explained the number and its importance without using any words, which allowed it to be sent virally from country to country without any translation.

Tomorrow, 350 has organized a day of action that at last count encompassed 4,000 events in 170 countries, all highlighting the 350 ppm limit, all planned to send a message in advance of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen. I've been personally inspired by all the action planned around the world, in rich countries and poor, in small villages and large cities, to get the world's leaders united behind solving the climate crisis.

In Oregon, many events are planned, including a "River of Action" event on the Willamette that will have kayaks and canoes turning into a 350; drummers in Ashland and Phil Carver's 350-mile Oregon coast walk that ends when he and other walkers arrive at a Pioneer Courthouse Square rally at 1 PM. I hope to be there to join in the purposeful celebration and organization--in my 350 t-shirt, of course.

Comments

  • jamiee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There are several unspoken assumptions here:

    You are assuming that we know the historical CO2 accurately. We do not.

    You are assuming that it has been proven that man’s 3% of total annual CO2 emissions is the cause of the recent increase in CO2.

    You are assuming that CO2 has been proven to be able to cause dangerous warming. It has not.

    You are assuming that the current temperature is ideal. It is not - the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm periods were both warmer.

    As an aside, the latest climate news is that IPCC section lead Dr. Briffa just got caught “cherry picking” data to create recent warming where non actually occurred. He had been successfully hiding his fraud for over ten years until forced to reveal the actual data behind his peer-reviewed journal articles. Many of the papers in this field use the same fraudulent data set, undermining the whole IPCC case.

    Leslie, please check the facts before you blindly follow fools, charlatans and liars.

  • Jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is great - it will probably be the largest public action - ever - anywhere.

    This issue demands it and Bill has done an amazing job on a shoestring budget but utilizing the new media.

    Let's get people out for these events. The atmosphere is at 387 ppm and we have already basically lost the polar ice cap no matter what we do now. We are on a trajectory to 450 ppm shortly, with no chance to stop there unless we change the energy use on this planet quickly.

    Bill is right to focus on 350 ppm - if the atmosphere stabilizes anywhere above that, the consequences are going to be a whole lot more grave than the national security and environmental damage we are already suffering from climate disruption.

  • Bob R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I posted a comment which contained multiple links, I suspected it got lost in the moderation queue somewhere... would someone be so kind as to take a look and approve it? Thanks.

  • (Show?)

    I won't be at the rally, but I'll be with my son's preschool, cleaning up Reed Canyon and planting native plants....and will be thinking of y'all downtown!!

  • Stephen Amy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    jamiee: I admit I take a leap of faith in believing the overwhelming majority of climatologists who say this is a problem and that industrialization is a major factor.

    So you're telling us that the governments of all nations on Earth are led by "fools, charlatans and liars"? Is there a single government on Earth that takes the position that this is not a problem or that industrialization is not a major factor?

    Are all of the governments of all nations in collusion to drive up energy prices and thereby line their own pockets? Or, what do you think is the motivation for this unanimity of opinion?

  • jamiee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Stephen: Is there a single government on Earth that takes the position that this is not a problem or that industrialization is not a major factor?

    YES. REUTERS 5:38 a.m. March 21, 2007 PRAGUE – Czech President Vaclav Klaus said on Wednesday that fighting global warming has turned into a ‘religion’ that replaced the ideology of communism and threatens to clip basic freedoms.

  • Bob R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Czech President Vaclav Klaus

    That's a person, not a government, "jaimee".

    As much as I disagree with your baseless assertions (as well as your lack of proper capitalization for your own nom de keyboard), because I don't think a "government" can act as a stand-in for scientific consensus (which we pretty much have), you completely failed to answer Stephen's question.

    (Meanwhile, moderators unfortunately did not resurrect my earlier lengthy comment. I'll take another stab at it tomorrow.)

  • Bob R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Italics closed?

