Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Global warming is normal

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 8, 2012, 2:43 p.m. EST by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Sea level has risen 400 feet in the last 20,000 years, all without the help of man. Sea level is currently rising about 1 foot per century.

The earth cycles through cooling and warming periods lasting 100,000 to 150,000 years. We are presently at the peak of a 20,000 year warming trend.

Even Co2 levels rise naturally with temperature, without a single smokestack or tailpipe.

Global warming is a natural event. The forces that cause this change are likely beyond our control.

219 Comments

219 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

There is alas, rather overwhelming international scientific agreement in the actuality of rising temperatures. Even if the US Govt. wishes not to accept or acknowledge the science of major US scientific institutions, such as The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute ( http://www.whoi.edu/ ) or The Scripps Institute of Oceanography ( http://sio.ucsd.edu/ ) etc., internationally the scientists have known for well over a decade that 'something' is afoot.

'Mother Nature' has locked away VAST amounts of Ancient Carbon in the form of peat, coal, oil and gas. We know that there is a Carbon Cycle just as there is a Water Cycle, but that the time scale of the Carbon Cycle (which includes Geological processes) is much, much longer than in the case of water (simplified here to : evaporation, condensation, precipitation & run off).

Therefore, how can we as a sentient species, consider that we can bypass the Carbon Cycle and extract huge amounts of carbon based fuels, burn them and almost instantly (in geological time) return this carbon to the atmosphere Without There Being Any Repercussions ?! What is our individual and collective intuition on this matter ?!! That Carbon Dioxide even tho' it is essential to life via photo-synthesis, is also a 'Greenhouse Gas' is undeniable. The Greenhouse Effect is well understood and without it life on this planet would not exist. We owe our previously relatively stable climate to this and the level of CO2 has been pretty stable at ~ 300ppm (0.03%) for a very, very long time (verifiable from ice and lake sediment cores). However, that proportion has risen in the last 40 years to ~390ppm (0.039%) which is a 30% increase in CO2 levels.

Further, both water vapour and methane are also greenhouse gases and the level of both will also rise with rising global temperatures. This is termed 'positive feedback'. A Human Influenced and possible 'run away' Greenhouse Effect is empirically, scientifically and mathematically possible, so the question is do we accept or 'believe' that it is happening ?

The atmosphere is but a film above us like cling-film on a water melon. It's easy to assume that we can have no effect on the vastness of the atmosphere but this is not true. As the atmosphere warms, the dynamic and apparently chaotic but actually relatively ordered 'Climate System', has 'more energy' and will operate at a higher energetic level. Thus, 'The Climate' will be seemingly more chaotic to our perception. We are already witnessing weather records being taken to new levels throughout the world and this matter is not really up for debate - unless there is a truly vast international conspiracy of scientists at all levels !

Globally, as a species we can feel and detect that 'something is changing', that something is different now to how things were but we may choose to behave like the proverbial 'frog in a pan on a stove' &/or as a 'rabbit caught in a bright light' !!

Sadly, I don't really think that we will stop either our behaviour or its results in the short or even medium terms. It's now a question of adaptation, however consider this : That "The International 'Darksider-Sith' Ruling Elites" [translation : 'Parasites' !] actually do NOT mind countless hundreds of millions of the rest of us perishing if it means more for them and Less Of Us !!!

The above is compounded by 'Militant Pro-Industrialism' as well as by Religious Nutters - who IF they do have belief in 'Biblical End Times' (ie some Jews, Christians and Muslims !!!) do not think human action can possibly affect The Earth's Climate as only 'God' could do that AND when compounded by the ignorant, those in denial and those who know but just don't give a shit ... well, we have quite a recipe for forthcoming perturbations, to say the least.

veritas vos liberabit ...

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Hmmm, countdown to December 21st.

I kissed my own arse goodbye some years ago, so every day above ground is a good day for me.

I live for the day when people realise that the five corporations who are trying to own the food chain have no chance of copying a blade of grass.

Screw them.

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

The coming solstice is apparently the end of one Mayan Time Cycle and the beginning of another. If you like it a little dramatic and portentous 'B', then maybe there's a 'quickening to a reckoning' afoot but your spirit will be going for a long time yet ;-) Awareness is happening as evidenced here (but don't blow a gasket, cobber, lol) :

"The Military Industrial Complex has solidified its ties and deeply inserted his long horns into the arteries of the American taxpayers." Be well in all your doings 'B' and onyer mate!

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago
[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Thanx for the great link which I thoroughly recommend to all interested readers.

Roll On Solstice 2012, 'cause it's gonna happen anyway, lol. :-) Further consider :

respice, adspice, prospice ...

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

shadz man we're at 390 already in CO2 look at his graph this shit he's throwing is old

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/global-carbon-dioxide-levels_n_2163612.html

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

Yep, CO2 levels are at least 390 ppm (0.039%) but the ramifications of 30% increase in CO2 levels are lost or invisible to people who are happy to just drift down the rapids of 'a river in Egypt without a paddle' [c.f. - 'denialists'].

verum ex absurdo ...

[+] -4 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Even if man didn't emit any green house gases, global warming and cooling would still occur and we would still have to adapt. Because we are adding additional green house gases, we will have to adapt at a faster rate. Exactly how much faster is unknown. It's wiser to prepare to adapt to change than to fight change that is inevitable.

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

You are completely missing the point of 'Anthropomorphic Climate Change' & "We owe our previously relatively stable climate to this and the level of CO2 has been pretty stable at ~ 300ppm (0.03%) for a very, very long time (verifiable from ice and lake sediment cores). However, that proportion has risen in the last 40 years to ~390ppm (0.039%) which is a 30% increase in CO2 levels."

ad iudicium ...

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

In the last 400,000 years Co2 has varied from 180 to 300 ppm. Co2 levels are actually a result of the earth's heating and cooling cycle, not the cause. The additional 30% of Co2 doesn't necessarily mean 30% more heat will be retained. Geo provided some research that suggested current Co2 levels are responsible for a 2% increase in reflected heat retention.

I definitely see man's contribution to greenhouse gases, but also the much greater contribution that nature is responsible for as it slowly heats and cools the planet over tens of thousands of years. In order to reduce man's contribution, we would need to completely abandon our present lust for material possessions. Not a very likely scenario. We consume 90 million barrels of oil every day. 1.4 trillion gallons a year. Do you honestly think we will could kick that habit in the next decade?

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

Your logic is skewed. 'Anthropomorphic Global Warming' is the issue. Therefore, from my comment above, please read and reflect upon the following and feel free to revert if further clarification is required :

  • Mother Nature' has locked away VAST amounts of Ancient Carbon in the form of peat, coal, oil and gas. We know that there is a Carbon Cycle just as there is a Water Cycle, but that the time scale of the Carbon Cycle (which includes Geological processes) is much, much longer than in the case of water (simplified here to : evaporation, condensation, precipitation & run off).

  • Therefore, how can we as a sentient species, consider that we can bypass the Carbon Cycle and extract huge amounts of carbon based fuels, burn them and almost instantly (in geological time) return this carbon to the atmosphere Without There Being Any Repercussions ?! What is our individual and collective intuition on this matter ?!! That Carbon Dioxide even tho' it is essential to life via photo-synthesis, is also a 'Greenhouse Gas' is undeniable. The Greenhouse Effect is well understood and without it life on this planet would not exist. We owe our previously relatively stable climate to this and the level of CO2 has been pretty stable at ~ 300ppm (0.03%) for a very, very long time (verifiable from ice and lake sediment cores). However, that proportion has risen in the last 40 years to ~390ppm (0.039%) which is a 30% increase in CO2 levels.

  • Further, both water vapour and methane are also greenhouse gases and the level of both will also rise with rising global temperatures. This is termed 'positive feedback'. A Human Influenced and possible 'run away' Greenhouse Effect is empirically, scientifically and mathematically possible, so the question is do we accept or 'believe' that it is happening ?

Re. your question, 10 years ? No, but 20/25 years (= a generation), Yes as oil, gas, coal and peat are clearly untenable in the long run. Finally, a link that is not without some consequence re. your position :

non semper erit aestas ...

