Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: For those among us who are *cognitively challenged*

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 12, 2013, 7:41 a.m. EST by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This graph illustrates the fact that yes, over the last 150 years, temperature and co2 levels in the atmosphere are directly linked.

.

yes martha, the sea is going to rise

.


.

The following two images and associated graphs are of the Arctic ice cap and are self explanatory.

.

yes martha, the sea is going to rise

yes martha, the sea is going to rise

.


.

This graph is an example of the lies that still persist despite the widespread scientific consensus that:

  1. temps are rising
  2. CO2 is a primary factor in temperature increase
  3. Sea level rise is also intractably related

.

wrong

.

Note the haphazard green line that is intended to delineate where sea level presumably should be - it stands as a fine example of the industry of denial attempting to deface all of the pertinent science.

.


.

This graph correctly illustrates the relationship between CO2, temperature, and sea level

correct

.


.

This Is Not Cool (Video):

yes martha, the sea is going to rise

364 Comments

364 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

no one cares.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I cannot believe that YOU...the climate "genius" around here, just asked this question.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

The assumption was made 20+ year ago that Human caused CO2 was driving temperatures simply because they do fluctuate together across the geological time frame. No proof. No evidence. Just an assumption made, a consensus declared, and humanity accused of destroying the planet simply because they exhale and drive.

And year after year as studies from all over the world rolled in, and core samples were taken, and satellite observations began and still today there is ZERO evidence that HUMANS are causing the increase in CO2. NONE.

And scientists have been slowly stepping away from the idea of human caused "consensus" only to be degraded, minimized, and run out of their jobs by the AGW nazis. I can only think of TWO things that would cause people like James Hansen and Al Gore to ignore half of the data, half of the studies, half of the discoveries-and all of them the ones that do not agree with their "theory"-1) Pride 2) Money.

The same damn things that corrupted Wall Street, and our Government, and the "elite". How stupid would it be to assume that people like James Hansen are ABOVE corruption? His goal is to take down the Oil industry even if he has to lie to do it. Unfortunately for him, the CO2 levels and the temperatures decoupled-split apart from each other-more than 10 years ago. And his theory is getting questioned more and more and more.

Al Gore invested heavily in his carbon credit push-waiting to make billions of dollars from the gullible "culprits" he loathes. He's made millions off of "green energy" investments. But clearly he doesn't actually BELIEVE in his own theory because he flies his plane all over the world and builds mansions on the sea shore. Why would someone who is expecting the oceans to rise up madly DO THAT?

The longer the CO2 levels continue rising while temperatures do not, the more urgent Hansen's pleas to save the world become. He's losing his audience. His prime suspect-the oil industry-is looking less and less guilty. Except to people like you-whose agenda matches his. You get more shrill and fanatical even though I keep shoving more and more EVIDENCE that he's wrong, under your nose. He's not wrong that the globe is warming. He's wrong about WHY.

It can't possibly be about money for you. So it must be pride. Or insanity.

But if you REALLY care about this planet, and you REALLY want to know all of the other things that COULD be driving the CO2 levels, things that have just as much chance of being the actual culprit, if not MORE SO, than humans, you'll do your homework. You'll chase down every fact and detail and find out for yourself. Because the TRUTH matters to you more than some agenda.

If you aren't passionate enough to find out for yourself, then you really don't care. And you'll do the lazy man's thing and just cling to the crap you agree with while ignoring everything else. Because it's EASY. Because it makes you feel better about your own agenda. Because you don't want to be wrong. Because your ego means more to you than the truth.

You're preserving the status of a very few yourself. Corrupted or completely wrong for some other reason. Why would someone like you do such a thing?

[-] 2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"ZERO evidence that HUMANS are causing the increase in CO2"

As far as I'm aware....pretty much every scientist in the world believes that humans are causing the increase in CO2 levels. You mean global warming i think.

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Let me phrase it this way then

ZERO evidence that Human beings are solely and completely responsible for the increase in CO2. In order to say that, scientists would have to prove that NONE of the other sources of CO2 on this planet could possibly be responsible for ANY of it. They haven't. And in the past 30 years, scientific atmospheric research has accelerated by leaps and bounds but our oceans remain almost completely unstudied.

Why is that? Why have scientists continually IGNORED the most massive and principle NATURAL driver of our atmosphere for 30 years in their effort to pin this on humanity?

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I agree there is a difference of opinion of scientists on global warming (although there is a larger percentage siding with the fact that it is occurring and they do believe it comes from us).

But put that aside....I don't think there is any dispute that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not stemming from human activity. If you can provide one scientist to back this up I'd be interested....because I've never seen it. Not saying there isn't one...just would be curious on the logic behind it as from the graphs of CO2 concentrations it's pretty obvious that the increase in C02 corresponds with increased human activity with fossil fuels. This increase in C02 is vastly higher than any natural atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the earths....history

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"This increase in C02 is vastly higher than any natural atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the earths....history"

Really? Show me evidence that proves that.

By analysing ancient algae found in deep-sea core samples, Professor Matthew Huber and his colleagues determined that the mile-thick ice which now covers the south polar continent formed around 34 million years ago. At that stage the atmosphere held much more CO2 than it does now, some 600 parts per million (ppm) as opposed to today's level of 390 ppm

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

When the dinosaurs lived, the levels were 4-5 times higher than now. When multi-cellular organisms appeared 500 million years ago, the levels were even 20x higher than now. If these are true, then wouldn't the oceans be incredibly acidic? And yet fossil records tell us there was plenty of life in the oceans.

And yet accordingly the temperatures should have been earth cooking! If temperatures responded the way alarmists claim they do to CO2 levels, during this time period at the equator, the temperatures would have exeeded the boiling point of water! Yet temperatures were estimated to be just 3°C higher than now. How is that even possible if CO2 levels are the most influential drivers of temperature?

Here's why such an argument is stupid. Let's say that the number of storks in the UK dropped during the same time period that new babies born dropped. Does this prove that storks deliver babies? Correlation does NOT PROVE causation.

Now, if you can find me ONE scientist that SAYS that all of the NATURAL SOURCES of CO2 were always constant in the past,never varied, never went higher than X, or that they all turned off, disappeared, stopped increasing etc at the exact same time that human contributions began-so that the ONLY LOGICAL conclusion remaining it that the human race's burning of fossil fuels is the cause, then I'll shut up.

Oh wait...that's how scientific theory is supposed to work. But climate science is SPECIAL. In that area of study, you get to make the above conclusion and THEN suppress every study or research paper that proves you wrong (and malign the scientists responsible at the same time-a fun two-fer) and adjust your climate models in every way you have to to make yourselves right! That's good science today!

But since you asked:

Scientists who dispute rising CO2 levels are all due to human activity:

Here's a list of 32,000 of them- http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

And here's a new study that concludes:

"CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

Ole Humluma,Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway AND Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
Kjell Stordahl, Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway
Jan-Erik Solheim, Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway

Here's one scientists "guesstimate" on the number of other scientists

http://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

There are plenty of people who will personally attack Dr. Singer or any other scientist you bring up who doubts the supposed consensus. But I'm only interested in their opinions if they can actually debunk the science/research involved.

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

Paid shills are boring.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Ad hominem insinuations are pathetic and indicate you've got nothing else.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Excellent data.

Great post

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

They're so cognitively challenged, they couldn't even see it......!

That's probably OK, as they are currently trying to figure out how to blame it on the orbit of Jupiter.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You obviously see something the data does not support. Don't feel bad. The climate models cannot replicate our current conditions when programmed according to the scientific assumptions of the past either.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

But the data DOES support it.

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-4.1.html

Let me give you an example.

Do all your toilet duties in your backyard. Be sure and have lots of beer parties too and have yuor friends do the same.

Now, go out and walk around in your backyard and ask yourself how come your boots are full shit?

The answer?

Reality.

If you piss in your own backyard often enough and long enough, you will get a boot full of it sooner or later.

Now, how about the orbit Jupiter?

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Predictions produced by computer models using incomplete data will always be flawed. Observable measurements taken and compared over time prove them wrong over and over.

Your example demonstrates the problem. My backyard is not a closed system, and because of that, the shit in my backyard begins to break down in the environment immediately. I can piss in my backyard every single day for my entire life and NEVER end up with a boot full of it because of evaporation, absorption of soil, rainfall, drainage etc. And all that carbon breakdown feeds the soil, evaporates into the air which then feeds plants and keeps our planet from freezing over.

Shit and piss are both biological byproducts of fuel consumption. If you are against biological byproducts, stop eating.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You already got a boot full, huh?

It's coming out the wrong end.

Why do you think we invented outhouses?

Oh, by the way, the pentagon bought all those model programs too and guess what they say?

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2710) 1 year ago

Sure - depends on who created the particular climate model you speak of... a little more research should lead to the truth... Real science is about objective study with no agenda (corporations have agenda so you really can't trust their studies) But someone who's been out there taking measurements for the last 30 years observing every little nuance working for a university - doesn't particularly have an agenda (well other than to be known for doing a great job and uncovering new discoveries) even now though big corporations have begun to taint those studies by stipulating rewards for a "favorable" outcome... I think then you have to begin to investigate how the data has been gathered, generally a consensus is formed around the world by other scientists whether or not the did an objective accurate job after the results are published in a journal (they don't want someone to outshine them if they don't have to - scientists can be competitive) So really then I would go with the general consensus of scientists and they seem to all agree with global warming

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Here's the latest satellite imagery.

The breakup has begun in earnest.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/?p=904#.UTwU_coRB8E

I'm going to double post this here and in the official OWS thread.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Navigable.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

A new piece from MotherJones on permafrost, spoiler alert the news ain't good:

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/03/were-getting-scarily-close-permafrost-tipping-point

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Hmmm, strange. It worked the other day.

Try this one.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/14973-climate-change-and-protecting-environment-is-a-social-justice-issue

It's worth a bump too.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The stupid debt, is the least of their worries if the planet is wrecked.

I thought it was a nice video.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Yes. It absolutely is radical in a fundamental, yet not unprecedented way.

We have lost site of the meaning of posterity.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

Brought to you by Wallyworld.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

And the truth just keeps on comin'.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-scientists-report-big-jump-183612249.html

Nothing yet on the exact, precise, percentage of human contribution, so I guess suing Mother Earth to pay her share is out of the question. Too bad for vapro.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Global Warming!!

Among some of our posters, it's not important.

Far too political, and NOT a World Wide issue.

I think there's something amiss with those posters.

What say you?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Or perhaps they are creating the propaganda to keep threads like this from staying at the top of the list.

Supplanting it with rumor and gossip and drivel.

They do that to a lot issues threads.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Yes, I've met a few of them.

The last one I talked to, was confused by the facts, got very angry and said, "let the next generation worry about it!"

Then he went off and paged through some biker magazines.

Dreams of crystal meth?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I was ready to vote for you too, but you didn't make the ballot around here, so he's luckier than he knows..........You might have been elected.

The libe(R)tarians really do take the (R)epelican't party as seriously as their own, after all it was poppa Paul that first infested it, as if it wasn't bad enough in the first place.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Sane AND ethical??

Good luck getting ALEC to write THAT legislation.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Big jump in Co2. NO jump at all in global temperatures.

Suing anyone to pay for something without any direct evidence that they are to blame is wrong. And no "very likely responsible" doesn't constitute proof either.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Big jump in Co2. NO jump at all in global temperatures.

Suing anyone to pay for something without any direct evidence that they are to blame is wrong. And no "very likely responsible" doesn't constitute proof either.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I'm sorry you missed the link that explained that to you.

My mistake. I only posted it for you 3 times.

What's your magic number?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You posted a link that explains why none of the facts in existence actually equates with "human CO2 levels are going to kill us all " 3 times?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Like I said you didn't notice it, because that's not what it said.

So now you're just makin' stuff up again.

In fact the end of that sentence is pure propaganda.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Another "issue" solved, for the challenged among us.

" Frédéric Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysical Environment in France and a team of researchers may have found an answer to the question. His team compiled an extensive record of Antarctic temperatures and CO2 data from existing data and five ice cores drilled in the Antarctic interior over the last 30 years. Their results, published February 28 in Science, show CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years, drastically decreasing the amount of uncertainty in previous estimates.