  • Paul Cox (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm not a climate change denier, but I think you're overlooking another position. I am against ANY AND ALL interference in the progress of technology and the march of civilisation. Yes, I realize that may make the planet uninhabitable for us. Maybe. It'll much more likely make it uninhabitable for the furry little animals and poster child frogs that liberals worship. An awful lot of us worship God. He has commanded that we be fruitful and multiply, subdue the earth and use it for our ends. He will protect us. If He doesn't, we must accept that too.

    Let me be blunt. "Rescuing the climate" is ungodly. It is unholy. It is an abomination against the creator of life. God will decide what becomes extinct or not, and humans have no say. Ours is to do, and maybe die.

    We will win. Besides having the Lord on our side, I hear liberals talk a lot, but what I see is that they shop at the same air-conditioned stores we do, patronize the same businesses, etc. Meanwhile, we are getting our wives pregnant as often as humanly possible and teaching our children godly ways. You talk about doing the math and magic numbers. 5 billion becoming 10 billion before you can get anything done is the number you need to concentrate on.

    You're not good Americans either. This is a Godly country. Read the money. Where did you hero first appear, in a joint appearance, on the campaign trail? Do you realize he is supporting an anti-blasphemy bill? Try progressing through the service without being a believer. Every time my wife has another child, Godly Uncle Sam pays us $2000 or more. Your $250 tax break for insulation don't mean diddly. Look at your government. It is of us, not of you.

  • Marcia Earth (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Who has more to gain?

    • scientists, by insisting that climate change is happening when it isn't

    • industry, by denying that climate change is taking place when it is?

  • Bob R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Italics off!

    Paul and "jaimee" make such an adorable couple. Warms my heart, and my planet.

  • Artful Change (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There are almost 4000 actions happening in 161 different countries in support of 350's (http://www.350.org) International Day of Climate Action (10/24)!

    Take action from your own home by watching Artful Change's Carbon-Neutral Online Benefit Concert. Enjoy the free show and donate to the cause by purchasing MP3s and artwork from the website.

    All proceeds from these sales will go to benefit Energy Action Coalition, a coalition of 50 environmental and social justice organizations fighting for a movement towards clean energy: http://energyactioncoalition.org/

    Watch the concert now: http://www.artfulchange.org/

  • Artful Change (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There are almost 4000 actions happening in 161 different countries in support of 350's (http://www.350.org) International Day of Climate Action (10/24)!

    Take action from your own home by watching Artful Change's Carbon-Neutral Online Benefit Concert. Enjoy the free show and donate to the cause by purchasing MP3s and artwork from the website.

    All proceeds from these sales will go to benefit Energy Action Coalition, a coalition of 50 environmental and social justice organizations fighting for a movement towards clean energy: http://energyactioncoalition.org/

    Watch the concert now: http://www.artfulchange.org/

  • Greg D. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree that decreasing CO2 emissions is a good thing. The 350 number is as good as any other number to me as a non-scientist.

    It would be helpful if the 350 folks or any of the other groups demanding a hard cap on CO2 emissions would name a price point for fossil fuels which they believe would achieve their emission goals. I don't think it matters - from a purely scientific "hard cap" standpoint - whether the price point is achieved by a carbon tax or by producer price, but presumably there is a price point above which median income folks will no longer be able to afford to drive automobiles or to otherwise consume energy except perhaps for the basic level necessary for human beings to survive. Once that number is achieved, I assume that the CO2 emission cap will quickly be achieved.

  • Peri Brown (unverified)
    (Show?)

    or the basic level necessary for human beings to survive.

    If that is one of your conditions, you are no better than Paul. There have to be fewer humans.

    They'd be a cuter couple if the point about that's how our gov is run weren't valid.

    Support the "4000" by buying their trade goods. Boycott everything American and Chinese.

    And keep it in your pants. Otherwise this is just high sounding talk.

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I especially like the "keep it in your pants part". Thanks so much for your contribution.

    Gad.

    Sincerely, Mother of [only] One

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's real easy to demonstrate the charlatans, liars as well as the duped right here in Oregon and on BlueOregon.

    What about that "science" and "consensus" you are so willing to believe in?

    Here's the perfect demonstration of how it works. Remember how you bought the Oregon Dead Zone story?