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

Anthropogenic global warming can't be understood unless natural global warming is also considered. Sea levels rose 400 feet in the last 20,000 years. About 2 feet per century. Currently it's rising, even with man's added input of carbon, about one foot per century, or half of the average rate. Of the recent 1 foot per century rise in sea level, can scientists say for certain what fractions were a result of nature's and mans input?

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

What is your evidence for saying that ? You simply assert that with no corroboration but are you a scientist of any sort ? Anthropomorphic Global Warming is increasingly well understood actually and you are making little sense. I do find myself suspicious of your reasoning and possibly your motives as your rhetorical questions are specious at best and dissembling at worst. Again please do try to engage with :

ad iudicium ...

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

The second graph above shows data from the Vostok ice cores going back 420,000 years. Air is trapped in the layers of snow deposited over Antarctica each year and is dated like a tree by it's growth rings, giving an accurate measure of carbon dioxide levels.

There is some good information in the link below about how insolation levels (solar radiation) vary over time due to a variety of deviations in the earths path around the sun. Ancient ice core, sea level, and temperature records all confirm this fact. The idea that global warming is caused by man alone is a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Why are vast oil deposits found beneath dry deserts and ice covered earth? How did the plant life extract energy from the sunlight, and eventually turn into oil in such conditions? Obviously the conditions that permitted lush plant growth were different ages ago.

This in no way means I'm a climate change denier. Quite the opposite. What I do deny is that man is completely responsible for the current rise in global temperature. Non anthropogenic global warming is the far more powerful force.

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

Oil has much more to do with algae than anything else & plate techtonics & geology has a large part to play in your quandary re 'oil beneath deserts'. Human interference in the Carbon Cycle can NOT be underestimated in it's significance at the current and projected levels of extraction. Please see :

omnia causa fiunt ...

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

Yes, you are correct about petroleum being mainly the result of sea organisms. But plate tectonics isn't the only reason for oil in the arctic or desert regions. One hundred million years ago, sea levels were hundreds of feet higher, covering large parts of Saudi Arabia and Alaska as well as many other areas.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Global_Warming_002.html

The earth has undergone tremendous changes over millions of years and life has either adapted or perished. Whether the present rate of climate change is primarily a result of planetary eccentricities or being greatly accelerated by human activity, the former cannot be halted and the latter nearly as unlikely. Reducing man's contribution of Co2 cannot stop the continual and sporadic heating that has been occurring for the past 20,000 years.

I favor energy conservation, renewable energy, pollution controls, and many other actions that are in line with Co2 reduction, but I don't pretend for an instant that even if successful these will save the planet. Geologic history can't be ignored. Either we adapt or we perish.

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

Even tho' it is a tautology, I concur with your final paragraph & there is no doubt that the earth has undergone huge changes but my underlying point re. 'Anthropomorphic GW' bears repeating again :

Mother Nature' has locked away VAST amounts of Ancient Carbon in the form of peat, coal, oil and gas. We know that there is a Carbon Cycle just as there is a Water Cycle, but that the time scale of the Carbon Cycle (which includes Geological processes) is much, much longer than in the case of water (simplified here to : evaporation, condensation, precipitation & run off).

Therefore, how can we as a sentient species, consider that we can bypass the Carbon Cycle and extract huge amounts of carbon based fuels, burn them and almost instantly (in geological time) return this carbon to the atmosphere Without There Being Any Repercussions ?! What is our individual and collective intuition on this matter ?!! That Carbon Dioxide even tho' it is essential to life via photo-synthesis, is also a 'Greenhouse Gas' is undeniable. The Greenhouse Effect is well understood and without it life on this planet would not exist. We owe our previously relatively stable climate to this and the level of CO2 has been pretty stable at ~ 300ppm (0.03%) for a very, very long time (verifiable from ice and lake sediment cores). However, that proportion has risen in the last 40 years to ~390ppm (0.039%) which is a 30% increase in CO2 levels.

Further, both water vapour and methane are also greenhouse gases and the level of both will also rise with rising global temperatures. This is termed 'positive feedback'. A Human Influenced and possible 'run away' Greenhouse Effect is empirically, scientifically and mathematically possible, so the question is do we accept or 'believe' that it is happening ?

I apologise if I'm boring you, but the three paragraphs above bear repeating, as it is here that I believe any differences between us lay. Your forum-post is entitled "Global Warming Is Normal" which in & of itself does not factor in 'AGW' at best and chooses to obviate 'AGW' at worst. Sorry to be pedantic about semantics, but I feel that the point is important. Finally, I append :

radix omnium malorum est cupiditas ...

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (20537) 1 year ago

Your charts seem to conflict with this one, courtesy Shadz:

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

[-] -3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

No conflict at all. The earth is warming, glaciers will continue to melt, sea level will continue to rise, just as it has over the past 20,000 years.

A clear view of climate change can't be based on focusing on a relatively microscopic view of 30 years of statistics.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20537) 1 year ago

I recently read a very good book "A Short History of Progress" by Ronald Wright and in it he talks about climate change, major climate change, in the past that occurred in as little time as one decade that ended human societies both in prehistoric times and during the more recent history of civilization. The change that is coming is unpredictable. Why not at least alleviate it?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And here we are experiencing a quickly shifting climate - AGAIN - and those who have been placed in a position to represent us are either sitting on their hands - or are actually supporting the cause of the shift - fossil fuel poison/pollution/destruction.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20537) 1 year ago

I think we really have to consider the dark side of this, that those few in charge who control the resources and profit from it really don't care about the lives of the rest of us. It is greed at it's ultimate and it's pretty evil, actually. Perhaps it will take a much stronger push from those of us who are not profiting and who want to preserve humanity and not see the huge demographic changes that are possible.

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

We need to spread the good word and push like hell.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20537) 1 year ago

Exactly.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It is TIME and LONG PAST TIME for the public to stand-up and take the reigns of power and do the things that are necessary for people/society/environment - to make a healthy world for ALL. Get the Insane/Greedy/ILL into a medical care facility and see if they can not be cured of their insanity and brought into a good relationship with their fellow man - but definitely removed from any position of power/influence.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20537) 1 year ago

Yes. The time is now. Thanks, DKA, for all the work you do here for the environment.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thank you - for your tireless efforts at promoting fellowship and the advancement of a healthy and sane world for all.

People - Fundamental change for the better "FOR ALL" will come from the involvement and actions of The People "ALL of The People".

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Perhaps you have just identified your major malfunction - you are a negative individual.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Alleviate and have in place working alternatives for fuel and energy.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20537) 1 year ago

It's either that or possibly face massive extinction. Why on earth would we take that chance? Obviously we may not be able to prevent it but at least we could say we tried.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And - AND - Just 4 once - I would like to see humanity be proactive in dealing with issues. Not reacting - ACTING IN ADVANCE.

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

How should we alleviate the current level of climate change? We don't understand the forces that cause the rise and fall of global temperatures every 100,000 to150,000 years.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20537) 1 year ago

"Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources.

Renewable energy resources and significant opportunities for energy efficiency exist over wide geographical areas, in contrast to other energy sources, which are concentrated in a limited number of countries. Rapid deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency, and technological diversification of energy sources, would result in significant energy security and economic benefits.

Renewable energy replaces conventional fuels in four distinct areas: electricity generation, hot water/space heating, motor fuels, and rural (off-grid) energy services."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

An article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/03/four-reasons-avert-impacts-climate-change

David Suzuki on 10 things you can do: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I favor renewable energy, increased efficiency, and less consumption. Successfully doing all of this will not change the fact that the earth is subject to monumental forces beyond our control.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20537) 1 year ago

They are not all beyond our control. In fact, many are caused by us.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Actually we do understand them. The cycle is called the Milankovitch Cycle and is caused by orbital eccentricity. It is the only natural cycle tied to climate change.

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

Sea levels rose 400 feet in the last 20,000 years. About 2 feet per century. Currently it's rising, even with man's added input of carbon, about one foot per century, or half of the average rate. Of the recent 1 foot per century rise in sea level, can scientists say for certain what fractions were a result of nature's and mans input?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Sea level rise due to AGW is in the the ocean thermal expansion phase. This is a small amount, with GHG's being responsible for a few centimeters of rise....5 or 6 cm.