The wide margin of error in the EPICA core data is due to the way air gets trapped in layers of ice. Snowpack becomes progressively denser from the surface down to around 100 meters, where it forms solid ice. Scientists use air trapped in the ice to determine the CO2 levels of past climates, whereas they use the ice itself to determine temperature. But because air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack, those air bubbles are younger than the ice surrounding them. This means that in places with little snowfall—like the Dome C ice core—the age difference between gas and ice can be thousands of years."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ice-core-data-help-solve

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

What issue did this solve? I think it's great news.

CO2 still lags temperatures, just by less time. This means that we can "drastically decrease the amount of uncertainty in previous estimates" that the recent rise of CO2 was caused by the increase in temperatures that preceded it less than 200 years ago.

Hummmmmmmm now when did the "Little Ice Age" end?......somewhere around 1850-1870.....so yep...less than 200 years. Works perfectly.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The movie will be out soon and you can learn a little about negative, multipronged marketing/PR.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/greedy-lying-bastards-the-trailer/

Hey?

Do you have an extra pack Marlboros?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Woohoo a movie! Because we all know that everything put on film just HAS to be true! Will it have the greedy lying bastards in it from BOTH sides? Or just one? Because if it only shows one side, then it surely serves an agenda.

Don't smoke. Never have. Why? Do you need one yourself or are you just laying down groundwork from which to lob your next propaganda based assumption about me?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Doubt is all you're selling. so OK.

Whatever.

Like I said before, this is the Planet, not a court case.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Doubt can be a good thing. It makes us stop and think before we make stupid decisions based on only half the evidence. It makes us question everything, including ourselves. Which is a healthy thing to do in order to keep our own biases from clouding our judgement.

This IS a the Planet. The ONLY one we have. And I would HATE to run off down a path that ends up being WRONG and find out too late that we don't have the time to backtrack or try something else. It's called smart. It's called Fact finding. It's called making adult decisions based on what is true and not emotional propaganda. You should try it some time.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

"A Truth that's told with bad intent - Beats all the lies you can invent."

(William Blake, 'Auguries of Innocence')

Hmmm, how would 'The Precautionary Principle' equate to "too late that we don't have time", I wonder ?!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I doubt it, because you're the one passing propaganda.

I hope you didn't pay too much for your "facts".

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Ha! I just decided to click on the first reply that looked like a response to a troll-like person to see if it was a response to vapospray. It was! Hahaha.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

So you don't believe in global warming either?

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I'm not able to make a call on that topic. I just stay out of it. Most I can say is wtf is happening to the world?! We're pretty much going to hell in under a decade and it's humans who are mostly responsible. Sure the world and the sun and everything orbiting something has cycles. But what a horrible mess we've made of things.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Unfortunately, it's not just the air.

http://www.stateoftheocean.org/index.cfm

So if it sometimes seems as if I'm trolling folks like vapro, it's because I've grown weary of the same lame argument. It's produced no real data to support itself in many years.

It's main tenet, is to produce doubt.

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

It hasn't replied to my last comment, I must have got to it: http://occupywallst.org/forum/alcohol-is-one-of-the-top-problems-with-society/#comment-937940

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Oh, you misunderstood. I wasn't accusing you of trolling. Vapor was seriously pissing me off so I wanted to see how he was getting along with others.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Getting along with others, isn't what vapro came here to do.

Getting you pissed off, would seem to be his aim, so don't give him the pleasure.

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Yup, it obviously has multiple accounts going. It just tried to provoke me again, I see already two people stinkled it. Can't wait for GF to unleash some punishment on it, that should be fun to watch.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Ask Jart. Go ahead.

Oh and by the way Shooz, Kavatz is the one who started in today with name calling and being pissed. For something completely innocent. And then "it" came over here and sucked up to you. So you go right ahead and pat "it" on the head and take into your home shooz. You deserve each other.

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I just can't figure out where it's twinkles are coming from when everywhere I look it's stinky as hell and everyone despises it.

Thanks for the heads up.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

This is like the fourth or fifth wave of attacks here on global warming.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out it's the same person.

It will eventually tire of the game and go away, only to come back in a month or two and start all over again.

[-] 2 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

Right. Ignore it and it will go away.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

It will turn to name calling next. Just don't let him piss you off.

He's counting on it.

[-] -3 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

First, anyone that doesn't agree with shooz will be called a troll by shooz.

And anyone that behaves the way you are currently, demonstrates a desperately low emotional intelligence. So why are you doing it?

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

And again, since you seem to have a memory issue, I have never said I don't believe in global warming. Suggesting that I have, is propaganda. Which you never seem to be able to respond without. Why?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Doubt is your only message.

Deniabilty is your core value.

Here's the other part of the system we're fucking up.

http://www.stateoftheocean.org/index.cfm

Now, go ahead deny away.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Doubt everything anyone else says-IS YOUR only message shooz DENY everything including the facts whenever possible is YOUR core value.

Just more logical fallacies. Why would I bother to even look at your links when you're not going to treat anything I say in response with any degree of integrity anyway?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You're just not that good at reverse psychology.

Pretty good at ignoring what we've done to the oceans, but really bad at reverse psychology.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Complimenting Post :

Our race to curb climate change will not be won with natural gas. Unfortunately, President Obama is under the impression fracking for natural gas is a climate solution.

Today, natural gas and oil production is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, second only to coal.1 Not only does more fracking mean more climate change pollution, but communities across the country will continue to suffer at the hands of profit-seeking natural gas companies. It's time to set the record straight.

Will you call President Obama, and tell him natural gas is not a climate solution?

On February 17th, nearly 50,000 people gathered in Washington D.C. to send a strong message -- our country needs move forward on climate solutions. And over 100,000 activists like you have sent letters to President Obama telling him to put the brakes on exporting natural gas. We've got to keep the momentum going! Instead of leaving our communities to deal with the air, water, and climate pollution that will inevitably be left behind, will you tell President Obama to stop the fracked natural gas rush?

Make your call today. Tell President Obama to protect our communities from fracking.

Thanks for all you do to protect the environment,

Deb Nardone Director, Beyond Natural Gas Campaign Sierra Club

P.S. Please share this email with five friends and family so we send a strong message to President Obama.

Share this page on FacebookShare this page on TwitterShare this page with other services

Source: 1. Drajem, Mark. "Oil, Gas Production Among Top Greenhouse-Gas Sources", Bloomberg Businessweek, 2/8/2013.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I WILL call Pres Obama (and republican leaders in congress as well) on these issues, because I am tired of him and ALL politicians submitting to the power of fossil fuel campaign contributions.

Let us remember that sometimes it is also other politicians who most be agitated.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Absolutely - and I think a continuous fire storm of communications to state and federal government is a good thing to do. Nothing happens in a vacuum - nothing good anyway.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Yes. That is the right approach. Any & all pressure. I especially like the pressure to end subsidies, and divest from the fossil fuel industry.

Hit 'em where it hurts. in the wallet!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - what a crime to continue subsidies to fossil fuel - most especially as they are making a ton of money and need no government/People's support - those subsidies should if nothing else be targeted to green tech clean tech implementation.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

It is obvious to occupiers. We will continue pushing the notion until we don't have or we are too old and decrepit to be heard.

LOL

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

YEP - my time is on the short end - but think of all of the young and unborn.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I ain't too far behind ya. But I know I've trained more than my share of young people to carry on.

I have great hope & optimism when I talk to young people. (not all, but plenty)

We've only just begun.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Young people if given a chance and someone real to talk to and meaningful information - can be very awesome in joining/carrying the battle for a better world.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Like in the exxon video. It is just priceless. Gives me goosebumps, & a lump in my throat.

I don't mind taking the simpleton crap some on this forum give me. It's the least I can do.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Ignore the attackers - refute their BS - if you want to - with real information - the idiots demonstrate stinkin thinkin for all to see and provide a platform for rebuttal with sane thinking. They are nasty - but if not let loose to spew freely they can actually provide a useful service in typifying what humanity needs to face down.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Good perspective. And I like the descriptive "stinkin thinkin". Clever.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

There needs to be some perspective here.

Coal fired plants account for 67% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US according to the latest (2011) data= 2.2 billion metric tons of carbon equivalent emitted in 2011. (EPA report)

"The petroleum and natural gas systems, the second-largest emitting sector, reported a total of 225 million metric tons of emissions in 2011."

"Because it was the first year of reporting oil and natural gas emissions, EPA said, there are no data to compare that figure to the prior year. "

Now, if you can READ, they COMBINED petroleum AND natural gas production together into ONE group and that GROUP produced 225 million metric tons of emissions.

That is ONE TENTH the amount of emission that resulted from coal.

That means that the more we MOVE TOWARDS natural gas as our major energy substance and away from coal, the more we REDUCE the amount of emissions we put in the air. Why on earth would anyone SANE want to prevent that from happening?????

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

But not through fracking. Natural gas can be made and processed through recycling of plant matter and organic garbage - then the recycled organic material can still be useful in being returned to the fields instead of using synthetic fertilizers.

No one sane would want to prevent the development and use of clean energy or clean industrial tech.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

TWEETED

For those among us who are cognitively challenged http://occupywallst.org/forum/for-those-among-us-who-are-cognitively-challenged/#.USzcTeoAYiY.twitter Please watch the attached video - A must see. SHARE/CIRCULATE

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It is an absolutely horrifying video - all of the ages old ice is almost completely gone - nothing much more than thin new seasonal ice being made. When that is gone ( how far from now ) for a good portion of the year - just how fast are the ocean currents gonna heat? Add thawing tundra - and just what kind of synergy is gonna come from that?

And the Pres is opening up more land and other areas to drilling and fracking = INSANITY.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Pressure on the Pres & ALL pols. Pressure on oil corps.

We won.!!! Petitions, marches, & pressure!!!

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Shell-won-t-drill-in-Arctic-this-year-4314319.php

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I saw that notice - I think I even twittered one of em.

The pressure to end fossil fuel extraction must continue.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Amazing isn't it? And unrelated but just as amazing, after a year of opposition the house repubs passed the strong VAWA law this morning.

That is a direct result of pressure from petitions, marches, phonecalls etc.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Public displeasure is a strong force - now if the public will continue such displeasure about fossil fuel and fighting global warming and prosecuting white collar criminals and and and and and...............

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

That's right. All will happen if we can keep the movement alive, & grow it.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - keep educating the public. One thing I also advocate - is - contacting groups already in existence - like the Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists and and and - and have them reach out to each other to unite in common causes/actions - group synergy.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The great thing about theSierra club s that they have just changed their policy to engage in civil disobedience, & got their leaders got arrested for the1st time at the recent DC rally. THAT is the influence of OWS.

It is a measure of our success. Plain & simple.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - the gloves need to come off - we need to get in the face of government and in the face of corpoRATions. Polite is fine when you are talking to a sane individual who is open minded and tries to be good already - but when facing down insanity - polite does not cut-it.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Agreed, And putting our bodies on the line.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Our bodies - "ARE" - on the line.

This is what the majority of the population needs to understand - it is not metaphorical - it is real.

Whether or not they participate in trying to make a better world - their body is already on the line.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It certainly does - it is a scary truth - you have no choice about being included - only how you want to act - because you can do nothing - but you are still included.

No one really prepares one to consider this truth - well very few in the past have tried anyway.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It certainly makes it easier - that realization - to get involved in working for a better world - everything to gain - nothing to lose - as it is all on the line already.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

True, true.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Because that one scientist that still disagrees is going to get a massive amount of press?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You know it Dog.

It's where varpo goes for his info.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Funny. I post links to actual scientific research studies and you post links to blogs. Which makes your info so much more credible of course.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I posted several over the last few days, you just ignored them or insisted that the doubt you created was the more important info.

It wasn't..

Now, about that pack of Marlboros?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Again. Don't smoke. Never have. Why is propaganda your automatic fallback position shooz?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The point is, you don't get the reference.

