Follow this blog:
RSS

War against sudden global warming may already be lost

By | March 5, 2010, 12:17 PM PST

The models for global warming Al Gore described in An Inconvenient Truth were based on known actions by man, and they were pretty frightening.

(Picture from Science, a publication of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science.)

But after his PowerPoint came out we learned that melting Arctic ice may accelerate the process because a blue ocean will absorb solar radiation while white ice might reflect it.

And now another Arctic menace has scientists doing the danger dance — methane escaping from under the Arctic off Siberia.

Americans love methane. Houston oil companies go to great lengths to pump pockets of it from deep underground. Methane from cows also speeds global warming, leading skeptics to say there has been no hope for years. You may be tossing some methane into the atmosphere right now — say excuse me.

Now the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, a vast stretch of ocean that was land during the last ice age, has begun to leak methane.

The plant matter left there had only become peat — the same stuff some Scotch makers still burn to add flavor to the mash. When that sea floor was permafrost the gas in that peat was trapped. Now, just with the global warming we’ve had so far, it’s bubbling toward the surface.

Since the sea floor there is shallow, very little of the resulting methane is transformed into carbon dioxide, which is actually less dangerous for the environment than methane, before it reaches the atmosphere.

This is bad. If Siberia’s methane is being released suddenly into the atmosphere, and even the basics of climate change science is true, it could mean another 8 million metric tons of methane going into the atmosphere this year, and more next year.

That’s a fraction of the 440 metric tons total from all the grass, cows, fires, and unlit farts around the world each year. But it could be enough to tip the balance.

Natalie Shakhova from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks has been studying this phenomenon since 2003, and her team’s report was published in the March 4 issue of Science.

This last winter may be the last cold one for a very long time. Temperatures in Greenland and Alaska, close to the East Siberian Sea, were much warmer than normal this winter, even while normally temperate zones were frigid. This is why I wrote that the January cold proved, rather than disproved, global warming theory.

Most of you didn’t believe me when I wrote that. But now we may know why it’s true.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Dana Blankenhorn

About Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2009 to 2010.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Contributing Editor, Technology

Dana Blankenhorn has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement and founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media. He holds degrees from Rice and Northwestern universities. He is based in Atlanta.

Follow him on Twitter.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

44
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
Methane release from clathrates (essentially methane ice) and permafrost is one of the biggest uncertainties in climate science. We have little good data on exactly what to expect from that. Methane is something like 30 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and the only reason it hasn't received more attention is there is so little in the atmosphere it doesn't compare to CO2's effect presently. A sudden sharp rise in methane could change that and has been implicated in some of the past major extinction events in Earths history and could prove catastrophic for the present as well. Lets hope it doesn't lead to human extinction now.
Posted by riverat1
5th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
Did you mean to say 440 million metric tons of man made methane? If it is only 440 metric tons, man made methane is but a very small fraction of the 8,000,000 metric tons about to be released naturally.
Posted by piripo
6th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
No Dana...
...as frightening as they might have been, the models for global warming Al Gore described in An Inconvenient Truth were based either on on junk science, or intentionally misquoting honest scientists.

But at least you are now concerned about an actual, real greenhouse gas! Unortunately, we're not really responsible for it either, at least beyond our efforts at restoring wetlands from where much of it comes from.

You are so stuck in 2007.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
Perhaps you should review the "facts" in algore's "movie". Since most of them are fictitious, I'm amazed that anyone is foolish enough to use that to bolster a point. But then again, I know its hard to accept that your religion is based on lies and falsehoods. Oh well, hopefully we still have more common sense people than we do global-warming-extremists.
Posted by ccsolutions
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
I read up on the subject of methane in the atmosphere over the weekend. First, I overstated the power of methane as a greenhouse gas relative to CO2 in my first reply. CH4 is 20-25 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2.

Second, there is no scientific indication that the present venting of methane from the East Siberian Arctic shelf is something new or unusual. It may have been going on for millenia. The rate of CH4 release may have increased somewhat lately but scientists have been unable to find any mechanism that would lead to sudden catastrophic release of these CH4 stores.

Because methane has such a short lifetime in the atmosphere (8-10 years) it can't by itself lead to massive climate change as long as there isn't a sudden massive release of it. When methane oxidizes it becomes 1 CO2 and 2 H2O (water) and the CO2 from that breakdown is probably more of a worry in regard to climate change than the methane itself because of the long atmospheric lifetime of CO2.

So, while methane is something to be concerned about it appears unlikely that it will become a major problem in regards to climate change.

There is a current post over on RealClimate.org on the subject.
Posted by riverat1
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Is anyone aware what science backs up the 'theory' of greenhouse gases?
I'm pretty sure it's entirely based on the assumption that Venus is so hot because of it's atmosphere.

Seems kinda shaky to me.
Posted by Gaius_Maximus
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
I have the solution!!!
1. We kill off all the big herbavors i.e. big farters thus reducing emissions.
2. Then we kill off the animals in declining order of fart emissions.
3. This is all done in the name of saving the planet.
4. By then the animal protections people will be livid.
5. Intesify the friction between the 2 groups until they come to blows and war.
6. Supply both sides with weapons that will not hurt the environment.
7. Let them kill each other off.
8. With that we will have gotten rid of all the hot air that they emmit.
9. The rest of us live happily ever after until we get hit by one of the other of nature's upper cuts.
Posted by MikeBytes@...
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Love how when we learn a new piece of information its the end of the world
We're entering an ice age
There is a hole in the ozone layer made by hairspray
Global Warming is caused by driving cars
The large hadron collider will create black holes

Why are we so concerned about change anyway? The climate will change.
Its more likely we'll screw it up trying to fix it than there'll be a
problem to begin with for at least of few millenia. Of course the earth
will eventually, naturally destabilize. Hopefully we learn how to
control our environment to prevent that from happening.
Posted by shadfurman
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Something New to Regulate!
Of course, the goal here is to regulate "man-made" methane.

