# ATmospheric carbon levels not this high in 15 million years



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm


> ScienceDaily (Oct. 9, 2009) â You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.
> "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today â and were sustained at those levels â global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Who checked them 15 million years ago?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

po boy said:


> Who checked them 15 million years ago?


Al Gore's great grandfather.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Cool, I'll invest in Alaskan land now so my kids can grow tomatoes and raise cattle!


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

po boy said:


> Who checked them 15 million years ago?


It's right there in the article.....



> By analyzing the chemistry of bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists have been able to determine the composition of Earth's atmosphere going back as far as 800,000 years, and they have developed a good understanding of how carbon dioxide levels have varied in the atmosphere since that time. But there has been little agreement before this study on how to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels prior to 800,000 years ago.
> 
> Tripati, before joining UCLA's faculty, was part of a research team at Englandâs University of Cambridge that developed a new technique to assess carbon dioxide levels in the much more distant past â by studying the ratio of the chemical element boron to calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine algae. Tripati has now used this method to determine the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere as far back as 20 million years ago.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

po boy said:


> Who checked them 15 million years ago?


Read the article.

.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

He doesn't want to read the article cause he doesn't want to acknowledge that he's part of the problem.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Tiempo said:


> It's right there in the article.....


Not buying it. too many unproven theories and WAGs.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

tinknal said:


> Not buying it. too many unproven theories and WAGs.


Victoria Beckhams?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

InvalidID said:


> Cool, I'll invest in Alaskan land now so my kids can grow tomatoes and raise cattle!


How can you be sure that even your section of Alaska will not be drought stricken? Or perhaps you could get lucky and get a chuck of land that got rain when it warmed sufficiently. Either way, are you willing to take the risk? It might happen with the land you own right now, though.
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/record-exceptional-drought_2011-06-17


----------



## Ray (Dec 5, 2002)

I wish that 10 mile wide asteroid wold hurry up and Hit St. Louis, so all the tree huggers would shut up about this carbon foot print. All its gonna do is raise the prices by 100% x 10, for no reason othr than political money. I've seen it in dozens of articles about how high the carbon level has been throughout the millenium, has never had anything to do with rising temperatures, period.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Do you suppose all those Flintstone cars caused the high Co2 levels back then? Just goes to show, AlGore was born 15 million years too late. 

Notice they didn't indicate a cause. Whatever it was, it wasn't caused by mankind....which validates my doubts about modern claims.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> How can you be sure that even your section of Alaska will not be drought stricken? Or perhaps you could get lucky and get a chuck of land that got rain when it warmed sufficiently. Either way, are you willing to take the risk? It might happen with the land you own right now, though.
> http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/record-exceptional-drought_2011-06-17


 I live west of the Cascades, if we get a major drought here it's TEOTWAWKI...lol

As for how can I know my section of Alaska won't be drought stricken... I can't, that's why it's called speculation. You rolls the dice and you takes your chances.


----------



## Farmerwilly2 (Oct 14, 2006)

YYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Man do I not care.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Txsteader said:


> Do you suppose all those Flintstone cars caused the high Co2 levels back then? Just goes to show, AlGore was born 15 million years too late.
> 
> Notice they didn't indicate a cause. Whatever it was, it wasn't caused by mankind....which validates my doubts about modern claims.


Does that actually matter? What matters is that at one point CO2 levels were actually as high as they were now, and there were NO ice caps and the global temp was 9 degrees higher than today. That means we're headed straight towards that, like a bowling ball. 
Now, let's view some simple science.
CO2 &#8594; plants + time &#8594; coal
Millions of years here....
Now, you burn some coal:
Coal &#8594; CO2
Therefore, humans are responsible entirely for the rise in atmospheric CO2.
Now, the global temperature is going up, stuff is melting, and weather is absolutely crazy. And CO2 is a greenhouse gas, provable by basically Preschool science. CO2 correlates most strongly with the rapid rise in temperature, therefore humans are the cause. 
Claiming that there is no nail stabbed in your foot does not make the nail go away.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Ray said:


> I wish that 10 mile wide asteroid wold hurry up and Hit St. Louis, so all the tree huggers would shut up about this carbon foot print. All its gonna do is raise the prices by 100% x 10, for no reason othr than political money. I've seen it in dozens of articles about how high the carbon level has been throughout the millenium, has never had anything to do with rising temperatures, period.


Not at all true, not to mention that without an environment we will have no economy at all, anyways.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Stupid dinosaurs and their gassiness. Bubbles galore. Destroyed the whole planet for all of us. They had to drive REALLY big cars. That is how it all started.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> Does that actually matter? What matters is that at one point CO2 levels were actually as high as they were now, and there were NO ice caps and the global temp was 9 degrees higher than today. That means we're headed straight towards that, like a bowling ball.


 This is pure speculation. You assume high CO2 causes the world to heat up, there is no proof of that. What we know is that when it's been hot there have been higher CO2 levels. Generally speaking, the hot came before the CO2.

I would point out that we've already bucked the trend. As you said, the last time CO2 was this high it was 9 degrees hotter. Yet, that means THIS time it's 9 degrees cooler. That would point to the fact that CO2 doesn't make it hotter.


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

Someone needs to lock the 'scientists' who support global warming in a room with the 'scientists' who are predicting another ice age. Give them each a broomstick to whack each other with.
Whomever comes out gets the research grant money that they are so desperate for.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

megafatcat said:


> someone needs to lock the 'scientists' who support global warming in a room with the 'scientists' who are predicting another ice age. Give them each a broomstick to whack each other with.
> Whomever comes out gets the research grant money that they are so desperate for.


 *geeeeeeek fighhhhhtttttt!!!!!!*


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

megafatcat said:


> Someone needs to lock the 'scientists' who support global warming in a room with the 'scientists' who are predicting another ice age. Give them each a broomstick to whack each other with.
> Whomever comes out gets the research grant money that they are so desperate for.


Boy isn't that the truth. All this hocus pocus and guessing about what took place 15 million years ago. The computer models are no better then the dude that is putting in the data, and when the TRUE data doesn't turn out the way the want it to. 
They just put numbers in till the graphs or whatever they want to show is what they want it. 
And that has been documented fact and when grants start to run out on this people they HAVE to come up with something that will give a new research grant so they can continue to do what the left wants.
And what the left is working towards. Controlling everything and everybody.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Does that actually matter? What matters is .......


What matters is .... what are YOU going to do about it for yourself and your family? It's too late now for anyone to cause changes to make it all go away. Trying to convince other people isn't going to get you anywhere, everyone will get confirmation for themselves in their own good time when they start starving or get flooded or burned out and there's nothing they can do about it either.

So forget about everyone else - what are you going to do for yourself and your family? Are you going to stay where you are?

.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> Therefore, humans are responsible entirely for the rise in atmospheric CO2.


Didn't the left want to get rid of all cattle, since they were large contributors to "greenhouse gasses"?

*



Cow 'emissions' Far more Responsible than CO2 from Cars in Global Warming

Click to expand...

*


> The worldâs 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.


http://www.greendiary.com/entry/cow...onsible-than-co2-from-cars-in-global-warming/


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

naturelover said:


> What matters is .... what are YOU going to do about it for yourself and your family? It's too late now for anyone to cause changes to make it all go away. Trying to convince other people isn't going to get you anywhere, everyone will get confirmation for themselves in their own good time when they start starving or get flooded or burned out and there's nothing they can do about it either.
> 
> So forget about everyone else - what are you going to do for yourself and your family? Are you going to stay where you are?
> 
> .


 :thumb:


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Does that actually matter? What matters is that at one point CO2 levels were actually as high as they were now, and there were NO ice caps and the global temp was 9 degrees higher than today. That means we're headed straight towards that, like a bowling ball.
> Now, let's view some simple science.
> CO2 &#8594; plants + time &#8594; coal
> Millions of years here....
> ...


With all due respect, you're jumping to conclusions that aren't necessarily backed up by the article you linked to.

Yes, the article says that the last time CO2 levels were this high was 15 million years ago. It also says that temperatures were 5-10 degrees higher and sea levels 75 - 120 feet higher. That, along with an explanation of how they figured this out is pretty much all the article says. It does not say that humans are entirely responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2.

It's assuming a lot to say that humans are entirely responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2. Especially since your article shows that CO2 levels were that high at least once before. Long before humans were around to burn coal.

Now, everything you've written may be true. But, the fact is we don't know for sure. It certainly isn't proven by the article you linked to. You're stating as fact what is, in fact, only speculation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today &#8212; and were sustained at those levels &#8212; global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.


Guess that proves that high carbon and high temps are perfectly natural and have nothing to do with humans

Thanks!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What matters is that at one point CO2 levels were actually as high as they were now, and *there were NO ice caps *


Then how did the AIR from that time get trapped in *ICE*?

Do you even listen to yourself?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then how did the AIR from that time get trapped in *ICE*?


The air they got out of ice was from only 800 thousand years ago, not from ice 15 million years ago. They extrapolated for the rest of their conclusions.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They extrapolated for the rest of their conclusions.


So it's all guesswork


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I don't know. Probably some guesswork. They explained in the article a bit about their extrapolation but it's still speculative extrapolation, so yeah it's nothing definitive.

Personally I don't care what it was like 15 million years ago. What's happening at present time is enough to concern myself with.

.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Does that actually matter?


It matters when world leaders are obviously using it for the purpose of social engineering......to the extent that they'll fudge the data to achieve results that fit the agenda. And there is clearly an agenda.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

beccachow said:


> Stupid dinosaurs and their gassiness. Bubbles galore. Destroyed the whole planet for all of us. They had to drive REALLY big cars. That is how it all started.


Next they'll find pics of 'em off on vacations in those huge SUVs.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

naturelover said:


> The air they got out of ice was from only 800 thousand years ago, not from ice 15 million years ago. They extrapolated for the rest of their conclusions.
> 
> .


"Climate change" scientists have been caught fudging _current_ data. Think of the fun they can have with 15 million year old data!


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Who you gonna believe? 

Scientists who have to get their papers through the peer review process or the oil industry funded groups given a mission to create controversy (according to leaked memos)?


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

tinknal said:


> "Climate change" scientists have been caught fudging _current_ data. Think of the fun they can have with 15 million year old data!


Umm no they haven't. Maybe there was some sloppiness in 3-4 of the thousand plus papers but there is no evidence that it's any great conspiracy OR that any of the sloppy papers affected the scientific consensus in ANY WAY.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

naturelover said:


> What matters is .... what are YOU going to do about it for yourself and your family? It's too late now for anyone to cause changes to make it all go away. Trying to convince other people isn't going to get you anywhere, everyone will get confirmation for themselves in their own good time when they start starving or get flooded or burned out and there's nothing they can do about it either.
> 
> So forget about everyone else - what are you going to do for yourself and your family? Are you going to stay where you are?
> 
> .


I don't have any choice. I also don't have any choice but to drive a big honking truck around, either. Someday I hope to drive a Prius, however. Currently it's not in the budget. If our area continues to become more drought stricken, well, we'll just starve and die.



InvalidID said:


> This is pure speculation. You assume high CO2 causes the world to heat up, there is no proof of that. What we know is that when it's been hot there have been higher CO2 levels. Generally speaking, the hot came before the CO2.
> 
> I would point out that we've already bucked the trend. As you said, the last time CO2 was this high it was 9 degrees hotter. Yet, that means THIS time it's 9 degrees cooler. That would point to the fact that CO2 doesn't make it hotter.


Since when is scientific fact speculation?
We know for sure that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is going up:









Also, carbon dioxide absorbs IR light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_(data_page)#Spectral_data
This means that it is a greenhouse gas and can reflect this light back at the earth.
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html

Now, as for the article, measuring something that happened 15 million years ago is going to be fairly error-prone. Perhaps it was actually a tad cooler, who knows, but the good guess means that the effects were as seen today. Since humans are responsible for the increase of atmospheric CO2 they are therefore responsible for the increase in global temperature. There is no other actual science that states otherwise. Surely lots of stuff written by propagandists will say to the contrary, but we must listen to the real scientists, for they are the ones without any real agenda.



Murray in ME said:


> With all due respect, you're jumping to conclusions that aren't necessarily backed up by the article you linked to.
> 
> Yes, the article says that the last time CO2 levels were this high was 15 million years ago. It also says that temperatures were 5-10 degrees higher and sea levels 75 - 120 feet higher. That, along with an explanation of how they figured this out is pretty much all the article says. It does not say that humans are entirely responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2.
> 
> ...


Perhaps we are not entirely responsible for the radid rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, but it still remains that we are indeed responsible for the majority. CO2 levels fluctuate seasonally, of course, but only to a certain extent. Carbon that has been stored in the ground a VERY long time is no being re-emitted back into the atmosphere at extremely rapid rates, far outpacing anything that Nature can do to slow it down.



naturelover said:


> I don't know. Probably some guesswork. They explained in the article a bit about their extrapolation but it's still speculative extrapolation, so yeah it's nothing definitive.
> 
> Personally I don't care what it was like 15 million years ago. What's happening at present time is enough to concern myself with.
> 
> .


Exactly. What I posted was simply an example of what COULD be happening. We should be thankful that it is not happening that way.



Txsteader said:


> It matters when world leaders are obviously using it for the purpose of social engineering......to the extent that they'll fudge the data to achieve results that fit the agenda. And there is clearly an agenda.


They use many things for their agenda. Just because they may be using AGW as a method of control, does make AGW any less real. Which makes the situation ever more sticky.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't have any choice. I also don't have any choice but to drive a big honking truck around, either. Someday I hope to drive a Prius, however. Currently it's not in the budget. If our area continues to become more drought stricken, well, we'll just starve and die.


It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out if the EPA has its way, you won't be able to afford the electricity to charge that Prius. The EPA is in the process of forcing the shutdown of coal fired plants that were built over many decades in a very short period of time.

When you do your future budgeting, figure on the price of electricity tripling if we're lucky.

You thought folks screamed when gasoline went over $3.00, wait until electricity heads for 50 cents a kilowatt hour. And it won't come down ... ever.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

fishhead said:


> Who you gonna believe?
> 
> Scientists who have to get their papers through the peer review process or the oil industry funded groups given a mission to create controversy (according to leaked memos)?


You are a true Pollyanna if you believe that scientists are an apolitical bunch.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

fishhead said:


> Who you gonna believe?
> 
> Scientists who have to get their papers through the peer review process or the oil industry funded groups given a mission to create controversy (according to leaked memos)?


I am certainly NOT going to take the word of so called "scientists" that have been KNOWN to mess with the data so they come up with what they want it to say, and have been caught at it~!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Darren said:


> It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out if the EPA has its way, you won't be able to afford the electricity to charge that Prius. The EPA is in the process of forcing the shutdown of coal fired plants that were built over many decades in a very short period of time.
> 
> When you do your future budgeting, figure on the price of electricity tripling if we're lucky.
> 
> You thought folks screamed when gasoline went over $3.00, wait until electricity heads for 50 cents a kilowatt hour. And it won't come down ... ever.


According to what scientific group? And, last time I checked, clean, renewable energy was only slightly more expensive than coal energy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Does that actually matter? What matters is that at one point CO2 levels were actually as high as they were now, and there were NO ice caps and the global temp was 9 degrees higher than today. That means we're headed straight towards that, like a bowling ball.


And???


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya just wait till YOUR electric bill starts going up and up and up. Mine so far went up 20 percent in the last 6 months. And it is BECAUSE of the derned policies this administration is putting in for so called greenie tech. And that will close many coal mines. And don't forget 65% of this country get their electricity from cola fired plants. This green movement will hurt and hurt very badly for thos that can not switch to any other kind of source. And that is Millions~!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> last time I checked, *clean, renewable energy *was only slightly more expensive


There is no such thing


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> Since when is scientific fact speculation?
> We know for sure that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is going up:
> 
> 
> ...


 Scientific fact has always been full of speculation. I seem to remember reading that the Earth was once flat and the Universe revolved around it. Of course we've learned a lot since then.

Wouldn't it stand to reason if CO2 reflects light back to Earth, it would reflect MORE light away from Earth? I mean, most (read ALL) of the light comes from the Sun. Wouldn't that make the case for global cooling?

Which BTW, makes more sense than the theory you are espousing. We know from the same scientific data that first the heat comes, then the CO2. It would make sense that the rise in CO2 levels would be due to increased death and rotting of plant life from a shift in global temp. It would also make sense that this would act as a counter balance to the heating effect, as the CO2 would reflect more of the Sun's energy back into space. 

All that said, the computer models can't predict the weather a week out. I should trust that we know what was happening 15 million years ago? We don't know where all the rain falls on Earth on any given day, nor do we know how much of it falls. We aren't in a position to make a call on climate change.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

How else are the PTB going to get the general public to accept poop steaks?

Actually it wasn't the atmospheric bubbles trapped in ancient ice:
Tripati, before joining UCLA's faculty, was part of a research team at England&#8217;s University of Cambridge that developed a new technique to assess carbon dioxide levels in the much more distant past &#8212; by studying the ratio of the chemical element boron to calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine algae. Tripati has now used this method to determine the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere as far back as 20 million years ago

So more co2 means plants will soon suffocate us all and take over the earth. That explains why my weeds look so good.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

InvalidID said:


> Wouldn't it stand to reason if CO2 reflects light back to Earth, it would reflect MORE light away from Earth? I mean, most (read ALL) of the light comes from the Sun. Wouldn't that make the case for global cooling?


