Saturday, February 17, 2007

Ghost Town

Photo "Ghost Town" by Fred Miranda

The wind blew gently upon the dry grass, a small lizard scurried past the long abandoned wagon.

It was twilight in the town called Sundown. Somewhere a coyote called for its mate. The town was quiet now. Once, it had been a thriving community with merchants, saloons, and a livery stable. Children would play with barrel rings like giant hollow wheels they would roll them, wobbling and true through the streets. People would gather in the saloons on Saturday night and the survivors would attend the only church in town on Sunday.

Life was simple then, the copper mine employed three hundred and many more were there to market their wares and services. Early in the morning the steam whistle would signal the first shift and the day would begin. Like so many days before it would start the heart of the town beating and would continue till after dark when the quiet would return as the town slept.

The town sleeps all the time now, laid to rest with the closing of the mine. Gradually the people moved away, and eventually everyone was gone. Once thriving, change had come to this town that was reflected in it's name, Sundown.



Anonymous said... to the Magic Tree House!

DEN said...

Presidents Day weekend is upon us.

Hope you all have a safe and enjoyable one.

Coffee in the corner and fresh pastries on the side.
Weather is going to hit 70,
I'm going for a ride.

Carry on !!

DEN said...


DEN said...


DEN said...

IIIII Gotta go, bye!

David B. Benson said...

Saladin --- Unfortunately you are simply wrong about the science of climate. For example, there has been no change in cosmic ray flux in the last 50 years (total measurement time, Climax, CO).

No change, no way to warm climate.

What has changed is the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The science regarding the role of carbon dioxide as a so-called greenhouse gas is over 100 years old and thoroughly studied.

Further, we know that humans have been dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate.

The conclusion does not require a rocket scientist, does it?

I liked you list of good things. You ought to have listed stop burning coal!

Carey said...

Thank you Dr. B. Always like to read your explanations.

Micki and Jeanne,

From yesterday's thread--Alan too. What do y'all think? I think Gore's going to run!

Wouldn't that be wonderful? Maybe with Obama as vice-prez. Interesting ticket.

I also think McCain and Giuliani will severly beat each other up leaving both in tads.

By the way, Dr. B, it feels like a very warm spring day here in San Diego. I don't like that. I don't want any signs of the same dreadful, wearisome moist heat we had last summer. It's coming soon, isn't it? I cringe--hate hot weather.

Alan said...

No doubt this will be Gerald's new favorite website.

It says "upload your ass here", and there are over a thousand of 'em so far. hahaha

Alan said...

yeah, GO AL GORE!

Obama would bake an excellent VP. We could have Gore for 8 years and then Obama for 8 more!

Carey said...

Forgot to mention--interesting post Den, "Ghost Town".

Carey said...


That is kind of a crude website. There are ladies present.

David B. Benson said...

Carey --- Long range weather prediction is fraught with error. Nonetheless, the prediction is that, globally, 2007 will be the hottest year so far...

Alan said...

That is kind of a crude website. There are ladies present.

haha Ehhh, I said what it was in my post. You didn't have to go LOOK if you'd be offended. Duh

Alan said...

I'm still reading this one. It's loooooong.

Rumsfeld's Legacy
The Undertaker's Tally (Part 2)

©A®OL said...

I hope Michigan has a hot summer. I'm one of the oddballs that likes hot weather. I even like the humidity. Our house is not air-conditioned and I never turn it on in my car. We do have a swimming pool and hot summers make it worth having. Two summers ago we only were able to use it 3 times! Last summer was great.

David B. Benson said...

Carol --- Miami in Michigan? It's coming...

Saladin said...

Mr. Benson, I can neither be right or wrong since I am only presenting different findings from various sciences, and not claiming to have all the facts. The info. provided in my link is either right or wrong. 50 years is not enough time to make judgements on. Your claim that the CO2 levels are the only difference is incorrect. According to the geologic timescale, the current concentrations of “greenhouse gases” reach roughly 378 ppmv; however, in the Eocene, when anthropoids appeared, the concentration of CO2 was higher than 2050 ppmv (about 184% more than today), six times higher than the current concentrations. When hominids appeared (by the Pliocene) the anomaly in the global temperature was 4° C higher than the present change. Our change is merely 0.122 C. Those figures are shown on graphs from my link.