First, outlaw beef and leather products, obliterating the entire cattle market. Keep only enough animals around to appease the environmentalists who think no species should ever be allowed to go extinct. Hamburgers become a rare delicacy, illegal in most parts of the world (except China & Russia). India's off the hook on religious grounds, so they can keep pumping methane, just like CO2.

But what about *actual* man-made methane? Maybe we should expand Cap & Trade, adding a long-term goal of flatling flatulence. To promote eating only government-approved foods, new taxes could be levied on beans, broccoli and any other methane-generating foodstuffs. I guess the Cap & Tax nickname then becomes something like Crap Your Trax.
Posted by DittoHeadStL
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
WHO BENEFITS FROM CAP & TRADE: STATUS QUO FOR OPEC

Have you ever wondered how Dubai is able to afford creating man made islands off their coast? The largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world began after the 1973 oil embargo.

The United States agreed to transfer jobs and technology to developing countries under INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT Algiers Declaration Algiers, March 1975.

A major portion of the planned or new petrochemical complexes, oil refineries and fertilizer plants be built in the territories of OPEC Member Countries

Yet America has natural gas and coal in abundance and can create good paying jobs, eliminate dependence on foreign oil and stop sending billions to countries that sponsor terrorism. Every billion in trade deficit equals 13000 jobs lost. Washington should keep money, technology and jobs in the US by reducing the trade imbalance.

There is a political STD called Gonorrhea Lectim that runs rampant in the US. The cure is VotemOutOfThere!
Posted by Repeal
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
Again "man made" global warming is false. Global warming may be occuring, but it is due to cyclical natural processes and is impossible to affect change.
Posted by jim_d@...
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Why aren't more global warming advocates vegetarians?
As you said, cows and other farm animals contribute more methane and other greenhouse gases than these natural sources. The easiest way to offset the methane from natural sources would simply be to outlaw meat consumption by humans.

Yet very few people who say we must radically change our lives in the name of climate change are vegetarians. Al Gore isn't. If man-made global warming is real, then going vegan represents the simplest, quickest, and cheapest major change we can make to avert global disaster. In less than five years we cold eliminate a source of greenhouse gases that's as large as all the cars and trucks in the world.

However, it appears that most believers in global warming like their steaks even more than they like their Priuses.
Posted by zackers
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Dana: Time to move on
Haven't you noticed that nobody is buying into your scares and fewer and fewer people remain that still believe in global warming?

Out of all the posts (before me), I can't count a single one that agrees with your take on the scares or on the "science".

Also, have you read any of the stories lately where China and Russia are actually hoping that the Arctic does melt so that they can make use of whatever natural resources there are locked up in there? There are many who believe that global warming would actually be more beneficial to humans and all life in general. Too bad it ain't really happening. Perhaps what we need is to go in the opposite direction so that we can scare the people into believing that the globe is cooling and we're in danger of another ice age. That way, perhaps the government could step in and force us to use all kinds of fuels and gadgets to try to warm the planet. Then, with a warming planet and with the Arctic becoming habitable, we could move some of the people up there who, as we've been scared into believing, will cause another disaster for the planet with "overpopulation".
Posted by adornoe@...
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
G W Bush is more eco-friendly than Al Gore
Read it in Snopes. Search for "Tale of Two Houses"
Posted by DittoHeadStL
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Dana: time to move on
adornoe,

I have to say you must be ignoring my posts since it appears that Dana and I fundamentally agree about the basics of global warming.

I think what may be happening is the folks on your side of the issue are getting alarmed that something may finally be done about CO2 emissions in the USA and are yelling at the top of your lungs about it (maybe burning up your keyboards texting about it would be more accurate) while the people who understand that climate scientists know more about the subject than they do and that it's absurd to think there is a vast conspiracy* to mislead everyone about it have better things to do and consider it a waste of time responding to people who won't listen. Me, I'm just a troll who likes to upset people on your side of the fence. But I also know that there has been no serious research that discredits the fundamental findings of climate scientists. If you want me to come over to your side give me some real science.

* To quote Gavin Schmidt: "The idea that thousands of scientists have conspired over decades, roping in all the National Academies and the relevant societies, to impose their vegetarian/socialist/eco-fascist dystopia on the world is self-evidently ridiculous. If you disagree, I think the prospect for any dialog between us is dim. - gavin"
Posted by riverat1
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
What I find fascinating is that those people who are skeptical of the global warming predictions based on at least some time-series data, can only offer speculations or suggestions to the contrary that are not based on scientific data ... or super-charged rhetoric which is unhelpful. Be honest to yourself and offer solutions that are scientifically based rather than just your own ideas. " ...you are entitled to your own ideas but not your own facts ..."
Posted by ochikumb@...
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Oh them loud deniers, not a fact to be found, no science to be seen...
I agree with riverat1. There are those who rabbit on about no temperature rise in recent years etc. Complex systems like the biosphere don't always go according to linear models for their convenience. Energy gets absorbed then transfers, so ups and downs occur and sudden changes happen but over time the effect moves in upward. Because one location gets colder and floods does not mean the global temperature goes the same way. Something as complex as the global environment is not linear and small specific changes we humans make can amplify into large changes, like transistors do.

So it could be we are in the calm before the storm. What we do need to worry about is a change that occurs faster than the environment can handle. The environment includes us and all God's little and big critters. What right do we have to say anything can go extinct? Hands up those who believe they are God? Only arrogance would dare. I wonder how many of you deniers also denied cigarettes caused cancer? Hmmm? Big money denied it and now big money doesn't want climate change to hurt their greed again. See who is backing the sceptics!