The fear is that when the Greenland Ice cap and other large glacial ice sources melt the rise in sea level won't be small but rise exponentially.

What makes things difficult for people to see is that we are at the very beginning of seeing the effects of AGW. The effects lag behind the processes which are gaining in power. If we wait until the observations become obvious to the guy on the street, there will be no hope of stopping a positive loop. Meanwhile there is enough evidence around us gathered by trained researchers to see that this a very important issue, and that the train is gathering speed.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And that we need to act - NOW

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

There is no expansion phase. We've had continual warming and expansion for the last 20,000 years.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Physics.... heat added to water causes the volume of water to increase, perceived as sea level rise. Thermal expansion.

Water added as a result of glacier melt far outpaces sea level rise due to thermal expansion. We are just beginning to enter the glacial melt phase. Reports on the Greenland Ice cap melt are increasing.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And as the new fresh cold melted ice water gets circulated and mixed ( causing its own series of weather events ) - once the new/added ice water is mixed in - then it will go on the thermal climb - and as a larger and larger volume of water goes through this process - the faster it will continue.

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

Are you saying the glaciers haven't been melting for the last 20,000 years due to increasing non AGW heat, and are just now beginning to due to AGW heat?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

They have melted before in the last 20k years... at first very rapidly. The change in the Atlantic Conveyor due to the rapid and large amount of melt water that resulted from this is well documented. That melting slowed considerably as the temperature stabilized. The warming trend became very gradual.

Today that is no longer true. The warming trend is very rapid once again which will lead to further large volumes of water to be added to the oceans.... fresh water, which again has grave consequences for the Atlantic Conveyor... the oceans heat engine.

Next to the sun... oceans have the highest impact on climate.

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

Do they expect a meltwater pulse similar to what occurred 15,000 years ago, a 10 foot rise in sea level per century?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

There are different scenarios. Much of it depends on whether the meltwater gets damned up or not as to how big and when a pulse comes. What the projections say is 300 ft rise by 2300.... given today's numbers if everything stays static... which we know doesn't happen.

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

That's one hundred times the current rate and ten times the pulse of 15,000 years ago. Who's predicting this?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

EDIT:

I made an error. Upon double checking my facts, the rise expected is 3m by 2300 provided we stop at a 3 deg rise in global average temperature... t

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Baez is citing papers from 20 and 30 years ago.

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

Do more recent studies add anything? Links?

[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Yes, here is one:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.4877.pdf

They have added quite a bit. Instead of Baez's assertions that 'maybe' Milkanovitch Cycles can induce climate change, it's long been established that they do and have.... from a 'snowball' earth condition to full reverse.

[-] 3 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

Do you have 'Scientific Credibilty'? Here's a Pie-Chart and article that may be useful - http://www.nationofchange.org/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-one-pie-chart-1354370613 - from which, 'Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.' Never Give Trying To Occupy Reality!

[-] -3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

How do you explain the sea level 20,000 years ago being 400 feet lower than it is today? Or ice a mile thick over north America? Please don't ignore the evidence that points to the natural heating and cooling cycle of the earth.

[-] 4 points by Ache4Change (3280) 1 year ago

Of course the climate, global temperatures and so the sea levels have changed. Your silly question is self explained by the last 'Ice Age' & I don't have to explain anything to you, it is all here on this thread.

We are NOT talking about 'the natural heating and cooling cycle' - now we are talking about Man Made Climate Change via Interference In The Carbon Cycle! Go to the top of this thread and reread shadz66's comment. It's all there for those with eyes to see. Never Give Up Trying To Understand. Occupy Reality!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Show that chart.

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

4000 feet is a typo, should be 400 feet.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 1 year ago

I believe I read somewhere or saw it on National Geo that South Fla was under water at one time and I believe it was around 20 miles or more inland. Wonder what caused that?

I do know that Whale skeleton was found in the Savahanna river around Plant Vogtle when they were digging out a channel for the Intake water supply. They had to stop the job for several weeks to remove those bones.

Wonder how a Whale could have gotten that far up the Savahanna river - expecially when in some areas it's only 3 or 4 feet deep.

Here's the link and they do mention Ga being under water at one time so I guess global warming was the cause back then but we didn't have the carbon monixide to cause it - wonder what did? http://savannahnow.com/stories/122602/LOCVogtleWhale.shtml

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

At one time? How about 58 and 37 million years ago. Did you read the article? It wasn't a whale like today's whales...it had legs.

Do you know about plate tectonics?

[-] -3 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 1 year ago

But if you read the first paragraph they did mention that GA was under water at one time. So, what does that tell you about "planet earth" - things change over time doesn't it.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

No one ever claimed the earth stayed static, that's the conservatives cliff notes version and sound bite. Anybody who has done any amount of geologic study knows well how the earth has been a dynamic place. The timescales involved are generally very large.

Georgia being under water has nothing to do with climate change but everything to do with plate tectonics.

AGW is about mankinds enhancing, speeding up of the forces leading to heating.

[-] 3 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

it is normal but we did accelerate it

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

Any evidence to back up your claim?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

to tell you the truth no i dont but believe me i am on your side it is a cycle system that always has happened.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

were not denying that its happening were arguing over the reasons.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Since 1991, there have been 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on human-caused global warming. Only 24 rejected it. That's 0.17% for those of you keeping score.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

ok and like i said im agreeing with you but not for the same reasons humans in this century did not cause it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

But are accelerating/intensifying it.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

in a way

[-] -3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I agree completely that global warming is occurring. But the evidence shows that it's normal and gradual.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Since 1991, there have been 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on human-caused global warming. Only 24 rejected it. That's 0.17% for those of you keeping score.

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Present the most compelling article that proves the link between human caused global warming.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

The IR radiative forcing contribution directly attributable to GHG's in the atmosphere has been measured. This is no longer speculation but a directly observable phenomena as of 2004. GHG's are creating an excess of radiative heat energy in the atmosphere of 3.52 W/m2 since pre-industrial times.

MEASUREMENTS OF THE RADIATIVE SURFACE FORCING OF CLIMATE W.F.J. Evans*, Northwest Research Associates, Bellevue, WA /
Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario and
E. Puckrin, Defense R&D Canada-Valcartier, Val-Belair, Quebec

Here is part of the introduction:

  1. INTRODUCTION "In order to investigate this global threat, an ongoing program of measurements of the downward atmospheric infrared radiation, otherwise known as the greenhouse radiation of the atmosphere, was undertaken at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario.

The measurements have been obtained using commercial Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers. These measurements have been used to quantify the radiative flux associated with a number of greenhouse gases. It is this radiative flux that provides an additional source of warming for the planet’s surface, and ultimately is responsible for any change in climate. We have provided the first direct measurements of the greenhouse effect for a number of trace gases in the atmosphere. These gases include trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO), nitric acid (HNO3), and tropospheric ozone (Evans and Puckrin, 1994-1997; Puckrin et al., 1996).

Not only do these results prove that an increase in the greenhouse effect is real, and that trace gases in the atmosphere are adding a significant radiative burden to the energy budget of the atmosphere, but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models (Ellingson et al., 1991). This last point is crucial since the temperature increases predicted by the various climate models can vary by several degrees; even a change of 0.7°C can have significant consequences on different parts of the globe."

Skipping now to the conclusions of the paper:

"4. CONCLUSIONS Measurements of the downward radiative flux have been made for several important greenhouse gases. At mid-latitudes in summer as compared to winter, our measurements show that the downward surface flux from H2O has doubled to 200 W/m2. The water increase causes a reduction of the fluxes from the other greenhouse gases. These measurements show that the greenhouse effect from trace gases in the atmosphere is real and adds significantly to the radiative burden of the atmosphere. The greenhouse radiation has increased by approximately 3.52 W/m2 since pre-industrial times. This compares favorably with a modeled prediction of 2.55 W/m2. Measurements such as these can provide a means by which to verify the predictions made by global warming models (Puckrin et al; 2004)."