    You trusted the Oregon "scientists" right?

    So get this.

    OSU was recently in the Oregonian AGAIN parroting the Dead Zone connection to global warming. It was front page. http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/10/summer_dead_zones_off_oregon_c.html

    Here AGAIN there are NO global warming findings in this story or the research at OSU. Read carefully and you'll recognize there are only convenient suggestions of a possible link. NO science at all.
    Just as there was none when Lubchenco was there and she first concocted the speculation of some link between Oregon's dead zones and global warming. A fabricated link which was quickly circulated in science publications and environmental blogs world wide. Some where hidden in this distribution of non science was her OSU research team cautioning that they were unable to establish the extent of the link, if any, to global warming.

    So exactly where is the science?

    Why it's at OSU. It just doesn't involve global warming.

    OSU, Lubchenco and Barth completed a $9 million/5 year (NAS grant) dead zone research project in 2006.

    (The important thing to remember is they are new to this research and have no historical record to make any claims this is a new phenomenon).

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Oxygen-starved+sea+yields+clues+for+study-a0149622937

    The study, funded by a $9 million grant from the National Science Foundation, found three suspects for casuing the Oregon ocean dead zone.

    1) The jet stream may be involved. About once a month, the high winds in the atmosphere that make up the jet stream often wobble the research team found, changing the pattern of winds and the ocean's response to them. "The central Oregon Coast is affected by weather systems tracking along the jet stream," OSU oceanographer Jack Barth said. "When it moves to the north, we tend to get good upwelling. When it moves to the south, the upwelling goes bad." In 2005, Barth said, the jet stream moved south, causing a delay in upwelling and problems for ocean species counting on the nutrients it brings to the water. Upwelling later rebounded dramatically, which led to this year's dead zone.

    2) Another finding in the study involves the Heceta Bank, an underwater submarine volcanic mountain about 10 miles wide that stretches from Florence to Newport on the coast - the same area where dead zones have been discovered in the past five years.

    3)Finally, the team found that sub-Arctic waters flowing into Oregon bring cold, nutrient-rich water from the north, which could explain some of the overloading of plankton that's happened in recent years. In 2002, for example, several storms in the Gulf of Alaska brought sub-Arctic water into Oregon's system, and a rush of nutrients along with it.

    NO AGW, NO GLOBAL WARMING, NO CO2 emissions connection.

    Yet what came out of the $ 9 million research?

    The fabricated link to global warming which you accepted as easily as you do the rest of AGW "science".

  • Peri Brown (unverified)
    (Show?)

    rw, I don't think ignoring the trolls works. And speaking of keeping it in the pants, look at the dick that popped up right after you! I'll make a deal. I'll moderate my language if BO doesn't ignore population pressure constantly. I deserve a "gad", but a post entitled "The most important number on earth", about sustainability, doesn't rate a mention by the author or respondents about population pressure. Gad, indeed.

    The problem is no communication. I know you agree with that. Ignoring the logic challenged isn't a way to rehabilitate communication.

    Richard needs to wait until his high school covers the scientific method in more detail before preaching. Note particularly the bits about "falsifiable hypotheses" and what it means when you accept the null hypothesis. You'll hear about half way through a basic 101 course that failing to find experimental evidence for the hypothesis does not prove or in any way confirm the null hypothesis. It merely fails to refute it. Climate deniers cannot setup empirical studies that do that, because they refuse to make their hypotheses falsifiable. That is the difference between science and opinion. You are guilty of what you're trying to scorn. Agreement there. That attitude is worthy of it.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Peri,

    Are you daft?

    I provide an example (and there are many)of blatant fabrication of science and you claim I am doing the same thing?

    What a complete crock.

    You need more than a revisit to high school. Get real. If Lubchenco et al had merely offered an honest hypothesis without the immediate distribution of her supposing as established science you would still only have a very elementary and useless point.

    The problem is, and the point of my post was, to demonstrate how the AGW movement get's legs. By baseless hypothesizing that gets morphed into established science misleading the masses.