In the distant past fast changes have happened with enormous damage to the world. Big changes can be tolerated if slow, not fast. Human activity CAN cause this. The biosphere is very thin and at altitude the atmosphere has little mass. Human emissions overall add a significant percentage so YES we do impact on it. Long life CO2 for 20 years = a hugh effect. You deniers can't deny that. Regardless of Al Gore's possible errors this is still true. Many denying "scientists" have made much larger mistakes, often deliberately. And make sure you are comparing apples with apples.
Posted by bsit@...
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
MikeByte has it dialed
And iff'n the space aliens, earthquakes or black holes don't get us....there is always a supernova or some other phoolishness.
Posted by LostValley@...
8th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Why no science to the contrary, Riverrat1 & Bsit?
Because the place to go with your findings is the Climactic Research Unit at East Anglia. Unfortunately, they don't want ALL of the data -- just the data that support their version of what's going on.

The scandal revealed by the e-mails found on their servers consisted of three major things (among others):
1. Fudging the historical raw data so that it fit in neatly with the man-made global warming hoax.
2. Destroying the original data in order to cover their tracks.
3. Marginalizing or ostracizing the (previously) respected scientists within their own community who found evidence that man-made global warming was not occurring.

There are over 31,000 scientists -- over 9,000 with PhDs -- who have signed an affidavit stating they believe this to be a hoax. It is a vast conspiracy, and now we have the proof at East Anglia. Those of you who still believe the global warming crowd, answer this: If the scientists at East Anglia are all forthright, detached, honest and objective, why did they do the 3 things described above? When the scandal broke, why did the head of the unit, Phil Jones resign in disgrace?
Posted by DittoHeadStL
9th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
riverat1: No, I'm not ignoring your posts but basically, you don't matter..
I have to say you must be ignoring my posts since it appears that Dana and I fundamentally agree about the basics of global warming.

And that's basically why your posts on this subject should be ignored, You are basically an echo for Dana and Dana has no original ideas. All he's got is an agenda and agendas, when it comes to science, is not part of the scientific method.

I think what may be happening is the folks on your side of the issue are getting alarmed that something may finally be done about CO2 emissions in the USA and are yelling at the top of your lungs about it (maybe burning up your keyboards texting about it would be more accurate)

Silly you!

I'm not worried about the EPA, especially when they don't have the authority to impose their will on the people when it comes to global warming or CO2 levels. If they do try, they will be kicked back with court challenges.

while the people who understand that climate scientists know more about the subject than they do

That's a lot of crap and you know it. When someone has to lie about the "science", and when they hide or destroy the data used to create their "research", or make up or massage the data, or they try to shut down opposing real science, then global warming is nothing but junk science. No real scientist would be associated with such garbage as "global warming". And, you're making a mistake by calling it "global warming"; remember that the junk scientists changed the terminology to "climate change" when they realized that nobody was buying into their lies.

and that it's absurd to think there is a vast conspiracy* to mislead everyone about it have better things to do and consider it a waste of time responding to people who won't listen.

When the "science" is basically directed towards an agenda, then it's completely a conspiracy to take over control of the wealth. If the shysters such as Gore and Phil Jones would remove themselves from the "science", then perhaps it would gain a little bit more respect, and perhaps even some credibility.

Besides, you're wrong about the people who "won't listen". The fact is that we have listened and we have examined the same evidence and we've examined different studies and, we've concluded that your "global warming" science is nothing but junk science. The majority of people have turned against your religion and so have the majority of real scientists. It is you who is closed-minded to the truth.

Me, I'm just a troll who likes to upset people on your side of the fence.

You don't bother me and I'm pretty sure that you've very inconsequential to any matters of value in the world. So, in a way, you are right; you are just a nuisance.

But I also know that there has been no serious research that discredits the fundamental findings of climate scientists. If you want me to come over to your side give me some real science.

When your science was mostly dependent on the "hockey stick research", then it was immediately flawed. When it became "agendized", it became a fraud. When people started looking for ways to politicize the matter into ways to control the wealth of the world, the "science" lost all credibility. When there were so many errors in the science and so much skipping around the scientific method, it became junk science. The evidence is so prevalent to discredit your "science" and on so many levels and on so many points, that anybody associated with it should be brought up on charges of fraud and malpractice and they should be stripped of any accreditation which may have been bestowed upon them. But, when people like you can be so easily duped, then people like me will just have to give up and consider you lost causes.


* To quote Gavin Schmidt: "The idea that thousands of scientists have conspired over decades, roping in all the National Academies and the relevant societies, to impose their vegetarian/socialist/eco-fascist dystopia on the world is self-evidently ridiculous. If you disagree, I think the prospect for any dialog between us is dim. - gavin"

That Gavin dude sound exactly like those who are so deeply immersed in the conspiracy that no one should take anything he says with any kind of seriousness. To people like him, it's better to be dismissive of the opposition and to belittle them than to actually listen to the counterarguments and to the counter-science. It's a religion to Mr Schmidt and others like him. You and Dana and Schmidt remind me of the religious fanatics who cannot co-exist with others of opposing religions or opposing beliefs. I would equate Schmidt with the religious fervor found in people like Bin-Laden who would just prefer to bomb his opponents out of existence; when people like Mr Schmidt cannot even be;gin to try to understand the opposing side, then he has absolutely no credibility. His method is the one that tells people "to shut up, sit down, and listen to me and do as I say", You, riverat1, need to find a better hero and a smarter role model. .

When all is said and done, you and Dana and Schmidt will lose this war because the majority of people have a lot more common sense than you do on your side. The democrats will be voted out of the majority in congress this year, and Obama and the liberals will just become irrelevant. Poof! The agendized "science" will be relegated to the junkyard of science where it rightly belongs.
Posted by adornoe@...
9th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Risks
I saw the article and it did mention that the records for methane gases in the artic zone do not go back that far in time. The problem is that the areas are hard to get to and no one thought about measuring the levels of methane until recently. The question not answered is is the amount of methane found increasing, decreasing or normal.