You've skipped it, every singe time.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

The point is, I DO get the reference. It is merely a propaganda technique to attempt to portray me as something that I am not. That you continually rely on propaganda only means one of two things. 1) you cannot defend your positions honestly or 2) you don't want to.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I did defend my positions, you just denied them all.

Same old shit, slightly tweaked from 10 years ago.

I can look out my front door and see it. I can walk down the street and smell it.

You expect me to deny that.

You're the propagandist.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

10 years ago? What the crap are you talking about?

I'm always going to deny a defense that involves propaganda in the form of demonizing and personal attacks no matter which side it comes from. If it's not logical, and provable, then it's not a FACT, and engaging in the exact same behavior you are accusing other people of makes you nothing more than a hypocrite.

How many times has someone here pointed out that any time someone backs you into a corner, you resort to name calling, deflection, bandwagoning, or some other totally obvious form of propaganda? It's just THAT obvious to everyone. Now, I'm willing to step way out on a limb and entertain the idea that you aren't even aware that you're doing it. And if not-then look around. But if you ARE doing it, then every single time you do it, you might as well be admitting "I have nothing credible or factual to back up what I just said so I'm going to hope my audience is STUPID and just toss out shiny manure and hope to distract them".

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Are you capable of reading, comprehending and comparing the actual measurements taken from the ONLY actual evidence we have on your own? Or do you intend to rely on regurgitated talking points based upon flawed models, egotistical projections based on assumptions, and government funded propaganda bundled up and labeled as "science"?

If you'd like to actually examine all of the existing "data" collected by ALL of the most "credible" resources in one place, try:

www.climate4you.com

"The main emphasis of the present web site is therefore to provide the interested reader with data and other information on meteorology and climate. Climate change information needs to be both accurate and undistorted, and analysis unemotional. Respecting the notion that information always should be the starting point for personal thought, analysis and interpretation, links to information sources (digital and written) are provided throughout the web site. "

Click on "The Big Picture" and start reading. I dare you to actually learn something yourself, and I wish you well in that endeavor.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You want to see the LIE exposed? Would you defend the truth if it was handed to you? Would you? I guess we'll see....


http://www.worldscientific.com/action/showMultipleAbstracts?mailPageTitle=Search&href=%2Faction%2FdoSearch%3FsearchType%3Dnormal%26searchText%3Dfalsification%2Bof%2Bco2%26publicationFilterSearch%3Dall&doi=10.1142%2FS021797920904984X&

"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.

According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation.

In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that: (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33° is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified." -_________

So tell me ZenDog and shooz....why aren't these scientists getting "massive amounts of press"??? By your criteria, the world should be SHOUTING about them....right?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

It's always existed. I don't know how old you are, but we learned about the early explorers trying to find it when I was in grade school. Hell, in the early 1940's Larsen traversed it in a single season. Your lack of knowledge about something does not mean it doesn't exist.

And the ACEX team discovered years ago that roughly 55 million years ago, the Arctic region was warm and completely ice free.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Correction, according to the ACEX ice core samples, the Northwest Passage has not always been frozen in ice.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Ok. I'll play your game.

For some odd reason ZenDog believes that pointing out a proper name/history issue somehow invalidates the point I previously made, so I hereby offer a correction to my previous correction:

Corrected-Correction: according to the ACEX ice core samples, the area of water that is currently known as the Northwest Passage, has not always been frozen in ice.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by clearsimpletruths (-204) 1 year ago

and homo sapiens has not always walked upright.

Back to biology class for you my son! Homo Erectus was the first of the Hominini family to walk upright. Homo Habilis the first to use stone tools. Homo Sapiens come later in the lineage and have always walked upright, and have always used stone tools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Humanevolutionchart.png

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Pssst....hey....come over here to the window and point out how much of this global warming is anthropogenic and how much of it is due to natural variability. The scientists can't tell, but you seem to know personally.

Um..and I hate to break this to you, but homo sapiens by definition HAVE always walked upright. That's why the homo species prior to sapiens were called something else.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Why does it matter?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Because the truth SHOULD matter to everyone. FACTS should mean something. That neither one matters to you is obvious to everyone. But you seem oblivious to how shallow and untrustworthy your lack of concern makes your arguments to everyone who does value truth and fact.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Not answering questions is all you have.

So you would lose the "debate" anyway.

Lucky for you, this is the internet, huh?

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Your opinion regarding this particular "debate" and who has won or lost it means exactly zip at the end of the day. But I'm happy that you have a place on the internet in which you feel that it does.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

What would be the point of knowing exactly how much?

While you're at it, how would you add in the damage to the oceans?

The water sheds?

The forests?

The planet is a symbiosis.

If someone was banging your head into a wall.

Would you insist on knowing what part of the damage was from his push, so you could separate from the softness of your head?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Distraction. Exaggeration. Transfer. Appeals to emotion.

It's all you have isn't it?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Oh YOU are such a clever monkey yourself. Between the two, yes, that would cover all of it.

But since you only want to talk about the anthropogenic part-lets stay on target. How much?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Where's the peer review?

Sounds like he didn't get the book deal because of it's lacking.

Besides.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gerhard_Gerlich.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Peer review? You're suddenly interested in peer review? How ironic!

International Journal of Modern Physics B published it.

But hey, peer review has it's flaws-

"According to a recent analysis published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, about 67 percent of 2047 studies retracted from biomedical and life-science journals (as of May 3, 2012) resulted from scientific misconduct. However, the same PNAS study indicated that about 21 percent of the retractions were attributed to a scientific error. This indicates that failures in peer-review led to the publication of studies that shouldn’t have passed muster. This relatively low number of studies published in error (ca. 436) might be the tip of a larger iceberg, caused by the unwillingness of the editors to take an action.

Peer review is clearly an imperfect process, to say the least. Shoddy reviewing or reviewers have allowed subpar science into the literature. We hear about some of these oversights when studies are retracted due to “scientific error.” Really, the error in these cases lies with reviewers, who should have caught such mistakes or deceptions in their initial review of the research. But journal editors are also to blame for not sufficiently using their powers to retract scientifically erroneous studies."

Book deal? Which is weird, because if you and ZenDog are right about everything, then why didn't some rich rightie print his book for him and send him on tour???

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Is it a lie to use specific parameters meant to get a specific result and then declare that result to be accurate?

Is it a lie to spin something so cleverly that you make people believe that an entire body of people "believes" something, when no one has ever really ASKED them in the first place?

Why is a "scientist" still trying to "prove" something he CLAIMS has already been proven?

Why is it that you are so adamant about calling everything lies and spin and false when even at it's most basic level it is not...it just doesn't agree with your conclusions, and yet you so willingly embrace everything that agrees with you, even if it's OBVIOUSLY using the very same type of lies and spin designed to FOOL the stupid and the sheep type people that you otherwise HOWL about?

Why is it that the man who wants others to believe he's so great at detecting lies doesn't like people pointing out the ones he keeps in his trophy case?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Calm down. Again. How many times do I have to tell you that I agree that the climate is changing before you stop pretending that I don't?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Did you miss this?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/greedy-lying-bastards-the-trailer/

He had no comment when I showed him the other side of the equation.

We've fucked up the oceans too.

He never says in plain, simple language, just what it is he does believe, but he sure does say a lot a shit..

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

http://www.stateoftheocean.org/index.cfm

You really can't separate one from the other.

It's full bore Planet.

"If you tug on something in nature, you will find that it's connected to everything else."

---John Muir---

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

We live here.

We too are part of nature.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Yep. Cars. Now ask the cars why the global temperature mean hasn't changed for over a decade.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Of course! Propaganda technique/logical fallacy- insinuate that your opponent has ties to some monstrous person, place, or thing and hope that readers are either so stupid or so biased, that just the mere mention of that monster is enough for them to establish your allegation as fact!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Except the brothers Koch really are monstrous people that do monstrous things.

Making your accusation of logical fallacy a logical fallacy.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Um. No. The logical fallacy was attempting to tie me to the monster.

(See, I used the term "monstrous" myself, because I have no problem calling the Koch's monsters in every instance where there is empirical evidence of their monotonousness.)

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Well then, how about some comments on the facts about the brothers Koch, and or their activities....

You know, a post where you stop being so evasive?

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Because this thread is about the climate and the world, not the Koch brothers. You're the one who keeps saying that this isn't a trial. Yet when push comes to shove, you obviously want it to be.

If your agenda was concern for the planet, you'd know more about the actual planet. You appear to have read more about the Koch brothers than you have about actual climate science. Your obvious lack of concern over facts and the truth might lead one to suspect that your agenda has far more to do with bringing down someone you view as the enemy than it does anything else.

Ignoring your constant attempts to distract and subvert a discussion about science isn't being evasive. It's being consistent.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

So one of the biggest polluters shouldn't be discussed?

Conflict of interest maybe?

Just ignore them like you did the link to what we've done and are still doing to the oceans?

Just like you ignored the numerous threads I provided for you and went on with corporate line on global warming?

Sorry I can't so that.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Oh?

You were sticking up for them on another thread.

Did you forget?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I am against propaganda and slander. I can blame someone for something without condemning them wholesale, can you? Do you not understand the difference?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

What does that say about your opinion of the brothers Koch?

Nothing.

What does it say about you?

Evasive.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Like I just stated elsewhere that your opinion on anything really doesn't matter in the grande scheme of things, neither does my opinion of the brothers Koch.

That you keep trying to attach some kind of value or importance to people's OPINIONS instead of on the facts says volumes about you.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Of course! Propaganda technique/logical fallacy- insinuate that your opponent has ties to some monstrous person, place, or thing and hope that readers are either so stupid or so biased, that just the mere mention of that monster is enough for them to establish your allegation as fact!

hint-putting it in bold and linking it to itself makes you seem even more desperate...and crazy

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Does it make you giggle? THAT is the question...

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You can post a thousand links shooz. I'll go through every one of them and point out that they don't say what you want them so desperately want and NEED them to say in order for you to be right.

I'll just say that it's funny how many studies these scientists are doing on something that's supposedly so settled.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Is that Vaporbreath?

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Is that the GreatKing of enlightenment and cosmic grace?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Yeah, we should just stop studying everything.

We've found out all we need to know about everything anyway, so it's a waste of investor monies.

I'm waiting for your "response" to the data.

You've failed to do so.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You go through it all first and make sure each one is based on pure data and prove to me that you read and understand each one, and I'll be happy to follow suit. As long as we define data as accurate, measurable, empirical evidence and anything that requires flawed modeling, predictions, assumptions, or speculations. You know, stuff that can be duplicated over and over again.

I'm happy to wait for you to do your own homework before asking me to check it for you.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Will you be holding your breath?

I certainly hope so.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Only till I pass out. Then I'll resume breathing on my own.

Anything else?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Keep trying.

You know what they say.

If at first you don't succeed?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Is this really something you want to base your argument on? Do you really want to use this as evidence that demonstrates how unbiased and scientific you are?

A left wing Geologist conducts what HE calls "research" using HIS parameters and then makes a "deduction" based entirely on his own parameters, and calls it SCIENCE. And you are now spreading it as if it IS science!

http://www.jamespowell.org/

Please note the HILARIOUSLY unscientific words in gray. For a man who claims that "To go to the trouble of an explicit endorsement of the ruling theory would have the counter-effect of suggesting that the theory needs reinforcement" he's gone to a HELL of a lot of trouble to write entire BOOKS attempting to endorse that theory! ROFL

And he ends by saying "In my opinion, based on my understanding of the history of science, it is reasonable to conclude that the vast majority of publishing climate scientists accept that human activities are causing the Earth to warm."

Note the words "opinion", "my understanding" -very UNSCIENTIFIC protocol. I wonder if his "research" would pass peer review....

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

CTO for the markets division of ____.

You should have looked that up.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Here are a couple of more links too

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

I think the amount of ice area has the most affect on weather, ie Sandy, but the volume is reflective of climate change the ice is getting so thin that the summer melt is uncovering unprecedented levels of arctic water that in turn is affecting weather.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

It's what happens as a planet comes out of an ice age. It warms up. When it's done warming up, it will get really cold and we'll enter another ice age. You'll have all the ice you could ever want and more. Then we can argue about manmade global cooling.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Where did you get your PhD may I ask? Your theories seems far out of step with the evidence.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

What evidence?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I didn't catch where your PhD is from? You do have one don't you? What branch of climate science is it in?