Uummm no, actually, it doesn't work the way you're thinking. You're talking about light, and light is not the issue (unless you're talking about UVA and UVB, which is a different but no less serious kettle of fish) - the issue is heat, not light. Water vapour will reflect light, and it will both absorb and reflect heat. CO2 is somewhat different from water vapour. Warming occurs because CO2 and other greenhouse gases, while they are transparent to, not reflective of, incoming solar radiation, they also absorb infrared (heat) radiation from the Earth that would otherwise escape from the atmosphere into space - the greenhouse gases then re-radiate this heat back towards the surface of the Earth. So - the CO2 allows solar heat to pass through to the earth, and also absorbs and reflects global heat back to the earth without allowing it to escape from earth's atmosphere. 


.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> And don't forget 65% of this country get their electricity from cola fired plants.


 Well that explains all the truckloads of Coke and Pepsi we've seen heading into the power plant.:grin:


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Since humans are responsible for the increase of atmospheric CO2 they are therefore responsible for the increase in global temperature.


That's exactly the point where I disagree. Obviously, humans were NOT the cause 15 million years ago....this article proves that. How can you or anyone else say, definitively, that we are now? 

Another point that must be recognized is that the incident back then corrected it------by itself. There wasn't a scientist or politician involved. How can scientists say, definitively, that it won't naturally correct itself this time?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> How can scientists say, definitively, that it won't naturally correct itself this time?


I don't thank that scientists have ever said it won't correct itself naturally. They're not really in a position to say that because obviously climates have always been changing naturally since the earth was first formed and as far as the earth is concerned it is always correct at all times no matter what the climate conditions are. It is only for humans that it is sometimes not correct or not fit living conditions for humans.

If humans are contributing to global climate change (which I believe humans ARE contributing to) then earth will naturally correct that by making earth uninhabitable for unadaptable humans. Even if humans are not contributing to climate change they will still have to adapt if they want to survive.

.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

From a geological standpoint, the earth has indeed been warmer at times in the past, with higher CO2 levels than we have today. The earth compensated for the higher levels by sending the planet into a series of 'ice ages', of which we are technically still in (brief warming interlude, from a geologic time scale viewpoint). Earth balanced the equation... it will again. Just last week there were posts talking about the upcoming sunspot cycle that could drastically cool the planet.

I found the article subtly pushing an agenda, without showing how the earth recovered before, and not mentioning the absence of the industrial age existing 16 million years ago.

I wish, for once, an article on AGW would be honest... the only way to achieve pre-industrial greenhouse gas levels is to return to a pre-industrial world... which would mean (what?) a good 5/6ths of the human population would need to take a dirt nap. You can't have 6 billion people living a 16th century lifestyle. Maybe a few hundred million, but that's about it.

The only way humans can affect the current levels is by calling out of the stables the Four Horsemen... Disease, War, Famine, and Death.


----------



## Ray (Dec 5, 2002)

*This thread just makes me ROTF LMAO, HA HA HA HA*


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

The article was written in '09... years before the emails were released proving that scientists fudged the numbers!!!

:bored:

Next?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

EasyDay said:


> The article was written in '09... years before the emails were released proving that scientists fudged the numbers!!!
> 
> :bored:
> 
> Next?


ScienceDaily (Oct. 9, 2009)
Yes why would anybody even think that article is being correct now fate nearly 1-1/2 and a half OLD?
I suppose if that person thought like they did, that humans are being the only thing that MIGHT be causing some kind of Global CLIMATE CHANGE.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Heritagefarm said:


> Does that actually matter? What matters is that at one point CO2 levels were actually as high as they were now, and there were NO ice caps and the global temp was 9 degrees higher than today. That means we're headed straight towards that, like a bowling ball.


So why do we have an ice cap on both poles now?



> Therefore, humans are responsible entirely for the rise in atmospheric CO2.


How did you leap to this conclusion?



> Now, the global temperature is going up, stuff is melting, and weather is absolutely crazy. And CO2 is a greenhouse gas, provable by basically Preschool science. CO2 correlates most strongly with the rapid rise in temperature, therefore humans are the cause.


At least you said correlates and not causes. Why are the oceans absorbing more CO2? Could it be that nature adjusts to different conditions and is able to handle the CO2?

Show me a single study that proves that atmospheric CO2 is causing the earth to warm, that has not been proven either flat out wrong or scientifically flawed.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> That's exactly the point where I disagree. Obviously, humans were NOT the cause 15 million years ago....this article proves that. How can you or anyone else say, definitively, that we are now?
> 
> Another point that must be recognized is that the incident back then corrected it------by itself. There wasn't a scientist or politician involved. How can scientists say, definitively, that it won't naturally correct itself this time?


 There are MANY factors that influence the environment...and we as humans are but ONE element in that. We are forces of nature also...our actions DO matter. Of course climate has changed time and again. WITHOUT human influence. But that in no way means our CO2 emissions will not have an effect this time around.
I'm not for the 'carbon credit' schemes or any similar 'social engineering' type legislations... I am for voluntary conservation and, when feasible, utilizing lower carbon alternatives to generate the energy we need.
People must face the facts.... we are burning through around a hundred millions years worth of fossil fuels in a few short generations!
Major worldwide volcanic eruptions helped fill the air with CO2 in the distant past, it was also much warmer then,and plants around the world thrived on these conditions...thus the abundant deposits of fossil fuels we keep finding and releasing back into the atmosphere. Do we really want to recreate the Carboniferous Periods atmosphere? I am not saying it would be the end of things...but a warmer world equals more extreme weather.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out if the EPA has its way, you won't be able to afford the electricity to charge that Prius. The EPA is in the process of forcing the shutdown of coal fired plants that were built over many decades in a very short period of time.
> 
> When you do your future budgeting, figure on the price of electricity tripling if we're lucky.
> 
> You thought folks screamed when gasoline went over $3.00, wait until electricity heads for 50 cents a kilowatt hour. And it won't come down ... ever.


 I doubt anyone will be shutting down the new coal plant just built about 20 miles south of our place anytime soon. 'FutureGen'...built right over a coal seam. Apparently going to sell power to 8 different states... 
And man that thing is gonna burn some coal. 
Too bad its going to be burning bituminous coal...the dirtiest there is. The cost of all those scrubbers and pollution control is most definitely going to add to the cost of electricity. Its a tradeoff, though, burning bituminous coal without some form of pollution control would make life difficult for those living in a wide area downwind... Its filthy stuff, ever burn it? The creeks are loaded with it around here... 

Now electricity at 50cent a kwh...besides adding to the cost of everything, our solar panels would then generate an average of about $50 worth of electricty per month. And its a small array, only 1.1KW. If more people had solar panels, the demand for coal fired electricity would fade, and prices would fall. Maybe a few less mountains would need to be leveled.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

greg273 said:


> There are MANY factors that influence the environment...and we as humans are but ONE element in that. We are forces of nature also...our actions DO matter. Of course climate has changed time and again. WITHOUT human influence. But that in no way means our CO2 emissions will not have an effect this time around.
> I'm not for the 'carbon credit' schemes or any similar 'social engineering' type legislations... I am for voluntary conservation and, when feasible, utilizing lower carbon alternatives to generate the energy we need.
> People must face the facts.... we are burning through around a hundred millions years worth of fossil fuels in a few short generations!


I absolutely agree with you. I'm a tree-hugger from way back and my arguments aren't meant to say that I don't care about the environment. DH & I were using wind and solar energy long before it became 'cool'. 

I believe 100% in the need for alternative energy. It's the WAY this administration is going about it that makes me angry. There's no need for them to lie about it, to scare people into behaving a certain way. Just tell the darn truth about things, make the technology affordable and people will embrace it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Darren said:


> It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out if the EPA has its way, you won't be able to afford the electricity to charge that Prius. The EPA is in the process of forcing the shutdown of coal fired plants that were built over many decades in a very short period of time.
> 
> When you do your future budgeting, figure on the price of electricity tripling if we're lucky.
> 
> You thought folks screamed when gasoline went over $3.00, wait until electricity heads for 50 cents a kilowatt hour. And it won't come down ... ever.


 Sure that is what I posted about also.
And there are that many people that could go with solar, only a very very few. Most can't afford, or too old to get a return on that kind of investment. All the people that live in cities of millions and millions sure can't do it. 
And what a eye sore that would be anyways. We need to keep coal going and their is NEW Technology out there for clean air scrubbers that make hardly any pollution at all.
And we also need to get more plants switched over to natural gas, this country has so much of that we have 100's of years of gas.
And many ways to get more gas out now.
And those electric cars YA RIGHT. Where IS the electricity going to come to Charge them? Not from a back yard solar panel that is for sure.
It IS going to come from Coal fired electric plants.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Sure that is what I posted about also.
> And there are that many people that could go with solar, only a very very few. Most can't afford, or too old to get a return on that kind of investment. All the people that live in cities of millions and millions sure can't do it.
> And what a eye sore that would be anyways. We need to keep coal going and their is NEW Technology out there for clean air scrubbers that make hardly any pollution at all.
> And we also need to get more plants switched over to natural gas, this country has so much of that we have 100's of years of gas.
> ...


 Ah, where to start....

I'm not saying 'dont use coal', or natural gas. In fact, they are both abundant sources of energy which we WILL use. But your disparaging solar power is off base. You dont seem to realize the potential. 
'Clean coal' is a myth, so dont buy into that little piece of PR propaganda from the likes of Peabody, Massey Energy, and the like. 'Less dirty' coal, maybe.
There is nothing stopping MILLIONS of people from investing in solar, other than the modest up-front cost. Even that up-front cost could be reduced to ZERO if financing was available. Every rooftop in America could be a potential generating station, feeding into the grid when there is an abundance of power, drawing from the grid at night. 
And I am not sure why you think 'living in a city' prevents anyone from harvesting solar energy. If the sun shines on your house, you can use it.
And rooftop solar panels are no more of an eyesore than a strip mine, or a leveled Appalacian mountain with its streams filled in with rubble.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

InvalidID said:


> Scientific fact has always been full of speculation. I seem to remember reading that the Earth was once flat and the Universe revolved around it. Of course we've learned a lot since then.
> 
> Wouldn't it stand to reason if CO2 reflects light back to Earth, it would reflect MORE light away from Earth? I mean, most (read ALL) of the light comes from the Sun. Wouldn't that make the case for global cooling?
> 
> ...


You bring up some interesting points...
1. Actually, when they said the earth was flat, THAT was purely speculation. Unproven, unprovable, and unfounded. It became scientific fact that the earth was round when we discovered that it was, well, round, simply due to observations. Of course, there were still people who for quite a while attempted to show that the earth was still flat, sort of like modern skeptics.
2. What happens with CO2 is that it reflects a certain wavelength of light. IR, specifically. Here's a imple graph that should simplify things:









And, you are write that weather models can't predict weather very accurately. However, you are confusing _predictions_ with observed, observable, and testable scientific theory. Actually it's reasonably a fact until a better theory comes along to bump AGW out of the way, which is most unlikely. Especially since science is poorly replaced with conspiracy theories.



Txsteader said:


> That's exactly the point where I disagree. Obviously, humans were NOT the cause 15 million years ago....this article proves that. How can you or anyone else say, definitively, that we are now?
> 
> Another point that must be recognized is that the incident back then corrected it------by itself. There wasn't a scientist or politician involved. How can scientists say, definitively, that it won't naturally correct itself this time?


Will it correct itself? Can it? It certainly isn't correcting itself now. The problems are simply getting worse. Do you know what will happen when the ice caps melt? The sea levels *will* rise, and major cities such as New York and many others, will be made utterly useless and displace millions of people. Observe:








So, you are willing to take the chance? I suppose:









Which will it be? Hm. That money sure is tempting. Yet on the other side we have the whole earth. Hm. Well, we can have both, but we cannot obsess with the money part, because money is useless when all you want is food.



texican said:


> From a geological standpoint, the earth has indeed been warmer at times in the past, with higher CO2 levels than we have today. The earth compensated for the higher levels by sending the planet into a series of 'ice ages', of which we are technically still in (brief warming interlude, from a geologic time scale viewpoint). Earth balanced the equation... it will again. Just last week there were posts talking about the upcoming sunspot cycle that could drastically cool the planet.
> 
> I found the article subtly pushing an agenda, without showing how the earth recovered before, and not mentioning the absence of the industrial age existing 16 million years ago.
> 
> ...


Why would earth balance the equation when humans are the cause? We continue to contribute to the cause, and we have a very large scientific concensus that this is happening. Also, we do not have to go all the way back to 16th century style. We can do it... 22nd century style. We have the new, powerful, innovative, and clean technology to use, so why are we still stuck on this dirty, old, damaging technology? 
Also, you found the article pushing an agenda only because you sought to find an agenda. With scientists, there is little agenda other than good solid research. 



EasyDay said:


> The article was written in '09... years before the emails were released proving that scientists fudged the numbers!!!
> 
> :bored:
> 
> Next?


I suggest you research this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar



MoonRiver said:


> So why do we have an ice cap on both poles now?
> How did you leap to this conclusion?
> At least you said correlates and not causes. Why are the oceans absorbing more CO2? Could it be that nature adjusts to different conditions and is able to handle the CO2?
> 
> Show me a single study that proves that atmospheric CO2 is causing the earth to warm, that has not been proven either flat out wrong or scientifically flawed.


Actually, since the oceans are warming, they are unable to absorb as much CO2. The problem will continue to be compounded.











> Sea Surface Temperature
> The surface temperature of the world's oceans increased over the 20th century. Even with some year-to-year variation, the overall increase is statistically significant, and sea surface temperatures have been higher during the past three decades than at any other time since large-scale measurement began in the late 1800s.


I will not find a study right now, but why do you think humans are not even responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels? You are hopefully aware of the fact that burning stuff releases CO2, such as coal, oil, etc. Therefore, since we are burning so very much fossil fuel, we ARE the main cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Every rooftop in America could be a potential generating station, feeding into the grid when there is an abundance of power, *drawing from the grid at night*.


You can't shut down power plants every day.

You CAN stop the flow of electricity, but you can't stop burning the coal that generates the steam, and expect to have steam when the Sun sets


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

naturelover said:


> Uummm no, actually, it doesn't work the way you're thinking. You're talking about light, and light is not the issue (unless you're talking about UVA and UVB, which is a different but no less serious kettle of fish) - the issue is heat, not light. Water vapour will reflect light, and it will both absorb and reflect heat. CO2 is somewhat different from water vapour. Warming occurs because CO2 and other greenhouse gases, while they are transparent to, not reflective of, incoming solar radiation, they also absorb infrared (heat) radiation from the Earth that would otherwise escape from the atmosphere into space - the greenhouse gases then re-radiate this heat back towards the surface of the Earth. So - the CO2 allows solar heat to pass through to the earth, and also absorbs and reflects global heat back to the earth without allowing it to escape from earth's atmosphere.
> 
> 
> .




Interesting. Seems counter initiative but then again so do lots of things. I'll take your word for it though.

Even with that said, CO2 has always followed the heat. And if it was 9 degrees hotter that last time, why isn't it as hot now? I'd suggest it's because CO2 doesn't lead to global warming. Considering there is as much proof that I am right as there is I'm wrong, I'm willing to settle at a draw. LOL


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

InvalidID said:


> Interesting. Seems counter initiative but then again so do lots of things. I'll take your word for it though.
> 
> Even with that said, CO2 has always followed the heat. And if it was 9 degrees hotter that last time, why isn't it as hot now? I'd suggest it's because CO2 doesn't lead to global warming. Considering there is as much proof that I am right as there is I'm wrong, I'm willing to settle at a draw. LOL


Perhaps the sun was really really hot then. Perhaps the atmosphere was thinner. Or maybe the testing was flawed for that far back and the effects were actually quite the same as they are today, however, the bottom line is that the effects were _similar._


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> why do you think humans are not even responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels?


Because they rose that high before without people.

That was in the title of the thread.

I thiink most of the "AGW" is from the *hot air* of those who keep claiming it's a problem


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> Perhaps the sun was really really hot then. Perhaps the atmosphere was thinner. Or maybe the testing was flawed for that far back and the effects were actually quite the same as they are today, however, the bottom line is that the effects were _similar._


 See, too many perhaps. That makes it a theory, which makes it educated speculation. Personally, I'm not buying into it. I don't knock you for believing it though.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

InvalidID said:


> See, too many perhaps. That makes it a theory, which makes it educated speculation. Personally, I'm not buying into it. I don't knock you for believing it though.


 True and a person can post all the Computed generated graphs and charts they want to doesn't change the fact those are ONLY as good as the person putting the data into the computers to come up with it. And with the falsified info coming out as of late. People should take ALL graphs, and charts with a huge grain of salt., with Eyes Wide Open.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> I will not find a study right now, but why do you think humans are not even responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels? You are hopefully aware of the fact that burning stuff releases CO2, such as coal, oil, etc. Therefore, since we are burning so very much fossil fuel, we ARE the main cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels.


So, how do you explain the rise 15 million years ago? Surely you can admit that humans were not responsible back then. 

I've argued this with you before, but I'll ask again......what do we do about China and India, who refuse to comply with emission restrictions? It seems they're loving them some capitalism right now and aren't too keen on cutting back on emissions. What good does it do if the US cuts emissions in half yet they increase theirs?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> According to what scientific group? And, last time I checked, clean, renewable energy was only slightly more expensive than coal energy.


Heritage farm, we need to look at the big picture. Lets do our own study using statistics on net power generation from the Department of Energy. I like to look things up for myself and do my own sanity check. If you agree we'll use a table from the DOE. BTW my initial SWAG of 50 cents per kilowatt hour may be very low. And I didn't consider the huge increase that will happen in the cost of natural gas.

There's some really interesting info in the table if you like trends. One that shows up is the deindustrialization of our country. Another that's more subtle is the change in the mix of generation sources depending on the cost of the fuel used.

What I'm going to do, if you agree, is use basic math and provide the steps so you can verify my calculations. Here's the table. 