For the full paper in pdf:

ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.pdf

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

According to this article, water vapor is the most important green house gas with Co2 a distant second. The overall difference in human caused atmospheric heating is 2.3% since before the industrial revolution. Is this correct?

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Water vapor is the most important GHG, but the quantity of water vapor in the air varies on an hourly rate, and on a daily rate +/- 50% or more. As temperatures rise it becomes far more important.

Since the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does not vary on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis it plays a larger role in heating. CO2 deals with a more important part of the spectrum, the IR window that is transparent to water vapor. This is why in practice trace amounts of CO2 provide more heating in the atmosphere than water vapor. CO2 actually modulates the amount of water vapor present in the lower atmosphere.

There is an overall imbalance in the radiation budget of earth. We have a net increase of 3.52 W/m2 that is not accounted for by 'natural cycles' nor any other mechanism, but has been observed, measured, and tied conclusively to GHG's.

Whether that net increase is 2.3% or not I don't know, I haven't had time to do the math so I'll take your word for it.

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The 2.3% figure comes from the article you linked to.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Forgive the oversight. I read the article over last year.

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

Have you ever read any articles that consider the added "thermal load" created by the burning of fossil fuels? I would think this added heat would be at least as significant as additional Co2 in their effect on global warming. Is there a term for it?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Yes. The term is 'anthropogenic heat'. The burning of fossil fuels concentrates more in urban areas where power generation and home heating take precedence creating the urban heat island effect.

It is not as significant as AGW, and is considered in the calculations.

[-] 2 points by occupycampbellco (34) from Newport, KY 1 year ago

This is the propaganda that gets posted here these days?

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

Scientific fact. See if you can disprove it.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

oh look CO2 is at 390 already, now where is that on your graph?

WOW 400,000 years and we've never been above 350 before? Holy Shit!! Thank -You!! We best get busy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/global-carbon-dioxide-levels_n_2163612.html

Looking at your graph those that say we are on-track to do 7 degrees by 2100 are way underestimating it. It looks like we are on our way to plus 7 or 8 degrees even if we didn't add any more CO2 at all.

Your sea level chart would indicate that we are on our way to a 400 foot rise in the next hundred years, but that can't be right, can it?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Do you happen to know the current co2 level? I see around 340 is the peak across your chart, do you have current data?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6973) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

oh look we're at 390 already, now where is that on your graph?

WOW 400,000 years and we've never been above 350 before? Holy Shit!! Thank -You!! We best get busy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/global-carbon-dioxide-levels_n_2163612.html

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

Chris Hedges on climate change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMhRv5QnWLk

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

You do know that Chris is a person I admire tremendously. But I don't base my opinion on anybodies opinion unless they're supported by facts. And those facts do point to global warming being a natural occurrence.

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

If you're really a Chris Hedges fan you would know he backs up everything with fact.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

"The earth cycles through cooling and warming periods lasting 100,000 to 150,000 years. We are presently at the peak of a 20,000 year warming trend."

Two contradictory statements. There has been only one cycle identified with climate change, and that is the Milankovitch Cycles and they do indeed last from 100K to 150K years.

However the second statement is wrong. Currently the Earth is tilted at 23.44 degrees from its orbital plane, roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt is in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum value around the year 11,800 CE ; the last maximum was reached in 8,700 BCE. This trend, by itself, tends to make winters warmer and summers colder with an overall cooling trend leading to an ice age, but the 20th century instrumental temperature record shows a sudden rise in global temperatures and a concurring glacial melt has led the scientific community to attribute recent changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

"Even Co2 levels rise naturally with temperature, without a single smokestack or tailpipe."

Thank you for explaining what a 'positive feedback' loop is. As the temperatures rise, especially in the oceans, CO2 gets out gassed causing more warming and greater positive feedback.

No one claims that man is solely responsible for climate change. We are enhancing the process as never before in Geologic history.

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

"Two contradictory statements." "However the second statement is wrong."

Not at all. A cycle has both an up slope and a down slope. The upward slope of the current Milankovitch Cycle is about 20,000 years, the down slope will likely take another 100,000 years or so.

The cyclic change in the earth's tilt doesn't coincide with the Milankovitch Cycle of 100,000 to 150,000 years.

If the positive feedback loop exists, what causes it to reverse?

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago
[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Here is a simple to understand example.

http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

What's your point? I understand the Carbon Cycle.... it has nothing to do with the topic of Milkanovitch Cycles and how a positive feedback loop might reverse.

Whereas the paper I put up deals with our climate going from a 'snowball earth' state to full reverse based on orbit eccentricities.

The only thing naturally to reverse a positive feedback loop is a geophysical change, or in a singular rare case a biological change, as when photosynthetic plant life emerged and depleted the CO2 in the atmosphere during the Precambrian.

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The link you provided didn't go into any detail on how the positive feedback loop could be reversed.

"a chemical thermostat similar to the Earth’s carbonate-silicate weathering cycle"

Was all it said about reversal, which is part of the carbon cycle.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

That was stated because a postive feedback loop very difficult to stop. Strictly relying on earth’s carbonate-silicate weathering cycle takes eons to change states. The efficiency of the carbon cycle is based on photosynthetic plants removing the carbon, and 'fixing' it on land and in the oceans.

With the removal of earths most efficient ways to fix carbon via our land use practices of deforestation, filling in wetlands, paving, etc... we no longer provide the same efficiencies that earth once enjoyed say during the Carboniferous Period at the end of the Devonian. This was earths greatest period of carbon fixation.

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

Are you kidding? I mean seriously, are you kidding?!!!

I always wondered who you were working for, is it shell, or Exon, or is it British Petroleum?

Who cares, it's all the same.

Why don't you cite the source of those charts, I wonder? Not.

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

Speak in your own voice, if you have one.

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

""Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (October, 2009)"

I wonder which primary driver was responsible for raising seal levels 400 feet in the last 20,000 years.

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

This is no longer even an issue to science, it is simply and issue to oil company propogandists. It is as if the flat earth sociey were heavily funded and you had a hundred media sources every day shouting "Earth Found To Be Flat!" by flat-earth hired lobbyists and scientists.

It's rediculous, and it's one of the ways America has changed in my lifetime. There used to be objective facts. Now facts are determined by whoever has the most money to spin them.

That is a formula for national suicide.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

So this is fairly normal for you then :

Southern California braces for more extreme wind storm | Reuters www.reuters.com/article/.../us-weather-idUSTRE7B30TO20111204 Dec 4, 2011 – Power company Southern California Edison still had 49,874 ... The dry, seasonal gusts that have hit Southern California in recent days are ...

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

The Santa Ana winds are a normal occurrence here in Socal.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes - hurricane force winds?

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

"Wind gusts up to 70 miles per hour through area mountain passes and canyons" are normal here. What do local weather conditions in Socal have to do with global warming?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Oh - I don't know - ahem - how often would you like to see this type of event happen?

California Superstorm www.californiality.com/2011/01/california-super-storm.html Nov 29, 2012 – Researchers scientifically estimate that such a superstorm in California would destroy one-fourth of the state's homes and buildings in a ...

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

From the article, "A computer-generated model, based on past major storms, projected a superstorm that would dump 10 feet of rain and paralyze California in floods for more than 40 days.

That is just what occurred during California's Great Flood of 1862, when torrential rains tortured Californians for 45 consecutive days."

Did you read the last paragraph? How did man induced global warming cause the great Flood of 1862?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Did you not follow the increasing occurrence of 100 year storms? Happening now pretty much yearly out east - what makes you think California the west coast is immune to these same effects? Because you are on the west coast and the nasty storms have only happened on the east coast of the USA? If so better take a better look at world weather happenings - then re-think your possibilities. Til then - go ahead and stick your head in the sand - but try to take someone with you to keep an eye on the weather and kick you in the ass if you need to get off of the beach.

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

Present your evidence. California or the east coast don't represent the entire world.

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

"Global warming is a natural event. The forces that cause this change are likely beyond our control."