    In this case we have the real research/experimental/empirical study evidence by the very people perpetrating the misrepresentation which points to NON global warming causes.

    Yet you find no problem with the distribution of the false link between Oregon's ocean dead zone and global warming?

    Is that the kind of science you learned and embrace?

    How about Bill Bradbury then telling school children that CO2 "pollution" is causing ocean dead zones off the Oregon coast?

    That's not hypothesizing, it's lying.

    The greater point is this approach of fabricated science (hypothesizing?) has been utilized over and over again throughout the AGW scientific community and AGW movement. From polar bears to the NW passage to Island Nations.

    And always presented and parroted as established science.

    After all if it's the consensus speaking it must be real?

    And you find me "logic challenged"? Where's your concern about the honesty challenged?

    Yes there certainly is a difference between science and opinion.

    There's difference between the truth and blatant lying too.

    What I can't figure out is why you blues are never embarrassed for having been mislead so easily.

    Instead you seem to prefer to bolster and defend the falsehoods rather than face them.

    How hypothesizing of you.

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard,

    Changes in the jet stream and ocean currents (your sub-arctic waters) may well be due to climate change. The dead zones don't have to be caused directly by climate change to be an effect of them.

    Heceta Bank in not a submarine volcano. From what I can find it appears to be similar in geology to the onshore land between Florence and Newport. The volcanoes off the coast are in the 100's of miles off the coast at the far edge of the Juan de Fuca plate. In any case submarine volcanoes would have to be catastrophically massive to have any noticeable effect outside of their immediate vicinity.

  • Manfred Zysk, M.E. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    PEAK OIL & OIL DEPLETION = ANCIENT OLD COW PRINCIPLE The oil companies, governments, auto industry and news media refuse to understand peak oil and oil depletion. The best comprehendible example is the "Ancient Old Cow Principle." The old cow has been milked for too many years, but now gives diminishing milk and butter. The old cow is now relentlessly being milked to the last drop. Somehow, the oil companies, governments, auto industry and the news media find this "Ancient Old Cow Principle" incomprehensible, in spite of the fact that they have successfully milked (bilked) and shoveled huge piles of manure for decades.
    Force feeding (more oil depletion allowances) does not appear to rejuvenate the old cash cow any longer. The old cow is just worn out. This is not very difficult to understand, but the oil companies, governments, auto industry and news media argue that the "Ancient Old Cow Principle" is simply too complicated to fathom, and desperately clutch to the old cow's nearly empty udder. Frantically they keep on squeezing and squeezing in desperation, but then they realize that the old beast is giving out. If the "Ancient Old Cow Principle" has missed its logical visualization, then I have considered to providing a video clip attached to my e-mail showing actual "live cows" with large udders being milked to their last drops, by courtesy of the farmers from the Great Dairy State of Wisconsin. Peak oil and oil depletion is real, just sit back and watch the show with fascination. However, from past experience, successful perception and comprehension of the "Ancient Old Cow Principle" cannot be guaranteed, and evidently remains highly suspicious and is arguable among oil companies, governments, the auto industry and the news media. For solutions to Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Hydrogen Energy Regeneration, please see my website at: http://www.MZ-Energy.com. Publication is authorized with my name.

    Manfred Zysk, M.E. [email protected]

  • jamiee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Manfred Zysk, M.E. Peak oil and oil depletion is real, just sit back and watch the show with fascination. b: You need to brush up on economics, chemistry and history:

    economics (supply goes up with price & demand goes down) That is why we have recently had a series of dramatic announcements of new discoveries - the recent high oil prices have brought much new exploration which has found more supplies. (Just like we all learned in Econ 101 - you did pay attention, didn’t you?)

    chemistry (you can make the stuff) The Fischer–Tropsch (see fischer-tropsch.org) process and the Bergius process, both used from the 1930s on, make liquid fuels form coal. Methane instead of coal can also be used a starting point. Sasol has been producing commercial quantities of oil from both processes for years.