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_2.html


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Do you know what will happen when the ice caps melt? The sea levels *will* rise, and major cities such as New York and many others, will be made utterly useless and displace millions of people.
> 
> 
> Actually, since the oceans are warming, they are unable to absorb as much CO2. The problem will continue to be compounded.
> ...


And??? Seriously, whats the problem? new beachfront properties will be developed when our current coastlines are covered by oceans. Whats another 9 or 10 degrees???? folks will just have to run their air conditioners more... or move into what are now uninhabitable regions due to being covered with ice and snow year round. The only true constant... according to some of the brighter minds, is change. Let'er rip! Its the natural course of events playing out.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth which increase photosynthesis which increases the amount of oxygen. Any newbe horticulture student knows that.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can't shut down power plants every day.
> 
> You CAN stop the flow of electricity, but you can't stop burning the coal that generates the steam, and expect to have steam when the Sun sets


 No one is talking about 'shutting down power plants'. Fossil fuel burning power plants deal with varying load conditions ALL THE TIME. That is what they are designed to do.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> *No one is talking about 'shutting down power plants'.* Fossil fuel burning power plants deal with varying load conditions ALL THE TIME. That is what they are designed to do.


Greg, the reality is coal fired plants are going to be shut down. Here's a few recent news articles from across the country.


*American Electric Power and TVA.*

"... because of the unrealistic compliance timelines in the EPA proposals, we will have to prematurely shut down nearly 25 percent of our current coal-fueled generating capacity, cut hundreds of good power plant jobs, and invest billions of dollars in capital to retire, retrofit and replace coal-fueled power plants. The sudden increase in electricity rates and impacts on state economies will be significant at a time when people and states are still struggling."

"Itâs also interesting to contrast the tone of the AEP news release to that of the Tennessee Valley Authorityâs announcement in April about its plans to retire 2,700 megawatts of coal-fired units:"

http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2011/06/09/aep-would-shutter-5-coal-plants-to-meet-epa-rules/

"Consumers *could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.*"

*Rate increases at ComEd.*

The news comes as consumer advocacy groups are fighting a parade of utility rate hikes, along with legislation that could add an extra 2.5 percent to ComEd bills each year for at least the next three years. *ComEd customers paid 30 percent more for their electricity in 2009 than 10 years earlier.* ComEd, a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Corp., serves 3.8 million customers across northern Illinois, or 70 percent of the state's population."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0612-rates-20110611,0,7432941.stor

*Pacific Corp to close coal fired plant.*

"When it comes to power plant pollution, the spotlight in Oregon has been fixed on Portland General Electric and its plan to shut the Boardman coal plant by 2020 rather than invest $500 million to keep it running under stricter air-quality mandates."

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/06/pacificorps_reliance_on_coal_p.html


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> I am not saying it would be the end of things...but a warmer world equals more extreme weather.


Not even close to the truth... A warmer world means less storms. Talk to a meteorologist.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

greg273 said:


> No one is talking about 'shutting down power plants'. Fossil fuel burning power plants deal with varying load conditions ALL THE TIME. That is what they are designed to do.


The reality is, existing coal-fired plants cannot afford to re-tool in order to comply with coming regulations, so _they're_ making the choice to shut down. 

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9NVQ3600.htm


> A coal-fired power plant that has supplied electricity in San Antonio since the 1970s will be the first in Texas to shut down, the city and its electric company said Monday, an announcement that could put pressure on other energy suppliers to take similar steps.
> 
> The move by San Antonio's community-owned gas and electric company, CPS Energy, comes as many coal-fired plants nationwide face the prospect of stringent federal regulations on mercury and other emissions.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Uummm no, actually, it doesn't work the way you're thinking. You're talking about light, and light is not the issue (unless you're talking about UVA and UVB, which is a different but no less serious kettle of fish) - the issue is heat, not light. Water vapour will reflect light, and it will both absorb and reflect heat. CO2 is somewhat different from water vapour. Warming occurs because CO2 and other greenhouse gases, while they are transparent to, not reflective of, incoming solar radiation, they also absorb infrared (heat) radiation from the Earth that would otherwise escape from the atmosphere into space - the greenhouse gases then re-radiate this heat back towards the surface of the Earth. So - the CO2 allows solar heat to pass through to the earth, and also absorbs and reflects global heat back to the earth without allowing it to escape from earth's atmosphere.
> 
> 
> .



Tell me something... How does a cold body "heat" a warm one? Your "reflected" atmoseric heat is cooler than the initial incoming radiation. How exactly does that work? Can an iceburgs heat be used to cook a steak?


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

No one thinks CO2 doesn't have an affect. 

The main point of contention is the warmists. Believe that heat will build over time threw other processes. Like added water vapor. CO2 is already about at saturation point. Meaning adding more wont add any heat. What they really want is a reduction in the level of co2 in the atmosphere. A net fall in the amount of CO2. Even the most ardent warmists don't believe this actually possible.

Realists believe that when you put insulation in place it instantly has an affect. Their is no delay. So the world is as warm as it will get. The earth has processes that tend to negate any changes. If runaway processes were possible the climate would much more varied than history shows.


To the OP...
I can extrapolate the current temperature change of the last hour +10 F. By next week the earth is going to be hot enough to completly gasify all of it.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

naturelover said:


> Uummm no, actually, it doesn't work the way you're thinking. You're talking about light, and light is not the issue (unless you're talking about UVA and UVB, which is a different but no less serious kettle of fish) - the issue is heat, not light. Water vapour will reflect light, and it will both absorb and reflect heat. CO2 is somewhat different from water vapour. Warming occurs because CO2 and other greenhouse gases, while they are transparent to, not reflective of, incoming solar radiation, they also absorb infrared (heat) radiation from the Earth that would otherwise escape from the atmosphere into space - the greenhouse gases then re-radiate this heat back towards the surface of the Earth. So - the CO2 allows solar heat to pass through to the earth, and also absorbs and reflects global heat back to the earth without allowing it to escape from earth's atmosphere.
> 
> 
> .


Er, well, yes and no. You've got a couple terms mixed up here. In actuality, "light" refers to any packet of energy with a specific energy. For example, visible light is in the 400-700 nm wavelength range while radio waves are kilometers long. IR is just to the other side of visible red light, which makes it a tad less powerful. (violet light it more powerful than red light) Now, light is both a particle and an energy object... for want of a better word. So, light is the issue, since light is also energy. Of course, heat is it's own thing as well. Cold being the absence of heat, heat is the presence of more energy. Reflection is the act of any atom becoming excited with specific energy and then spitting it back out.
OK, never mind, you didn't have anything mixed up, it's just a tad harder for the layperson to understand I suppose.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

stanb999 said:


> No one thinks CO2 doesn't have an affect.
> 
> The main point of contention is the warmists. Believe that heat will build over time threw other processes. Like added water vapor. CO2 is already about at saturation point. Meaning adding more wont add any heat. What they really want is a reduction in the level of co2 in the atmosphere. A net fall in the amount of CO2. Even the most ardent warmists don't believe this actually possible.
> 
> ...


We are at the saturation point? According to whose study? There does not appear to be any real saturation point. Also, it is not going to compound itself. What is happening, though, is that the ice caps are melting. When this happens, the sun rays will be able to hit the water directly, causing extensive warming of the water. When this happens, many weather patterns will be disrupted, and we likely will have even worse storms than we have now. The hurricanes are getting worse, not better. If a warm world meant less severe storms, then we would be having nice, benign weather. Instead, we have typhoons in places never before recorded in history! Hurricanes also follow warm weather, which is what Katrina did, making it one of the worst storms ever as the warm weather caused it to build up energy.
Now, back to the melting ice caps, when they melt, we will also lose our heat trapper. The air currents collect warm weather around the globe and deposit it at the caps, making a global increase of even 1 degree as much as 10 degrees higher when it hits the caps.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

JJ Grandits said:


> Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth which increase photosynthesis which increases the amount of oxygen. Any newbe horticulture student knows that.


Your point?



Yvonne's hubby said:


> And??? Seriously, whats the problem? new beachfront properties will be developed when our current coastlines are covered by oceans. Whats another 9 or 10 degrees???? folks will just have to run their air conditioners more... or move into what are now uninhabitable regions due to being covered with ice and snow year round. The only true constant... according to some of the brighter minds, is change. Let'er rip! Its the natural course of events playing out.


What do you mean, what's the problem? Weather patterns are shifting already. Sections of the earth that were once green and lush are now deserts. Lakes have dried up, including one of the largest in the world, and glaciers continue to melt, migratory patterns are shifting and the ice caps are melting. Again, what do you mean, what's the problem? It takes water to grow plants, and plants don't grow well with temperatures as high as 122F.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> No one is talking about 'shutting down power plants'.


Then what would be the point of this?:



> Every rooftop in America could be a potential generating station, feeding into the grid when there is an abundance of power, drawing from the grid at night.


There is no savings involved


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What do you mean, what's the problem? Weather patterns are shifting already. Sections of the earth that were once green and lush are now deserts. Lakes have dried up, including one of the largest in the world, and glaciers continue to melt, migratory patterns are shifting and the ice caps are melting. Again, what do you mean, what's the problem?


All those things have happened since the beginning of time, and it's just silly to think anyone will ever change that.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> Not even close to the truth... A warmer world means less storms. Talk to a meteorologist.


 Actually I did study meteorology in college...more than a decade ago... Go back about 5 years ago, you posted this exact same thing... you were mistaken then, and are mistaken now. I as told you, correctly, then, warmer conditions mean more energy into the system, which needs to be rebalanced against the cold of space. This leads to a greater contrast, which leads to more extreme weather.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And now the guy that predicting hurricanes has said he see NO Connection and wishes these so called experts would be quite as they don't know a thing when saying the warmer weather will make storms more violent or more hurricanes. The weather channel guy has said this just a few days ago.
More hurricanes has been predicted now for the last few years and NONE of those predictions have come true. Look at what is happening now there has only been one in the Eastern Pacific., and that even pooped out in short order.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> The reality is, existing coal-fired plants cannot afford to re-tool in order to comply with coming regulations, so _they're_ making the choice to shut down.
> 
> http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9NVQ3600.htm


 True, I didnt mean to imply that older, more polluting coal plants wouldnt be shutting down. I was responding to Bearfootfarms allegation that solar grid-tied power is incompatible with fossil fuel burning generator stations, which is completely false.
But since you are talking about CLOSING coal plants, the fact is that many of them ARE major pollution sources, and do need to be upgraded. And yes, that is going to cost some money. You mentioned China... Do you want our countryside to end up as filthy, toxic and polluted as Chinas is becoming? All because of 'cheap electricity'? Cheap electricity comes with hidden 
costs...
Here is an example of the latest design in coal burning power plants, this is the one just built 20 miles to the south of our place.... 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_State_Energy_Campus

This is what qualifies as 'clean coal'....


> PSEC stated it will be "among the cleanest major coal-fueled plants in the nation"[7] through use of clean coal technology, producing as low as one-fifth the levels of regulated pollutants as typical U.S. coal-fired plants.[2] Noting that projected emissions nevertheless include *25,000 tons of soot and smog-forming pollutants yearly,* the Sierra Club and other organizations unsuccessfully sued to stop the EPA granting an air permit.[8]
> 
> According to the Chicago Tribune, PSEC will be the "largest source of carbon dioxide built in the United States in a quarter-century."[4] *The company projects a 15% reduction in carbon dioxide pollution compared with other coal fired power plants *based on its use of efficient supercritical steam generators and no emissions from transporting coal.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then what would be the point of this?:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no savings involved


 The topic of the OP was carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not 'cheap electricity'.
The point is every kilowatthour produced by SUNLIGHT is one less KWH that needs to be produced by burning a non-renewable resource. Thats the savings.
What the matter BF, does solar power strike you as too much of a 'liberal tree hugging' concept? Thats too bad, I see it as a method generate electricity on-site, at the point of use, using an abundant renewable energy source. Is it perfect, of course not. Is it 'pollution free'? Not during its manufacture, but after 2 years, the energy it took to build it is paid back. After that period, they generate electricity using sunlight for 20+ years with no moving parts, no noise, no pollution, and very little maintenance. Not sure why you have such a problem with utilizing solar energy. If anything, we should be diversifying our energy resources.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I was responding to Bearfootfarms allegation *that solar grid-tied power is incompatible with fossil fuel burning generator stations*, which is completely false


The only thing that is "completely false" is your claim that I ever said *that* at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The topic of the OP was carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not 'cheap electricity'.
> The point is every kilowatthour produced by SUNLIGHT is one less KWH that needs to be produced by burning a non-renewable resource. Thats the savings.


It makes no difference whether the generators are turning or not.

If you don't *shut down *the FIRES, you are still producing the CO2, and you cannot shut down the fires and expect to have it back online at a moments notice.

You need to pay more attention to *what I said *and less time with the "green" rhetoric


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Here is an example of the latest design in coal burning power plants, this is the one just built 20 miles to the south of our place....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_State_Energy_Campus
> 
> This is what qualifies as 'clean coal'....


NO THIS Qualifies for Clean Coal Fired Plants~!!!!!!!!
The technology IS there~!


> The technology can potentially* reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing and future coal-fired power stations by more than 85 percent*, CSIRO said in a statement.


http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2008/2008-03-10-03.html
http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2008/05/article_0006.html
And I am hearing Ads on TV that Wants the US the follow in China foots steps. As There IS Clean Coal Technology out there.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Actually I did study meteorology in college...more than a decade ago... Go back about 5 years ago, you posted this exact same thing... you were mistaken then, and are mistaken now. I as told you, correctly, then, warmer conditions mean more energy into the system, which needs to be rebalanced against the cold of space. This leads to a greater contrast, which leads to more extreme weather.


Then how come storms have been getting less frequent for the last 40 years?


I thought warmists say the artic was "warming" faster... So the contrast is less. Nice try tho.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> We are at the saturation point? According to whose study? There does not appear to be any real saturation point. Also, it is not going to compound itself. What is happening, though, is that the ice caps are melting. When this happens, the sun rays will be able to hit the water directly, causing extensive warming of the water. When this happens, many weather patterns will be disrupted, and we likely will have even worse storms than we have now. The hurricanes are getting worse, not better. If a warm world meant less severe storms, then we would be having nice, benign weather. Instead, we have typhoons in places never before recorded in history! Hurricanes also follow warm weather, which is what Katrina did, making it one of the worst storms ever as the warm weather caused it to build up energy.
> Now, back to the melting ice caps, when they melt, we will also lose our heat trapper. The air currents collect warm weather around the globe and deposit it at the caps, making a global increase of even 1 degree as much as 10 degrees higher when it hits the caps.



Tell me something... How is it that snow is more reflective than high angle solar rays against water that act as a mirror? Fact is snow reflects about 90% of the suns rays. Arctic water reflects 99%. Sorry!


For the rest of your post.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.
Furthermore, when each storm's intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

To the OP and the rest...

Maybe you should investigate the newest reasons for your religious beliefs. AGW theories stated here are long past the circular receptacle. Times have indeed changed.






http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/views/policy_statements/page7426.html

How did levels of CO2 in the atmosphere change during the ice age?

The atmosphere of the past 800,000 years can be sampled from air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice cores. The concentrations of CO2 and other gases in these bubbles follow closely the pattern of rising and falling temperature between glacial and interglacial periods. For example CO2 levels varied from an average of 180 ppm (parts per million) in glacial maxima to around 280 ppm during interglacials. During warmings from glacial to interglacial, temperature and CO2 rose together for several thousand years, although the best estimate from the end of the last glacial is that the temperature probably started to rise a few centuries before the CO2 showed any reaction. Palaeoclimatologists think that initial warming driven by changes in the Earth&#8217;s orbit and axial tilt eventually caused CO2 to be released from the warming ocean and thus, via positive feedback, to reinforce the temperature rise already in train28. Additional positive feedback reinforcing the temperature rise would have come from increased water vapour evaporated from the warmer ocean, water being another greenhouse gas, along with a decrease in sea ice, and eventually in the size of the northern hemisphere ice sheets, resulting in less reflection of solar energy back into space.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

I suppose you have to assume that the ice was laid down in consistent layers, that it wasn't 'upheaved' at some time(s), and that we can project the last 200 years of science history back 15 million years in a straight line (the sample being 0.0013333333 % of the total).

yeah... <cough>.. ok.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Palaeoclimatologists think that *initial warming *driven by changes in the Earth&#8217;s orbit and axial tilt caused CO2 to be released from the warming ocean


LOL

I like it when* their own sources *prove them wrong


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

stanb999 said:


> http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/views/policy_statements/page7426.html


Stan, thanks for posting that link. That entire page is well worth the time for everyone to read carefully.

.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

megafatcat said:


> Someone needs to lock the 'scientists' who support global warming in a room with the 'scientists' who are predicting another ice age. Give them each a broomstick to whack each other with.
> Whomever comes out gets the research grant money that they are so desperate for.


Couldnt we just let the groundhog predict it?...shadow no shadow...I like this method. :cute:


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Stan, thanks for posting that link. That entire page is well worth the time for everyone to read carefully.
> 
> .


I know what it says. They still need funding... But cracks are appearing. 

You see they admit the oceans are the primary provider of co2.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

stanb999 said:


> To the OP and the rest...
> 
> Maybe you should investigate the newest reasons for your religious beliefs. AGW theories stated here are long past the circular receptacle. Times have indeed changed.
> 
> ...


That's what the AGW cultists are ignoring. CO2 lags the temperature change. When the temperature goes up the CO2 concentration eventually rises. A lot of folks are confusing an effect for a cause. They're also ignoring the fact that the Sun is the largest single factor affecting our climate. That is irrefutable. There's a reason past civilizations worshiped the Sun. Today in our know it all state, we seem to ignore that.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Finally proof of AGW I can believe in... It's an article from USA today. :banana::banana::banana:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2011-06-22-ski-resorts-stay-open-july-4_n.htm


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

stanb999 said:


> To the OP and the rest...
> 
> Maybe you should investigate the newest reasons for your religious beliefs. AGW theories stated here are long past the circular receptacle. Times have indeed changed.