It is a natural cyclical event to an extent. The concern is the current CO2 concentrations (much higher than in our history) and what deleterious effects they might have at increasing this - or creating an additive effect on what is already occurring naturally. Not only that - with increasing temperatures - other greenhouse gases are released from the planet (methane etc.) that are much more potent in their ability to trap heat. We're basically experimenting at this point - as global CO2 concentrations continue to rise.

But put aside global warming - look at the other effects of our dependency on fossil fuels:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/57154000/jpg/_57154611_jex_1255573_de27-1.jpg

This causes all kinds of health effects - I've traveled to many cities overseas where people wear masks because of the serious health impacts it is having on the populations (it's literally killing citizens). There are other elements in the air than just the particulates most people worry about...heavy metal concentrations in the air which can have major impacts on peoples health and immune function. Not only that, it is a limited resource..finite...makes zero sense to build an entire countries infrastructure around something like that - historically powerful nations come crumbling down by not adapting to new energy sources.

It has also destroyed this country - the wars it has gotten us into - the meddling in other countries - the civil liberties stripped in the name of many of these wars.

Renewable will be the wave of the future...it is an impossibility for it not to be as we're dealing with a finite resource...it's how to get there that is the real question.

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

"It has also destroyed this country - the wars it has gotten us into - the meddling in other countries - the civil liberties stripped in the name of many of these wars."

Oil is not the cause. It does not hunger for wealth and power. Only man does. He is responsible for our problems. He should be our focus.

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

I agree...but my point is that with an alternative abundant clean energy the hunger for wealth and power for oil will disappear.

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

You don't really believe that?

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

The hunger for wealth and power as it pertains to oil...not in general. But oil is fueling a lot of that hunger right now...take that out of the mix and suddenly the main resource most people are fighting over today won't be an issue.

But again i think the real question is how you get there that really matters.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

America is a marketing experiment gone wrong. The dream that everyone can own a McMansion and drive 2.7 automobiles is becoming a nightmare.

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

And yet the rest of the world appears to want that nighmare for themselves. That appears to be the current state of human consiousness, and so the question at this point seems to boil down to the need for a revolution in human consciousness, does it not?

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

The "rest of the world" alludes to other western nations, Gypsy. The people that support this McMansion elusive lifestyle are not those who might actually enjoy the fruits of their labour.

They are the peasants and plebs who toil for pennies, and work for subsistence.

They won't ever join you people at Walmart buying LCD teevees.

Just like you guys won't ever join the 1% buying a future for yourselves, or your children.

There was a class war. And you lost.

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

The whole world has been in a class war, and we have all lost. We are all losers in this war, even the 1%.

I've known a few of them, and they aren't happy. They just compete with one another, and compare themselves with one another, and never really have a sense of having lived up to some stupid set of insurmountable expectaions, without even knowing exactly who they are trying to impress.

It's all a big joke, Builder - played by us on ourselves, and we in the U.S. aren't the only ones who play it. We are all losers; and if we all don't have a spiritual revelation then you in Austrailia are just next in line to fall prey to these baser instincts - just like us, just like the British Empire, Just like Ancient Rome, just like all the other "winners.

You think you're telling me something I don't know? What the hell's your point?"

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I'm just tired of all this seemingly pointless banter, GypsyKing.

Where is it going? And what are we achieving? I'm heading for Tasmania, which is quite ironic, because Herr Hitler chose that island for his own hideaway.

Sorry if you think I'm being a downer, but I'm in the rounds of feeling that our conversations here are becoming circular.

I'd much prefer that we all move forward. What say you?

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

Ah, I'm with you all the way there! I will keep moving forward as long as I keep moving, but then I'm already hiding out on my island.

Stay in touch, if not here then on my blog, gypsyking1.wordpress.com. I'd like to hear what you think of Tasmania.:)

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

I've been watching your blog, and I thank you for your invite.

I'm just phasing out of one stage, and heading into another in my life.

I guess it happens to all of us at one time or another.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20537) 1 year ago

Try to stay in touch here, builder.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Oh, I'll be staying in touch, and I thank you for your interest, BW.

I've got the usual Christmas rush that builders have every year.

I'll be checking in for a chat every week at the very least.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20537) 1 year ago

Great. The last thing we need is to lose good people.

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

Good Luck.

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

Death is also normal. Death byPolution is not.

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

Normal or F****d?

Seems there are not many that think we're not.

"Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theatrical rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/is_earth_f_ked_at_2012_agu_meeting_scientists_consider_advocacy_activism.html

It's only natural at it's rate of occurrence, if you consider our "unnatural" activities as part of a natural process.

[-] 1 points by WuWei (34) from New York, NY 1 year ago

What abouts Steven Hawking's idea that once the amount of greenhouse gases ariving at the Troposphere exceed the dispersal rate of the gases already there, a viscous self sustaining cycle of- more greenhouse gases increasing temperatures which cause even more water vapour to rise which further increases temperatures in an endless loop. It seems the industrial revolution tripped a doomsday mechanism which is rising at an exponential rate in'it?

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

"a doomsday mechanism which is rising at an exponential rate"

What is increasing at an exponential rate?

[-] 2 points by WuWei (34) from New York, NY 1 year ago

The self sustaining cycle. The extra heat causes the amount of water vapour in the sky to increase and that increased amount of water vapour raises the temperature even more and so on and so forth.

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

Can you provide a link to this theory?

[-] 1 points by WuWei (34) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Not really because it depends on whether or not you believe in Global warming. But the idea that this Doomsday switch was triggered by the Industrial revolution came from "An Inconvenient Truth" There Al Gore shows how the graph describing the relationship between Temperature, Greenhouse Gases and the Industrial revolution began to go off into a steep tangent, which looks suspiciously like a curve and is therefore exponential. I heard Steven Hawkings say, in a Documentary made by Sean Penn (At least I think it was Sean Penn) that if the relationship between rising temperatures and water vapour is self-sustaining then we face the end of life on Earth. I cannot remember the name of that documentary but I cannot see what could possibly break this cycle. As you seem to know a lot about these things would you know if it is true that it takes 30 years for greenhouse gases to arrive in the stratosphere and another 30 for them to disperse?

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

"As you seem to know a lot about these things would you know if it is true that it takes 30 years for greenhouse gases to arrive in the stratosphere and another 30 for them to disperse?"

I don't know. You might ask Geo if he knows.

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

Little experiment on increased CO2 levels

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Global warming theory opposed to third world development?

Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the originator of the petition against Al Gore's global warming hoax which as of now 32,000 scientists have signed, told the 2nd International Conference on Climate Change, that the people like Al Gore who promote global warming alarmism are committing genocide by the withdrawal of technology from the developing world. Speaking at the conference hosted by the Heartland Institute in New York City, he said, "there is a current example of genocide by the removal of technology, and that is the ban on DDT, and that has resulted in the deaths of 30 to 40 million people and has left half a billion infected with malaria."

Dr. Lindzen said that "the process of co-opting science on behalf of a political movement has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science—especially since the issue has been a major motivation for funding. Most funding for climate would not be there without this issue. And, it should be added, most science funded under the rubric of climate does not actually deal with climate, but rather with the alleged impact of arbitrarily assumed climate change.

Dr. Robinson also said that policies promoted by propagating alarmism, are much worse than the ban on DDT, because they will lead to rationing of energy. This rationing of energy will have the biggest impact on the Third World populations, who are trying to uplift their standard of living by the application of energy and technology. He noted, "that the billions of people who live at the lowest level of human existence will suffer greatly from the rationing of energy, and this, in turn, will lead to the death of hundreds of millions, or possibly billions."

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, gave a keynote address to conference, in which he accused the European Union governments of being global warming "alarmists," while hiding their actual intentions. "They probably do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions—to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back," said Klaus. "It is evident that the climate change debate has not made any detectable progress. It reminds me of the frustration people like me felt in the communist era."

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Dr. Lindzen said that "the process of co-opting science on behalf of a political movement has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science—especially since the issue has been a major motivation for funding. Most funding for climate would not be there without this issue. And, it should be added, most science funded under the rubric of climate does not actually deal with climate, but rather with the alleged impact of arbitrarily assumed climate change.