The data from East Anglia is being checked. East Anglia is not the only center of study for climate change; there are others who have come to similar conclusions.

I am more interested in the risks of doing nothing, doing something or doing things that make things worse. We prepare for other risks like fire hazards, floods, earthquakes and war. What is wrong with preparing for the risk of climate change? Even if we prepare for rapid climate change that doesn't happen, it is better than not being prepared at all. Risks can be minimized and sometimes prevented.
Posted by sboverie@...
9th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The war against your ignorance may already be lost
So Dana, after 150 years of industrialization, and 100 years of the automobile spewing CO2 in the atmosphere what did we get....climate change! Not global warming since we had harsh and cold winters so instead it is climate change. However isn?t that what the earth has been experiencing since its inception? Which plants, insects, animals or humans have died from the phenomenon of climate change? Well which are extinct? Which costal cites are flooded?

What a joke this all is. We were told before the last century that the end was near, then in the 60?s, 70?s, 80?s and 90?s (over forty straight years) and now, some time in the near future. When that time comes, it will be sometime in the future still, if that is the Crown?s communist fascist goons have not erected their complete slave sate by then. For example, look at every jurisdiction being implemented with smart meters to control our behavior.

Wake up Dana. When will you stop believing the snake oil sales men?

Man can affect climate change though deliberate and concerted efforts which requires a great deal of technology and funding. The military is doing so with the HAARP program. This has nothing to do with CO2 or methane etc. Reade more and understand the real dangers this poses not the fake stories of CO2, methane etc.

Further Dana if CO2 leads (which is doe not) to both global warming and cooling as you state then in effect is does not lead to any catastrophe but to natural change on this planet so what is your problem? Have you nothing else to write about?
Posted by mario@...
9th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
On this plane living organisms build themselves out of carbon. They do this by extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. When they die some of these organisms are buried underground. Over millions of years Life has extracted a lot of carbon from the atmosphere. A LOT!! i.e. There was a lot more CO2 in our atmosphere a long long time ago. Why would it be a problem to return all that CO2 from where it first came for? What stopped the earth "greenhousing" for those fist few million (billion) years? Magic?
Posted by Alan9999
9th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
BTW, you SmartPlanet coders or administrators....
you need to do something about the italics which remain in effect for all later posts if a prior post ended with italics.
Posted by adornoe@...
9th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
Italics off?
Posted by riverat1
9th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
adornoe, Global warming is a perfectly fine term because the globe is warming. It's just not a straight line signal. Did you know that by all datasets including the satellites that January 2010 was the warmest on record? Many climate scientists believe that barring a major volcanic eruption 2010 has a better than 50% chance of being the warmest on record. And that is despite the extraordinarily low solar cycle.

The term climate change also works but it isn't something the scientists dreamed up. The phrase was coined by Frank Luntz for the Bush II adminstration because it sounds less threatening than global warming.

The "hockey stick research is merely corroborating evidence for global warming as is Phil Jones work. The fundamental science is in the General Circulation Models (GCM's, aka Global Climate Models). I know you don't believe them but so far the GCM's have been resonably accurate.

BTW, it sound like you don't know who Gavin Schmidt is. If climate science is a religion then he is one of the high priests. I guess that makes me one of his acolytes in your opinion. In reality he is one of the lead physisists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and works on the GISS Model E, one of the leading GCM's. His data and code are available on the GISS web site if you care to peruse it.

You can believe what you want about climate science but that won't stop global warming from happening. Ice will continue to melt, the oceans will continue to acidify, seasons will continue to shift ... and we will all be living with the consequences.

Oh, and mario, I don't think you know what a harsh, cold winter is. While Florida and the American South were freezing they were recording 50 degree F highs in Greenland There is no global cooling occurring, just natural variations.

Alan, the Earth did, as you put it, greenhouse back then. Temperatures were considerably warmer then than they are now. I doubt you would enjoy the conditions that persisted while the fossil fuel beds were being layed down. It's been at least 15 million years since the last time CO2 levels in the atmosphere were as high as they are now. The genus homo only evolved into existance about 2.5 million years ago and homo sapiens only evolved about 200,000 years ago. So humans have never experienced a CO2 level as high as it is now.
Posted by riverat1
9th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
riverat1: You will be one of those who, even if the globe enters
into a new ice age and you are about to get frozen to death, will be yelling that "the world needs to do something about global warming". Like I said, it is a religion to you and to Mr Schmidt and Gore and the whole lot of those who believe in the "junk science".

BTW, even Phil Jones has admitted that there has been no global warming in the last 15 years. And according to other studies, the world has actually cooled in the last 12 years. Apparently, the consensus science is losing.

And, don't even think about bringing up the "hockey stick" junk science again. That piece of garbage has been proven to be so wrong on so many levels that even many former "junk scientists' don't even bother to bring it up in discussions.

Many people, you included, have been reduced to claiming that, even if there were errors committed in the past, that there is still a "lot of good science" in climate change research. But, as any good scientist will tell you, if there are problems at all in any part of the study or the science, then the postulated theories are full of holes. Any theory that is so full of holes is basically junk.

It's time that you and Dana and Mr Schmidt also admitted that your science has been a complete fraud. Hey, I don't mind admitting that there might be "some" real science in the climate change studies, but that's like saying that a broken clock gives you the correct time twice a day.