    History (Hitler ran a war on manmade oil).. The Role of Synthetic Fuel In World War II Germany Said this: “The percentage of synthetic fuels compared to the yield from all sources grew from 22 percent to more than 50 percent by 1943" (airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm)

  • Michael (unverified)
    (Show?)

    350 is a nice round arbitrary number. Unfortunately it has little importance, seriously. I like reading Bill McKibben and his relationship with nature, but his attachment to CO2 in the atmosphere baffles me. Instead of focusing on carbon emissions, we would be better served to clean up heavy metals in the air and water and look to improve efficiency in all forms of energy. Getting behind 350 doesn't really propose any solution or change the mindset of people who oppose climate based legislation. Cap and trade systems don't do anything to deter pollution, deforestation, the sprawl of human development, or our excessive desires of consumption.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nice try riverat.

    People should pay attention to this. It's an expanded demonstration of the sloppy consensus science. In this case expanded by riverat.

    You just obfuscated and supposed out another piece of fabricated science at the same time. So here you are supposing that OSU wasn't referring to routine Jet stream fluctuation but to a global warming variation? What utter nonsense for you to make such a suggestion. $9 million in research that made no such finding and you do it with nothing. You might as well claim again that Katrina was caused by AGW. You didn't even bother reading the story detailing the OSU research which I was quoting and linked. There is nothing to indicate the jet stream changes "may well be due to climate change". The jet stream changes all the time. OSU was observing the effects of that change. Gee riverat thanks for this: "The dead zones don't have to be caused directly by climate change to be an effect of them. Really? Wow. Did you just discover that? It's really something for you to think such an elementry thing needs to be stated. Now, here you are without even so much as a simple reading of the very OSU research story I linked/quoted, misrepresenting that you know something about the Heceta bank and claiming there's no connection to the Oregon dead zone. You are misunderstanding, misrepresenting, distrting and fabricating all at once.

    Hopefully some will understand what is going on here. You're really demonstrating your ineptness and commitment to blatant misrepresentation. For the rest of you who may be interested in the truth read both short stories side by side.

    This one from the Oregonian last week with OSU Jack Barth using the global BS. http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/10/summer_dead_zones_off_oregon_c.html

    This one NOT from the Oregonian, in 2006, with Jack Barth discussing what OSU found from their $9 million/5 year research. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Oxygen-starved+sea+yields+clues+for+study-a0149622937 riverat seemed to think it was I reporting the findings. No, these are directly from Barth and OSU in the linked story.

    The study, funded by a $9 million grant from the National Science Foundation, found three suspects for causing the Oregon ocean dead zone.

    These are from the story, OSU research and Barth. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1) The jet stream may be involved. About once a month, the high winds in the atmosphere that make up the jet stream often wobble the research team found, changing the pattern of winds and the ocean's response to them. "The central Oregon Coast is affected by weather systems tracking along the jet stream," OSU oceanographer Jack Barth said. "When it moves to the north, we tend to get good upwelling. When it moves to the south, the upwelling goes bad." In 2005, Barth said, the jet stream moved south, causing a delay in upwelling and problems for ocean species counting on the nutrients it brings to the water. Upwelling later rebounded dramatically, which led to this year's dead zone. 2) Another finding in the study involves the Heceta Bank, an underwater submarine volcanic mountain about 10 miles wide that stretches from Florence to Newport on the coast the same area where dead zones have been discovered in the past five years. 3)Finally, the team found that sub-Arctic waters flowing into Oregon bring cold, nutrient-rich water from the north, which could explain some of the overloading of plankton that's happened in recent years. In 2002, for example, several storms in the Gulf of Alaska brought sub-Arctic water into Oregon's system, and a rush of nutrients along with it. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" NOTICE NOTHING from Barth ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE And when the link to climate change was borne by Lubchenco, OSU researchers "cautioned that they were unable to establish any link to climate change." Now who are you going to believe? riverat or the very OSU researchers he is trying to defend? riverat is misrepresenting as bad as Bill Bradbury telling our school children that global warming is causing the dead zone.

  • rw (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard: "obfuscated and supposed out about".