The same Richard Lindzen who was a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems.... denying that smoking leads to cancer, supporting lying industry scientists who suppressed findings.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

He is not the only one cited here. There are probably questionable people on both sides of the issue.

For me, the important question is whether global warming theory is really being used to hinder third world development.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago
  • "there is a current example of genocide by the removal of technology, and that is the ban on DDT, and that has resulted in the deaths of 30 to 40 million people and has left half a billion infected with malaria."*

This will no longer be an issue either. As of Aug of this year a cure for malaria has been discovered, a one dose therapy that also stops human to human transfer.

http://gizmodo.com/5939213/did-scientists-just-find-a-cure-for-malaria

Which leaves this last part of that post:

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, gave a keynote address to conference, in which he accused the European Union governments of being global warming "alarmists," while hiding their actual intentions. "They probably do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions—to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back," said Klaus. "It is evident that the climate change debate has not made any detectable progress. It reminds me of the frustration people like me felt in the communist era."

The demonization of the enemy strategy.... we environmentalist, AGW believers are communist devils.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I don't consider rank and file environmentalists to be evil, I was once one myself. But this movement was originally started by Prince Phillip and Prince Bernhard, at the absolute peak of the 1%, and I do believe their motivations are questionable.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

You think the AGW movement was started by the WWF?... seriously? That's how far back your history goes?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I do seriously think that global warming theory is part of the environmentalist movement. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Club of Rome, Al Gore, and other wealthy, influential groups and individuals are guiding forces in it.

The overall objective at the highest levels seems to be a substantial reduction of the population.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

I think there is a major disconnect in peoples perceptions. AGW is a subject pondered by physicists in the 19th century. It has been studied by physical scientists, geologists and biologists since, and with a few exceptions was out of the public eye until the 1970's, when Global Cooling was erroneously announced by Time Magazine.

The book 'Silent Spring' touched off the major environmental movement of the sixties. The Sierra Club, the US's first conservation/environmental society started in the 1800's. Environmentalism and AGW where on separate but colliding paths. Scientists were never activists... it was looked down on. Scientists were not in the business to be policy makers.

The IPCC changed everything. If you are really looking for the smoking gun this is it. They are not a scientific group, but one that collected data, summarized it, and then performed two no - no's.... they recommended policy, and claimed a consensus.... neither of which is scientific in nature, but political actions. Scientists started to back away quickly for damage control.

Politicians, like Gore and the Princes you mentioned, or Club of Rome jumped on the band wagon, and you're instincts not to trust them are correct. Enron had invented carbon trading and was waiting for the large move to cash in on it. The Politicians found out they could indeed make a fortune off of the movement and Gore took the lead. Politicians are not scientists and should mind their own business.

In the midst of this another no -no happened. Hanson and a few other leading scientists crossed the line from science to policy and activist positions..... Hanson being a real alarmist. I believe these guys are being played by the special interest groups.

But thousands of scientists worked pretty quietly in the background doing excellent research on the subject which was getting the recognition it needed. It's a global, complex, research problem that needs participation of all scientific fields of study.

So you have real environmental groups, special interest groups with big agendas, politicians and corporations with their agendas in the mix discussing policy and not really understanding, or caring to understand the science and its implications.

The media played a very dirty part in this whole story as the chief enabler of bad coverage, misinformation and partisanship. As a result, scientists got a bad rap.... guilt by association, and a few scientists shot themselves in the foot by opening their mouths when they shouldn't have, and a misinformation campaign was successfully run by the Heartland Institute using the power of the internet and some well placed dollars.

Things are messy. It's a shame that you aren't an environmentalist. We need real environmentalists more than ever now. The message of science has been pretty clear if you keep to the major journals and read the discoveries. The more people around to educate others on the truth the better we can clear the waters and focus on whats important and not on what we are told by monied interests whats important.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

So, we should try hard to make it worse? Do I have that right? And bad farming techniques like we used going into the natural drouth of the 1930's that made it orders of magnitude worse, were OK and we should have stuck with them? Right!

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

You know, the 20,000 year precession argument is a valid one. So you believe the Anthro Global Warming proponents are modern day wizards who predict doom and gloom after finding cycles in our natural world?

I believe precession is a factor causing the Earth to heat. But I don't believe it is the only factor.

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

I don't know what causes the heating and cooling cycles. Precession occurs every 20,000 years, but the earths temperature cycles vary between 100,000 to 150,000 years. They don't match.

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

Oops, my bad you're right. I guess don't know what is causing that fluctuation.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (631) 1 year ago

I think petroleum extraction from just below the earth's surface could slightly affect earth rotation dynamics, gravity, and cause subterranean temperatures to rise as internal friction increases as the earth's lube is tubed by the surface dwellers.

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

Any evidence?

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (631) 1 year ago

It's just a theory based on the principle, nothing is really for free.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Not that it really matters - But - it is the earths molten core that provides lubrication for the floating tectonic plates.

But fracking - can set off a quake on a fault line - as the fault is already under stress then here comes this fluid under high pressure that is meant to crack rock - so - inject - rumble rumble - SHIFT of the fault.

On further rumination: oil has been discovered due to faults meeting with underground reservoirs - and the oil coming to the surface through the fault. Though I have never come across a study on what effects those combinations ( fault intersecting an oil reservoir ) may have had in the actions of those faults.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (631) 1 year ago

sure, the further to the core one examines, the "hotter" the planet appears to be. As we proceed closer to the surface of the earth, the petroleum seems to be an ideal "lubricant" that is created wherever the conditions are proper for it to occur.

Everything on the Earth's surface has some type of connection with what is below Think of the earth as a large gyroscope, set in it's ways. Now make tiny needle insertions in various parts of the globe and take out microscopic amounts of "stuff" from within, it's possible that the gyroscope reacts, no?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Shifting mass will change dynamics - like the weights on a tire - they are shifted/placed so as to counterbalance irregularities in the wheel's mass distribution - and so provide smooth stable rotation.

The earths non-molten CRUST on which we are living is pretty thin compared to the rest - the chewy molten middle.

So - I am not sure how much of an effect removing isolated pockets of oil will have on the overall. But it certainly could introduce instability.

HEY - do you think that mountain top removal could change weight distribution mechanics(?) and possibly atmospheric friction/turbulence?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Removal of mountain tops - hmmm - wonder - could that result in climate/pattern change? I mean right now the mountains along the east coast ( west coast as well ) provide a point where moisture is condensed and released from the atmosphere prior to fronts moving over and past the mountain range barrier.

In creating lower passages through the mountains - what will that do to the release of moisture patterns that we now have?

[-] -1 points by UnFriendlyObserverB (-55) 1 year ago

You have a wild IMAGINATION DKAtoday !! lol

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Wild imagination? Or a far reaching curiosity? A questioning of cause and effect. What effect may this cause/action have? It is a part of basic understanding as well as applied Quality Assurance Quality Control to look at processes and analyze them.

[-] 0 points by UnFriendlyObserverB (-55) 1 year ago

Yep, and if we remove the mountain tops .. weather patterns will change .. funny but true ..how did you come up with this one !

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Prior studies on the environment - actions and how those actions come to be - what can effect actions that happen - how actions can be affected - what is the result of changed/altered actions.

[-] 0 points by UnFriendlyObserverB (-55) 1 year ago

I sometimes wonder of the event that put those mountains there !! something must have hit the Earth pretty damn hard .. mountains are piled up 600 miles wide !

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Mountain creation if not volcanic - is tectonic = the crustal plates pushing together. Craters have uplifted rims from displaced material from meteor impacts can form low lying encircling ridges for the most part but they are not really mountain builders.

Huge remnant of an impact is thought to be the Yellowstone caldera - a major depression and thin spot in the earths crust.

[-] -2 points by UnFriendlyObserverB (-55) 1 year ago

I've seen the Rockies.. Incredible .. Massive size Granite Mountains .. they reach up into the clouds .. "SKY-HIGH" .. ! There is an incredible force at work to do such a thing .. tetonic plate shifting .. I had always thought something hit the planet .. sent us off circling through the galaxy .. changed the length of day and all that ..