Since when did science become a religion? I ask that how can you make that assertion when you have made a continuous level of statements that even the most minimally scientifically informed person can tell is utterly wrong.



stanb999 said:


> Tell me something... How is it that snow is more reflective than high angle solar rays against water that act as a mirror? Fact is snow reflects about 90% of the suns rays. Arctic water reflects 99%. Sorry!


http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/climate.htm


> People living near the ocean experience the oceanâs moderating influence on the climate because *the ocean absorbs heat when the air is warm and releases heat when the air is cool.*


What you wrote was not supported in any way, it was a complete and total lie.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

stanb999 said:


> Finally proof of AGW I can believe in... It's an article from USA today. :banana::banana::banana:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2011-06-22-ski-resorts-stay-open-july-4_n.htm


I might believe you (and others might believe you as well) if you can come up with more than blogs, biased newspapers, conspiracy theories, and random false statements.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Since when did science become a religion? I ask that how can you make that assertion when you have made a continuous level of statements that even the most minimally scientifically informed person can tell is utterly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the link you posted shows anything about high latitude ocean reflectivity v/s snow, I'd be very surprised. It's one of those highly inconvenient facts. Like the Roman warm period, the incredible tree in the Ural, the last ten years of no warming, and ocean cooling as of late. They just are.

High latitude ocean reflectivity is germane to the conversation because you tried to say melting ice on the Arctic ocean would increase ocean uv up take(warm it). Fact is reality is quite the opposite. 

Is the Arctic ocean cooler or warmer under the ICE? Answer that then we can get into in depth discussions.


Which shows more reflection?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> Then how come storms have been getting less frequent for the last 40 years?
> 
> 
> I thought warmists say the artic was "warming" faster... So the contrast is less. Nice try tho.


 Got any credible links that support those statements? I think it would be quite difficult to accurately measure "storm frequency" worldwide over the past 40 years...
I dont quite understand your theories about higher temps leading to less storms, that goes against everything I've ever known about physics or meteorology. I'm not buying it.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Before it starts...

Here is an image of the melting Greenland ice-sheet. Let's watch it in real time. 











Here is the temp trend...


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Got any credible links that support those statements? I think it would be quite difficult to accurately measure "storm frequency" worldwide over the past 40 years...
> I dont quite understand your theories about higher temps leading to less storms, that goes against everything I've ever known about physics or meteorology. I'm not buying it.


The peer reviewed paper wasn't enough? I thought peer review was to be taken as gospel?


You said above that differences in temps was the key. Right? Well you just shot yourself in the foot because AGW claims the Arctic warms faster... So that would mean less difference. Right? Or is a warmer Arctic more different than the equatorial regions? (sorry for the oddly worded question.. But it kinda works)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I ask that how can you make that assertion when you have made a continuous level of statements that even the most minimally scientifically informed person can tell is utterly wrong.


One could ask you the same, since you want to ignore any* science *that shows it's you who is incorrect


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> That's what the AGW cultists are ignoring. CO2 lags the temperature change. When the temperature goes up the CO2 concentration eventually rises. A lot of folks are confusing an effect for a cause. They're also ignoring the fact that the Sun is the largest single factor affecting our climate. That is irrefutable. There's a reason past civilizations worshiped the Sun. Today in our know it all state, we seem to ignore that.


 Yes, the sun is THE most important factor regulating climate, but there are many others...when you add them up, they become meaningful. The amount of greenhouse gasses in the air is but ONE factor.
The fact that CO2 concentrations have lagged temperature rises in the past have little to do with the current situation...where CO2 is rising despite a relatively moderate solar effect. In the past, the CO2 liberated from the oceans, (and the earths crust) led to a positive feedback cycle, where more warming led to more CO2 which led to more warming. That is the concern today.
We cant do anything about the earths orbit, what we can do is slow down our putting 100,000,000+ years worth of decayed plant fossil soot into the air in a few short generations. That would make the air cleaner for everyone.
Gotta tell you though, I am not convinced either way. Even in a worst case scenario, humans and life on earth will most likely adapt just fine, just another change we will have to deal with.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Gotta tell you though, I am not convinced either way. Even in a worst case scenario, humans and life on earth will most likely adapt just fine, just another change we will have to deal with.


Maybe we can watch Greenland melt together... :bouncy:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And we can't do a thing about it now either. Man is not that powerful that he can stop or even Slow down a Natural Climate Change if Mother Earth has a mind to change it will change With or without man on this earth. Those computer models are Just that Models.
They were Programmed in by whatever the people wanted to see in the outcome. And They Have Been caught at fudging data. Enough said.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Gee What about this. I bet this has not being taken into consideration has it? Nope 
800-Mile-Wide Hot Anomaly Found Under Seafloor off Hawaii 
Gee don't ya think that might have some effect on the temperature of the ocean????
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110526-hawaii-magma-science-plume-anomaly-lava-volcanic-volcanoes/
And how many more are not yet found?????
Earth is More Dynamic that man can believe.

And let just One Good Volcano erupt for days on end that blows way more into the aitr that Man Ever thought of doing.
And there is no less then 25 Active volcanos erupting at any one time on this earth.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> The peer reviewed paper wasn't enough? I thought peer review was to be taken as gospel?
> 
> 
> You said above that differences in temps was the key. Right? Well you just shot yourself in the foot because AGW claims the Arctic warms faster... So that would mean less difference. Right? Or is a warmer Arctic more different than the equatorial regions? (sorry for the oddly worded question.. But it kinda works)


 The contrast is not between Arctic and equatorial water. The contrast is between atmospheric temperature and SPACE. Look at the big picture. Study up on heat transfer cycles, the engine that, along with the Coriolis effect, drives the Earths weather. Warm air from the equator goes UP, cold air at the poles goes DOWN. That is the earths heat distribution method in a nutshell. More energy INTO this system will need to be rebalanced.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> The contrast is not between Arctic and equatorial water. The contrast is between atmospheric temperature and SPACE. Look at the big picture. Study up on heat transfer cycles, the engine that, along with the Coriolis effect, drives the Earths weather. Warm air from the equator goes UP, cold air at the poles goes DOWN. That is the earths heat distribution method in a nutshell. More energy INTO this system will need to be rebalanced.


So your trying to say a tropical hurricane is directly affected by colder air sinking in the Arctic...

I know they have been between me and the Arctic many times.. I'm on the east coast. I have never felt the wind... You know between Florida and the Arctic. 

Your post is a bunch of nonsense!

By the way.. Which holds more heat. The ice in the Arctic or the entire atmosphere?

P.S. Your statement on heat transfer goes in direct conflict with your religion... Kinda like a catholic having an abortion... Just doesn't work.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> And let just One Good Volcano erupt for days on end that blows way more into the aitr that Man Ever thought of doing.
> And there is no less then 25 Active volcanos erupting at any one time on this earth.


Apparently not so. http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/views/policy_statements/page7426.html



> Some of the carbon input to the atmosphere comes from volcanoes but carbon from that source is equivalent to only about 1% of what human activities add annually and is not contributing to a net increase.


.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Gee What about this. I bet this has not being taken into consideration has it? Nope
> 800-Mile-Wide Hot Anomaly Found Under Seafloor off Hawaii
> Gee don't ya think that might have some effect on the temperature of the ocean????
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110526-hawaii-magma-science-plume-anomaly-lava-volcanic-volcanoes/
> ...


 Sorry, AK, but that is an oft-repeated falsehood.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html



> Our studies show that globally, *volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually*.
> 
> This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large,* the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. *Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Sorry, AK, but that is an oft-repeated falsehood.
> 
> http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html


Lets discuss sulphur dioxide. It's one of those inconvenient truths.

That's how a volcano caused the year without a summer. Snows in Philly in July.

:lonergr:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> So your trying to say a tropical hurricane is directly affected by colder air sinking in the Arctic...
> 
> I know they have been between me and the Arctic many times.. I'm on the east coast. I have never felt the wind... You know between Florida and the Arctic.
> 
> ...


 Stan, dont bother bringing up anyones religion, you have no idea what religious beliefs I hold. 
And yes, tropical hurricanes are indeed part of that same cycle of heat transfer between the arctic, antarctic and the equator. Basic meteorology there. 
Why not take time to look these things up before you post? You obviously are missing out on some basic physics info.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> Lets discuss sulphur dioxide. It's one of those inconvenient truths.
> 
> That's how a volcano caused the year without a summer. Snows in Philly in July.
> 
> :lonergr:


 Ok then, Sulphur dioxide...

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html



> Volcanoes and other natural processes release approximately 24 Tg of sulfur to the atmosphere each year. Thus, volcanoes are responsible for 43% of the total natural S flux each year. Man's activities add about 79 Tg sulfur to the atmosphere each year. *In an average year, volcanoes release only 13% of the sulfur added to the atmosphere compared to anthropogenic sources*. Andres and Kasgnoc (1997) noted that the bulk of the anthropogenic flux is located in the northern hemisphere while volcanic fluxes occur in much more focused belts around the world.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Stan, dont bother bringing up anyones religion, you have no idea what religious beliefs I hold.
> And yes, tropical hurricanes are indeed part of that same cycle of heat transfer between the arctic, antarctic and the equator. Basic meteorology there.
> Why not take time to look these things up before you post? You obviously are missing out on some basic physics info.


Mister Physicist...

Explain if you will how a warm body is heated by a cold body. How radiation can transfer from a less excited body to excite a more excited body... 

Basically AGW expects in the presence of co2 you can cook a frozen chicken. Like this.











To the rest of your post... I still haven't felt the breeze from the heat transfer between Florida and the Arctic.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Ok then, Sulphur dioxide...
> 
> http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html


So your saying this particulate isn't really the case? HMM. I've been to several large cities and never saw images of soot like this.










Here is a link to a video that shows devastation that can be caused by a volcano... That doesn't affect the climate. This was a pristine lake in Chile. It was considered one of the Gems of the country.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_cXUVZJxP8[/ame]


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

More proof of global warming...


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

More hot weather in the west today. Got sun screen? Nope. 

Better get your snow chains!




URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SACRAMENTO CA
233 PM PDT MON JUN 27 2011

..UNSEASONABLY COOL AND SHOWERY WEATHER SYSTEM TUESDAY AND
WEDNESDAY.

.A VERY DYNAMIC AND COOL LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM CONTINUES TO APPROACH
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA FROM THE GULF OF ALASKA AND WILL MOVE OVER
THE SIERRA NEVADA TUESDAY AFTERNOON INTO WEDNESDAY. THIS SYSTEM IS
PROJECTED TO BRING WELL ABOVE NORMAL PRECIPITATION AMOUNTS FOR
THIS TIME OF YEAR ALONG WITH CHANCES OF THUNDERSTORMS.

CAZ069-280945-
/O.NEW.KSTO.WW.Y.0074.110629T0900Z-110629T2100Z/
WEST SLOPE NORTHERN SIERRA NEVADA-
233 PM PDT MON JUN 27 2011

...WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY IN EFFECT FROM 2 AM TO 2 PM PDT
WEDNESDAY ABOVE 7000 FEET...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN SACRAMENTO HAS ISSUED A WINTER
WEATHER ADVISORY ABOVE 7000 FEET FOR SNOW AND BLOWING SNOW OVER
THE WEST SLOPE OF THE NORTHERN SIERRA NEVADA...WHICH IS IN EFFECT
FROM 2 AM TO 2 PM PDT WEDNESDAY.


* SNOW ACCUMULATIONS: UP TO 5 INCHES OF SNOWFALL OVER THE CREST TO
INCLUDE CARSON PASS ON HIGHWAY 88...EBBETTS PASS ON HIGHWAY 4
AND SONORA PASS ON HIGHWAY 108.

* ELEVATION: EXPECT SOME SNOWFALL ABOVE 7000 FEET WITH MOST
ACCUMULATION ABOVE 7500 FEET.

* TIMING: BEGINNING AFTER MIDNIGHT AND ACCUMULATING BY 3 AM PDT.

* LOCATIONS INCLUDE: CARSON PASS ON HIGHWAY 88...EBBETTS PASS ON
HIGHWAY 4 AND SONORA PASS ON HIGHWAY 108.

* WINDS: SOUTH TO SOUTHWEST WINDS 10 TO 20 MPH WITH GUSTS UP TO 45
MPH.

* IMPACTS: HIGHWAYS ARE OPEN THROUGH PASSES, SO ACCUMULATION MAY
CAUSE DELAYS.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

A WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY MEANS THAT PERIODS OF SNOW AND/OR
BLOWING SNOW WILL CAUSE TRAVEL DIFFICULTIES. BE PREPARED FOR
SLIPPERY ROADS AND LIMITED VISIBILITIES...AND USE CAUTION WHILE
DRIVING.

&&


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

More, Oh that's just weather, 

Todayâs Colorado snow report: Summer surprise for A-Basinâs extended season


http://www.examiner.com/ski-and-sno...summer-surprise-for-a-basin-s-extended-season


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

On the you better find a new place to ski front.....

http://www.nnbw.com/ArticleRead.aspx?storyID=17554

Engineering and construction firms are scrambling to repair the damage to buildings caused by massive accumulation of snow in the Lake Tahoe Basin last winter.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

A little something not mentioned in the MSM about the AGW fires in Colorado. Well I never...

http://www.chieftain.com/news/local...cle_a75271f8-9bd2-11e0-9b25-001cc4c03286.html

Snow, cool temps help quiet Duckett Fire

HILLSIDE â Mother Nature helped knock out the Duckett Fire Monday throwing some snow and cooler temperatures into the firefighters' corner.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

From those that say AHey.. Seems at least one Canadian is happy the biking trails aren't open... But the ski trails are. :teehee:

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/20...to-reopen-for-skiing-over-canada-day-weekend/

Mount Washington to Reopen for Skiing Over Canada Day Weekend
Published on June 22, 2011 @ 2:47 pm
By First Tracks!! Online Media

Comox Valley (BC), Canada - Summer was supposed to be normal at Mount Washington this year. Open on July 1st just like normal. Mile High Chairlift Rides and Bike Park opening just like normal. But last winter was not normal, and this is definitely not a normal summer.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And even More evidence of global warming.~!
*
Record snowfall extends ski season to July*


> In Lake Tahoe, Calif., a region that actually saw a slight decrease in overall skier visits because of frequent storms and road closures, Squaw Valley, Sugar Bowl and Alpine Meadows resorts will all be operating over the holiday weekend.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2011-06-22-ski-resorts-stay-open-july-4_n.htm


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Cool... thanks for all the pictures of extreme weather. Doesnt really help your arguments, but whatever...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Kind of blows yours when it gets colder then normal and when now they are saying the Sun is going to be quite for some time, and may even have a cooling trend. So much for Global warming theory now. May not get cool enough to start a mini ice age but nobody REALLY knows for sure.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Kind of blows yours when it gets colder then normal and when now they are saying the Sun is going to be quite for some time, and may even have a cooling trend. So much for Global warming theory now. May not get cool enough to start a mini ice age but nobody REALLY knows for sure.


 I've never heard any credible source say 'global warming' means hotter everywhere all the time. Everything I've seen indicates 'extremes' will become more common.
But then again, like you said, nobody really knows for sure. Some people have a better understanding of the science involved, but not even they know for sure.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

stanb999 said:


> From those that say AHey.. Seems at least one Canadian is happy the biking trails aren't open... But the ski trails are. :teehee:
> 
> http://www.firsttracksonline.com/20...to-reopen-for-skiing-over-canada-day-weekend/
> 
> ...


Your posts prove absolutely nothing. Please stop SPAMing my thread, after all, we do know what SPAM stands for...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> . Please stop SPAMing my thread


LOL



> I've never heard any credible source say 'global warming' means hotter everywhere all the time


Very few "credible" sources even talk about global WARMING

They used to, before they realized the facts don't support it, so then they started with the "extreme" line


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya it stands for something I not only don't like the smell of but won't eat it either.
Even hate to drive plant the plant in Mn. it stinks so.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

What did AK just say? :shrug:

:hysterical:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Paumon said:


> What did AK just say? :shrug:
> 
> :hysterical:


 No the post was for this person. stanb999 Reread post #129


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What did AK just say?


It's SPAM related
(*S*omething *P*assing *A*s *M*eat)


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Cool... thanks for all the pictures of extreme weather. Doesnt really help your arguments, but whatever...


You did notice all those links (except the volcano) were in the last week. :teehee:


I do notice you didn't address any of my questions to you. I addressed yours with a peer reviewed paper. Here it is again. IF you missed it.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Global Tropical Cyclone Activity Update 



New Paper: Maue (2011) Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity: 

During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records. 
Furthermore, when each storm's intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977. 



Do you believe a cold body can heat a warm one?


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Your posts prove absolutely nothing. Please stop SPAMing my thread, after all, we do know what SPAM stands for...


So when someone comes on and posts things that contradict your religious beliefs.. You get upset... Hmm.

I guess it's the same when you pollute a message board with nonsense about AGW...


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

stanb999 said:


> > Originally Posted by *greg273*
> >
> > _The contrast is not between Arctic and equatorial water. The contrast is between atmospheric temperature and SPACE. Look at the big picture. Study up on heat transfer cycles, the engine that, along with the Coriolis effect, drives the Earths weather. Warm air from the equator goes UP, cold air at the poles goes DOWN. That is the earths heat distribution method in a nutshell. More energy INTO this system will need to be rebalanced._
> 
> ...