    Huh? :)... priceless. I suspect you were searching your mind for the word, could not stand to wait till you had it, and just did the best you could there, eh?

    I know the word you are after, seems like it starts with an "s". Argh.

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Once again, Richard is wrong.

    If he reviewed all of Barth's research findings and published work, he would know that in a paper sharing his findings with the National Science Foundation Barth discovered:

    -- Oregon's coastal dead zones are formed by wind-driven upwellings of low-oxygen waters that naturally occur in deep, offshore waters

    -- these low-oxygen waters may be expanding towards shore because of changes in wind and oceanic circulation patterns.

    In conclusion Barth explains that he suspects that these wind and circulation changes are, in turn, caused by climate change.

    His words. Not mine.

    And no matter how much you scream, whine, and hold your breath - it seems you are the one that is misunderstanding, misrepresenting, "distrting" and fabricating all at once.

  • Peri Brown (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think a lot of it is being honest with yourself. If you start at a conclusion and look for supporting data, you're being intellectually dishonest. That is lying, Richard.

    In all your verbiage I have to conclude you've missed the point. Name one study that has put forward the hypothesis that dead zone behavior is not related to changes in the average sea temperature and you have evidence to support your contention. Failure to reject the null hypothesis is not evidence in favor of it.

    If you ask any crusader why they fight, it's because they've made a vow. The dittoheads have vowed to fight what Sean tells them to, and just aren't capable of taking a step backwards and looking at the forest.

    What I really can't get is their tacit assertion that the environment is AOK. I mean, look at corals. They survived every mass extinction. When people thought that there was no life in before the Cambrian, it was coral fossils that proved there was life in the Pre-Cambrian. Yet, today, they are dying at a rate which would have them extinct in only a few hundred years, if that long. How can you deny that what is happening now is unprecedented? It would be nice if people could be at least that honest with themselves and follow the Wittgensteinian principle, "in the fact of that which is great, speak greatly or be silent".

    How 'bout trying the latter, until you can tell where talk radio scree leaves off and your beliefs begin?

  • Joe (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Scott in Damascus is being careless:

    In conclusion Barth explains that he suspects that these wind and circulation changes are, in turn, caused by climate change.

    There is a big gulf between “suspects” and proves.

    Scott: And no matter how much you scream, whine, and hold your breath - it seems you are the one that is misunderstanding, misrepresenting, "distrting" and fabricating all at once.

    Scott, it looks like YOU are the one misrepresenting the facts by turning a mere suspicion into a certainty.

    So typical of the whole warming religion.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Scott,

    You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

    You are bolstering one of my main points.

    What you are citing is the aftermath distribution of Lubchenco's and Barth's fabrication. Not the research results.

    What you did is google and find the plethora of hits touting the fabricated link to AGW. It's everywhere.

    But as I stated above and Barth detailed in 2006 their research did not find a link to climate change.

    Their 5 year and $9 million research found no link between the Oregon dead zone and global warming.

    That's why it was not mentioned in the 2006 story with Barth.

    That's why the Oregonian had no story. That's why BO had no thread.

    But when Bath and Lubchenco concocted, speculated and supposed there was a link, with their extraordinary weak surmising about winds that could be, may be, might be, climate change winds, the story grew legs and the rest is "science" Internet history.

    It's everywhere.

    And besides BO buying it completely, the usual suspects like local David Appell and RealClimate regulars claim the link has been established.

    They base their opinion on nothing but the echo chamber Lubchenco and Barth initiated.

    Science by rumor mongering.

    If you can't see what they did you're hopeless. .

    Is there any doubt they looked at their research and realized they devoured $9 million dollars and didn't find much?

    They sought and soon realized they could use an angle, wind, and create findings where none existed.

    Quite the payoff they got. Worldwide circulation and Lubcgenco get's the top NOAA job. And no one bothered to see what the $9 million produced.

    In the background and seldom mentioned in all of the travels of their tall tale was the caution by OSU researchers that they "could not establish the extent of the link, if any, to climate change."

    Now here you are like a good trooper trying to defend Barth and Lubchenco. The greater message here is this is exactly how much of the AGW science comes to be.