And, from the UNEP/GRID-Arendal (United Nations Environment Programme) library of graphics resources I found this,

Temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the past 400 000 years.

"Over the last 400,000 years the Earth's climate has been unstable, with very significant temperature changes, going from a warm climate to an ice age in as rapidly as a few decades. These rapid changes suggest that climate may be quite sensitive to internal or external climate forcings and feedbacks. This figures have been derived from the Vostok ice core, taken in Antarctica."

Their graphs show CO2 concentrations for the past 400,000 years, oscillating between roughly 280 ppmv to 180 ppmv 50,000 years later, back up to 300 ppmv about 30,000 later, and up and down fairly consistantly all across the graph. Temperature fluxuations follow the same general pattern. However, on a timescale graph covering calendar years 800-2006 AD CO2 levels are at roughly 210-230 ppmv but temperatures were as warm or warmer than today. This is far from an exact science!
The climate is always in flux, never in balance, balance is a human concept and a seriously flawed theory. Also, that was not my list, but I agree with it. Al Gore made a really scary movie, but it isn't science. Analytical observation and the consideration of ALL known climate contributors trumps Hollywood everytime. I tend to look at a much bigger picture, my husband, who is a geologist, taught me that. Human lifetimes are not an accurate measure of global climatic fluxuation. Neither is CO2 concentration. The earth and it's climate are far more complex then people like to give it credit for, and like geologic change, it too changes.

"The conclusion does not require a rocket scientist, does it?"

No it doesn't, but it does require looking more than 50 or 100 years into the past.

I know that you are sometimes referred to as Dr. Please tell me, what is your field?

David B. Benson said...

Saladin --- You really ought to follow the threads on RealClimate. They just finished demolishing the GCR (cosmic ray) theory.

To wit: Both carbon dioxide and temperature have increased in the past 50 years. GCR flux has not.

That should end the story, except that the so-called facts in the paper you cite appear to be in error.

Yes, climate does change. Slowly. The temperature increase from Last Global Maximum ice until now was fast, for a climate change. About 1/20th of the current rate of increase. Which is caused primarily, but not solely, by the excess carbon dioxide humans are causing to be put in the air.

You ought to be raher frightened for your daughter. Doing something about this excess, rather than picking up on very dinialist post which comes along.

I just follow what the climiatologist say. I am always amazed at the way in which somebody who has read a post or two thinks they know more about the subject than those who have devoted their careers to it!

My Ph.D. was awarded in Engineering Science and Mathematics. However, I am a retired professor of computer science, a long time amateur geologist and recently an amateur climatologist as well.

Start with W.F. Ruddiman's "Earth's Climate: Past and Future". This textbook might have one equatin in it. If so, it is skipable, because I don't remember it. But Bill Ruddiman has accomplished wonders in the organization of a complex topic. While elementary, it provides a clearer overview than the other books I've read on climatology.

David B. Benson said...

Oops! every denialist

ยบ¿carol said...

Saladin, are you being purposely rude when you address Dr. Benson as Mister?

David B. Benson said...

Carol --- I don't mind being called Mister. I suspect that Saladin didn't realize that I was awarded a Doctorate.

Anonymous said...

Carey -- According to this Al Gore has ruled it out.

Fri Feb 16, 2:38 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - Former US vice president
Al Gore has ruled out a bid for the White House in the 2008 elections and will carry on his fight against global climate change.

"I have no intention to run for president," Gore said in an interview conducted in Los Angeles and broadcast Thursday by the BBC.

"I can't imagine in any circumstance to run for office again," said the former Democratic vice president under then-president Bill Clinton.

He has since been crisscrossing the globe with his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," a blistering indictment of pollution that warns against ecological catastrophe by climate change.

Gore announced Thursday in Los Angeles a massive 24-hour global concert to save the planet from global warming, patterned after the awareness-raising Live 8 concert about world poverty.