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

That's an odd question. Why do you ask?

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Is there Analysis and Study of whether Well Drilling, Fracking, and pumping sludge into the Earth releases enough gases to cause Climate Change. No sure where I was going with that. I'm knind of not smart on the Science of Climate Change.

1) We cut down our Rainforests reducing Oxigen Production
2) We damage the Oceans reducing Oxigen Production
3) We refine Oil & Gas, and Burn Petro Products for Transportation, Shipping, and personal trips & Touring
4) Earth Produces gases and pollution based on Volcanic & Seizmic activity
5) Live Stock Produce Methane, Products like Furnishings, Houses, and Automotive Goods pollute even while not being driven.
6) Use of Electricity, Heating Homes, Cooling Buildings increases pollution and Climate Change.
7) Farming & Animal Husbandry use Energy, Pollute, and Increase Climate Change.
8) European & US Lifestyles are wasteful, use tremendous amounts of Resources, require tons of meat, ranching, consumer economys, constant production, constant resources mined or harvested, dempend on cheap labor....

I end up wondering how to take a step toward Sustainable Living. I don't buy beef or much produce since prices are high. I drive an old car with fair MPG.

But is there one clear thing that Obama can do without transfering money from taxpayers to some banker somewhere?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I keep wondering if we can use hemp oil for Energy and to propel our autos down the Highway. I know people say a lot of things about why hemp was outlawed. If people have Marijuana they don't have to buy alcohol from the rich families that sell liquor and beer... And Big Pharma's strategy to take over health care, get us all to look for pills for all cures, and ... if herbs from south america, africa, and Asia relax people ... then big Pharma loses control.

But someone did some research on hemp oil and said it was between hemp oil and Bitumen (Petroleum) for autos ... to get away from Steam Powered Engines.

Anyway... I m sure that Well Drilling, Fracking, and pumping sludge into the Earth releases all kinds of toxins that we know are now going into our water auquafers as well....

I'm not sure about other Plant Oils for engine power. FIsheries are depleated ... so whale and fish oil are not sustainable.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Well, perhaps there is some air plane jet engine technology that could also help us to understand the technology. I'm afraid that Help Oil and Vegitation Oil burning in an engine would be dirty as Petroleum...

The nature of capitalism is ... that people hold back information ... hold back technology ... hold back data ... so that they can compete, maintaine a competitive advantage, and ... even prevent new products or technology from entering the market.

We can just look at Politicians to see this. They keep their mouths shut to avoid discussions, to prevent an opening for an opponent, ... but also to keep deals quiet ... keep voters in the dark ... keep voters from organizing opposition ... keep voters from realizing their power to change the system .... and on and on.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Good link. Still not sure about if there is a distinct advantage in Vegetable oil, Bio-Fuel, ETC. I think the auto performance might be slower, lower torque or lower acceleration ... for me that is fine.

But ...I have a head ache and not reading well. But I think Consumer Reports is pointing out a spectrum of lower pollution or at least lower CO2. I think that is good news.

I know of a man that was storing drums in his garage as a kind of cooperative or club to mix used restaraunt oil for the clubs vehicles.

I need info on the difference of DIesel Fuel to Gasoline ... and Diesel Fuel to Bio Fuel. Maybe this is what I don't get yet .... and I will have to read up in the next week to try to figure this out. Diesel Fuel used to be cheaper than Gasoline. Now it seems that Diesel and Bio-fuel are both more expensive than gasoline .... but if you make your own fuel from restaruant used oil ... then maybe you have a slight cost advantage. There is a question: If everyone wanted to use Resturant Used Oil, would there be enough supply to keep the prices low.?

Seems like we still need a fuel efficiency where vehicles are light with small engines ... and can run on a single large bottle of Canola Oil for the 100 miles. Not that we would have to use Canola, just that our vehicles should be able to run on used vegetable oil or any bio-fuel. However, seems like igniting diesel which is more gasseous than vegetible oil might mean completeley different engines or carborators or fuel jets....

So maybe my question is how different is the vegetable oil after conditioning in barrels in our garage? Are we making the Bio-fuel, vegetable oil actually take on characteristics of a fuel like diesel or gasoline?

That actually makes sense to me. I can visualize that a little. So maybe I need to learn about the conditioning of Bio-Mass Products or vegetable oil.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

One aspect of bio-fuels that deserves attention is that as more crop land is devoted to bio-fuels, less is growing food which will drive up food costs. Moreover, with our current technology many bio-fuels do not have a net positive energy return (i.e.: it requires more energy to produce one gallon of bio-fuel than the fuel provides when it is burned).

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

that's rather surprising

considering those crops get their energy from sunlight

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

The crop (let's say corn) is "raw material" much like crude petroleum in that it must be processed (refined) into a useable form. In the case of ethanol, the corn must be planted, harvested, transported, prepared, fermented and distilled before it can be poured in a fuel tank.

Each step requires an energy input, and the total energy required by all steps to process the corn is greater that the energy it releases when burned as ethanol.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

energy = energy

I'm not inclined to believe that

this must be a need for liquid fuel

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Believe it or not, that how the process works and energy input versus energy output is determined to be either positive or negative for a fuel source. And certainly it's for liquid fuels. Liquid fuels' primary advantages are a high(er) energy density and ease of storage and use. You could burn the corn directly, which would certainly increase its efficiency relative to the energy necessary to produce it, but you'd better have a shovel and boiler... (FWIW, some members of our family use corn stoves to heat their homes.)

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Good comments. This might be the core problem with sustainablity. Actually we are now selling land to the Chinese. Do we have land that is available and not used for food crops that can be used to greatly sustain ourselves with fuel crops? There is an assessment of land uses problem, an incentive to grow fuel crops problem, and a problem of depleting resources, selling off lands problem in the USA.

I don't think anyone is looking at this suite of problems related to crop and land usage.

I also think that commodities futures of crops, food crops, and fuel crops can place the entire nation at rist of huge food crisis, flash inflated food prices ... when for example foods and fuel crops are sold outside the country based on international demands.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Don't know much about the land use issues, but commodity speculation is inflating food (and petroleum) prices.

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yes, some where saying the Arab Spring was in part due to rising food costs. They say that futures trading of food, corn & Wheat left people in Africa starving and revolving against their governments.

I guess City Planners try to layout future growth of their city, transportation hubs, transportation means, roads, subways, aboveways, trains & Buses. Seems like the Federal Government has BLM or Department of Interior that could work with Depart of Agriculture and CFTC not only to manage National Park lands, but to bring down corn prices and structure a market for Bio-Crops.

But maybe there is only a 50% chance it won't make things worse than they are now.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

U.S. government is part of the reason those prices are rising. ADM pursued ethanol zealously (which in D.C. means spreading cash liberally on both sides of the aisle) during the Clinton years. And, wa-la, they were rewarded with an ethanol subsidy, tax breaks and law requiring its use.

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

wow, Archer Daniels Midland. very smooth. And I bet they don't feel bad about people spending their whole pay check to pay food.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Highly explosive is a better description of free hydrogen. The separation process requires a great deal of energy and the equipment needs constant maintenance. This method has been used since the 1960s to liberate oxygen from water (hydrogen being an unwanted by product) aboard nuclear submarines.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

It is indeed corrosive and there is also a process known as hydrogen embrittlement...

No need! We got all ours from the DOE...

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I heard it is not as explosive as we might imagine. There has to be ways to describing explosive reativity so we all understand. Last week a guy was burning trash or something with gasoline which exploded in the gas can and he died in the hospital. Gasoline is very explosive, but how do we compare it with other things. I understand Kerosine or Charol starter are less reactive or explosive....

Hey, you know Military planes... some of them can run on Kerosene. Turns out that Jet engines can run on lots of fuel... performance will vary I guess. Some fuel is dirty, so will hurt the engine faster, but not sure about Jet Engines at all.

Maybe if Hydrogen is clean burning then that is the critical piece. Maybe My Hemp Oil and Vegitation Oil is very dirty and doesn't help anyone at all....

So, do you think autos can run on less technology and maintence than the Nuc Sub? I mean how do we make sense of this in context? I probably did hear something about Hydrogen Technology costing a lot for autos ... but don't know about the economies of scale.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Relatively speaking, hydrogen makes a big boom. (That's a technical description.) It's explosive and I've seen the results for myself. It's far more combustable than gasoline because it's gaseous at room temperature. FWIW, jet engines run on highly refined kerosine (Jet A and Jet A1).

The energy required to break the molecular bond is very high, and is a net negative in terms of the energy released when the hydrogen combusts (with current technology). But, there is little to no pollution when it combusts (depending on how the hydrogen was extracted).

Certainly an auto is less complex than a nuclear sub, but we are discussing fuel and its "refining" as well as the infrastructure required to store and distribute it... One of the great disadvantages of hydrogen is that it is gaseous at room temperature (whereas gasoline is liquid). The safest means to store hydrogen is to use a chemical compound that bonds weakly with it, but this presents volumetric efficiency and recovery problems. Thus at present, to use hydrogen in autos will mean that it must be stored in either compressed or liquid form, which will require either cryogenic vessels capable of maintaing temperatures below 20.268 K (−252.882 °C or −423.188 °F), or pressure vessels that can withstand 350 bar (5,000 psi) to 700 bar (10,000 psi).

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Thanks for catching me up a little there. Seems like storage is a poor design. Seems like a better design would convert water within the vehicle on demand or near on demand. Not sure how designs change to push gas rather than liquid through to an engine jet.

So, seems we would look to a short tract gas collection as we process water into hydrogen ... and create positive pressure to force gas into the engine. Do we have to process hydrogen in temperatures of 20 Kelvin (-252 celcius). I suppose that means keeping a supply of material colder than Dry Ice in the Automoble?

I'm thinking that the solution must be found in working with hydrogen gas in gas form, but not compressing it. But I don't have the technical knowledge that you seem to understand.

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Relative to gasoline, hydrogen actually has less power per unit volume -- in liquid form about four times less and compressed about half... IIRC that is.

There has been some sort of "breakthrough" in storage using nanotechnology, but I am not up to speed on that development. As far as using an on-board hydrogen generator, altho I've heard this discussed, again it seems that technology is not yet to the point where this might be feasible at the scale we discuss (autos and planes).

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Ah, Great Opportunities here for Doctorate work in US Universities... Unless the work has already been done.... And I assume this is a new science, since I have never heard a single rumor about it.

Good Information. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

I despise dishonesty, especially when it harms or kills others, and it's justified by selfish gain ~ GREED!

Science denial is dishonest and the science that deniers deny is harming and killing innocent people world wide just to perpetuate the poisonous and ecologically harmful Fossil Fuel and Chemical Industries and their World Record profits! Which Taxpayers subsidize by default! Which gives them lots of extra dirty money to buy unscrupulous scientists and propagandists, LOTS OF DIRTY $$!

Pettifoggery is one of the oldest and most unscrupulous propaganda tactics, and despicably dishonest. On this topic there's lots of pettifogging science denial propaganda going on over the [exact effects] of Fossil Fuel and Chemical Pollution, LOTS OF PETTIFOGGING!

K.I.S.S.!!

Denier NIMBY selfishness aside, suppose these Fossil and Chemical Industries drop dump truck loads of dioxin laced coal sludge in your back yards, bedrooms and farms you get your food from, would that be OK?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

NO!
global warming is occurring because there are so many
more republiclans in hell, that hell is getting bigger & hotter
and they excrete methane from both ends

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Does this mean that we are all going to die?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Yes,This has always been true that we face extinction.In the past as it is now.At this time have a more public knowledge of Mans end issues.Greed is just accelerating one aspect of our demise.The others are still with us but have taken a back seat to the new ones.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Humanity has always been subject to disease.destroying large segments of the earths population.The earth itself has always been subject to varations in climate due to natural occurances.Thus again the ability to end human life.So no maybe humanity has not been in possesion of this ability.But nature has so therefore it is not nonsence .It is fact!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Granted we now posses the ability to destroy ourselves.I missed your point.Please excuse that. Now our greatest threat is ourselves We are creatures that have always been at natures mercy.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Bomp

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Exxon thought that if they threatened our climate change ad off the air, everyone would just forget about it. But 150 people just showed up on a frigid night in Washington DC at the "Congressional Exxon" station to prove them wrong - and we got it On Tape.