    Read this again.

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Oxygen-starved+sea+yields+clues+for+study-a0149622937

    rw,

    I suppose you didn't get my use of supposing so gee that's too bad.

    I'm supposing there's polar bears swimming around looking for ice who are confused as you.

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard,

    I did not say Heceta Bank had no connection with the dead zone. What I said was it isn't a submarine volcano and I'll add there's no indication that volcanism has anything to do with the dead zones as you appeared to imply in the original message I replied to. The article I linked to (at http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/.../hec_bank_sum.html) said they found they found a headland on Heceta Bank similar to the headlands along the coast. At the base of that headland, 140 meters (460 ft.) below current sea level*, in the sand they found numerous shells of shallow water and intertidal species. From that I implied that the rest of Heceta Bank was similar in topography and character to the current shore area. Maybe that's a big leap but in the absence of contradictory evidence makes it a reasonable assumption. If they had found any indications of recent volcanism or hydrothermal vents on Heceta Bank it no doubt would have been mentioned in the NOAA summary. But maybe you think they're withholding the information so they have an excuse to blame the dead zones on global warming.

    • The sea level 14,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. 14,000 years is the age of one of the shells they found.

    The article you linked from 2006 was by a reporter from the Register Guard. I doubt his use of the word "seamount" was meant to imply it was volcanic in nature even though that's the definition provided by the link on the word. In Wikipedia they say a seamount is a mountain rising from the seafloor, typically (but not always) formed from extinct volcanoes. In this case I think seamount may be a misnomer because Heceta Bank is not off by itself but connected to the mainland and part of the continental shelf.

    Comparing the two articles side by side, one from 2006 and one from 2009 (both newspaper articles BTW), don't you think Jack Barth's knowledge on the subject has increased in 3 years. In 2006 he barely mentions climate change saying "there is no conclusive evidence it played a role" but in 2009, after he's had 3 more years to analyze the findings of the study and dig deeper into the implications, he says the "The increase in persistent strong winds and in ocean surface temperatures that are helping drive the phenomenon (dead zones) are consistent with changes projected by climate models". I guess he sold out to Al Gore and the communist plot to destroy capitalism.

    The research results of the $9M study don't report any connection to climate change because that's not what they were studying. They were studying the mechanics of why the dead zones were happening and found that increased upwelling of deep ocean, oxygen poor, nutrient rich cold water due to persistent strong winds and some years oxygen poor sub-arctic water driven by Gulf of Alaska storms combined with increased ocean surface temperatures led to plankton blooms that sucked the oxygen out of the water as they died off and decomposed. It's only when you start looking at the next level, what caused the jet stream changes or increased surface temperatures, that climate change possibly gets in the picture.

    And just to be clear, I'm not saying the dead zones are caused by climate change, I'm just saying it could be a factor.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    riverat,

    No one suggested it was an active volcanic area so your lecture was meaningless. The OSU researchers were recognizing the mount part of volcanic surrmount noting that it rose under the entire dead zone. That no doubt had implications in regards to upwelling.

    You are peddling nonsense they cooked up afterwards. There is nothing that either Barth, Lubchenco or the $9 million dollars research found that links the dead zone to climate change.

    All they have done is suggest that the wind driven upwelling could possibly be from AGW winds.

    They have lengthened and rephrased the suggestion in various forms to make it sound more hefty or informative.

    They've surrounded it with jargon and rhetoric for interviews and publications.

    That's misleading. And it's been misrepresented as an established link throughout the science and media arenas.

    Barth and Lubchenco are fully aware of how their baseless tall wind tale has been misrepresented.

    Your rendition is no better and further demonstrates the desire to inflate and fabricate connections to AGW where none can be found.

    Can you honestly approve of Bill Bradbury telling school children CO2 emissions created a dead zone off the Oregon coast? If so you are ethically challenged.

    If you can't recognized the emptiness in suggesting the wind may be AGW wind then you are deliberately oblivious.

    With all of the accusations that skeptics are making up things it's bizzare that so much gets by you blue folks.