Also, do you really think that because somebody works at an institution like NASA that they automatically gain a high stature of credibility? People at NASA have been caught lying about global warming and they are part of the idiotic attempt to hijack science by perpetrating the huge fraud of the last 20 or so years. There are many who think that if they attach themselves to supposedly respectable institutions, such as universities, that they can get away with anything. The people at East Anglia thought that nobody would challenge their credibility just because they were conducting research at a very "respectable" institution. There are people in government, or former government officials, who think that because they are high-profile and can command high respect, that they can also get away with lying to the people. Gore thought that he could command the stage and convince people about the "dangers" of global warming. Obama and other big names, just because they are in high government positions, think that the people will automatically buy into their lies. For sure, there are those who are easily duped, but most people who think, will not fall for the supposed credibility that comes from just being "a high government official". Obama and Gore and Mr Schmidt are all liars. They should all be brought up on charges of fraud. And so should all the others who have tried to perpetrate such a huge hoax for the last 20 years.
Posted by adornoe@...
10th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
reverat1.

Since you do not know where I live how can you make the statement that I don?t know what cold winters are? First off in my geographical area we experience all four seasons (some say just fall and winter). Over the last five or so years we have had the some of the heaviest snow fall in on record the last two in consecutive years. Over the last ten years some of our snow falls have been so bad that the army was called in to help cleat the snow! Our summers have been cooler, started later and rainier than normal. It is normal to experience during seasonal changes of 7F to 50F during the same week and at times even the same day. Image that! Such extreme variance change in temperature all in a matter of a few days for several weeks, every year since before the native Indians arrived. Guess how may plants, insects, animals or humans have died from such climate change? Well tell me? After all there are those scientists that you listen to which say that even a one degree permanent change will lead to catastrophe, no? So how is it then were I live all spices have leaned to live and adapt to this normal, cyclical climate change? Either this is not possible or those scientists were wrong or lying to you for theirs or their paymasters agenda. After all, we can blindly trust what scientists tell us, right? It has never been proven or shown that they are infallible or ever lied to promote their or theirs or their paymasters agenda, right?

?Global Warming? was changed to ?Climate Change? for the fact that all though the majority of people walk in a haze of intellectual retardation, they still have some enough synaptic cohesion to understand you can?t be experiencing global warring under such climate conditions.

Now you have people saying that CO2 cases both global warming and climate change which by the very nature of it definition incorporates global cooling. Thus if CO2 does cause both global warming and global cooling then it does not cause any significant or out or normal abnormalities to the environment since warming and cooling normally occur on this planet for life to survive on it. The net effect is zero. Even if the net effect is not linear does not mean that the trend is normal or abnormal since we have not collected data for long enough to determine this as fact. Second we do know from historical writings where people describe their environment of the time, we have had anomalies form time to time over the millennia lasting for decades or even centauries. Again given how the climate or environment has changed so much over the last tens of thousands of years, we can only expect that it will continue to change as radically has it has done thus far. We of course cannot discount the fact that events form our solar system or beyond has also played a role over that past time.

Lastly how do you account for the heating of Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter as also observed by NASA at the same time earth was experiencing similar warring periods? If you had to chose between the community which is saying it was the middle class people diving their SUVs or sub compacts emitting CO2 on these planets or the one which says that solar flairs are the significant reason, which would your logical mind tell you? I go for solar flairs. I guess in your mind that makes me a denier however I am confident in my logical choice which says that even if you equate humans with some effect (outside of military) that effect is insignificant to that of the sun, a force outside of our control.
If you still accept beyond all logic that the middle class (of course AL Gore and those of his wealth consumption is not significant) has such a significant and detrimental affect on this planet by their behaviour then not to worry, neoliberal economic polices such as free trade and goods form China leading to the global economic crises coupled with increased costs of inelastic consumable items such as oil, gas and electricity will do a good job to wipe them out. You can feel morally good knowing that their poverty will make you environmentally safe. After all in todays U.S. war is peace (Obama gets the peace price will increasing troops/commitment in Afghanistan ad Iraq), freedom is slavery (therefore need scanners at airports, camera on the street, government to read your emails), ignorance is strength (most all writers at SmatPlanet has proven this one)

There are such closed mined people or perhaps to scared to face reality that they just do not want to face the possibility that there are people who do not wish then well and in fact way be looking for ways to further enslave them. Alter all if you have read or studied seveal historical events you will know for certain there has always been those with and those without, and those without have only freed themselves though much effort or through fighting (leading to negotiations) where blood was shed, and people died.
Posted by mario@...
10th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
adornoe,

No worries about an ice age. It would take thousands of years to develop. That's what paleoclimatology tells us. I don't have that long to live. Scientists who have analyzed Milankovich cycles expect the next ice age to start in about 20,000 years.

What Phil Jones said was that the warming that occurred in the last 15 years was just under the level of statistical significance . What statistical significance means in this case is a 95% or better confidence level in the results. I would interpret just under to mean probably better than 90%. If you use NASA/GISS data the warming during that period has been statistically significant. Jones also said shorter periods aren't as meaningful as longer periods. Climate scientists typically work with 30 year or longer periods.

It's you folk who keep bringing up the hockey stick controversy. I just defend it. It's ancient history anyway, published 12 years ago. There have been many studies by others since then that broadly support it. To quote Wikipedia: "More than twelve subsequent scientific papers using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records produced reconstructions broadly the same as the original hockey stick graphs, with variations in the extent to which the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent "little ice age" were significant, but almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 2Oth century. There have also been disputes about the use of Bristlecone and Foxtail Pine tree rings as temperature proxies, but the same "hockey stick" graph is found in studies which do not use tree ring proxies."

You don't really understand science very well do you? You expect it to be some errorless world of perfection. It doesn't work that way. All science has problems. Just ask any scientist. Einstein showed that Newton's Laws of Motion were wrong but they are still useful for most situations humans encounter. If you want to change the path of science you have to show it a new path that is better than the old one. I believe that the vast majority of scientists are sincerely interested in advancing the science in their field and will work to weed out those that aren't.. In the climate science field so far none of the fraud charges that have been investigated by competent authorities have lead to any findings. If they do I'll re-evaluate the situation but until then they get the benefit of the doubt that they are presenting an honest assessment of their understanding of the science.


mario,

It's been analyzed and shown that you get less snowfall during colder winters than you do during warmer winters (up to the point where it turns to rain of course). That's mostly because colder air can't hold as much moisture as warmer air. It's also known that the global warming that has occurred so far has increased atmospheric water vapor by about 4%. More water vapor can lead to more extreme precipitation events (rain or snow depending on temperature). Snow is not a particularly good indicator of how cold a winter is.