Greg is correct. And your post is boorishly rude and ignorant. You really should investigate these things for yourself and offer evidence before accusing someone else that they're posting a bunch of nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Atmospheric_circulation

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

.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Greg is correct. And your post is boorishly rude and ignorant. You really should investigate these things for yourself and offer evidence before accusing someone else that they're posting a bunch of nonsense.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Atmospheric_circulation
> 
> ...


Wiki... Ok. LOL


You get boorish and rude comments when your not having a discussion. I posted papers in direct conflict to what he was claiming and he chose not to comment on that. That is why. He brought up discussion from before "proof" was available but a thinking person could have noted it easily. The oceans can't be heated by the air. Period. That is AGW folly. the atmosphere doesn't have enough mass.



P.S. Mahatma Gandhi "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> I've never heard any credible source say 'global warming' means hotter everywhere all the time. Everything I've seen indicates 'extremes' will become more common.
> But then again, like you said, nobody really knows for sure. Some people have a better understanding of the science involved, but not even they know for sure.


Hot everywhere all the time. No. But in the upper atmosphere. Yes always. No blanket not retained heat.

So now AGW is just conjecture. ound: So you agree with me finally after all this time!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> Hot everywhere all the time. No. But in the upper atmosphere. Yes always. No blanket not retained heat.
> 
> So now AGW is just conjecture. ound: So you agree with me finally after all this time!


 

You asked 'can a cold body heat a warm one'? Huh?? What do YOU think?? If you put a 98degree hand onto a 400 degree frying pan, your hand is going to get a lot warmer and the pan is going to get a tiny bit colder. So what?

And if you've read my posts, you'll noticed I've repeated that no one knows for CERTAIN what will happen as a result of putting 90million tons of heat trapping gasses into the air every single day. But you've not even come close to proving how that would NOT lead to higher average global temperatures in the long run.

And yes, your link was interesting, on the surface. I notice Rush Limbaugh likes it.... The data points indicate we are well into a period of SLIGHTLY LESS active tropics. But note the last part of the chart shows the curve going UP again. And notice the occillations on the global cyclone chart getting farther and farther apart. 

And if the atmosphere is warmer, and in contact with the ocean, energy will be transferred. Its just that simple. The air will get cooler and the ocean will get warmer. And if heat continues to be applied, they will both eventually get warmer. Thats just how it works stan. Of course it will take a LONG time to notice any effect, water has a very high specific heat, you know, it takes a lot to make it change (in either direction, gaining or losing heat).
Heres a question for you... what would happen to those oceans in the absence of an atmosphere?


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> You asked 'can a cold body heat a warm one'? Huh?? What do YOU think?? If you put a 98degree hand onto a 400 degree frying pan, your hand is going to get a lot warmer and the pan is going to get a tiny bit colder. So what?
> 
> And if you've read my posts, you'll noticed I've repeated that no one knows for CERTAIN what will happen as a result of putting 90million tons of heat trapping gasses into the air every single day. But you've not even come close to proving how that would NOT lead to higher average global temperatures in the long run.
> 
> ...


There is one little issue with your warming ocean from warm air.. Evaporation. It negates the effects of air warming it to just the top two millimetres.

So if the study isn't what you like or what certain commentators would like it is suspect? The reason you see and up tick is the earth is cooling a bit again.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

stanb999 said:


> There is one little issue with your warming ocean from warm air.. Evaporation. It negates the effects of air warming it to just the top two millimetres.
> 
> So if the study isn't what you like or what certain commentators would like it is suspect? The reason you see and up tick is the earth is cooling a bit again.


And then the more water we get in the air due to increasing temperatures. This could also be a bad thing. Again, what is your point? I do not think you actually know anything that you're talking about. 

Now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
This shows that water has a lower reflectivity than water, and is measured with this. Your statement that water is more reflective than snow is completely and utterly wrong. Haven't you noticed that you can stare at a lake but snow blinds you?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> And then the more water we get in the air due to increasing temperatures. This could also be a bad thing.


Good point. This is proving to be a problem here now where I am. Normally we don't get humidity with being on the coast but what's been happening in recent months is nearly constant low lying cloud cover with very little rain. We had no snow, rain or freezing temperatures last winter - virtually no winter to speak of. Temperatures are not too high (they're comfortably warm actually) and plants are still growing but the constant cloud cover is creating heat pockets and increasing humidity beneath the clouds. This is unlike anything normally experienced for this region, and it's causing a surge of fungus and mildews to grow on crops. With this kind of cloud cover the use of solar panels is out of the question and the lesser amount of sunlight is causing plants to grow very slowly. Further to the northern interior they're getting rain.

I'm not comfortable with the prospect of the whole world eventually being enveloped in low lying cloud cover and high humidity with little to no rain and no defined seasons. I don't know if that would happen but if the past 9 months here is anything to go by I guess it could happen.

Ha! We might all turn into mushrooms. 

.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> There is one little issue with your warming ocean from warm air.. Evaporation. It negates the effects of air warming it to just the top two millimetres.
> 
> So if the study isn't what you like or what certain commentators would like it is suspect? The reason you see and up tick is the earth is cooling a bit again.


 No issue, really. Its simple.
Take a bucket of water, place it in a warm, DARK room, so no sunlight can get in... measure the temperature of the air and the water in that room. After a time, they're going to be the same. Why? Because energy transferred from the AIR in the room to the water. Not all the H2O molecules will have enough energy to evaporate. Some will merely TRANSFER the energy received from air to other molecules of water. Try it sometime.
And remember the warming of the earths air, land AND sea is mostly due to SOLAR RADIATION, which is NOT limited to the 'top millimeters' of the ocean.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Very worrisome. It is hard to tell whether or not our area is being affected very much. We live in a strange micro-climate, where every single solitary storm goes around us, sliding over something like an invisible shield. We also get less rain that way, but around here, summer seems to be coming on more and more quickly, the fields turn browner sooner, and the rains turn off faster and sooner.
I like this neat little graph. Shows reletive amount of climate change per area. MO has recieved very little change, but the majority of the country has received plenty of change.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> I'm not comfortable with the prospect of the whole world eventually being enveloped in low lying cloud cover and high humidity with little to no rain and no defined seasons. I don't know if that would happen but if the past 9 months here is anything to go by I guess it could happen.


Gee, you're making it sound like the sky is falling.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> Gee, you're making it sound like the sky is falling.


That is exactly what it looks like here - can't even see the lowest foothills of the surrounding mountains because the cloud cover is so low and thick. Just sitting there.

.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> No issue, really. Its simple.
> Take a bucket of water, place it in a warm, DARK room, so no sunlight can get in... measure the temperature of the air and the water in that room. After a time, they're going to be the same. Why? Because energy transferred from the AIR in the room to the water. Not all the H2O molecules will have enough energy to evaporate. Some will merely TRANSFER the energy received from air to other molecules of water. Try it sometime.
> And remember the warming of the earths air, land AND sea is mostly due to SOLAR RADIATION, which is NOT limited to the 'top millimeters' of the ocean.


Sure, but your elementary school explanation doesn't work for the ocean. What happens against the black body heat in the solar system at night? 

Solar energy does heat the ocean. I said the plainly. In fact I said it was for practical purposes the only heat.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

naturelover said:


> That is exactly what it looks like here - can't even see the lowest foothills of the surrounding mountains because the cloud cover is so low and thick. Just sitting there.
> 
> .


So now it's foggy... Wasn't it just a few years ago that you were going to die due to the constant sunny skies? It was too Hot. 

Fact is the area in the pacific north west are governed directly by ocean temps and the PDO. The rain has shifted south. It will get more intense for about the next 15 years.... Then it will start to slide back north. My dear you just aren't old enough to remember this from the last time.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Very worrisome. It is hard to tell whether or not our area is being affected very much. We live in a strange micro-climate, where every single solitary storm goes around us, sliding over something like an invisible shield. We also get less rain that way, but around here, summer seems to be coming on more and more quickly, the fields turn browner sooner, and the rains turn off faster and sooner.
> I like this neat little graph. Shows reletive amount of climate change per area. MO has recieved very little change, but the majority of the country has received plenty of change.


So 1901-2008 is 100 years? Hmm.

When the giss has to release the data like the East Anglia had to. The "unadjusted" data will show a different result.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And using Wiki to prove a point? That is so wrong. Even schools are telling students do not use Wiki to do research.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Ed Norman said:


> Gee, you're making it sound like the sky is falling.





naturelover said:


> That is exactly what it looks like here - can't even see the lowest foothills of the surrounding mountains because the cloud cover is so low and thick. Just sitting there.


How can I tease you when you don't get the joke?



> Henny Penny, also known as Chicken Licken or Chicken Little, is a fable in the form of a cumulative tale about a chicken who believes the world is coming to an end. The phrase The sky is falling! features prominently in the story, and has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

All I know is I want that extra cool air here. It has been unbearably hot this year. Summer started in April, I have a bone to pick with Mother Nature this year!!!!!!


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Curtis B said:


> All I know is I want that extra cool air here. It has been unbearably hot this year. Summer started in April, I have a bone to pick with Mother Nature this year!!!!!!


they're still skiing here in UT. snow pack 700 inches above average.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

i still don't get how CO2 works as a one way valve to let heat in but not out.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Pops2 said:


> i still don't get how CO2 works as a one way valve to let heat in but not out.


Here is the answer:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/questions/1998/greenhouse.php



> Stated very simply, carbon dioxide, or CO2, is nearly transparent to the solar radiation emitted from the sun, but partially opaque to the thermal radiation emitted by the earth. As such, it allows incoming solar radiation from the sun to pass through it and warm the earth's surface. The earth's surface, in turn, emitts a portion of this energy upwards toward space as longer wavelength or thermal radiation. Some of this thermal radiation is absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere's CO2 molecules back toward earth's surface, providing an additional source of heat energy. Without water vapor, CO2, and other radiatively-active trace gases in the air, the planet's average temperature would be about 34Â°C cooler than it is at present.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Was it not at the U. of Cambridge that they found the researchers had altered their data to "prove" that global warming was man-made? 

The earth gets hot and the earth gets cold. Man has to adjust. Men live in Alaska and men live in the desert. We'll muddle along as best we can. I understand that camel tastes a bit like beef, and so does whale.

Now what would upset me would be a quick turnover of the sea bottom that suddenly released all the trapped methane and CO2 there. That would be hard to deal with. The methane and the CO2 would suffocate everyone in the lowlands, and maybe those in the mountains too.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> Sure, but your elementary school explanation doesn't work for the ocean. What happens against the black body heat in the solar system at night?
> 
> Solar energy does heat the ocean. I said the plainly. In fact I said it was for practical purposes the only heat.


 The explanation I gave for air heating water works for the ocean, for the land, for any objects of differing temperatures. Simple as it is, thats the way energy transfer works.
What are you talking about with 'black body heat in the solar system at night'?? Can you clarify, or make your point without asking convoluted questions?
And yes, solar energy heats the oceans. And the air, and the land, and every thing on the land. At last we agree on something.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

stanb999 said:


> What happens against the black body heat in the solar system at night?


There is no such thing. There is no night time or day time in the solar system.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

How is it that ALL planets are now "warming up"?
Is Man on those plantes as well? martians maybe? LOL ET's colonizing our planets?
See how foolish the left is when claiming man is the cause of GW on earth.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> How is it that ALL planets are now "warming up"?


Are they? Who told you that? What evidence is there that ALL planets are now warming up?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Are they? Who told you that? What evidence is there that ALL planets are now warming up?


Hmmmm Google can be your friend.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Hmmmm Google can be your friend.


Yes, I did that already. I found no scientific evidence that indicates that all planets in the solar system are warming up. I found a lot of crackpot websites that have no information based in real science, only on hearsay and conspiracy theories without any facts. What I did find that came close to being a reasonable discussion about it was this, from SkepticalScience. The general consensus:

"_Claims that solar system bodies are heating up due to increased solar activity are clearly wrong. The sun&#8217;s output has declined in recent decades. Only Pluto and Neptune are exhibiting increased brightness (not heat). Heating attributed to other solar bodies remains unproven."_ 


http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> The explanation I gave for air heating water works for the ocean, for the land, for any objects of differing temperatures. Simple as it is, thats the way energy transfer works.
> What are you talking about with 'black body heat in the solar system at night'?? Can you clarify, or make your point without asking convoluted questions?
> And yes, solar energy heats the oceans. And the air, and the land, and every thing on the land. At last we agree on something.


What you don't want to accept is ocean heating from the atmosphere cannot occur at a rate that can be measured. In theory it could.. A tiny tiny bit.

Two reasons... One is air is a fairly good insulator. Air more than a few feet up wont heat it at all. It simply can't reach out and touch it. 

Number two. Air in actual contact with the ocean can't heat it because it doesn't have nearly enough mass. Simply stated it is trying to cool a cast iron pan with a drop of water. 


A "Black Body" is anything that radiates exactly what it absorbs for a given temperature. (It's theoretical and not thought to actually exist. Matter is thought to be changing all the time. But this doesn't matter in this discussion.) Meaning basically colder body can't heat a warmer one no matter how massive it is. The reverse is always true. It also means that a tiny object can have great energy. But the heat that is apparent is equal to it's mass. Heat = energy. Temperature is a measurement of mass and energy; not heat.

Now how does this relate? Well the ocean is tiny compared to the cosmos. The cosmos is very large in mass and cooler than the earth in general. So all energy that can escape to "space" will and does. The atmosphere only slows the rate. It doesn't "heat" it. No matter how much you slow the heat loss no heating has occurred.


One thing of interest I learned while investigating this stuff a few years back was that most of the water vapour in a hurricane isn't from direct sun evaporation. It's from the wave action and high wind casting the water into the air and effecting the evaporation over a much larger area. The warm ocean water being blasted up into the air also keeps the air above the storm warm. Basically a hurricane is due to the temperature of the water alone. The air temperature has almost nothing to do with it.


P.S. Solar energy doesn't heat the atmosphere well at all.. It's heated by rising air due to convection for the most part. Air is as Paumon suggested is largely transparent to solar radiation. Air is heated well by conduction with the ground. Ever see a mirage?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Heating attributed to other solar bodies *remains unproven*


That would include Earth


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That would include Earth


Nope. They aren't talking about earth in that entry. They're talking about other planets in this system.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

dbl pst.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

stanb999 said:


> P.S. Solar energy doesn't heat the atmosphere well at all.. It's heated by rising air due to convection for the most part. Air is as Paumon suggested is largely transparent to solar radiation. Air is heated well by conduction with the ground. Ever see a mirage?


Thank-you for shining some light on why CO2 is a greenhouse gas!


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Thank-you for shining some light on why CO2 is a greenhouse gas!



:umno:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Heritagefarm
> Thank-you for shining some light on why CO2 is a greenhouse gas!


No one ever denied that.

It still is not *proof* of "AGW"


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> What you don't want to accept is ocean heating from the atmosphere cannot occur at a rate that can be measured. In theory it could.. A tiny tiny bit.
> * It can, and does. And 'a tiny bit' adds up over time.*


Two reasons... One is air is a fairly good insulator. Air more than a few feet up wont heat it at all. It simply can't reach out and touch it. 


> *Air is constantly in motion, the layers are mixing up all the time*.


Number two. Air in actual contact with the ocean can't heat it because it doesn't have nearly enough mass. Simply stated it is trying to cool a cast iron pan with a drop of water. 


> *
> If it is hotter than the ocean, it will heat it.*


A "Black Body" is anything that radiates exactly what it absorbs for a given temperature. (It's theoretical and not thought to actually exist. Matter is thought to be changing all the time. But this doesn't matter in this discussion.) Meaning basically colder body can't heat a warmer one no matter how massive it is. The reverse is always true. It also means that a tiny object can have great energy. But the heat that is apparent is equal to it's mass. Heat = energy. Temperature is a measurement of mass and energy; not heat.

Now how does this relate? Well the ocean is tiny compared to the cosmos. The cosmos is very large in mass and cooler than the earth in general. So all energy that can escape to "space" will and does. The atmosphere only slows the rate. It doesn't "heat" it. No matter how much you slow the heat loss no heating has occurred.


> * No heating has occured?? You ever hear of the SUN? We get PLENTY of heat from the sun, no matter what happens at night. Besides, our 'insulating atmosphere' you talked about does exactly that. INSULATE*.



One thing of interest I learned while investigating this stuff a few years back was that most of the water vapour in a hurricane isn't from direct sun evaporation. It's from the wave action and high wind casting the water into the air and effecting the evaporation over a much larger area. The warm ocean water being blasted up into the air also keeps the air above the storm warm. Basically a hurricane is due to the temperature of the water alone. The air temperature has almost nothing to do with it.


> '*Almost nothing to do with it' is irrelevant. The temperature of the air is always a factor in cyclone development.*


P.S. Solar energy doesn't heat the atmosphere well at all.. It's heated by rising air due to convection for the most part. Air is as Paumon suggested is largely transparent to solar radiation. Air is heated well by conduction with the ground. Ever see a mirage?[/QUOTE] 


> * Again, 'Not heating the air well at all' is irrelevant also, just because the sun doesnt 'heat the air well' doesnt mean it doesnt heat it at all! You should know this. As you know the 'atmosphere' is composed of much more than oxygen and nitrogen. There are GREENHOUSE gasses that allow light to pass through but act as a barrier to heat energy. So you can say the 'sun' doesnt do it, but without the energy input from the sun, neither you or I would be having this conversation.
> 
> Now, with all you've written, you have STILL not shown how INCREASING the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere by 90,000,000tons PER DAY will NOT cause a rise in temperature on the Earth*.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Sorry Greg but posting that way I can't quote you good.