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The earth has been hit by many objects in it's history. One of the largest impacts ( if not the largest ) is thought to be the Yellowstone caldera - it is some scientists conjecture - it is that impact that made the Yellowstone caldera was also the cause of the supply material that created the moon. Wild thought that - considering the distance of the moon from the earth - quite a hurl for impact ejecta. The mountains around the caldera were there before the impact and the impact created a deep and wide bowl.

Another huge caldera is on the edge of the South American Continent right on the meeting edge of the Gulf of Mexico - much of this caldera ( all? ) is under water. Was 1st really recognized as such from space.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (631) 1 year ago

If the mountain tops are high enough, sure, there can easily be 10 to 20 degree shifts in temperature on different sides of a mountain.

In Los Angeles, the 405 FWY crests over a mild rise and on the way back down (as one approaches Santa Monica), the temperature drops 10 to 20 degrees depending on the time of year.

Heck, I'm all for drilling a few holes through the mountain to let the hot San Fernando air go towards the Ocean and let the cooler air from Santa Monica circulate into the San Fernando Valley.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Weather moves/trends eastward - yeah wind blows in all directions - that is an area dispersal effect and there are contacts with other fronts which can stall movement even make movement circle - but the whole mess in the end - moves east.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The issue is not about whether the earth is warming. The issue is what, if anything, can or should we do about it.

Around the world we have spent nearly 1$ trillion so far on efforts to stop global warming. Current estimates are that the spending will delay the temp rise in 100 years by about six months. Was that worth the money?

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Where did you get those numbers from.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The IPCC and the same computer models that are predicting the warming. They make adjustments (reduced carbon) for the $1 trillion that we have already spent and it barely moves the 100 year temp rise. This is where the outrage should be placed.

The current corporate welfare for the wind and solar companies in the US (and around the world) is the greatest Gov-run redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich in the last 100 years. How many poor people do you know with solar panels on their house? The rich get subsidized hardware and free electricity. How in the world can we justify this?

http://www.lomborg.com/cool_it

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Bjorn Lomborg and his study/theory on these issues have found to be scientifically dishonest, and not knowledgeable about the subject matter by his own countries scientific authorities as well as others.

I have not found these numbers in the IPCC if they exist please link 'em.

Perhaps beyond this scientifically dishonesty we could agree that pollution is bad, & we MUST cut pollution.

I propose we xfer all fossil fuel nuclear power subsidies to greentech (I'm for directing greentech subs to help low income Americans if that helps you)

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If you need further evidence just follow the money. What car purchase does more harm to the environment, a Ford Fiesta ($13,000) or a Toyota Prius ($ 26,000)? Who made money on the more than $ 1 trillion spent in an attempt to stop global warming?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Check the sources in the more than 50 pages of references in the book. Check them yourself and then decide. Look at the data. Don't trust the people that profit from the fear of catastrophic AGW.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Why?. Of the almost 14k scientific papers peer reviewed only 24 denied the science of climate change/global warming. The science is settled, & your reference was determined to be not knowledgeable on the subject & scientifically dishonest.

In any event, we HAVE agreed that pollution is bad and so we must cut our pollution creation.

If we all did SOMETHING, and agitated all our govts to do something (incl subsidize greentech, & removing fossil fuel subsidies) we'll be fine.

notwithstanding the useless argument on the science.

[Removed]

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

"Global warming is normal"

This message was brought to you by a pseudoscientific collusion of oil corporation executives.

Ooooops.......Did I say collusion?

I meant to say dedicated. As in dedicated to telling whatever lies are necessary to maintain absurdly high profits.

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

"Global warming and cooling is normal" is based on well known scientific evidence as presented above. Can you disprove this with any facts?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

You are correct... but it does not address what we are currently experiencing which is AGW.

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

The problem with GW is that it's variable. One century can be warming and the next cooling. Separating the portion due to man's input is a difficult problem. Do you know of any good studies that accurately calculate man's contribution?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Many, calculated in different ways. Such as, the amount of CO2 that is directly contributed by anthropogenic processes, determined by isotopic differentiation, radiative energy budget and the contribution made by anthropogenic GHG's, and more.

Thinking of atmospheric temperature alone is limiting. AGW really means we are experiencing a net positive radiative energy imbalance.
This imbalance will show itself in many different ways, from increased total oceanic heat content, higher water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere, changing ocean currents, and more volatile weather systems.

Then of course we have cross cutting issues like ocean acidification.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Thanks for the information and your even-keeled approach. Anybody who can discuss such contentious issues in an online forum without losing their temper is worth talking to.

At the risk of seeming provocative, I'll include here some notes from Paul Driessen, a former member of the Sierra Club and Zero Population Growth, who eventually went on to write "Eco-Imperialism".

"I gradually realized that these groups often misrepresented the facts and paid little or no attention to the impacts their policies had on people. Their agenda was uppermost. Take DDT, for example. Environmental Defense, Sierra Club, and other groups knew that scientific studies did not back up their claims about the allegedly toxic effects of DDT on bird eggshells, eagles, and people. They knew the ban on DDT was causing the deaths of millions from malaria. And yet, to this day, they have bogus and far-fetched claims about this life-saving chemical on their websites.

Over and over, I caught the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and other groups saying things that just were not honest or accurate. They used photographs that were taken in one place and claimed they were taken someplace else; or published a close-up shot of a drilling rig site, with trees cut and the ground graded and leveled—when a wider angle would show one acre of disturbance in a thousand acres. Or a photo they claimed was a devastating clear-cut, was actually a forest area that had burned down because careless campers had let their fire get out of control.

Greenpeace flat-out lied about Shell Oil's plans to sink an oil platform as an artificial reef. And a lot of leaders and members sounded delighted when hundreds of loggers were put out of work and entire rural communities were destroyed.

Even after they were told their facts were wrong, they didn't change. Their lies would simply move faster than the truth. In Latin America, Amnesty International and several environmental activist groups were attacking various oil company operations. One group would say a particular picture was a Unocal operation. Another would say it showed how irresponsible Occidental Petroleum was. In reality, the picture showed some sloppy operations by state-owned PetroEcuador. They've always got some oil, timber, or mining company in their cross-hairs, to sucker people into sending them money, and to advance their anti-industry, anti-foreign investment agendas—and the facts, or people's dreams of a better life, just aren't going to get in the way.

They show incredible disregard for the rights, aspirations, and even lives of the world's poorest people. They constantly hammer on the supposed risks of using chemicals, fossil fuels, and biotechnology—and never mention the far greater risks that those technologies would reduce, or the lives they can save. And they have tax-exempt status, and get literally billions of dollars a year from foundations, and even government agencies, to promote their agendas and lies, despite their lethal consequences.

Their disregard for the poor, especially dark-skinned people in developing countries, is frightening. They've never apologized once for the deaths their anti-DDT policies have caused, never even admitted they were wrong, never offered any form of aid or compensation to victims or their families, and certainly they've never been held accountable. During the World Trade Organization conference in Cancun a few years ago, the head of a major Mexican environmental group told a friend of mine: "We don't care at all about the poor. We don't want them to become rich or middle class, because then they will become consumers and that means you have to take more resources out of the ground to meet their demands, and that's bad for the Earth. It's better to keep them poor."

My Zero Population Growth days involved a lot of concern about the supposed population bomb, and then I started reading things from Julian Simon and other people, who raised questions that Paul Ehrlich [author of The Population Bomb and other environmentalists just couldn't answer. It became apparent that there was an environmental agenda that I was very uncomfortable with: keeping poor people poor, being so concerned about population that they were promoting anti-DDT, anti-biotechnology, anti-fossil fuel development, anti-economic development policies, that ultimately meant the poor were going to be kept poor, diseased, and dying prematurely."

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

There is no doubt that environmental groups have agenda's and provide misinformation when they can.... just like their adversaries in business. Some are indeed rabid about it... extremists. Which is why I tend to look things up myself through source articles.