I'm guessing you live in the continental US east of the Rockies. Perversely that area of the globe has seen less warming than the globe as a whole over the past decade. But in southeast Australia they have seen 3 record heat waves in the past two years. In the western US and Canada forests are being devastated by bark beetles mostly because the winters haven't been cold enough to kill them off each year like they used to be. I could go on.

Plenty of scientists have been shown to be fraudulent over the years but I doubt it's ever amounted to even 1% of the total scientific community. It's fine to make accusations but you need to back them up and that hasn't happened.

Global warming was "changed" to climate change when Frank Luntz told the Bush II administration it sounded less threatening than global warming. There has been no discernible global cooling lately, just natural variability.

Last I heard Mercury has actually been cooling a bit and Venus hasn't changed much. Jupiter has its own internal sources of heat so it's difficult to attribute temperature changes there. What I've heard about Mars is that the temperature changes are partly attributable to orbital variations and partly attributable to weather changes (read variations in dust storms). We've been observing the Sun 24/7 for 30 years or more now and haven't seen any changes that would cause the warming that has been observed on any planet. The Sun is of course the primary source of energy in the Solar System.

I pretty much agree with you about neoliberal trade policies though.

I doubt I'll reply again, this is already getting too long and taking too much of my time.
Posted by riverat1
10th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Well, now that we know that Phil Jones doesn't even believe it...
...I don't know why it's still debated. Unless, of course, the
statists have gone all-in, and that was what it was all really about
anyway.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
11th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
OF course it is lost. Anytime a lie is produced it always comes to light as a LIE
There is NO such thing as man made climate change or global warming whatever you want to call the CRAP it does NOT exist
You are all brain washed
Posted by verd@...
12th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The war against ignorance may already be lost...if present course persists
riverat1

Winters were I live (north east area of continental America) have been with seasonally normal temperatures an the mean over the last say 10 years with greater quantities of snow in some years.

Now if we have been experiencing global warming then the higher temperate summers should have held more water in the vapour state resulting in longer dryer summers. You will notice it rarely rains in the desert environments (that is near zero bodies of water). However we have been experiencing cooler summers which have led to more rainy days since cooler air leads water vapour to condense from gaseous state to liquid state. Thus we are not exercising global warming. That is the point. Temperature and environmental anomalies do not suggest a trend or that the ?sky is falling.?

If we look at cloud cover caused by particulates or water vapour. Over the last 40 or so years we have experienced less direct sunlight reaching the earth. According to Dr Lina Mercado, from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, the net result has been to ?enhanced global plant productivity by as much as a quarter from 1960 to 1999. This resulted in a net 10% increase in the amount of carbon stored by the land once other effects were taken into account." Co-author Dr Stephen Sitch from the Met Office Hadley Centre (now at the University of Leeds) adds, "Although many people believe that well-watered plants grow best on a bright sunny day, the reverse is true. Plants often thrive in hazy conditions such as those that exist during periods of increased atmospheric pollution." (or anything which cases cloud formation)

Reducing cloud cover therefore supposedly reduces the ability of plants to take in more CO2 and may lead one to conclude we must reduce CO2. However with less plant growth due to the reduction of particulates and water vapour, there will be a net cooling in the short to medium run. This is what we have been experiencing in the last several years. Thus those who have a political/economic agenda as opposed to scientific understanding say CO2 must be reduced and shift their labelling of ?man made? dooms day from ?global warming? to ?climate change.? Less cloud cover however allows more sun light and solar radiation to reach our land and oceans which will in the long run lead to greater concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere. This water vapour, which is ?responsible for some 60% of the overall greenhouse effect (needed for human existence), also contributes to global warming via feedback effects?( http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41594). Water vapour and the resultant increased cloud formation with atmospheric particles will once again ?scatter light so that the surface receives light from multiple directions (diffuse radiation) rather than coming straight from the sun. Plants are then able to convert more of the available sunlight into growth because fewer leaves are in the shade.? Thus they will once again absorb more CO2.

Thus this cyclical affect of warming and cooling is part of natural events on this planet nearly fully independent of human actions, progress or intervention. Therefore why are some people saying that global warming is ?man made? and detrimental to life on this planet? It is a means by which the global banks can create another Ponzi scheme, push further neoliberal economic policy, collapse our economy once again in the future and lead governments to conclude the solution is in one currency, one government.
Posted by mario@...
12th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
Mario,

Where I live (Willamette Valley of Oregon) the level of snow pack in the mountains is less than when I was young (used to normally be 15-20 feet now more commonly 10-15 feet), the glaciers on Mt. Hood and other Cascade volcanic peaks have lost 15-20% of their volume and the frost free growing season has expanded by a couple of weeks among other things. You can't judge global warming just by your local conditions. That's why they use the word global. Where you live happens to be one of the areas of the globe that has seen the least effects of global warming so far, especially in the last few years.

Also, most of the change from global warming is slow from a human perspective (but rapid from the geophysical perspective). If you weren't born before 1970 or so you may not have been alive long enough to notice changes in the way I have (born in 1952) unless you were paying close attention. It can take 20 or 30 years for the changes from global warming to become obvious.

You may have been experiencing cooler rainier summers lately but in South East Australia they have had 3 record heat waves in the past 2 summers.

I'm not sure what to say about the rest of your post. It's pretty confusing. The Mercado et. al. paper talks about atmospheric haziness due to aerosol pollution and changes in cloud cover and the affect of diffusion of sun light on land plant growth. One conclusion of the paper is that cleaning up pollution will exacerbate the problem of global warming but it doesn't state that plant growth will be enough to stop global warming by itself.