When I say tiny ocean heating it's thousandths of a degree. Not measurable but theoretical. For practical purposes it means nothing. A cloud passing over just over whelmed the "warming". I sorry I must not of explained it well. The air doesn't contain enough heat to change the temperature of the water. The sun light regulates the heat gain of the water.... SUV's don't affect the sun... right?


The 90,000 tons... sure but it's .038% hardly much. "man made" in the last ten years is .00019 Not exactly earth shattering.

Who says there won't be heating from co2 not me. Sure about 1c per doubling. Hardly something to worry about. It won't melt the ice caps. It won't raise ocean levels. It won't affect much at all. Plus at the current rate it would take 100 years for it to take place. Then most of the fossil fuels will be gone so the whole point of AGW being an issue for the world is Moot. 


P.S. I hope you don't think the air mixes... That is in direct conflict with AGW theory. Otherwise any possible co2 warming would be mute. Convection would transfer the "heat" faster to the outer atmosphere if any built up.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> Sorry Greg but posting that way I can't quote you good.
> 
> When I say tiny ocean heating it's thousandths of a degree. Not measurable but theoretical. For practical purposes it means nothing. A cloud passing over just over whelmed the "warming".
> 
> ...


 90 MILLION tons per day, not 90,000. And yes, the air mixes, like I said, constantly and continuously.
And Stan, heated air doesnt just 'fly up into space' for the same reason you or I dont. GRAVITY.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> 90 MILLION tons per day, not 90,000. And yes, the air mixes, like I said, constantly and continuously.
> And Stan, heated air doesnt just 'fly up into space' for the same reason you or I dont. GRAVITY.


Check your PM


I didn't use your # I did a wiki for PPM for the last ten years. I did then converted it to a %.

CO2 is a trace gas.


The air doesn't need to fly out of the atmosphere to transfer heat to space. Your mixing theory is the same as my mixing theory. I believe that as air warms it rises and transfers it's heat to the air further up. As temps rise it happens faster. If it cools it happens slower. Air at high altitude vacates heat rapidly to space. This is well known and accepted.

I guess you don't believe in AGW as presented today by climate scientists.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*380 ppm* That is Up 100 parts PER Million, in the last 150 years.
WOW such a Tiny tiny amount but the GW folks just can't grasp it and say CO2 is so much higher, when in fact it IS a Tiny Tiny amount. And all this over that.
Write that out in Figures and see if many will agree. Write 100 parts per million in NUMBERS. And you will see how small amount that really is.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> *380 ppm* That is Up 100 parts PER Million, in the last 150 years.
> WOW such a Tiny tiny amount but the GW folks just can't grasp it and say CO2 is so much higher, when in fact it IS a Tiny Tiny amount. And all this over that.
> Write that out in Figures and see if many will agree. Write 100 parts per million in NUMBERS. And you will see how small amount that really is.


They also changed the location of where they test for co2 in the 50's. Since then is when it has "spiked". Who really knows what it was on Mauna Loa before the 50's


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

stanb999 said:


> They also changed the location of where they test for co2 in the 50's. Since then is when it has "spiked". Who really knows what it was on Mauna Loa before the 50's


It was measured in a different location, true. That makes little difference, the result is still the same. If you would care to show an area where the CO2 levels *have not changed*, it might mean something.

AK: It is a small amount yes, but it still matters. A lot.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

greg273 said:


> 90 MILLION tons per day, not 90,000. And yes, the air mixes, like I said, constantly and continuously.
> And Stan, heated air doesnt just 'fly up into space' for the same reason you or I dont. GRAVITY.


If we turned the sun off the earth would plunge into a permanent ice age, and everything would be dead in just a little while. But the sun is on, and the atmosphere determines just how much stays around earth.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> If we turned the sun off the earth would plunge into a permanent ice age, and everything would be dead in just a little while. But the sun is on, and the atmosphere determines just how much stays around earth.


 Exactly. Most of the atmosphere is relatively transparent to light AND heat... we are fortunate that a SMALL percentage of the atmosphere... those 'trace gasses' as stan called them, (otherwise known as 'greenhouse gasses) are in place. They are the insulator that keeps just enough of the re-radiated heat from the land, sky and ocean in place and keeps the earth from freezing over.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> *380 ppm* That is Up 100 parts PER Million, in the last 150 years.
> WOW such a Tiny tiny amount but the GW folks just can't grasp it and say CO2 is so much higher, when in fact it IS a Tiny Tiny amount. And all this over that.
> Write that out in Figures and see if many will agree. Write 100 parts per million in NUMBERS. And you will see how small amount that really is.


 Its called 'the greenhouse effect', and it is a well-established fact. * Even though the PERCENTAGE of CO2 in our atmosphere is small, that gas accounts for 26% of the atmospheres 'greenhouse effect'...* So your 'tiny percentage' actually makes a large difference to the earths temperature. And that concentration is on track to double in a few short generations.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Write it Out just don't tell us what percentage it is Wrote it Out~! And Show all to see just what HUge Number it is and what it looks like what has really been put in the air. Don't forget Humans Also Exhale CO2. Should we kill off humans also. LOL
So, lets see if there is 6.6 billion people out there and excreting CO2 at the rate of 0.9 or 0.565 kg/day, the total CO2 emission by human alone annually is:

claim#1: CO2 emission = 0.90 X 365 x 6 600 000 000

= 2.168 x 10^9 tonnes/year

claim#2: CO2 emission = 0.565 x 365 x 6 600 000 000

= 1.362 x 10^9 tonnes/year


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Write it Out just don't tell us what percentage it is Wrote it Out~! And Show all to see just what HUge Number it is and what it looks like what has really been put in the air.


:teehee:



> Originally Posted by *arabian knight*
> _Hmmmm Google can be your friend._


Well, what are you waiting for - go google it.

:nana:

.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

naturelover said:


> :teehee:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't tell me, I KNow what that number looks like.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

On a planet only 7000 yrs old?
Impossible.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Del Gue said:


> On a planet only 7000 yrs old?
> Impossible.


Here is a neat song about Global Warming. Tells it like it is.

The Global Warming Song. 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/user/raystevensmusic#p/a/u/1/ORyzsMZPPUg"]http://www.youtube.com/user/raystevensmusic#p/a/u/1/ORyzsMZPPUg[/ame]


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Its called 'the greenhouse effect', and it is a well-established fact. * Even though the PERCENTAGE of CO2 in our atmosphere is small, that gas accounts for 26% of the atmospheres 'greenhouse effect'...* So your 'tiny percentage' actually makes a large difference to the earths temperature. And that concentration is on track to double in a few short generations.



No not at all the 26% is an extrapolation.

P.S. I thought you didn't agree with AGW. You said the atmosphere mixes your a denier and just don't know it. Too funny.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> No not at all the 26% is an extrapolation.
> 
> P.S. I thought you didn't agree with AGW. You said the atmosphere mixes your a denier and just don't know it. Too funny.


 
What does the fact that the air 'mixes' have to do with global concentrations of CO2? You're all over the place, Stan. The figure of 26% for CO2s relative contribution to the greenhouse effect is from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20060325...nks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You're all over the place, Stan


LOL 
No more than those of you telling us how bad CO2 is for causing WARMING, and then telling us "warming" isn't really the problem, but "extremes" are.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> What does the fact that the air 'mixes' have to do with global concentrations of CO2? You're all over the place, Stan. The figure of 26% for CO2s relative contribution to the greenhouse effect is from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20060325...nks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf


Mixing = no glass for your "green house".
For a simple comparison it means you put screening instead of glass.

I didn't doubt your 26% figure.... I doubt the 26%. They say all feed backs are positive. That is where they arrive at that %. For instance melting ice at the poles is a positive feed back. When science shows the opposite.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> Mixing = no glass for your "green house".
> For a simple comparison it means you put screening instead of glass.
> 
> I didn't doubt your 26% figure.... I doubt the 26%. They say all feed backs are positive. That is where they arrive at that %. For instance melting ice at the poles is a positive feed back. When science shows the opposite.


 Are you implying you doubt the existence of the 'greenhouse effect'? And your statement about melting ice goes AGAINST all scientific knowledge. Ice is more reflective than water. Water absorbs heat better. How can you say 'science shows the opposite', when science shows EXACTLY that?? Where are you getting your information?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> No more than those of you telling us how bad CO2 is for causing WARMING, and then telling us "warming" isn't really the problem, but "extremes" are.


 I am just trying to figure out the thought process of those who say adding more heat-trapping gasses to the atmosphere will NOT eventually cause a rise in temperatures. I have no doubt that even if warming does occur, mankind will adapt. That is why I do not support radical draconian restrictions on CO2 emissions. I realize we as humans must burn things to exist, to cook our food, to heat our homes, to power our many different tools, machinery and vehicles . Its just what we do. 
The radical deniers make a lot of points that SEEM truthful, yet when analyzed closer, fail to hold up under scientific scrutiny. It seems most of you have allowed your hatred for AlGore to trump reason. I am no fan of AlGore, he seems to be taking a valid scientific premise , hyping it up and then trying to make a buck off of it. But since when is making a buck off the environment illegal? Some (the oil companies) do just that by encouraging consumption, while he is taking the opposite tack, trying to profit by encouraging conservation. Unfortunately, he is going too far and also trying to MANDATE conservation, which is where I draw the line...


----------



## sbanks (Dec 19, 2010)

Who measured it 15 million years ago?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I am just trying to figure out the thought process of those who say adding more heat-trapping gasses to the atmosphere will NOT eventually cause *a rise in temperatures*.


I'm trying to figure out why so many claim it's happening when in fact it has not, or why they say it's caused by man, when the temps have been higher in the past, pre-human.

Even some of the sources given here to "prove" it said the temps rose BEFORE the CO2 increased.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

stanb999 said:


> Mixing = no glass for your "green house".
> For a simple comparison it means you put screening instead of glass.


The atmosphere is like glass: some goes through, some doesn't. Some gets reflected, others don't.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Are you implying you doubt the existence of the 'greenhouse effect'? And your statement about melting ice goes AGAINST all scientific knowledge. Ice is more reflective than water. Water absorbs heat better. How can you say 'science shows the opposite', when science shows EXACTLY that?? Where are you getting your information?


Read post 194 and add mixing like you suggested.

Smooth ice sure. Do you think it's that kind of ice in the high Arctic? It's snow covered ice and pack ice which is blue. So it's reflectivity is much less than ice free ocean water. Scientific knowledge shows ocean waters adsorb very little at high angles. Like dusk or dawn for low latitudes or all the time at high latitudes. 

Shiny water dark ice...










Mirror like ocean.. blue ice.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

To the question of if I believe there is a greenhouse effect? Sure but not the way it's claimed. I think the temperature on earth is largely regulated by the phase changes of water. It's resistance to phase change is what makes the climate largely stable. We all know that water vapour is by far the most potent and plentiful greenhouse gas.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm trying to figure out why so many claim it's happening when in fact it has not, or why they say it's caused by man, when the temps have been higher in the past, pre-human.
> 
> Even some of the sources given here to "prove" it said the temps rose BEFORE the CO2 increased.


 The fact that the climate has changed in the past is not relevant, we know it has changed, repeatedly, without any interference from humans. But there is a new factor to consider, and that is our great numbers and our great penchant for burning fossil fuel. Our ability to tip the balance is what is being debated. The VAST majority of evidence shows we can indeed alter our environment. 
As far as it 'not happening', the data I have seen indicates both the average temperatures AND the seas continue to rise, if you have PROOF to the contrary, please share it. The forecast is for BOTH of those trends to accelerate. Guess we'll find out one way or another!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Stan...., pack ice, snow covered ice, it doesnt matter. *WATER still absorbs more energy than ice or snow.* So melting ice is indeed a POSITIVE feedback as far as temperature goes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The fact that the climate has changed in the past is not relevant


LOL

Of course not since it would prove you're wrong



> Our ability to tip the balance is what is being debated. The VAST majority of evidence shows we can indeed alter our environment.


No it doesn't.

It shows this has all happened before when we weren't here at all



> As far as it 'not happening', *the data I have seen* indicates *both the average temperatures AND the seas continue to rise*, if you have PROOF *to the contrary*, please share it


It took less than a minute to find

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm



> For the last 11 years we have *not observed any increase *in global temperatures. And our *climate models did not forecast it*


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html



> Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, *the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees *Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
> 
> And, say the British experts, *when their figure is adjusted *for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El NiÃ±o and La NiÃ±a, the resulting *temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius *-- in other words, a standstill.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Seven pages of nonsense and no one has bothered to answer my question.... And?

As in what difference does it really make if the earth warms a bit, or cools a bit? So what??? :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> As in what difference does it really make if the earth warms a bit, or cools a bit? So what???


It makes very little difference

The biggest thing is Govts trying to use it as an excuse to tax and control


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

So it's settled that the climate is mainly influenced by CO2, and a couple of other factors? Maybe not. Here is a nice article of factors which may or do have influence upon climate.



> Earth&#8217;s Climate System Is Ridiculously Complex &#8211; With Draft Link Tutorial
> Posted on June 30, 2011 by justthefactswuwt
> 
> By WUWT regular &#8220;Just The Facts&#8221;
> ...


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/...idiculously-complex-with-draft-link-tutorial/

There are some fairly amazing videos to watch, such as the sea ice time lapse for almost 30 years.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> Of course not since it would prove you're wrong
> 
> ...


 Again, the fact the climate has changed without us does not mean it wont change WITH us. How does that 'prove me wrong'?? Youre hilarious BF.

And your link 'Der Spiegel' is outdated... since then , 2010 has gone down as one of the warmest years on record, both on land and at sea. Even your link admits to a long-term , well documented WARMING TREND.

Here is a link that might be of interest to you. Maybe not as reputable to you as 'Der Spiegel', but is a lot of climate data contained within...



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

ps... If your link took 'less than a minute' to find, perhaps you should have spent at least a minute actually reading it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Even your link *admits to a long-term , well documented WARMING TREND.


Only when measured in *fractions *of a degree.

&#8226;


> The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2011 was 0.50Â°C (0.90Â°F) above the 20th century average


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nobody has ever said the climate would not change with us on it. The thing of it is MAN has NOT caused the earth to change its climate. Earth decides that. And man can Not Stop it can not slow it down and not control the change in any matter shape or form. That is just a liberal government trying to control its people by saying it can.
Man is just on this earth for the ride, and that is all, he can not change it, cannot alter anything the earth has in mind to do. That IS the whole thing in a nut shell.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Again, the fact the climate has changed without us does not mean it wont change WITH us. How does that 'prove me wrong'?? Youre hilarious BF.
> 
> And your link 'Der Spiegel' is outdated... since then , 2010 has gone down as one of the warmest years on record, both on land and at sea. Even your link admits to a long-term , well documented WARMING TREND.
> 
> ...



Just like this past spring... the NCDC said that this spring was warm here... in fact over the whole east. In my area. I know it was cold. I had to plant late. They are full of it. Ask around on the forum if we had a warm spring with early planting...

When they are forced to release data, like East Angelica was. See in the old records they had about 6000 weather stations counted, Now it's around 1500. They basically stopped using rural stations. They also "adjust" it....


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Stan...., pack ice, snow covered ice, it doesnt matter. *WATER still absorbs more energy than ice or snow.* So melting ice is indeed a POSITIVE feedback as far as temperature goes.


Not in the high Arctic. You are or are being miss informed. I'm beginning to consider your not capable of getting it. By the way Ice free Arctic ocean is colder than an ice covered one. Ice insulates the water under it. Bet you can't get that too. Ever here of super cooled water? Most likely not. Could it be self regulating..

Considering the points your professing your clearly not up to date on. Most of the climate scientists have capitulated on points I have mentioned, yet you go on and on about them. I suggest you take some time for catechism. Your info is so bad it hardly merits a response. You don't understand that the basic tenets of what you profess. 

Yeah, discuss mixing in the atmosphere. :clap: Good luck with that.
Discuss how the Arctic "melted".  Yeah, it's "warm" too. It may be warm in Siberia but not over the Arctic ocean. Bet you don't even understand the statement. 
Discuss how co2 "warms" the earth alone. :umno: It can provide a max of around 1C per doubling on it's own. Bet you don't know that also. Bet you don't even know that water vapour blocks most of the effects of co2. 

Yet you don't even profess to understand how it isn't possible for air to warm the ocean. Your really not getting it? Or are you just being dense? If it's the former. I can explain it more. If it's the latter.... Have a good day.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Only when measured in *fractions *of a degree.
> 
> &#8226;


Yeah, with a thermometer capable of 1 degree increments. No matter how you massage the data... It can't increase in precision over the original scale. You can find a figure by averaging but you can not eliminate the one degree error bars. The error bars are greater than the change.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Seven pages of nonsense and no one has bothered to answer my question.... And?
> 
> As in what difference does it really make if the earth warms a bit, or cools a bit? So what??? :shrug:






There is one good thing about the great recession...

At least most of the CO2 plans are being scrapped. The cost is finally being considered. 
So the fact is the environmental wackos have lost the minds and hearts for the population and the politicians will hang if the double the cost of energy.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Seven pages of nonsense and no one has bothered to answer my question.... And?
> 
> As in what difference does it really make if the earth warms a bit, or cools a bit? So what??? :shrug:


What constitutes a bit to you? Are you talking 2 degrees, 10 degrees, 20?

It would be better if the earth got cooler as that will only alter some ecosystems and do less harm to all bodies of water. If it gets warmer by a few degrees then that will alter all ecosystems worldwide starting with the oceans and large freshwater bodies. That will create a domino effect on land of many plant and animal species dying off while insect populations multiply tenfold or more.

.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

naturelover said:


> What constitutes a bit to you? Are you talking 2 degrees, 10 degrees, 20?
> 
> It would be better if the earth got cooler as that will only alter some ecosystems and do less harm to all bodies of water. If it gets warmer by a few degrees then that will alter all ecosystems worldwide starting with the oceans and large freshwater bodies. That will create a domino effect on land of many plant and animal species dying off while insect populations multiply tenfold or more.
> 
> .