Watch the video.

Then let your friends know about it on Twitter, or on Facebook, or just send it via email. Spread the word - Exxon sure won't.

Thank you for all you do to make this movement real.

Sincerely,

John Sellers, The Other 98%

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Priceless. I've seen the psa. Not the mini march.

Thx.

All pols must be told "no more fossil fuel subsidies, and all states/colleges must divest from fossil fuel corps"

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26587) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Communications - Essential - Love the innovative communications that are being made.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Since what I posted in another thread applies here as well for those who like facts and figures with their science. It's long, but hey, it's science.

James Hansen recently admitted that the results of his own study prove that global warming has halted for now-You can find a report on that here: http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10915-james-hansen-nasa-admits-global-temperature-standstill-is-real

(Great article with many links to other scientific information as well)

Like that Arctic Sea Ice is almost back to normal ZenDog! Good news huh? http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

In other global warming news-

It appears that someone finally TOOK A SURVEY of scientists about their consensus-(rather than relying on statements made by the organizations they belong to without asking the scientists themselves)

Survey says? No consensus!

http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis 02-13-2013

Now in case you find it vile and disgusting to read anything from Forbes, here's a link to the actual survey itself.

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

For those of you who don't want to read the entire survey-here are the highlights.

"Framing the climate change debate and constructing expertise Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions."

"In our field of study, we note that there is a distinction between experts who express concern about the rapidly changing climate and those who deny that there is a problem related to climate change. The ensuing debate is often caricatured as a war between two sides – ‘you either believe in climate change or you don’t’ – especially in North America. We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. However, there is considerable disagreement as to cause, consequences, and lines of action (as outlined in Figure 2). On this basis, we find five different frames, each of them summarized in Table 3. Eight percent of respondents did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized. "

-----FINDINGS----- "The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."

"The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth. Their focus is on the past: ‘If you think about it, global warming is what brought us out of the Ice Age.’ Humans are too insignificant to have an impact on nature:"

"Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling: ‘The number of variables and their interrelationships are almost unlimited – if anyone thinks they have all the answers, they have failed to ask all of the questions.’ "

"Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable."

"The last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply with Kyoto’. Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life."

99.4% say that the climate is changing. No “climate change” deniers here. NONE. BUT

36% say climate change is not a normal cycle of nature and that humans are the central cause of it 24% say climate change is a natural, normal cycle of Earth. 17% say it’s both humans and nature, but the science isn’t settled and no one has all the answers 10% say it could be nature or it could be humans, but the cause is unknown *5% say it’s both nature and human, but only poses a moderate risk

Conclusion-There IS NO CONSENSUS among APEGA members that humans are the direct cause of global warming.

There is also no consensus among "broadcast meteorologists" . From a 2010 survey "conducted by the congressionally funded National Environmental Education Foundation and vetted by an advisory board of climate experts from groups such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, and Pew Center for Global Climate Change.”-

FINDINGS- Only 25% of those surveyed agreed with the IPCC that humans are the cause. NO CONSENSUS.

“Only one in four Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reports."

"The survey results contradict the oft-repeated assertion that a consensus of scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis."

"Joe D’Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project and first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel, is not surprised by the survey results."

“AMS has tried very hard to brainwash broadcast meteorologists by forcing them to attend conferences and teleconferences with one-sided presentations where global warming evangelism is preached,” D’Aleo said. “Broadcasters send me notifications they get from AMS telling them they must attend these conferences where only the alarmist point of view is preached. This survey shows that broadcast meteorologists are not swayed by these one-sided presentations."

Now in 2013- From an AMS survey taken "where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight" (So these are not News TV weathermen...these are scientific meteorologists)

http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/report/american-meteorological-society-member-survey-global-warming-preliminary-findings-february

"According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.This sharp contrast between the large majority of meteorologists who believe global warming is happening and the modest minority who are nevertheless very worried about it is consistent with other scientist surveys."

" This contrast exposes global warming alarmists who assert that 97% of the world’s scientists agree humans are causing a global warming crisis simply because these scientists believe global warming is occurring. However, as this and other scientist surveys show, believing that some warming is occurring is not the same as believing humans are causing a worrisome crisis."

"Other questions solidified the meteorologists’ skepticism about humans creating a global warming crisis. For example, among those meteorologists who believe global warming is happening, only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause. More importantly, only 38% of respondents who believe global warming is occurring say it will be very harmful during the next 100 years."

No consensus here that humans are the cause either.

The empirical evidence says there is no consensus, so why are people perpetuating the myth that there is one? Seems rather unscientific to declare something to be true when the evidence shows it is not.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"So fukin what - mean temp appears flat over five years. pfftt"

Just more proof that either you DON'T READ the articles you continue to post here, or you edit for propaganda purposes.

"The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, "

10 years, not five.


"look again next September and see how you feel then, you lying fuck"

The only time you want to talk about the Arctic Sea ice is in September. Why is that? Don't you care about the ice all year round?


"Sea Ice back to normal?"

I said ALMOST normal.

Arctic Sea Ice just showed the highest gain ever since we began to take records on it. "It's only the third time in that history when more than 10 million km² of new ice has formed."

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/most-ice-gain-ever-recorded/


That ice has been melting for thousands of years. That's what ice coming out of an ice age does as the planet it's on warms up.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/

"We know for sure that at least in the distant past, the Arctic was ice-free. Fossils from the age of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, indicate a temperate climate with ferns and other lush vegetation."

"Based on the paleoclimate record from ice and ocean cores, the last warm period in the Arctic peaked about 8,000 years ago, during the so-called Holocene Thermal Maximum. Some studies suggest that as recent as 5,500 years ago, the Arctic had less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time."

Humans didn't cause it to be WARM in the past, but it was. And yet the temperatures on this planet didn't continue to rise and rise and rise afterwards or there wouldn't be ICE there today at all.

I'm posting credible data from reputable scientists. If you believe that THEY sold their credibility and reputations, you take that up with them.

It's sad and disgusting that because you can't refute the science I present, you go from vulgar innuendos to insinuating that someone must be paying me to post it. Ad hominem responses prove you to be illogical, not me.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Until we descend into another ICE AGE, there will not be an overall trend in gaining ice. But at least all that ice returning to the Arctic will give you something happy to think about while we slowly freeze to death!

The only one flinging shit here is you, because it's all you have left.

[-] -1 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

You're not having much luck trying to propagandize your way through this debate with vaprosvyeh. You're having to resort to Girlfriday tactics cause you're losing big time.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

Excuses? Maybe you should understand that you're trying to defend the indefensible and admit it's just a hoax and get on with your life.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Do you have any DATA that didn't come from a front group, or an astroturf site?

Just sayin'.

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You seem to be under the impression that the following organizations are front groups or astroturf sites:

The National Snow and Ice Data Center

NOAA

NASA

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Earth Observation Research Center

Sage Journals

Just sayin

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

DATA without interpretation is meaningless.

Just sayin'.

Evaporation as a result of increased open seas, could easily create an increase in surface ice in the winter, that will disappear and then some over the summer.

The ice itself has been found, at least in some areas, to be at record thinness.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

Oh, experts in the petroleum industry think climate change is No Big Deal? That's very reassuring.

From the study: "To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries."

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Yeah, that link, http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full , pissed me off. I had to get all the way to that point in order to glean the biases of the site.

I have to say though, the one who posted it is a trooper for her cause, too bad it is a cause of stagnation and complacency.

It seems her whole tactic is to put enough holes in the argument to keep those who produced that site well paid and subsidized.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Spam!!

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/PlumeStudies/global-vents/index.html

Scientists "estimate" that there are more than one million submarine volcanoes.

The above link is to "hydrothermal vents" currently active and known by NOAA.

Heat and CO2 are pouring into our oceans every single day from thousands, if not tens of thousands, of submarine volcanoes. And the oceans are the biological pumps of our atmosphere and the carbon cycle.

But no, no, it's humans that are acidifying the oceans, causing them to warm up and melt sea ice, and contributing to the increasing CO2 levels. All this underwater heat and acid and CO2 has NOTHING to do with it.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/PlumeStudies/global-vents/images/global-vents-map.png

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Submarine volcanoes are not capable of spewing particulate matter into the atmosphere to deflect the sun's energy.

But like NASA admits, the temperature of the planet hasn't increased in ten years despite the CO2 increases.....you might be onto something.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

From WHEN? Since "records" were taken. Most claims like this stem from an inaccurate number for 1880 arrived at without scientific method in the 1980's.

Here's a new study for you to consider (and most likely ignore)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

Highlights

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

One of my favorite charts- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

Showing that SEA SURFACE temps rise BEFORE atmospheric CO2 levels do. It's almost....like....the oceans are driving the CO2. AMAZING

One more-plotting HADCRUT data proves that CO2 is not a thermastat

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017c36aa2f17970b-pi

The FACT you can find anywhere...while human emissions have continued to CLIMB for the past 15 years-the temperature has NOT.

Those who subscribe to the theory that CO2 drives temperatures, and that humans are responsible for ALL or a majority of the increase in CO2 for the past 100 years-are WRONG.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You responded with a blog post written by someone who is not a scientist at all.

And made a list of 12 years instead of 15, that does not include the temps for 1997 or 2012 (the beginning and the end of the past 15 years).

Why?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I know where it came from. I read the link. But you must have been "batshit" not to click on the "about" part.

"True Cost is a blog on American policy, economics, and social issues, as examined through the concept of “true cost”....

"True Cost is written by Praveen Ghanta. I grew up in Louisiana (which explains the occasional La.-related post), studied economics and computer science at MIT in Boston, worked in New York for a while, and now call Atlanta home. Along the way I’ve been both an independent consultant and employee at major companies, and have started a few companies as well. My latest is HiddenLevers.com, which provides macro risk analysis for investors, helping to answer questions like, “What happens to my portfolio if oil spikes back to $150, if health care reform passes, or if China is in a bubble and pops?”"

I noted that the data from 2012 wasn't ready then-which is why I find it ODD for you to select it when trying to argue in favor of rising temps for the past 15 years. But then again, I found it odd that you used a blog post not written by a scientist too.

Did you check Praveen's math/sources/computations or did you just assume it was correct?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

If temperatures are climbing, then 2012 should come in at #1-given that when something climbs, it gets higher and higher. You know, like the CO2 ppm have continued to do.

OOOOH but I like the graph in the middle of the page you linked to! It shows very clearly that temperatures have been LOWER since 1997. You know, the past 15 years. Thanks for proving my point for me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/globe-experiences-10th-warmest-year-on-record-in-2012/2013/01/15/47ac0002-5f3a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

So you DO know that there is natural variability! Good boy.

The above mentioned graph SHOWS that the last warm spike was caused by El Nino. Funny, it appears that the La Nina effect is still in play even though Hansen predicted in the 1980's that we'd have overridden all of the natural forgings with our CO2 by now.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Yep, spell check didn't catch it. :)

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I got flowers coming up and some are about to bloom and it's only mid February.

Volcanoes are a red herring anyway.

Quite a stretch, because they have been doing their thing whether WE discovered them or not.

The weight of all that ice coming off the crust could very well result in increased tectonic activity of all sorts.

Most of the vents he's trying to equate to volcanoes are in places where the crust is thin.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I've felt and heard weak ones here in Mich, but nothing that strong.

[-] -2 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

Oh, that's a really big-sounding number you pulled out there.

So, those volcanoes, they all came in the last two hundred years or so?

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Ask NOAA. Since less than 7% of the ocean floors have been explored to date, there is no evidence as to when they all came, how often they erupt, or how much they affect the oceans or the atmosphere.