Called Live Earth, shows are planned on July 7 in Shanghai, Sydney, Johannesburg, and London, and yet-undecided sites in Brazil, Japan, the United States, and possibly other countries.

The concert marks the latest foray by the ex-vice president into cultural politics. His "An Inconvenient Truth" has been shown worldwide and is nominated for an Oscar at this year's
Academy Awards.

Gore was the US negotiator for the international Kyoto Protocol that set global goals on emission of so-called greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, produced by the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal.

The protocol was agreed in 1997 and took effect in February 2005, but Bush refused to ratify it, citing its high economic cost and the fact that China and India, the world's largest producers of greenhouse gases after the United States were, as developing nations, not bound by it.

Greenhouse gases allow sunlight through Earth's atmosphere, but line glass in a greenhouse, traps heat inside, and is already blamed for shrinking polar ice caps and may cause violent weather changes.

Anonymous said...

Society of Environmental Journalists: Internet Links and Resources

This site provides links to lots and lots of good information, including:

RealClimate: Climate Science from Climate Scientists
Climate Science Watch: Promoting Integrity in the use of Climate Science in Government
Smoke, Mirrors, & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Change
Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer

And so on....

Anonymous said...

One form of "religion" could be defined as scrupulous conformity to denial, at the expense of reason, adhered to with ardor.

DEN said...

Dr. Benson, There is a theory of mine that says the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a result of directly injecting it into the atmosphere through the use of aircraft primarily while ground produced emissions add to the problem from below.

3000 flights a day in the US possible every day, 365 days a year, and every year since jet travel was firmly established I think in the 60's.

I'm not much at math but that is a hell of a lot of discharging burned, semi-burned and unburned hydrocarbons containing carbon dioxide directly into the air not to have a drastic effect over time.

Combine that with Rainforest defoliation as well as forest clearcutting the very natural device that is meant to take carbon dioxide out of the air, you have a recipe for disaster without factoring in the natural changes the Earth endures just by 'being earth'.

With any filter system, it is necessary to ensure it is proportional to the demand placed on it, in this case we have reduced the filter area while increasing the load on it.

Just a theory of course.

•¿•arol said...

I saw a blurb in the paper several years ago about a study of jet contrails and how they actually form clouds. Living out in the country, I see lots of sky. Lots of contrails. I always wonder about what the gazillion contrails are up to.

Anonymous said...

Carol, you must have a lot of moisture in your air overhead. I'm not a scientist and I haven't even stayed at a Holiday Inn recently...

Dum-de-dum-dum!!!!! Maybe those contrails, those trails of condensation, are chemicals meant to...........

Well, let's not go there....

Anonymous said...

Joe Lieberman makes me sick.

It would have taken 60 votes to repudiate bush's escalation of his War of Choice on Iraq...the vote waas 56-34...

In the Senate, the seven Republicans who voted, with the Dems, to advance the measure were Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins of Maine, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John Warner of Virginia. All but Snowe and Specter could face the voters in 2008.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, sided with Republicans on the vote.

•c•arol said...

Micki, I'm glad you posted the Senator's names. I started to look for them tonight but with my pokey dial-up, I gave up.

Last night I found the names of the Republicans that sided with the Democrats in the House, but I was too lazy to type it up to post here. There was one Democrat that voted with the shits, by the way. Democrat that voted no

Alan said...

I saw a blurb in the paper several years ago about a study of jet contrails and how they actually form clouds.

Carol, there was a PBS show, prolly Nova, but I'm don't remember... a scientist took notice of the difference in the skies after 9/11 when planes were grounded and there wasn't any contrails.

Alan said...

Mea culpa to Bush on Presidents Day

A year ago I criticized Hillary Clinton for saying "this (Bush) administration will go down in history as one of the worst."

"She's wrong," I wrote. Then I rated these five presidents, in this order, as the worst: Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Ulysses Grant, Hoover and Richard Nixon. "It's very unlikely Bush can crack that list," I added.

I was wrong. This is my mea culpa. Not only has Bush cracked that list, but he is planted firmly at the top.

Jeanne said...

Wait until the soldiers get a hold of the kissmyass web site. And the vets. Oh man.

Jeanne said...