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I noticed you didn't mention increased sea surface temperatures, another factor in the dead zones. Increased sea surface temperatures are consistent with the projections of climate models.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    riverat. You're deliberately misleading and misrepresenting this.

    There is no link, there is nothing in the OSU research establishing ANY link an repeating the rhetoric of fabriction is dishonst.

    Stating something is "consistent" is a lame and dishonest substitute for lack of a connection or correlation.

    That's the same BS Lubchenco used to concoct a link where their own research found none.

    And in any objective annalysis there is nothing to establish anything consistent other than saying so.

    In this case it's nothing but baseless suggestions the wind driving the upwelling may be somehow connected to AGW.

    Again, this is the kind of consensus climate science you endorse without any problem that it gets morphed into a proven link by other dishonest warmers.

    The liars club needs no science.

  • Henry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There is zero evidence that CO2 caused the warming at the end of the last century.

    Evidence of warming is not evidence that CO2 did it.

    Models are not evidence.

    The planet has been warmer than at present, and colder than at present, for geological time periods, with higher ppmv of CO2 in atmosphere. Man, and the plants we rely upon, evolved at a much higher level of CO2 than we can reach if we burn all known reserves of fossil fuels.

    Sea levels - not rising dramatically. Antarctic ice - 30 years (satellite data) of increase. Atmospheric hot-spot - not there. Hurricanes/Tornadoes - not increasing in number or ferocity. Arctic ice - recovering from 2007 wind disruption (UK Met office says Arctic will not be ice free in summer until at least 2060) Ocean acidification - not happening, and anyway impossible with known reserves of fossil fuels.

    The onus on anyone proffering a hypothesis is for them to provide the evidence.

    I find it profoundly disgusting that all the real environmental concerns are ignored while this, entirely political, control system is forced upon us by (UN Inter)governmental (PCC) pressure aided and abetted by the boards (not the members) of compliant (once respected) scientific societies, the mainstream media and a lemming mentality, seemingly inherent in those who willingly submit to corrupted authority, bent on hindering that which humanity does best - curing the problems encountered on our path to progress.

    It doesn't surprise me that anyone buying into this scam also believes the "there are too many people" and "there are too few resources" lies. The lack of research put into these hypothesis will only re-inforce dogma.

    With regard to 350 day - thankfully people are waking up. Attendance was dismal, as will be our weather for the next 30 years.

  • riverat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    O Henry,

    Man did not evolve at higher CO2 levels. The genus Homo first came into existence around 2.5 MYA (million years ago). The last time CO2 was as high as it is now is thought to be 15-20 MYA. Since then CO2 has been in the 180-300 ppm range Modern humans only evolved about 200,000 years ago.

    Sea levels are rising, and faster than projected 10 years ago. For a dramatic rise to occur would require a dramatic event like a big chunk of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) sliding into the sea in a short time.

    Based on climate theory along with ozone depletion it's not surprising that Antarctic sea ice has increased a bit in area. But the land ice mass, particularly the WAIS, is dropping.

    What are atmospheric hot spots? Never heard of any such thing.

    Hurricanes/Tornadoes - the jury is still out on that. How can you tell that Katrina was 10% stronger because of climate change until you can aggregate a bunch of data over a long time?

    Arctic ice - we will see about that. 2007 was an exceptional year and the winds did have an effect, just like the extremely hot year of 1998 was exacerbated by a strong El Nino. Still, 2009 was the 3rd lowest ice extent on record and well below anything before 2007. And in 2009 the regrowth of sea ice in the arctic has been slower than normal so recently in mid-October after the regrowth had started the ice extent was nearly as low a it was on the same date in 2007.

    Ocean acidification is happening. That doesn't mean oceans will become acid on the pH scale, just that they become less basic. The trend is toward the acid side of the scale. This stresses the sea life that depends calcium carbonate for their shells and structure. Much of the base of the food chain comes from that group such as krill and plankton. Ocean acidification as a separate problem may turn out to be as big a deal as climate change.

    <hr/>

connect with blueoregon