But I'm sure even if there was proof beyond your wildest imagination that even a thousand of them were spewing volcanic matter into the oceans all day every day, you'd still be blaming humanity. So nothing changes right?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

thinking we can go on business as usual is just as bad as thinking it's a myth.

this summer bipartisan support will approve the keystone xl pipeline.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

"It’s all a part of this very rapid descent into a frightening form of corporate totalitarianism. And that is just writ large across the landscape. And as we go down—and they know we’re going down. Look, I mean, you know, they—these forces are cannibalistic. Forty percent of the summer Arctic sea ice melts, and here we’re literally watching the death throes of the planet, and these corporations, like Shell, look at it as a business opportunity. They know only one word, and that’s "more." They have commodified everything. Human beings are commodities, disposable commodities. The ecosystem is a disposable commodity. And they will—now with no impediments, they will push and push and push. It makes Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, which I’m just re-reading, the most prescient study of the American character, because we’re all on the Pequod, and Ahab’s running the ship. And as Ahab said, "My means and my methods are sane, and my object is mad." And they’re not going to stop themselves. The formal mechanisms of power are not going to stop them. It’s up to us." - Chris Hedges

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I'll be at a rally against the Keystone Xl pipeline tomorrow. Not in DC, but there is one here where I live.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Cool Trev, let us know how it went. I'm leaving for DC in a couple of hours

~Odin~

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Please explain how Co2 levels rose and fall without mans assistance over hundreds of thousands of years as described in your last graph titled "This graph correctly illustrates the relationship between CO2, temperature, and sea level"?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

In other words, just look at part of the truth and not the whole truth. Here's another look even further back in time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"Natural sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide include volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, wildfires and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms;"

From your link. Volcanic outgassing is the #1 natural source of atmospheric carbon.

Scientists have only recently started to discover that the OCEAN FLOOR is covered with active volcanoes and geothermal vents. Why the hell isn't the scientific community doing a forehead smack and going "DUH....the ocean sits on a hotplate that is literally spewing CO2 and heat into it all day every day"????

How blind/stupid does one have to be to see a pot sitting on a stove start to heat up and think that it's the AIR ABOVE THE POT that is causing it? And then spend 20+ years trying to get people to believe it?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Oh, right. There's that magical pre-industrial number that was declared as official even BEFORE any scientific research had been done at ALL. Along with the insistence that CO2 levels had never been higher than that for millions of years, even though no one knew if they had been or not.

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen5/JawoCO2-Eng.html

But hey, it makes much more sense to say that all those natural sources that caused huge fluctuations in CO2 levels in the past somehow mysteriously shut themselves off prior to the Industrial Age and will never return again. Yep. THAT's how science works.

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Please show me detailed evidence that explains where the "average" CO2 levels of the 1880 period or around 280 ppm comes from. Not charts with those numbers on it. WHERE the number 280 ppm in 1880 comes from.

I'll wait.

[-] 2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

That's when "recorded history" began.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Yes, but you don't want to talk about those rocks because they prove that it's been a hellofva lot hotter than it is today. They also prove that catastrophic events happened on this planet repeatedly long before humans arrived to "ruin everything".

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

And yet almost all of Hansen's early extrapolations have turned out to be spectacularly wrong. And even his later ones are starting to look highly unlikely. Damn that nature huh?

And yet something....somehow....stopped that runaway global warming back then and put us in a freezer for hundreds of thousands of years. I'll bet that even if scientists had existed back then, they'd have seen that one coming.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That may be, but I've just provided you with a large body of evidence.

Most going back considerably farther,

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Why are you giving me evidence that the CO2 rates haven't been this high in 650,0000 years? I'm not saying that they haven't been.

Unfortunately for your theory, the large body of evidence on global temperatures shows that it has been much warmer than today in just the past 10,000 years.

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

So....if it wasn't CO2 driving temps in the past, what was it?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The truth of it is, I have flowers about to bloom here in South east Michigan.

Unprecedented, but I'm sure you have an excuse, for why 200years of dumping shit in the atmosphere couldn't possibly have enough to do with it, to stop dumping all that shit into the atmosphere...

Now!! On with your usual bullshit.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"Unprecedented" according to who? You? Your grandmother? Your neighbors? What time frame does your evidence regarding the earliest blooming of flowers in South east Michigan cover? 10 years? 100? 1000? Surely you don't want me to act like some blind sheep and just accept your word for this unprecedented occurrence. Surely you have evidence to support your claim.

So your "excuse" is that 200 hundred years of dumping shit into the atmosphere...is all the proof you need to correctly determine that nothing else, no other natural source or combination of sources, could possibly be responsible.

Nowhere have I said it couldn't possibly have enough to do with it. I'm saying there is not enough evidence to PROVE that HAS. And you're essentially arguing that the oceans "couldn't possibly have enough to do with it" today, when it's OBVIOUS that they were 1 of, if not the largest, contributors of CO2 to our environment IN THE HISTORY of this planet.

You can blame humans for the past 200 years all you like. But you can't blame them for what happened prior to 200 years ago and you refuse to even entertain the idea that those same forces in play PRIOR to the industrial revolution might STILL be in play AND changing on their very own.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Yep, you found the global cooling guy.

Now you've manged to be all over the map.

So then, your plan is to sue the volcanoes for their share of the role in global warming?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You're the one ignoring everything that doesn't fit your argument.

You're the one pegging the rise in CO2 to the rise in temperatures...EXCEPT when the temperature fails to rise...then it's not really evidence.

Apparently your plan is to sue humanity for something that might not actually be playing a role in at all. You don't seem to be the slightest bit interested in finding out exactly what is going on and addressing what is really happening with the best scientific solutions we can find. Why is that? If you're all about what's best for the planet and humanity-why so cavalier about getting all the facts?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Look at all that global warming that we don't have even though the CO2 emissions by humans has "exploded".

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017d4065d134970c-pi

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

So why are you wasting time talking to us when you could be talking to scientists?

Oh, because you're full of shit, I forgot.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Thanks for indicating that you won't be adding any logic, reason, or credibility to the discussion.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Of course. Only look at the part that makes me look correct. Don't look at all the other stuff that makes me wrong.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

For those who are cognitively challenged, there is a phrase used in science that says "Correlation does not imply causation".

The oceans, the atmosphere, and the land are all part of a complicated system that acts and reacts in ways that affect once another, but scientists will agree and freely tell you that they don't completely understand that system yet.

Human beings are not the sole source of CO2 in our atmosphere, nor are they the primary source of CO2 in our atmosphere. CO2 levels on this planet have been much lower than they are now, and they have been much higher than they are now before human beings were even present on this planet. Natural variability is a scientific fact.

Even the cognitively challenged can look at the third chart which shows the correlation between Sea Levels, CO2, and Temperatures and SEE that while CO2 levels have shot skyward completely out of range, supposedly from the "mean" level...which isn't indicated by the chart by the way...OUR CURRENT TEMPERATURE and OCEAN LEVELS are almost exactly ON their "means" which is indicated by the number 0.

If CO2 was primary driver of our temperatures and our ocean levels, both of them would have risen sharply with the CO2 levels. They have not.

If one were to superimpose all three measurements on top of one another, even the cognitively challenged would observe that the CO2 level LAGS SLIGHTLY BEHIND both the Sea Levels and the Temperature-indicating that CO2 cannot possibly be CAUSING them to change. It rises AFTER they change.

Now, tell me why, any scientist with access to the data we have now, would cling to their prior assumptions/theory/stance in full DENIAL of what the FACTS now demonstrate? I can only think of two-pride or money.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Read slowly.

Yes, temperatures have risen. Yes, CO2 has risen. Yes ocean temperatures have risen. I'm not denying that. The oceans, the land, and the air on a planet coming out of an ice age GETS WARMER! The ice on it melts, the oceans on it warm up AND releases freaking huge amounts of CO2, and the air gets warmer. YAY! We agree!

But lets see....that 68,000 year old ice record from the Antarctic only EXISTS because water somewhere was melting or expanding, due to the heat of the sun, and then evaporating into the atmosphere, where the wind blew it around, it eventually became condensed, fell to earth, and froze. Over and over and over and over.

The data trapped in that that ice proves that sometimes the CO2 levels, and ocean levels, and temperatures had all been phenomenally higher, and lower than they are now BEFORE humans could possibly have affected any of it! Those ice cores ALSO PROVED that CO2 increases in temperatures always follow AFTER temperature increases. Never, not once, in ANY sample, has a rise in CO2 appeared first.

Human contributions to the current ppm of atmospheric carbon are so minimal...and the pro-portion of the atmosphere that contains all of the CO2 is so minimal it involves huge leaps of conjecture-not scientific proof-to claim that it is driving our climate. And in the face of all the new evidence that proves that theory wrong, the longer the IPCC clings to it, the more stupid they look.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"Conclusively associated with" is not scientific speak for "conclusively proven to be caused by".

You are conclusively associated with OWS, but that by no standard means that you created OWS, or that OWS created you. Correlation is not causation.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Where have I ever denied the impact of humanity? I'm asking you to PROVE how much impact humanity has had....which would be a stupid request if I believed it had NONE. I'm asking you to understand that the earth and the water and the air ALSO impact this planet. Do you?

Let's see, you call me names, display numerous examples of faulty logic, make wild assumptions about me instead of refuting the data I post, and then describe how much you'd enjoy choking me to death. Clearly you aren't a logical or rational individual.

Bravo.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You are determined. And blind apparently-

From the article YOU referred to-

"Another process, called "the biological pump," transfers CO2 from the ocean’s surface to its depths. Warm waters at the surface can hold much less CO2 than can cold waters in the deep. "This is the ‘soda bottle on a warm day’ effect," says Agassiz professor of biological oceanography James McCarthy, "and is not unique to carbon dioxide; it applies to all gases dissolved in water. There is a higher capacity to hold a gas with a lower temperature than with a higher temperature." This means that when deep ocean waters rise to the surface as part of normal ocean-circulation patterns, the water heats up and actually releases CO2. "

And this; "However, during warmer intervals, ocean surface and air temperatures behave more independently of each other and atmospheric CO2. The authors suggest that over the course of the next century, air and sea surface temperatures are likely to change in ways that will be difficult to predict."

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceansandclimate.htm

"Almost exactly half of the carbon dioxide put into the air by our burning of fossil fuels is absorbed by the ocean. Carbon dioxide dissolves in cold water near the Arctic and Antarctic. When the cold water sinks deep into the ocean in winter, it carries the carbon dioxide away from the atmosphere. Many years later, the water is gradually pulled closer to the sea surface by mixing in the ocean. When it gets to the surface in warm areas it releases the carbon dioxide back to the air. This process allows the ocean to store great quantities of carbon dioxide for many centuries. We call this the physical pump that takes carbon dioxide out of the air."

So, as the ocean warms up, it releases CO2.

And yes, CO2 lags temperatures. Even the people at skeptical science will tell you that.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Now, wouldn't it be amazing if we found out that there's something simmering under the ocean....something that releases CO2 into the water, which then rises because it's warmer,(or because of the ocean conveyor system, to the surface of the ocean, where it releases that "new" CO2? (Or even OLD Co2 because it's cooking all that degraded carbon on the ocean floors? And acidifies ocean water?

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=1541

What if this guy is really onto something- http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

The biological pump-"according to Harvard Magazine", which YOU linked to-is the ocean releasing C02. You can't even see your own damn links, let alone read them.

And you clearly only see what you want to see. You are the fool and the liar.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

2 points by ZenDog (13921) from South Burlington, VT 1 day ago the oceans on it warm up AND releases freaking huge amounts of CO2 You read slowly, y.o.u. .f.u.k.i.n. .n.i.m.r.o.d. The ocean does not release CO2, it absorbs it - unfortunately according to Harvard Magazine, this process takes place far too slowly to be of much use in controlling the CO2 we are releasing in ever increasing amounts. "


In your post the words "according to Harvard Magazine" are purple and linked to that article. Third paragraph of that article holds the quote about the biological pump I referenced.