DDE, DDT is an interesting example. While the effects of DDT where not nailed down airtight when the ban was made... it has surfaced that the idea wasn't a bad one in retrospect. DDT bioaccumulates, that is well known, but it is also an endocrine disruptor, with the potential to alter hormone action within the human body.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC344268/

The poor are always the anvil being hammered by political groups, either environmental lobbyists or industry lobbyists. This is an unfortunate state of affairs.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Good comment, thanks again. I'm off to work now. Hope to see you around.

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

More conspiracy theory. All talk and no facts.

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Actually if you watch the documentary there are facts, and reports you can read yourself. But if you aren't interested in the truth, I understand.

If you want to actually debate the issues, refrain from char. attacks and address the content.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Like the saying goes - You Can Lead A Jackass To Water But You Can't Make It Drink. jr seems to be willing to die of thirst.

[-] -3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Present the content then in your own words in another post. This one concerns global warming. There are hundreds of video links posted here. Most of us don't have the time to watch another one hour video to glean out the two minutes of important facts.

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

If you don't have the time to commit to the content, you are the one who is propogating ignorance. I won't waste my time or energy to convince someone of your nature that my view is correct. You have to read it yourself

Much love,

Ivy

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

Like you said, "debate the issues, refrain from char. attacks and address the content". This post is about global warming, not chemtrails.

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

There are facts about Corporate pollution concerning global climate change. That's how it pertains.

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

With my slow internet connection, it would take me 3 to 4 hours to watch that video. Post the facts that pertain to climate change here. I'm open to solid evidence.

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

The facts are also on the website. I'm not going to sit here and discuss every specific fact. Do your research and come back.

Ivy

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

It's up to you to present the facts. What was the most important one concerning global warming?

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Well first of all in the documentary one of the researchers obtained over 30 reports of rich aluminum, strontium and barium deposits in the soil. Also in the soil, the Ph levels were off the chart. This effects plant life as well as ecosystems. A normal Ph for sustainable forestry life is one of Ph 5.6, the ones tested were producing levels of well over 7 Ph. Some say that this is the "neutral" stage and ignore the findings. However many environmental doctors are exposing this Ph as dangerous, and unsustainable for environmental conditions.

Along with soil tests, rain water testing also provided information on rich aluminum, strontium, and barium deposits in our rain water.

Dr. Perlingieri has also connected "cloud seeding" to many nations seeking to manipulate weather patterns. She stated that there are over 150 weather modification programs around the world.

“Weather modification means ‘Any activity performed with the intention of producing artificial changes in the composition, behavior or dynamics of the atmosphere.’“

In the chemtrails there is evidence of over 49 toxic materials, as well as mold, bacteria and viruses. Those same chemtrails also produce nano-particles that beak the skin and effect the ozone.

Weather modification using Carbon Black(1), originated in WWII and has expanded creating damaging effects on our Climate. Including: forced precipitation, flooding,and even hurricanes.

http://saive.com/WXMOD/WEATHER_MODIFICATION_Symposium_1997_confirms_HAARP_and_Chemtrails.pdf

[-] -3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

This has nothing to do with global warming.

[-] 3 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

If you read the content you would see the evidence provides background on one circumstance of global climate change.

Now did you read the PDF provided?

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Now even if the chemtrail effect on climate is completely thrown out... There is one binding factor of weather testing affecting climate change: Carbon Black(1) Polymer testing of Carbon Black(1) all point to atmospheric heating. Here are a few links on that subject: http://carnegiescience.edu/news/climate_change_black_carbon_depends_altitude http://www.c2es.org/publications/black-carbon-primer http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/science/earth/16degrees.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/plehner/cutting_black_carbon--and_slow.html

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

Me too!

I can look outside.

I can sniff the foul air too.

How about this then?

I still have flowers blooming, still opening.

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

An unusual, unprecedented rate of change. Precipitated by industrial pollution.

Could all this crap we are putting into the air create problems?

Ooooops. It's not even a new question.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm/

PS: We put a LOT more in the air now 'a' days.

Please don't tell me you're one of those that believe we humans are too small, itty bitty and inconsequential, and couldn't possibly affect an ecosystem.

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

"An unusual, unprecedented rate of change"

Sea level rise is currently one foot per century, half the average rate of the last 20,000 years.

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

That's about to change.

Are you aware of the fact that I HATE quote monkey's?

Especially when they ignore most of what I said.

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

When a statement is incorrect it should be specifically pointed out. The current rate of change is not unprecedented. Look back farther than the last 200 years.

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

I'm sorry, I still reject your assertion.

Here's what I get from that assertion.

That all the crap that we've been pouring in the skies for 200 years has had NO effect!

I'm sorry, I just plain reject that notion.

Now, let me ask you a question.

What ecosystem has man messed with, that he didn't mess up, at least at first?

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

My assertion is that even if man did not emit a single molecule of Co2, climate change, both heating and cooling would still take place. This is clearly demonstrated by solid evidence from the past. The effects of man's Co2 contribution are not so solid because they are predictions of what will occur in the future and they vary widely.

In the last 200 years, Co2 levels have risen roughly 30%. What effect has that had on top of the global warming trend of the past 20,000 years? It's extremely difficult to measure their separate effects.

Sure, man has messed up ecosystems. Deforestation, poor farming techniques, polluting water supplies. But nature has also messed up man with drought, fire, earthquake, tornado, and flood, each no fault of man.

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

So you maintain your assertion that man is far too teeny and tiny to have an effect.

Inconsequential, couldn't possibly have an effect on the thin as an apple skin that is our air supply.

That's like saying a single termite couldn't eat your house, .....but oooooops. get a bunch of them together and they can.

I still reject your assertion.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Money is on both sides, are they lying for profit or to keep it going....

We will see....

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

1000 miles wide = a small storm? Really?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

1000 miles wide = a small storm? Really?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Such a storm ( 1938 ) is roughly circular in form and may be from 100 to 300 miles in diameter.

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Sandy Is The Largest Hurricane To Ever Form In The The Atlantic ... www.huffingtonpost.com/.../hurricane-sandy-largest-hurricane_n_20... Oct 30, 2012 – Hurricane Sandy is officially listed as the largest hurricane to have formed ... the National Hurricane Center, as it reached 1000 miles in diameter.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 1 year ago

Have you heard what Obama is using as an excuse to get funding for Hurricane Sandy - The storm caused by global warming.

Another emotional play on words to get people revved up.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But you are against pollution and support cutting back creating pollution right?

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

Yes.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well arguing the science is kinda old news. The scientistific community (who are aware of the info on your graphs) have decided our pollution is creating our extreme weather and that the science is settles.

Why bother with that useless debate? You think we aren't creating global warming but agree we should cut down on pollution, I think we are causing global warming andwe should cut down on pollution.

We agree on a course of action.

Only difference is I agree with 98% ofthe scientific community and you don't.

I guess I could live with that.

As long as we agree to cut pollution.

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

The reason for this debate is to get peoples minds off the war on Global warming, which likely will not be won, and focus on the greater threats of loss of political and economic freedoms. Occupy needs to focus if it is to succeed.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Occupy HAS succeeded & will continue to.

We are capably of doing many things at once which is required since we have many problems going on at the same time.

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

If global warming was exactly the threat many say it is, we could not change it because the people are not in charge of our own government. Trying to battle global warming without the political power to change it is like setting the cart before the horse.

If we really want to effect change, we must have the reigns fully in our grasp first. That should be Occupy's number one goal. The government back in the hands of the people.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We are making slow progress even without having "the reigns fully in our grasp". We have had setbacks and will have more. If we wait to act until we have full control we will never progress.

We must work for progressive change in our energy policy, while continuing the effort to take our government back.

We must do both, and more, because all must be done, and none may be ignored.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28456) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

To grasp those reigns - the People need all of the impetus to do so as can be presented - and FossilFuel pollution/poisoning is only - 1 - but it is tied in with many more all leading back to CorpoRATion greed and destruction for profits.

[-] -3 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

Anyone capable of thinking for themselves and doing some research as you have knows that global warming/climate is a con job. It's purpose it to control your life and separate you from your money.

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

Only if you're a BIG fan of Alex Jones and company and truly not capable of thinking for yourself on any effective level at all.

Didn't you get banned just the other day?

What was your previous username?