3 degrees C and your living on a 2 mile tall glacier. Canada will be completely devoid of life. You best pray for a little warmth.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

stanb999 said:


> 3 degrees C and your living on a 2 mile tall glacier. Canada will be completely devoid of life. You best pray for a little warmth.


 You bet, warming is way better then this planet cooling off.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That will create a domino effect on land of many plant and animal species dying off while insect populations multiply tenfold or more.



It won't be the first time it's happened , and it won't be the last, and there's nothing humans can do to alter that


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ha! You thin-blooded whoosie guys are just afraid of a little bit of cold weather. :grin: If Canada freezes up like that then so will you.

I'll take the cooler temps over the extra heat any day. I don't believe a drop of 3 degrees centigrade will freeze up the northern hemisphere like Stan says but I do believe a 5 degree centigrade increase in temps will steam the whole planet into a swollen mushroom crawling with giant bugs.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't believe a drop of *3 degrees *centigrade will freeze up the northern hemisphere like Stan says but I do believe a *5 degree *centigrade increase in temps will steam the whole planet into a swollen mushroom crawling with giant bugs.



Neither will make a huge difference, and none of us will live long enough to see any real change at all


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Neither will make a huge difference, and none of us will live long enough to see any real change at all


Which is why I think a lot of people couldn't care less about whether or not human activity now will be effecting the rest of life on earth in the future. Why should they care what kind of heritage they leave for their future generations if they aren't going to be around to see it? Live high on the hog ravenously now and let the devil take the hind most, right? So much for good stewardship of the earth. With that kind of popular all-consuming attitude I'd be just as happy to see the entire planet freeze solid then start over again without any humans on it.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Why should they care what kind of heritage they leave for their future generations if they aren't going to be around to see it? Live high on the hog ravenously now and let the devil take the hind most, right? So much for good stewardship of the earth. With that kind of popular all-consuming attitude I'd be just as happy to see the entire planet freeze solid then start over again without any humans on it.



My point it the planet has been both much hotter and much colder, and it will repeat those cycles no matter what we do.

I see no point in worrying about something over which we have NO control


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> Not in the high Arctic. You are or are being miss informed. I'm beginning to consider your not capable of getting it. By the way Ice free Arctic ocean is colder than an ice covered one. Ice insulates the water under it. Bet you can't get that too. Ever here of super cooled water? Most likely not. Could it be self regulating..
> 
> Considering the points your professing your clearly not up to date on. Most of the climate scientists have capitulated on points I have mentioned, yet you go on and on about them. I suggest you take some time for catechism. Your info is so bad it hardly merits a response. You don't understand that the basic tenets of what you profess.
> 
> ...


 You post some strange things...telling me I'm not 'up to date' on the info while you try to rewrite the science textbooks with your own half-baked theories is laughable. You've gone off on so many tangents its incredible, and have yet to prove a single point.
"water vapor BLOCKS the effects of CO2"?? LOL Sure pal, whatever. Trying to have a reasoned debate with you is proving impossible, you make blanket statements, provide little or no references, and try to tell others what they believe. As if you know. LOL 
Not sure where you are getting your info, but most of it is misguided if not downright false. 

You cant seem to grasp how the air could warm the ocean, let me explain it this way. Its actually not so much the AIR...its the SUNLIGHT. I think I said that about twenty posts ago. Now if less heat escapes through that atmosphere, the net effect is going to be a RISE in temperatures. On land, air and SEA. 

And your comment about CO2 doubling causing a '1C degree rise' is completely false. It is closer to 2-4C. You can quote junk science all you want, repeat as many lies as you want, but people who actually know about this are not going to be fooled. Interesting you admit increasing CO2 will increase temperature...Looks like you're a closet global warming believer! 

Here is some reading material for you, but warning, it contradicts nearly everything you've posted. But you may actually learn something.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Only when measured in *fractions *of a degree.
> 
> &#8226;


 I said *2010* was record year for heat, tied with 2005 as the warmest since records were kept in 1880, NOT 'May of 2011'....



> The year 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year since records began in 1880. *The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62Â°C (1.12Â°F) above the 20th century average.* The range associated with this value is plus or minus 0.07Â°C (0.13Â°F). The 2010 combined land and ocean surface temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was also the warmest on record, while the combined land and ocean surface temperature in the Southern Hemisphere was the sixth warmest such period on record. The annual globally averaged land temperature was 0.96Â°C (1.73Â°F) above average, which tied with 2005 as the second warmest year record. The range associated with this value is plus or minus 0.11Â°C (0.20Â°F). The warmest year was 2007, at 0.99Â°C (1.78Â°F) above the 20th century average. *The decadal global land and ocean average temperature anomaly for 2001&#8211;2010 was the warmest decade on record for the globe, with a surface global temperature of 0.56Â°C (1.01Â°F) above the 20th century average. This surpassed the previous decadal record (1991&#8211;2000) value of 0.36Â°C (0.65Â°F).*


 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I said 2010 was* record year *for heat,


LOL

They only have records for about 150 years.

It's irrelevant


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> You post some strange things...telling me I'm not 'up to date' on the info while you try to rewrite the science textbooks with your own half-baked theories is laughable. You've gone off on so many tangents its incredible, and have yet to prove a single point.
> "water vapor BLOCKS the effects of CO2"?? LOL Sure pal, whatever. Trying to have a reasoned debate with you is proving impossible, you make blanket statements, provide little or no references, and try to tell others what they believe. As if you know. LOL
> Not sure where you are getting your info, but most of it is misguided if not downright false.
> 
> ...



:hysterical: realclimate... MANN I wonder how long till he is indicted? He has been spending fedaeral money on false "science".


Your thought is so tiny.

Here is a simple chart... It depicts how water vapour overlaps or cancels co2.










Your so lacking of current knowledge your statements are laughable. Yeah, stick to it. It doesn't really matter. Your side lost the battle.

Yeah, warming oceans... Too bad it isn't the case.



P.S. I thought you couldn't "get it". The ocean can't be heated by air... Black body radiation is the reason.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

You think that chart shows water 'cancels' the thermal absorbing qualities of CO2? Is that REALLY what you get from that chart?LOL. That theory was debunked decades ago. Really, where do you get your information? Notice the overlapping regions of absorbsion do NOT match up entirely. There are still wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2 and NOT water. The earliest researchers made this mistake, with the crude spectrometers of the time. 
You've already acknowledged CO2 WILL cause an increase, (although you used WAY outdated info ), so why the big argument?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

From the American Institute of Physics regarding spectral absorption by CO2 and water...



> The early experiments that sent radiation through gases in a tube, measuring bands of the spectrum at sea-level pressure and temperature, had been misleading. The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, which in the primitive early instruments had been smeared out into broad bands. Improved physics theory and precise laboratory measurements in the 1940s and after encouraged a new way of looking at the absorption. Scientists were especially struck to find that at low pressure and temperature, each band resolved into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between the lines where radiation would get through.(24) As Hulburt and Callendar had claimed, the most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through. So even if water vapor in the lower layers of the atmosphere did entirely block any radiation that could have been absorbed by CO2, that would not keep the gas from making a difference in the rarified and frigid upper layers. Those layers held very little water vapor anyway. And scientists were coming to see that you couldn't just calculate absorption for radiation passing through the atmosphere as a whole, you had to understand what happened in each layer â which was far harder to calculate.


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


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

The ocean temperature...










The oceans are warming up, slowly but surely.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya and they keep finding all sorts of open volcanic fissures to at the bottom of the ocean that they never knew were there. So many things like that have not been taken into consideration with the over the hill GW folks. They only have one thing on their minds and that Man is bad and GW is what is causing GW, when that is far from the truth. Far from it.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

there is so much in this thread that could be addressed, but perhaps a bit too much. i do want to say this...

many folks keep wondering how CO2 levels could rise 15 million years ago without humans, basically implying that if we blame humans now, it is bogus because there were no humans to cause it then. it is because levels that we see now and then are catastrophic. we, or perhaps our use of fossil fuels, are the cause of the catastrophe. 

i wonder just how much CO2 is released when a huge asteroid impacts with the earth and 80% of the entire surface of the earth is burned away? imagine that...80% of every single living organism on the surface of the earth burned pretty much all at once. i think that would release a tremendous amount of CO2. also, perhaps a single volcano may not emit much CO2 relatively speaking, but imagine a hole in the earth's crust half the size of australia. i think that, too, would release a tremendous amount of CO2. i have only seen a report of one strike this big...the one that hit the Yucatan and Caribbean. no...it wasn't 15 million years ago, but that is not relevent to this hypothetical. large impacts have happened throughout earth's history. however, they happen randomly. they are catastrophic and not routine or "natural" in the sense that it should be expected. 

in the meantime, during the times before the industrial revolution, the earth basically does balance itself. or perhaps you should think of it as existing in a state of balance where there are minor "extremes". perhaps the earth heats up a little more from a period of increased solar activity or increased volcanic activity that releases lots of gases. perhaps there was a volcano that impacted a frozen area, like a tundra, and released lots of gases. perhaps the earth had periods where the temperature increased without the help of humans, but short term, the earth is in balance. what cannot be balanced is a catastrophic release of all of the CO2 found in all of the fossil fuels burned in the last 150+ years that had previously been locked away for millions of years. that is not natural and not a part of the earth's cycle.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Eventually geochemists and their allies managed to get numbers for the "climate sensitivity" in past eras, that is, the response of temperature to a rise in the CO2 level. Over hundreds of millions of years, *a doubled level of the gas had always gone along with a temperature rise of three degrees, give or take a degree or two*. That was in startling agreement with the range of numbers coming from many computer studies. Evidently the computer modelers had not missed something huge


LOL

All the hype over 3 degrees


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> You think that chart shows water 'cancels' the thermal absorbing qualities of CO2? Is that REALLY what you get from that chart?LOL. That theory was debunked decades ago. Really, where do you get your information? Notice the overlapping regions of absorbsion do NOT match up entirely. There are still wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2 and NOT water. The earliest researchers made this mistake, with the crude spectrometers of the time.
> You've already acknowledged CO2 WILL cause an increase, (although you used WAY outdated info ), so why the big argument?


I said it blocks some of the affects. apparently you agree.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> The ocean temperature...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


NO that is the "combined".

This shows the ocean temperature in red. Largely flat.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> From the American Institute of Physics regarding spectral absorption by CO2 and water...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm


Yeah, that's the findings that suggest a warm spot in the high atmosphere. It doesn't exist.

here is the chart... For some reason it doesn't show up as an image . 

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> Yeah, that's the findings that suggest a warm spot in the high atmosphere. It doesn't exist.
> 
> here is the chart... For some reason it doesn't show up as an image .
> 
> ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png



They dont suggest a 'warm spot' high in the atmosphere, it proves that CO2 will continue to trap heat high in the atmosphere; the upper atmosphere will be RELATIVELY WARMER with higher concentrations of CO2. 
Anyone who looks at this chart can see the upward trend.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> NO that is the "combined".
> 
> This shows the ocean temperature in red. Largely flat.


 Uh, no. The red data points are still land-ocean temps combined. Just as I already showed in the chart. Except the chart I showed was for 130 years, the one you posted and claimed was 'largely flat' was only from 1996. They are from the same data, and BOTH charts show an upward trend, nothing flat about them at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> BOTH charts show an* upward trend*, nothing flat about them at all.


And it's STILL *less than 1 degree*


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

...............


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Does this put anything into perspective regarding this recent "unprecedented" warming that has been going on? Will the earth survive?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You see that is what is wrong with the GW folks. They can't use charts like that. It would not make their OWN CHARTS look like they want them to. LOL


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Their own chart uses the very last line that is almost vertical, and ignores those other 420,000 lines that go up and down and up and down and...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Ed Norman said:


> Their own chart uses the very last line that is almost vertical, and ignores those other 420,000 lines that go up and down and up and down and...


 Where is the rest of it? link? OK, got it , the entire chart didnt load at first...


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

I had a heck of a time hosting those two pics for some reason. First site wouldn't show at all, this place worked extra slow. I'm glad you can see them finally.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Ed Norman said:


> I had a heck of a time hosting those two pics for some reason. First site wouldn't show at all, this place worked extra slow. I'm glad you can see them finally.


 OK, no one is saying climate has not changed before absent mankind. We can all agree the data shows that. Unfortunately, that fact does nothing to disprove mankind can have an effect. Plot the CO2 charts along with it. Historically, there has been a lag in temp/CO2 correlations, the temps normally rise 800 years before CO2 rises. Now, thanks to rampant burning of fossil fuels, we see CO2 rising first. Will temp follow? We will find out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Historically, there has been a lag in temp/CO2 correlations, the temps normally rise 800 years before CO2 rises. Now, thanks to rampant burning of fossil fuels,* we see CO2 rising first*. Will temp follow? We will find out.


Logically, if CO2 *causes* temps to rise, then when temps rose in the past BEFORE the rise of CO2, they should have *continued* to rise as levels increased.

We are NOT "seeing CO2 rise first", since we have been in a *warming trend *since the last Ice Age , 10,000 years ago


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

According to this chart, CO2 is falling pretty fast on the big scale. The minute 100 year blip of fossil fuel use is hardly important.



Here is a favorite chart showing two predictions from the same data. One uses past precedent to predict future activity. THe other uses doom and gloom and money grabbing policies.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Many already know that the Hockey Stick graph of GW Guru, Al gore, was made up. Fiction made up by AG to Push his agenda, for carbon trade.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> What constitutes a bit to you? Are you talking 2 degrees, 10 degrees, 20?
> 
> It would be better if the earth got cooler as that will only alter some ecosystems and do less harm to all bodies of water. If it gets warmer by a few degrees then that will alter all ecosystems worldwide starting with the oceans and large freshwater bodies. That will create a domino effect on land of many plant and animal species dying off while insect populations multiply tenfold or more.
> 
> .


Ummm..... And????? in the grand scheme of things, what difference would a 50 degree temperature increase really have? We already have places on the planet uninhabitable for one reason or a dozen others. People will simply adapt to the changes, or not. not a big deal either way.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Logically, if CO2 *causes* temps to rise, then when temps rose in the past BEFORE the rise of CO2, they should have *continued* to rise as levels increased.


 Yes, that is what has occurred.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Yes, that is what has occurred.


Not exactly... We have had 10 years of flat temps.... In 10 more it will be 20. which is about how long it was warming. The PDO will be cooling the planet for the next about 30 years. It flipped in 2005. In about three or so years the AMO will flip to it's cold phase and all the "warming" will be a thing of the past for the next 30-40 years. This is why scientists are coming out and saying to prepare for a 'little iceage' in the doldrums of the next solar cycle.



To put it into perspective. The last time we had a -PDO and a -AMO the scare mongers were calling for an iceage. Hanson the warmist started his career as a iceage monger.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> They dont suggest a 'warm spot' high in the atmosphere, it proves that CO2 will continue to trap heat high in the atmosphere; the upper atmosphere will be RELATIVELY WARMER with higher concentrations of CO2.
> Anyone who looks at this chart can see the upward trend.


Yeah, the absolutely mind blowing .3 c in 30 years. At that rate it will take one century to gain 1c. Mind blowing.



No one said it hasn't warmed. It's warmed a tiny bit. If it continues to warm the amount measured for the next hundred years or two hundred years. It still won't mean much.

The models show run away AGW. The religion was based off of false early science. The models are proven totally false with simple observation.


They said the Arctic would be ice free in 2008. They said that ski resorts in Colorado better find a different way to make money because it wasn't going to snow any more.

Now snow=AGW.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yes, that is what has occurred.



LOL, no it has not, since in the past the climate here was TROPICAL, and now it's temperate.

Using your "logic" the temps* would have never fallen *and we'd be like Venus by now


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Ed Norman said:


> Does this put anything into perspective regarding this recent "unprecedented" warming that has been going on? Will the earth survive?


"Freeimagehosting.net"?
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok.1999.temp.dat


> *Not Found
> 
> We are sorry, but the page you're trying to reach is unavailable or may no longer exist. *


Not even a real image.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> "Freeimagehosting.net"?
> 
> Not even a real image.


Ooh, tough guy caught me with my crayons. If you had read the earlier post, I said I had to host it, it was an image I had saved from when I first read it. Here is an article to enjoy with your crow dinner. 

http://dailybayonet.com/?p=2888

Don't forget your dessert.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2453.html


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

stanb999 said:


> Yeah, the absolutely mind blowing .3 c in 30 years. At that rate it will take one century to gain 1c. Mind blowing.


Do you not understand what we are talking about here? We aren't talking about any ordinary temperature. We're not saying that Los Angelas has gone up .3 C in 30 years. Or New York. Or Bob's Field, or whatever. We are talking about the entire globe. The global temperature anamoly. The average of every single temperature around the world. When you're dealing with large amounts of numbers, it take a LOT to shift the average. And that's what we're dealing with today. Many, many, many places around the world changing - and steadily going up. It doesn't mean that there's going to be even any one place in the whole world that matches the Global Average Temperature, because that's not important. The global average temperatures reflects the temperatures all over the globe. THAT is why it is so exceedingly worrisome.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Ed Norman said:


> Ooh, tough guy caught me with my crayons. If you had read the earlier post, I said I had to host it, it was an image I had saved from when I first read it. Here is an article to enjoy with your crow dinner.
> 
> http://dailybayonet.com/?p=2888
> 
> ...


Don't just show me a bunch of random numbers. Show me the research yourself. I do not see how they got that graph from this data.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Don't just show me a bunch of random numbers. Show me the research yourself. I do not see how they got that graph from this data.