The fact is that the growth of CO2 levels in the atmosphere is less than half of the total CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and other human activities each year. From that I conclude that CO2 levels would not be growing if humans weren't emitting it in such great quantities. There are natural events that affect warming and cooling but that doesn't preclude effects from human activities. It's not an either/or thing. All of the effects combine to produce the ultimate outcome. You can't balance the energy budget of the Earth without taking into account the effects of greenhouse gases. To the extent that human activities change the levels of greenhouse gases they affect the climate.

I don't deny that financial interests are scheming to take advantage of the changes we need to make to avoid the worst effects of global warming and I don't like it any better than you do. But that doesn't mean we should do nothing just to frustrate them. That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Posted by riverat1
12th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
?The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ? and thus clamorous to be led to safety ? by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.?
? H.L. Mencken

..... and these warming alarmist guys are their willing enablers.

The jig is up, guys. Move on to some other pending catastrophe
Posted by grambo46
13th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
riverat1

Look at the work of Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Pro of Meteorology at MIT and Hasi Dowlatabadi at UofBC.

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/

Watch all four parts of this series on ?Climate? starting with part I and notice the very logical non emotional presentations by these two scientists versus the media and judge for yourself what is really going on with this issue of "global warming." I ask who would know better about the science of climate and metrology, those who study it or those who report on it especially when those who ?report? on it say they have a duty to present only one side of the story for our benefit.
Do not be deceived by the volume of voices. There are many great scientists who deal with the facts and draw same or similar results/conclusions to Mr. Lindzen and Mr. Dowlatabadi. The question is why are these scientists never presented and debated with? Why would a second rate politician think he knows better than them and why would people even listen to a trained deceiver by nature? Answer, media coverage. Just like the ones found at ?SmartPlanet.? Everyone has an agenda. Let not half truths conceal that fact.

Neoliberal economic policy is tied to the junk science presented by Gore et al as the vehicle used to deliver the poisonous gas. The end result is the death of the middle class. If we both agree on the economics end of it then do consider the links and realize the potential dangers of the outcome if those are real.

I am a nearly two decades younger than yourself however as a youngster winters seemed longer however so to did m summers seem to last forever. Time has a much different relation in the mind of the young so it is hard to judge if there was any really change or perceived change or any change at all for that matter. Article was a reference to the fact the shad does increase plant life not direct sun light and that we have seen a net increase in plant growth over the last 40 plus years. Eliminating particles such as pollutants which leads to cloud formation does not necessarily mean there will be an issue with CO2 since less plant growth does not mean CO2 has no ware to go. We have to look at the who system at work and recognize it as a closed system always finding balance since energy is neither created or destroyed just transferred as we are taught in physics (assuming this is in fact true).
Posted by mario@...
15th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
I hope its lost
Global Warming is the BIGGEST LIE in history
Posted by verd@...
16th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
I hope its lost
Global Warming is the BIGGEST LIE in history
and ALgore is just making money off global warming LIE
you people need to WAKE UP
Posted by verd@...
16th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
Mario,

I'm familiar with Dr. Lindzen. I've seen dialogs between him and other climate scientists on RealClimate.org. While I respect his knowledge and he's done important work in the field of meteorology his thoughts on AGW don't seem to be very well supported. If there was any meat on his Iris Hypothesis it would have become more prominent by now. Instead investigators have concluded the iris effect would actually warm the atmosphere.

As I've said before I don't disagree with your attitude on neoliberal economic policy but it doesn't have anything to do with the science of AGW. What we do about AGW is a political and economic decision but the fundamental science is what it is and all the wishful thinking in the world won't change that. The death of the middle class started in the 1980s during the Reagan administration. That's when wages became disconnected from productivity and trickle down economics came to the fore.

Time definitely seems to go faster as you age. You get a better sense of your own mortality and an understanding of how fleeting a human life span is in the bigger picture. My perception is that we had harder winters in this region when I was young and it's borne out by weather statistics.

The article you're talking about didn't say shade increased plant growth although there certainly are plants that won't grow in direct sunlight. Instead increased haze actually reduces shade by diffusing the sunlight so it hits the plants from more directions. I can see how that would increase plant growth in some instances.

The Earth is definitely not a closed system. It receives massive amounts of energy from the Sun in mostly the visible and ultraviolet bands and radiates a roughly equal amount back out in mostly the infrared band. When an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere slows down that outward radiation of infrared radiation the Earth has to increase its temperature in order to get back in balance.
Posted by riverat1
17th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
riverat1

As someone who has studied economics we are in full understanding. I am not a climatologist nor am I as familiar with the scientist work or their acceptance thus I cannot comment on that however I would say there are a significant number which do agree with Dr. Lindzen. From past experience there have been scientists or doctors who have been rejected by some or majority of their piers, even destroyed by them only to be proven current with more proper understandings usually due to further research and information gathered. I would suggest that is what is required at this stage not the adoption of policies which with our limited understanding of how climate works which may do more harm then good no matter how well intentioned.

Just because it may have snowed more or less into he past relative to today does not mean things are not as they should be. How do we know if what occurred at that point in time was normal? At what point in time do we take as a measure? Making these arbitrary decisions without considering all points in time or a vast amount of time based on a percentage of earths existence will skew results.