And whatever Linzen has to say about it, NOAA and it's partners seems to agree with him, and my data:

"NOAA, partners: Earth’s oceans and ecosystems still absorbing about half the greenhouse gases emitted by people"

August 1, 2012

"Earth’s oceans, forests and other ecosystems continue to soak up about half the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, even as those emissions have increased, according to a study by University of Colorado and NOAA scientists published today in the journal Nature."

"The scientists analyzed 50 years of global carbon dioxide (CO2) measurements and found that the processes by which the planet’s oceans and ecosystems absorb the greenhouse gas are not yet at capacity."

“Globally, these carbon dioxide ‘sinks’ have roughly kept pace with emissions from human activities, continuing to draw about half of the emitted CO2 back out of the atmosphere. However, we do not expect this to continue indefinitely,” said NOAA’s Pieter Tans, a climate researcher with NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., and co-author of the study. The University of Colorado’s Ashley Ballantyne is lead author."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120801_esrlcarbonstudy.html


I'll tell you the same thing I told shooz.below earlier-

"I am not denying that the globe is warming. It is.

BUT, over the past decade, the vast majority of climate scientists AND the actual published studies, have agreed that the climate is NOT as sensitive as early IPCC reports claimed it was, and that the LOW END predictions of a rise in temperatures of 2.0C from a doubling of CO2 from it's current rate-from 382 ppm to 762- is the most accurate and most likely.

(ZenDog stated earlier that humans are responsible for " 2 plus ppm co2 defecated into the atmosphere annually. " If he's correct, then it would take 191 years (plus or minus) to double the CO2 from 382ppm to 762ppm, and scientific evidence is mounting that doing so would result in a temperature increase of 2.0C or less)

The overwhelming number of climate scientists now agree, and have for some time agreed, that the catastrophic rise in temperatures that climate models predicted based on huge increases in CO2 early on, is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

(two links that compare multiple recent studies)

http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/19/climate-sensitivity-in-the-ar5-sod/

http://webcitation.org/6DNLRIeJH

Now, you can save your breath if you're going to attempt to do something weaselly and dishonest like accusing me of thinking/implying that this means we can trash our planet and just ignore our environment and do what we want do because we aren't killing it as fast as we'd thought we were. I don't think that nor am seeking to imply such a thing. I'm merely stating facts and sharing the results that come from climate scientists themselves."

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

1 points by ZenDog (13925) from South Burlington, VT 2 hours ago

yes, I was incorrect. Your bio-pump is mentioned in the article.

The article also states: once dissolved in the ocean, a carbon atom will stay there, on average, more than 500 years, estimates Michael McElroy, Butler professor of environmental science. There is nothing in that article that either states or would lead one to conclude:

the oceans on it warm up AND releases freaking huge amounts of CO2"

My hell. Let me just post the entire damn paragraph-

"Another process, called "the biological pump," transfers CO2 from the ocean’s surface to its depths. Warm waters at the surface can hold much less CO2 than can cold waters in the deep. "This is the ‘soda bottle on a warm day’ effect," says Agassiz professor of biological oceanography James McCarthy, "and is not unique to carbon dioxide; it applies to all gases dissolved in water. There is a higher capacity to hold a gas with a lower temperature than with a higher temperature." This means that when deep ocean waters rise to the surface as part of normal ocean-circulation patterns, the water heats up and actually releases CO2. "

Can you read that entire thing or do you need help?

The Ocean absorbs 50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. It sequesters it for a period of time, circulates it, and then when those carbon atoms circulate to the upper layers of the ocean, they warm up and are released again!!! For someone who pretends to understand science and climate, you sure aren't very well versed in the largest part of this planet-it's oceans.


"Wrong - the answer is that less than five percent of climatologists believe the IPCC report of 2007 was an overstatement of the dire calamity that awaits. It is becoming increasingly clear that the IPCC 2007 report woefully understated the magnitude of every facet of this issue. "

Show me stats on that 5%. And I don't know what you're reading, but the vast number of recent studies indicate that the IPCC's high end projections are NOT going to happen, and neither are their mid range projections.

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/climate_sensitivity_limited_extreme_projections_186483.html

25.11.2011

A new study suggests that the rate of global warming from doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be less than the most dire estimates of some previous studies – and, in fact, may be less severe than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/climate-sensitivity-revis_b_2451691.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/11/08/a-new-lower-estimate-of-climate-sensitivity/

You can show me photos of all the "co2 generators" you want to hon. What you need to do is ask a climate scientist to explain to you why the amount of CO2 they 'predicted' would come from those generators didn't, and what they now know is happening to it. And if you continue to bury your head in the sand instead of reading and understanding the newest scientific studies and information, then YOU are a flat earther.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Yes, you got me. I'm part of a sophisticated machine engaged in creating doubt amongst the general public. NASA hired me to spread the word about the uncertainties of climate science as revealed by their, according to you, NON credible Scientists:

NASA-Under “Uncertainties”

http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties

Abrupt climate changes- “State changes have triggers, or "tipping points," that are related to feedback processes. In what's probably the single largest uncertainty in climate science, scientists don't have much confidence that they know what those triggers are.”

Solar Irradiance, Variation- “because there are no direct observations of solar output prior to the 1970s, climate scientists do not have much confidence that they understand longer-term solar changes.”

Aerosols- “So aerosol forcing is another substantial uncertainty in predictions of future climate.”

Cloud Feedbacks- “Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well, so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently rated clouds among its highest research priorities.”

Carbon Cycle- “It isn't well understood where this carbon dioxide goes, with some evidence that the oceans are the major repository and other evidence that land biota absorbs the majority. There is also some evidence that the ability of the Earth system to continue absorbing it may decline as the world warms, leading to faster accumulation in the atmosphere. But this possibility isn't well understood either. The planned Orbiting Carbon Observatory mission will mark NASA's first attempt to answer some of these questions via space observations.” (The OCO mission failed when the Satellite failed to launch)

Ocean Circulation- “Global ocean data sets only extend back to the early 1990s, so there are large uncertainties in predictions of future ocean changes.”

Precipitation- “Scientists and policymakers would like to use climate models to assess regional changes, but the models currently show wide variation in their results. For just one example, some models forecast less precipitation in the American southwest, where JPL is, while others foresee more precipitation. This lack of agreement on even the direction of change makes planning very difficult. There's much research to be done on this question.”

Sea Level – “The [2007 IPCC] panel concluded that it could not "provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise" over the next century due to their lack of knowledge about Earth's ice.”

(Now it might just be me, but you'd think if NASA had all those remarkably precise instruments, they'd be able to get rid of some of these uncertainties and update their own site so people would feel more urgency!)

I also work with non-credible scientists who publish in The National Geographic-

"The National Geographic- Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide" http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html

And in Science Daily-

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091124140957.htm

“Scientists believe that the oceans currently absorb 30-50% of the CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuel. If they did not soak up any CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would be much higher than the current level of 355 parts per million by volume (ppmv) - probably around 500-600 ppmv.”

And at the US Department of Energy- http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/ocean/index.html

"CO2 is soluble in ocean water, and through natural processes the oceans both absorb and emit huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. In fact, the amount of carbon stored in the ocean dwarfs the carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems."

We are everywhere!!!

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I ask you, again, what do you know about underwater (marine) volcanoes and volcanic action UNDER the ocean?

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/1129-undersea-volcanoes-explosive-eruptions.html

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Yep. It's getting warmer. Which makes ice melt. And Co2 is increasing.

I agree with all three points. I have since we started. Why do you keep posting data on something I already agreed with?

You really should read the actual articles instead of just googling for titles that meet your agenda.

From your link above- "here's one from New study suggests oceans are losing the ability to absorb carbon dioxide ~ 11 Jul 2011"

"Plants, trees and the soil all absorb carbon from the atmosphere, but the ocean is the world's largest 'carbon sink' and since the industrial revolution, the ocean has probably soaked up between a third and half of all man-made CO2 emissions."

Half. Did you see that?

And-

"However, researchers now suggest that the ocean's ability to absorb atmospheric CO2 might be declining."

Suggest-might be. I could "suggest" that you "might be" a serial killer. Doesn't make you one.

Saying that using old articles makes me full of shit means that you quoting articles from 2004 makes you full of shit. See how logic works?

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Trying to reason with the anthropogenic climate change people is like trying to talk sense to a group of religious zealots. It's not about science, it's about an irrational faith mixed with fear propagated by a small group of controlling leaders.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I know. But I always learn something when I do it, because they keep throwing their version of the newest science at me, and I get to track it down, review it and either incorporate it into my beliefs or discard it. I do my best personal research and learning when I'm challenged.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

LOL.

Money?

How much do they pay you, or are you cognitively challenged?

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-2.1.html

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

hahahahaha and you send me to the IPCC?

For 22 years, the actual observations/actual readings/data taken on this planet have been substantially different from the "predictions" the IPCC has published based on their climate theories. 22 freaking years. See links below.

Everyone with a brain knows that when actual observations over a period of time contradict predictions based on a given theory, that theory is wrong!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/an-animated-analysis-of-the-ipcc-ar5-graph-shows-ipcc-analysis-methodology-and-computer-models-are-seriously-flawed/

http://www.thegwpf.org/ira-glickstein-ipcc-global-warming-predictions-seriously-flawed/

It is our oceans that drive our climate. People have suspected such for decades, and more and more recent research supports this. You and Zen, and the IPCC are like flat earthers that refuse to give up your long held beliefs no matter how much evidence comes forward that the earth is round. Very un-progressive.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Oh, OK.

Here's some more.

A big bunch, by people who study it for living.

http://www.realclimate.org/

See ya in a couple of months, after you've actually read it all.

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I've read many articles from that website before. Here's some highlights that support what I've been saying that I found in just the half hour or so since I read your post.

From REALCLIMATE.ORG-A big bunch of stuff from people who study climate for a living-

Talking about attribution of extreme weather events to global warming-Sept 2012

“It is clearly the case that for some extremes – tornadoes or ice storms come to mind – the modelling has not progressed to the point where direct connections between the conditions that give rise to the events and climate change have been made (let alone the direct calculation of such statistics within models).”

IE-modeling on such things cannot yet make ANY direct connection between climate change and severe weather events like tornadoes and ice storms. They can't even calculate the statistics.

From a recent study done on the Antarctic-July 2012

“That temperatures were warm at that time was not a huge surprise; surprising, was how much warmer things were – up to 11ºC (20ºF) warmer at the Antarctic coast! We expected to see polar amplification, i.e. greater changes towards the poles as the planet warms. This study found those coastal temperatures to be as warm as 7ºC or 45ºF during the summer months. This is a surprise because conventional wisdom has tended to think of Antarctica being getting progressively colder since ice sheets first appeared on Antarctica 34 million years ago (but see Ruddiman (2010) for a good discussion of some of the puzzles).”

IE-conventional scientific wisdom on Antarctica was wrong.

Correction printed in May of 2012-because the real scientist who wrote an earlier article - (My error was in assuming that the model output (which were in units W yr/m2) were scaled for the ocean area only, when in fact they were scaled for the entire global surface area (see fig. 2 in Hansen et al, 2005). Therefore, in converting to units of 1022 Joules for the absolute ocean heat content change, I had used a factor of 1.1 (0.7 x 5.1 x 365 x 3600 x 24 x 10-8), instead of the correct value of 1.61 (5.1 x 365 x 3600 x 24 x 10-8). This problem came to light while we were redoing this analysis for the CMIP5 models and from conversations with dana1981 at skepticalscience.com.)

“Looking at the last decade, it is clear that the observed rate of change of upper ocean heat content is a little slower than previously (and below linear extrapolations of the pre-2003 model output), and it remains unclear to what extent that is related to a reduction in net radiative forcing growth (due to the solar cycle, or perhaps larger than expected aerosol forcing growth), or internal variability, model errors, or data processing – arguments have been made for all four, singly and together.”

IE-oops...even climate scientists make assumptions they shouldn't. And the upper ocean warming is not only slowing down, it's below what the models extrapolated and we have no idea why it's slowing.

From May 2012-an article on plugging the leaks in climate models.