I watched frontline last week. It's a two parter on the media war. Very good.

Saladin said...

Mr. Benson, no one is denying anything. What is being questioned is whether human activity is the main source of CO2 concentration ( it has definitely been a contributing factor)and whether that concentration is solely responsible for climate change. There aren't any "so-called" facts, they are either facts or they aren't. Ice core readings are either reliable or they aren't. The geologic time scale is either accurate or it isn't. Global climate studies of the past reveal that the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions, increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years. There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. (from CO2 Science) Is that true or not? Just saying they're wrong doesn't give much to go on. The graphs are consistant so far, even with the ones at the UN site, which claimed that climate change CAN occur rapidly. The real climate website is only one avenue. There are many excellent sites that discuss global warming but have no political affiliations. What has occurred in the past 50 years is of no consequence, as an amatuer geologist you must know that. No one can make any kind of accurate model based on such a short span of time. So the question remains, what exactly is the role of CO2 in earths climate? And, what are the rest of the contributors?
Carol, that is one of the strangest interpretations I've ever seen. Since when is referring to someone as Mr. or Ms. considered rude? That isn't how I was raised.

Saladin said...

Attack On Iran Will Hit
India Most - Scientist
By Ramesh Ramachandran
The Asian Age

NEW DELHI -- An American geoscientist has warned that India is "downwind" of Iran and is, therefore, predisposed to the harmful, radiation-laded winds that will blow eastwards if the United States were to attack Iran using depleted uranium in dirty bombs or bunker busters like it did in 2003 in Iraq. A bunker buster is said to contain about two tonnes of depleted uranium.

Ms Leuren Moret, a former employee of the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory in the US, who now works as an independent activist on the use of depleted uranium, warned of the health and environmental effects of the use of depleted uranium by the US in armour-piercing shells, which will have disastrous consequences for generations of Indians to come.

"India has [already] been contaminated by the depleted uranium used in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Lebanon and Afghanistan, which is blowing off the Himalayas all over northern India," she told this newspaper during a visit to New Delhi. Ms Moret said, "What India [needs] to understand is first of all they've been nuked, they've been completely contaminated through contamination of the Himalayas... you don't have to drop a nuclear bomb on a country to nuke it, you can contaminate the water, the soil and the air, and no one even knows. India doesn't even realise this."

She cautions that this "covert nuclear war" extends to selling nuclear power plants to India and other "tiger economies". "[Selling nuclear plants] is second covert nuclear war... we will have a tsunami of chronic illness [and] humanity won't survive this covert nuclear war," she observed. Ms Moret, who is a past president of the Association for Women Geoscientists, warned of an exponential increase in diseases like diabetes and cancer in India because of this contamination.

"India [has] a pandemic of diabetes and it is from the atmospheric testing [conducted by certain countries] which contaminated the Himalayas," she asserted. She cited Japanese, Norwegian and British government data to suggest that there is a global increase in the incidence of cancer, diabetes and other diseases. "We've got it all '" obesity, cancer, low birthweight, etc '" and we're exporting it to [India]," she told this newspaper.

Adviser to the Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro), Prof. M.G.K. Menon, says that what constitutes a crime against humanity merits serious consideration. "We have a lot of depleted uranium in India but we have never put it on armour piercing shells. We have used tungsten," he said, referring to Ms Moret's claims. Prof. Menon added, "The depleted uranium is used for its weight, burning capability and armour piercing characteristic... The US used it in Yugoslavia and Iraq.

Uranium vaporises [and can contaminate] soil, water and [can get] into humans. It is alpha-emitting and has a long life, therefore, anything ingested is damaging for generations to come." A former Union minister of state for science and technology, Prof. Menon has held several important, posts including scientific adviser to the Prime Minister, scientific adviser to the defence minister, director-general of the Defence Research and Development Organisation and chairman of Isro.

Ms Moret tells sceptics who label all of this as conspiracy theory that there are "very well-established studies" on Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims and on the Chernobyl survivors establishing that radiation causes diabetes. "It's not just a correlation, it's a causal effect," she asserted.
This fallout is bound to have horrible consequences.