As an economist I do see a clear link between the global worming prognostications, and the social economic polices proposed by that interest group. Climate change is an absurd statement to make since the earth is in a constant and necessary state of climate change.
I do hope you understand that this is not about being absolutely right or wrong however the global warming group is promoting this notion. The do not have the complete picture since no disciple or scientist does. Therefore how can anyone suggest an absolute action must be taken without a constructive and necessary open public debated engaged with the data presented, critiqued and consequences fully understood. The relative cost of doing nothing can only be understood under such circumstances. Where is this debate or opposite scientific information presented at SmarPlant or other blog sites or media outlets? It simply does not exit. What does that tell you? It tell me that there is an interest group which is too scared to debate out of fear they will be proven wrong. If not then why not have open public debates? To my knowledge government polices are being passed without this. Smart meters will not save anything just shift times when things are done. This is more about behaviour modification and making more money for the utilities then anything else. Do o not see haw this ties into the neo liberal economic agenda? Who has that right to make that call for me or you. Are we not free to act when it makes sense for us in or own homes? Having meetings in some city such as Copenhagen by lobbyists, special interest groups in a closed forum is not a public debate especially when the agenda of that debate was predicated upon a conclusion of global warming.

Form the perspective of closed system, I meant from the theory of nothing is either created or destroy just transferred form state to state. The system can include the sun, galaxy, universe however I am not aware how that plays out under such a theory.
Posted by mario@...
18th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
Natural Laws are not able to pardon us, for creating carbon dioxide overloads, with our Black Magic Life$tyle. Because we so enjoy the creature comforts we create with the powers of fire, our planet will become as desolate as Mars; much sooner than Nature intended. Weakling humans, that sensationalize encasing ourselves in 4000 pounds of steel, glass, rubber, and plastics, for our ride to the theater, will die off quickly; unable to endure the future harsh consequences of our B. M. Life$tyle.

We have gained partial control of our living environments now, thanks to life?s 3 billion year struggle. In cosmological time, life on this planet has only just recently risen from the primordial mud in which it was conceived. Because we are a young species, human greed, the need for conformity to beliefs, and the ostracism of diversity, is apprehensible. Humans are now poised to fail, reversing the tenacious advance of life, and fall; back into the proverbial mud. We will survive global warming only long enough to experience the comparatively mild beginnings of the permanent damage our species caused, to this one of a kind space ship that all life shares. . . our biosphere. We are choosing to wither and perish, along with all the other higher life forms. Humans have created conditions that humans will not survive. We blame and evade our own personal re$pon$ibility for this imminent disaster, rather than avoid it, by demanding the development and implementation of plans and processes to accomplish the removal of the excess atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide, and other hazardous conditions, that we have created.

As in driving over a cliff, just slowing down will not avoid the eventual fall.

Only by REVER$ING the flow of greenhouse gases, out of, rather than into, our environment, will we avoid going too far passed the invisible tipping point; the one we want to believe is still a ways off, somewhere in our future.

TALKING, about making cut$ in greenhouse gases is a tactical ploy, the creators of these gases use, to avoid making real life$tyle changes. Con$umer demand creates greenhouse gas. Turn it down, or off; and STOP buying more greenhouse gas[oline]! Denying our real re$pon$ibility by blaming our $capegoat leaders, for not making the tough choices, ensures the worst possible consequences. Without public demand for better solutions than reductions. . . the answer to the global warming question, will be a nuclear winter.

Our planet?s temperature is rising as it develops a fever to combat a viral infection, US.

Destruction of the natural environment by humans will end, here on this dying planet, as we create our own hideous extinction. Our love of power, $trife, and conquest, will not spread throughout the galaxies.

The Universe will be left in peace. . . once again.

Ability, we have not; to see, The Empire of Evil, we are.

Major Disappointment
Posted by Major Disappointment
19th Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
I have lunch at least twice a month with my LIB/Enviro friends. One of them came the other day and said a Prof at MIT said that we will RUN OUT OF OIL IN A MATTER OF 20 YEARS!He extolled the science! Then a few days later the discovery of the OIL (2. something BILLION barrels were found off the coast of Brasil. Then lately we found the OIL under the North Ice sheet. Then we find the Methane, then we find spouting Volcanos, then earth shifts[earthquakes], then, then,)GET OVER IT! What makes you people so sure about yourselves that you can PREDICT everything? If the models are always 'changing', how can you spout that you know it all. Math is good, algorerhythyms are always tweaked. We know much of nothing. Self serving cash magnets. Although we SEEM to know so much,I really don't believe we do. The AUDACITY of knowledge. We don't even KNOW why the FW BELT stopped and then started moving again in the deep Atlantic. Stop the CRISIS talk! Does everything have to be a CRISIS with you Enviro FANATICS?
Posted by Solution1
1st Apr 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
to Major Disappointment: May I suggest that you go and Hide your head under a pillow? Or maybe extricate yourself from your own toxic presence> Do you drive to work? Ride your bike? WALK? Do you only wear clothes that you have made from some grass?Or do you wear clothes at all? Do you FART? Do you BELCH? Do you CRAP? DO YOU EAT? You, human, are a disappointment to yourself. I revel in the accomplishments of our world civilization. Look around you. Go clean your clothes on a rock. Oh yeah, you don't wear clothes. Now that the MONEY is flowing, LOOK around. NOW, we can come up with new technology! What does that mean to you? Your arguments are superfluous.
Posted by Solution1
1st Apr 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: War against sudden global warming may already be lost
Yes it's lost. That's why I got the domain name fuckedplanet.org.
Posted by Stuart21@...
6th Apr 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Knew I'd see the word Junkscience in the first 10 posts
Whereas such real organizations of Climatologists have pointed out that junkscience.com, who coined the phrase, is itself a fraud run by cheap hucksters.
realclimate.org is a better source, and more solidly backed by peer reviewed journals, but this is a decent first approximation.
The world is getting warmer each time you start your car, buy a new one, drive to w--mart for a loaf of bread, or use home delivery for your printer cartridge delivery.
Get used to it, your luxury AND MINE are going away.
The only good news is I'll likely be dead by the time the mass starvation begins.
Will you?
Posted by mykmlr@...
12th Apr 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet Community and join the conversation! Signing-up is free and quick, Do it now, we want to hear your opinion.