“We calculate that the ghost forcing in the IPCC models ranges from -1 to +6 watts per square meter, a forcing comparable to the size of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases – though since it is roughly constant in time it doesn’t impact the transient runs directly.”

IE-"To the size of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases" ??? Holy hell Batman! Non carbon dioxide greenhouse gases make up roughly 99% of the atmosphere !!! That’s a huge leakage. How much leakage? The article says it this way-

“The multi-model average is therefore biased by these few and has an average “leak” of the size of the discharge of the Mississippi river!”

One last thing from today's perusal of RealClimate.org is a wonderful dialogue that has been created online in which scientists with different viewpoints discuss the climate. Their first topic is the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice http://www.climatedialogue.org/melting-of-the-arctic-sea-ice/

It's fabulous!

There's a great chart here-http://www.realclimate.org/#ITEM-14089-1

Showing the global mean temperature since 1880 and the sea levels. It shows the temps and the sea levels rising AND falling up and down since 1880.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Let me address just one of your many, many fallacies. You said; " IE-"To the size of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases" ??? Holy hell Batman! Non carbon dioxide greenhouse gases make up roughly 99% of the atmosphere !!!." The atmosphere is 78.09% Nitrogen. Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas. Is the math here too complicated for you?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Egads Superman...you are right. My bad. Reading too much and not paying attention to detail.

Point being, the climate models leak...a lot...

But please address the other many, many fallacies I posted from RealClimate.org.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Here's a little more on "Global Warming Policy Institute".... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/21/lord-lawson-global-warming-errors?INTCMP=SRCH

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

The fallacies seem to be in your interpretation of what was said. All agreed that AGW was responsible for a significant percentage of the warming that has been observed. The fact that models are not perfect does not change the basic facts. That is the nature of models of complex systems.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

A little insight into your source;....... " In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of July 2010, came from membership contributions.[11] In response to the accounts, Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, commented that "We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."[11]

[edit]..............http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I attempted to only publish links to actual scientific studies/or reports on them. Disregard whatever makes you comfortable from the Global Warming Policy Foundation then. It certainly wasn't the source from which the vast majority of my links were found.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

I'm going to take a stab at this one and say, Betsy your arguments are getting better. This post and the one I read a few days ago really got me thinking.

I will buy that the professionals screwed up, but I won't buy the Idea that global warming is a conspiracy theory designed to socialize the planet. Anyone who believes that has been watching way too much TV and has a sorry view of his fellow man. Good post!

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Are you back already? That was a short few months.

OK, the models aren't perfect. Whoop.

Why do you think they call them models?

Hey, the Pentagon believes 'em, or at least their versions, and they buy them all.

Flaws in the model don't negate the reality of global warming.

It's like the man said. It's right outside your door.

It's affecting life all over the Planet.

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-climate-affects-flight-period-butterflies.html

[-] 2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Can you read or do you purposefully just ignore what I actually say.

I am not denying that the globe is warming. It is.

BUT, over the past decade, the vast majority of climate scientists AND the actual published studies, have agreed that the climate is NOT as sensitive as early IPCC reports claimed it was, and that the LOW END predictions of a rise in temperatures of 2.0C from a doubling of CO2 from it's current rate-from 382 ppm to 762- is the most accurate and most likely.

(ZenDog stated earlier that humans are responsible for " 2 plus ppm co2 defecated into the atmosphere annually. " If he's correct, then it would take 191 years (plus or minus) to double the CO2 from 382ppm to 762ppm, and scientific evidence is mounting that doing so would result in a temperature increase of 2.0C or less)

The overwhelming number of climate scientists now agree, and have for some time agreed, that the catastrophic rise in temperatures that climate models predicted based on huge increases in CO2 early on, is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

(two links that compare multiple recent studies)

http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/19/climate-sensitivity-in-the-ar5-sod/

http://webcitation.org/6DNLRIeJH

Now, you can save your breath if you're going to attempt to do something weaselly and dishonest like accusing me of thinking/implying that this means we can trash our planet and just ignore our environment and do what we want do because we aren't killing it as fast as we'd thought we were. I don't think that nor am seeking to imply such a thing. I'm merely stating facts and sharing the results that come from climate scientists themselves.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Then what are you implying?

You not too clear on that.

How about a comment on the FACT that the Pentagon has taken it very seriously.

You keep avoiding that.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I'm implying that there is enough doubt and "uncertainty" in the science that maybe smart, wise, planet and people concerned individuals want to make SURE we're solving the real problem-by investigating all of the other options that could be happening-rather than ignoring everything except man-made CO2. Because should it end up NOT being the biggest factor, we probably won't have time to shift our focus to what we discover it really is.

If you were trying to protect your family from an unpredictable gas coming at you, would you only look at ways to barricade the front door or would you also want to board up all the windows and plug the chimney and make sure it can't get in some other way?

I think the Pentagon is wise to take anything that would destabilize this country seriously and view it as a risk. They seem to be making changes to their operations that would bolster their success during such a destabilization.

Funny thing though, when the Pentagon takes a destabilized society seriously and prepares, you point at them as wise and accurate. When individuals do it...prepping...do you feel the same way or do you consider them to be "prepper nutjobs"?

How about a comment on that?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

One can't "judge" the Planet.

It's not a court case. It's our ecology.

I will here and now admit that it's a young and not fully formed amalgamation of science.

I don't think it truly has a name yet.

Macro-ecology.

That being said, I will point out that most of what you are saying sounds exactly like the kind of propaganda put out by BIG tobacco all those years ago.

Very much so.

In fact the same marketing firms formed the gist of it decades ago.

The Pentagon takes it serious, because it is.They'd much rather spend the money on fully autonomous aircraft and robots.

How'd you drag preppers into this and if you didn't think global warming was real?

Why would you be an eco-prepper?

I thought most of them were scared shitless of Democrats.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"How'd you drag preppers into this and if you didn't think global warming was real?"

THAT is exactly your problem and the problem you and I will continue to have unless you open your eyes and read what I say.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL. I have said, repeatedly that the earth is warming. Got it?

It's NOT a court case? Then how come a guilty party was assigned and judged to be guilty of a crime against the planet?

Until the scientific community PROVES what percent of the CO2 increases of the past 100 years are completely the result of HUMANS, by eliminating every other natural process that results in CO2 uptick, OR can prove that every other natural process mysteriously shut themselves off at the exact same time that the industrial revolution started, I'm going to let BOTH the prosecution and the defense continue to provide evidence. Because I think it's irrational to say "We don't know what is causing it" and "It's humanity's fault" at the same time!

It is a JOKE if you pick the person/thing/suspect you want to attribute a crime to and then spend all your time attempting to get others to believe your opinion and screaming obscenities about everyone who points that out. It's not science. It's not even close to science. It's AGENDA. And aren't the "rich" elite waiting to sell you carbon credits just as capable of laughing their asses off all the way to the bank as the rich elite oil companies are?

I don't know where you get your information about preppers, but any smart one would prepare for ANY contingency that might put their family at risk-be it war, or global climate catastrophe or just unemployment. BE PREPARED is a motto that has been around for longer than the AGW argument.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Article written by a journalist. Not a study. Doesn't provide any links or data to support his statements.

"May be", "could accelerate".

Run out of credible scientists, data, and studies?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

They also cannot say that if we go above it, everything will not be.

All those damn uncertainties.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Oh that's "right". I forgot.

You're the guy that can walk through all that shit and never get any on his boots.

Good for you.

Is that you think that man is far too puny to affect such a large system?

Are you that blind too?

Would you hold a court case on a leaking ship.

Just to ask for proof of exactly how much water is coming in?

Yours is still analogous to the tobacco corporations propagandized argument.

An then you end it with FLAKESnews style transference?

You have nothing more than the ability to stick more words up.

All the preppers I've met are Obama haters.

Every one of them.

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

So that's it? You're out of any kind of reason or logic or proof to offer up, so now you're back to scripted strawman crap.

Leaking ship-would my first response to seeing water on the floor inside the ship be to immediately start screaming that the boat was going to sink AND that the reason it was going to sink was because humans built a swimming pool on the ship and filled it with water? No. I'm fairly certain my first suspect be the ocean outside of the ship that's been there for millions of years before there were boats or passengers.

I'm not asking how much "water" is coming in. I'm asking where the water is coming from, and for the captain and crew to make sure that we're in danger of sinking before they go running amok waving their hands and scaring the passengers.

If you can't tell the difference between the two, then we're done here. If you can, but refuse to acknowledge the difference, you're just an ass. And we're still done here.

I've never asked any preppers what they think of the President. My bad. None of them seem scared shitless by anything either, even Democrats. Maybe it has something to do with having a plan for potential problems.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

this argument is the only thing that keeps nay sayers employed

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Such a wonderful propagandist.

You're good at it, I'll admit.

All these words because the model isn't perfect.

So don't change a thing.

Deny man could possibly have anything at all to do with it.

It's not a court case. It's the Planet.

Man does have a lot to do with it.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈgandə/ Noun

Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Your ability to discern propaganda from facts is poor. My goal is the data, and I post data. Any facts that don't fit your agenda get labeled as propaganda. It reveals you. You've posted nothing that can be backed up with facts or evidence.

All these words because the models are not perfect? Even if that was true, the models are at the mercy of the scientists programming them-which means the scientists don't have a clear picture.

Never have I said man couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Stop pretending your assumptions match my words. That's called propaganda.

I want to know how exactly how much man IS responsible. You see JUSTICE requires that I assign blame where blame is due and not just where it might be, or I want it to be.

But you don't want all the facts. You've decided. That isn't science. Nor is it just. Nor is it rational.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

All you've offer so far is propaganda.

I've hear it before.

You've not truly dealt with one thing I've asked for.

It's the tobacco corporation ploy all over again.......

That's all it is.

The CO2 is coming out of chimneys and vents and things all over the Planet, and YES man kind made every one of them......

Does the Planet produce it's own?

YEP. And therein lies the opportunity for unbridled propaganda.

Propaganda you are passing off as truth.

Then using transference to pretend it's REAL scientists that are producing it.

If they weren't scared shitless, they wouldn't be preppers.

You should try a little logic.

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

The one thing you asked for was a comment on the Pentagon. I gave one to you.

I've offered NOTHING for which I have not given study after study after study. If those studies are propaganda, then the scientific community is publishing propaganda. Take it up with them.

You might want to look into the chimneys and vents and things beneath the ocean pouring heat and carbon into the water that man kind had nothing to do with. Want me to start posting scientific studies on it? Photos from NASA? Happy to.

You use zero logic. One of the greatest known mechanisms for dealing with fear of the unknown is taking as many factors out of it as possible and establishing a plan for contingencies. No wonder you're scared shittless about global warming.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You "have been conclusively associated" with OWS, which began to grow substantially two years ago. That does not PROVE that you caused OWS or that OWS caused you! You're sinking deep in it now aren't you?

Correlation is not causation by ANY scientific standard. Which is why James Hansen has to so carefully word such statements.

[-] -1 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

Excellent post. I've been reading your ongoing back and forth with these propagandized fools and am very impressed with your knowledge and discourse. Keep it up.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Nothing amuses me more than sheep bleating about how everyone else are the sheep.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1956) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

I despise dishonesty, especially when it harms or kills others, and it's justified by selfish gain ~ GREED!

Science denial is dishonest and the science that deniers deny is harming and killing innocent people world wide just to perpetuate the poisonous and ecologically harmful Fossil Fuel and Chemical Industries and their World Record profits! Which Taxpayers subsidize by default! Which gives them lots of extra dirty money to buy unscrupulous scientists and propagandists, LOTS OF DIRTY $$!

Pettifoggery is one of the oldest and most unscrupulous propaganda tactics, and despicably dishonest. On this topic there's lots of pettifogging science denial propaganda going on over the [exact effects] of Fossil Fuel and Chemical Pollution, LOTS OF PETTIFOGGING!

K.I.S.S.!!

Denier NIMBY selfishness aside, suppose these Fossil and Chemical Industries drop dump truck loads of dioxin laced coal sludge in your back yards, bedrooms and farms you get your food from, would that be OK?