Tell you what. I'll go watch the kids shoot off fireworks and you look at the research. And sadly, it's a bunch of random numbers. But they are all in order. Try these links from one of the links I already gave you.

Data Coverage North: -78.47 * South: -78.47
East: 106.8 * West: 106.8

Start Year: -420000 AD End Year: 2000 AD

Data: Please Cite Data Contributors!
antarctica/vostok/ch4nat.txt
antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt
antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt
antarctica/vostok/dustnat.txt
antarctica/vostok/gt4nat.txt
antarctica/vostok/nanat.txt
antarctica/vostok/o18nat.txt
antarctica/vostok/readme_petit1999.txt

All on this page: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2453.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Not even a real image


Is he spamming your thread?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Do you not understand what we are talking about here?


Yes.

We are talking about people who panic because the temperature rose part of a degree



> THAT is why it is so exceedingly worrisome.


LOL


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Good news from China it seems, Asian pollution is now to blame for the general lack of warming since 1998... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704

It seems that carbon emissions from emerging economies is having a cooling effect but scientists are concerned that when they clean up their act AGW will accellerate.

Certainly looks to me like we have a conundrum here eh?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Certainly looks to me like we have a conundrum here eh?


I predict there will be a several who pretend they don't see this thread:

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=403358


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I predict there will be a several who pretend they don't see this thread:
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=403358


I promised Angie that I'd try to stay out of the politics forum _as much as possible_ so I don't offend anyone else's delicate sensitivities .... so I'm not going there. 

Besides which, I'm more interested in what's happening with the climate NOW, not with what happened between 1998 - 2008. I already know what happened then. :indif:

.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> Good news from China it seems, Asian pollution is now to blame for the general lack of warming since 1998... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704
> 
> It seems that carbon emissions from emerging economies is having a cooling effect but scientists are concerned that when they clean up their act AGW will accellerate.
> 
> Certainly looks to me like we have a conundrum here eh?


The article was talking about sulphur in the atmosphere, which is also quite bad because it results in acid rain.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Ed Norman said:


> Tell you what. I'll go watch the kids shoot off fireworks and you look at the research. And sadly, it's a bunch of random numbers. But they are all in order. Try these links from one of the links I already gave you.
> 
> Data Coverage North: -78.47 * South: -78.47
> East: 106.8 * West: 106.8
> ...


You already posted this link. Since you are so very smart, you wouldn't be afraid at all to tell me which article to browse, or which set of data to observe. Until then, the graph means absolutely nothing because it was fixed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Besides which, I'm more interested in *what's happening with the climate NOW*


You can't look at a couple of years and extrapolate.

These changes happen over thousands if not millions of years


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> . Since you are so very smart, you wouldn't be afraid at all to tell me which article to browse


LOL 
You're a hoot!


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

With all this information I don't quite understand how life has survived on this planet as long as it has.

I mean temperatures going up, then down, then up again. Glaciers scouring vast expanses of the land, then just retreating to wherever ice goes when it gets bored. (Retiring to the oceans?) My guess is that there must have been a heII of a Pleistocene civilization based on carbon fuels to create all that C)2 back then. 

Today we see global warming melting every last ice cube until the oceans overwhelm the shore. I suppose when we are all drowned and our civilization sunken the earth will begin to cool down and life will return. This is all very confusing but I bet the fish are happy.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> This is all very confusing but I bet the fish are happy.


The fish are not happy right now. They will be happier when the oceans start cooling again and we're all gone.

.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL, no it has not, since in the past the climate here was TROPICAL, and now it's temperate.
> 
> Using your "logic" the temps* would have never fallen *and we'd be like Venus by now


 LOL. Cant really respond to that one BF, since I never said the Earth is facing a runaway greenhouse effect. The factor that has the most powerful influence on earths climate is the sun and our orbit around it. 
But look at the relative stability of the climate over the last 400K years... and look at the CO2 levels from then, they are within a narrow range.... and certainly,there were many periods of warmth and cooler conditions. 









Now we as humans are in the process of adding a significant amount of a positive forcing... the quantity of greenhouse gasses has a direct correlation with temperature. It would appear the most likely scenario is we will take the already warming conditions and accelerate them.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> Not exactly... We have had 10 years of flat temps.... In 10 more it will be 20. which is about how long it was warming. The PDO will be cooling the planet for the next about 30 years. It flipped in 2005. In about three or so years the AMO will flip to it's cold phase and all the "warming" will be a thing of the past for the next 30-40 years. This is why scientists are coming out and saying to prepare for a 'little iceage' in the doldrums of the next solar cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> To put it into perspective. The last time we had a -PDO and a -AMO the scare mongers were calling for an iceage. Hanson the warmist started his career as a iceage monger.


 No one is claiming any of those occillations will not still be occurring,but their effects, behavior and duration are influenced absolutely by the temperature of the globe. 

And thought you might find this interesting...



> Stochastic atmospheric forcing[11]
> 
> Long term sea surface temperature variation may be induced by random atmospheric forcings that are integrated and reddened into the ocean mixed layer.


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


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> LOL. Cant really respond to that one BF, since I never said the Earth is facing a runaway greenhouse effect.


You never "said" those exact words, but you insist more CO2 equals more heating, so it's the same thing

And here you are repeating it once more"



> the quantity of greenhouse gasses has a direct correlation with temperature. It would appear the most likely scenario is we will take the already warming conditions and accelerate them.


Reality is there is *nothing out of the ordinary *going on at all, and all the multicolored charts in the world won't change that


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I predict there will be a several who pretend they don't see this thread:
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=403358


Dang it, DeaconJim beat me to it!!


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

I haven't read all the thread. But here's my thoughts.

Of anyone on earth, Al Gore has to be the most afraid of global warming. Yet he cannot give up his jet and mansion.

It is therefore unlikely that many others will change, so we'll just take what we get.

Either way, humans won't be around forever. Might as well enjoy it before the asteroid hits.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

DJ in WA said:


> I haven't read all the thread. But here's my thoughts.
> 
> Of anyone on earth, Al Gore has to be the most afraid of global warming. Yet he cannot give up his jet and mansion.
> 
> ...


 :goodjob:


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> No one is claiming any of those occillations will not still be occurring,but their effects, behavior and duration are influenced absolutely by the temperature of the globe.
> 
> And thought you might find this interesting...
> 
> ...


Your absolutely wrong... A ton of climate fear mongers were claiming that the warming would be a near linear upward trend. Look at the IPCC "model" charts. Climate science is new. The information sketchy. Co2 injected into a vacuum shows a possibility of a positive temperature trend. The world isn't a vacuum. 


P.S. GISS is the only temperature series showing this year as the "warmest". Of course the climate crazies latch on to it. But even the director of GISS says the temperature series is flawed and shouldn't be used. See they did too much manipulation of the data. They were caught. They haven't had time to "fix" it yet. They recommend using the Hadcrut. Which shows this year as the 3 coldest in the last 20 years.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

stanb999 said:


> Your absolutely wrong... A ton of climate fear mongers were claiming that the warming would be a near linear upward trend. Look at the IPCC "model" charts. Climate science is new. The information sketchy. Co2 injected into a vacuum shows a possibility of a positive temperature trend. The world isn't a vacuum.


1. Wrong according to which climate scientist?
2. It would be impossible to be a straight upward trend as the earth does fluctuate naturally. However, it is definitely, steadily going up.
3. Climate science is reletively new, yet even if the only thing we had to go by was the past 100+ years of data we should still be worried.
4. Sketchy? Where? How so? You have so far failed to actually attack the science and bring it crashing down.
5. FACT: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

DJ in WA said:


> I haven't read all the thread. But here's my thoughts.
> 
> Of anyone on earth, Al Gore has to be the most afraid of global warming. Yet he cannot give up his jet and mansion.
> 
> ...


So Al Gore is in charge of AGW? Hm. He must be very powerful. Furthermore, are you referring to his mansion that has been in the family for quite some time? He has made it quite energy efficient, actually.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> 1. Wrong according to which climate scientist?
> 2. It would be impossible to be a straight upward trend as the earth does fluctuate naturally. However, it is definitely, steadily going up.
> 3. Climate science is reletively new, yet even if the only thing we had to go by was the past 100+ years of data we should still be worried.
> 4. Sketchy? Where? How so? You have so far failed to actually attack the science and bring it crashing down.
> 5. FACT: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.


#1 The IPCC It was a political group the posed as scientists. So maybe your right.

#2 Well if the temperature doesn't rise fast. What the heck are you worried about? The documented change in temperature matches the rise out of the little ice age. We can hardly expect to change that... Right? The natural change. 

#3 Maybe you would worry. I wouldn't. I know about the forests under the Greenland ice. Vine street in London. The glaciers in the alps revealing stone age villages. 

4# Science? What science. All I have suggested is the changes to the earths temperature are tiny and have been going on for the last 130 years or so. The tiny increase in a trace gas is incapable of changing the temperature of the oceans and the upper atmosphere. Both are required to prove AGW. The ocean temperature is falling, the high altitude atmospheric temperature is rising as it has since the little iceage. 

#5 Greenhouse gas... Well if you really wish to bring up a not very potent one. Co2 can reflect Ir waves. Wanna know a good one... H2O. It's the driver of the earths temperature.

The whole issue with AGW is that it requires the earths climate system to be very fragile and easily subject to wild variation. It simply isn't the case. Because if it was we wouldn't exist.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Sure CO2 is a gas that stops heat from radiating back out into space.
Want to se a planet with little to no CO2, Go look at mars.
Want to see one with no CO2 what so ever, Go to the Moon~!
We MUST have CO2 or this earth would become a snowball. Course it was once just that a snowball.
How did it warm up?
You guessed it CO2 and other gasses that trapped the heat IN, and the earth warmed back up. 
Had many ice ages over the time earth has been around too. How did it warm up and stop the freeze? You guessed it CO2 and GW.~!
Want a ice earth take away CO2. No Thanks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> we should still be worried.


Feel free to worry all you like.

Most of us see no reason for it


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

I find it hysterical that people are more concerned about combating climate change than adapting to it.
The global climate is and has always been in a constant state of flux since the earth was first founded by God several billion years ago. GET USED TO IT!!
Man has as much effect on global climate change as bugs, and probably less since there are so much more of them (biomass). 
"The only constant is change, usually small change. Get used to it." Noah Vaile


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Justin Thyme said:


> I find it hysterical that people are more concerned about combating climate change than adapting to it.
> The global climate is and has always been in a constant state of flux since the earth was first founded by God several billion years ago. GET USED TO IT!!
> Man has as much effect on global climate change as bugs, and probably less since there are so much more of them (biomass).
> "The only constant is change, usually small change. Get used to it." Noah Vaile


We have 7 billion people on this planet, every single one of them greedy for resources. We are affecting the climate. Denying that there is a nail in your foot does not make it go away. Yes, it is change. And not change we want. In order to prove that we are not effecting the climate, you will have to prove it with science, not a random assertion with absolutely no scientific backing. The majority of the scientific (and all of the intelligent ones) accept that AGW is happening.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes something may indeed be happening BUT it is NOT caused by man. It is a natural climate change.~! The earth never sits still. It is always changing, and so is the Sun.
Nobody has never said that something maybe taking place. The thing is MAN is not the cause of it. Period.
The earth is never static, it is in constant change. The earth is soooooo dynamic that man can not stop, slow down or cause GW. And it has been a fairy tail from the Al Gore lovers that man can.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> In order to prove that we are not effecting the climate, you will have to* prove it with science,*


You've seen endless examples that prove the change happens *with or without man*, and you continue to carry on as if it was never presented.

In the end you always resort to denial and insults, and you wonder why* no one listens *to you anymore


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> We have 7 billion people on this planet, every single one of them greedy for resources.
> 
> * "...every single one of them greedy..." seems like a blanket condemnation of our entire species. Doesn't it? I go back to (what about) all those inconsiderate bugs whose bio-mass far exceeds ours. In every movie I see about THEM they are eating. Or reproducing. Or both at the same time. THEM*
> 
> ...


One need not try and prove a negative. No one needs to "prove" we are NOT affecting the climate. 

There _is_ plenty of evidence out there proving that when "Global Warming Prophesizers" did not find evidence strong enough to support their contentions.... they simply made it up.

We also have plenty of proof, going back to the beginning of this thread (or time, if you insist) that these same changes have occurred in a regular cycle, on this same planet, w-a-y before we raised (or even had) our greedy little eyes to all those (once) bountiful resources.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

stanb999 said:


> Your absolutely wrong... A ton of climate fear mongers were claiming that the warming would be a near linear upward trend. Look at the IPCC "model" charts. Climate science is new. The information sketchy. Co2 injected into a vacuum shows a possibility of a positive temperature trend. The world isn't a vacuum.
> 
> 
> P.S. GISS is the only temperature series showing this year as the "warmest". Of course the climate crazies latch on to it. But even the director of GISS says the temperature series is flawed and shouldn't be used. See they did too much manipulation of the data. They were caught. They haven't had time to "fix" it yet. They recommend using the Hadcrut. Which shows this year as the 3 coldest in the last 20 years.


 Even Hadley and the Met show its warming. Seriously stan, if you are going to tell me 'I am absolutely wrong', can you at least back up your claim just once? And my statement about occilations being influenced by climate is absolutely correct. 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/indicators/11keyindicators.html



> In the long-term, seven of the indicators are rising and four are declining. *Each of the indicators is consistent with the land surface temperature records and shows long-term warming.*


 I am done debating you stan. You have shown NOTHING to disprove that the globe in indeed on a warming trend. Better luck next time.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Man has as much effect on global climate change as bugs, and probably less since there are so much more of them


 What a statement. Does it need to be pointed out to you that bugs dont dig up 100million years worth of buried fossil fuels in a few short generations and put it back into the atmosphere?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Even Hadley and the Met show its warming. Seriously stan, if you are going to tell me 'I am absolutely wrong', can you at least back up your claim just once? And my statement about occilations being influenced by climate is absolutely correct.
> 
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/indicators/11keyindicators.html
> 
> ...


Here's one:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/warming_really_cooling.html

Here's another:

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

And another:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14504

Now that sun spot activity is decreasing, we will see a much greater cooling trend! 

And trillions of breathing insects do have an impact, as does the earth itself!(think volcanos!)


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> Here's one:
> 
> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/warming_really_cooling.html
> 
> ...


 I just heard bubbles bursting. Bet your ignored Jeffrey.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Here's one:
> 
> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/warming_really_cooling.html
> 
> ...


Better not cloud this up with Facts. The left doesn't like to hear those. or USE them either.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Here's one:
> 
> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/scarewatch/warming_really_cooling.html
> 
> ...


 You posted three articles, all talking about the same slight downward trend starting in 98, lasting till 08. Too bad that is now outdated information. We've covered that here, about five pages ago.

And breathing of any creature does not ADD to the NET amount of CO2 on the surface of the earth. 

Volcanoes? We've already covered that also. Human industry releases MANY times more heat trapping gasses than volcanoes do, on an annual, global level. 



> Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. *Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.*
> 
> This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, *the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. *Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.


 http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Oh Ya lets put more More Government Stats. That is their baby anyways, they WANT GW so they can control the population. Nice try though.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Oh Ya lets put more More Government Stats. That is their baby anyways, they WANT GW so they can control the population. Nice try though.


 I suppose you could look it up yourself... let me know what you find.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> let me know what you find.


So far we've found some will deny all evidence they don't agree with.

Rant all you want about "warming", but your own sources still say it's been* less *than ONE DEGREE.

Most of that is hot air from those claiming it's some sort of disaster


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> You posted three articles, all talking about the same slight downward trend starting in 98, lasting till 08. Too bad that is now outdated information. We've covered that here, about five pages ago.
> 
> And breathing of any creature does not ADD to the NET amount of CO2 on the surface of the earth.
> 
> ...


I'll bet you didn't read any of them did you? What are YOU doing to offset yourself and family? I see your using a computer, you live in a man-made dwelling, i'm sure you use fossil fuels, etc... So your guility of helping to destroy the planet too!(if you believe in this stuff) Interesting!!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> I suppose you could look it up yourself... let me know what you find.


And you could look up global cooling, but it won't jive with your outdated agenda. 

Just wondering why most don't call it global warming anymore? 

(hint: i know why, do you?)


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

greg273 said:


> And breathing of any creature does not ADD to the NET amount of CO2 on the surface of the earth.


i'm confused, how can the flatulence of millions of cattle dramatically contribute to global warming by releasing greenhouse gasses, but the exhalation of greenhouse gasses by a million times that number of fauna doesn't contribute to global warming?


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> We have 7 billion people on this planet, every single one of them greedy for resources. We are affecting the climate. Denying that there is a nail in your foot does not make it go away. Yes, it is change. And not change we want. In order to prove that we are not effecting the climate, you will have to prove it with science, not a random assertion with absolutely no scientific backing. The majority of the scientific (and all of the intelligent ones) accept that AGW is happening.


but a splinter in your foot is not a railroad spike. you don't happen to have a cite for the number of MENSA members pro & anti human caused global warming do you?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> i'm confused, how can the flatulence of millions of cattle dramatically contribute to global warming by releasing greenhouse gasses, but the exhalation of greenhouse gasses by a million times that number of fauna doesn't contribute to global warming?


The cattle are manufacturing greater amounts of methane gas than what most other ungulants and herbivores do. As to the greenhouse gases emitted by other breathing fauna, the CO2 was already always there to start with, it isn't being manufactured by the breathers the way methane gas is manufactured by cattle, it is just getting breathed in and out and being recycled over and over again. 

Emissions from fossil fuels is a different story though, it was never in the air to start with, it was captured and staying static inside the fossil fuels deep in the earth. Once the fossil fuels get mined out of the earth and get burned the CO2 in them gets released into the air and that creates an imbalance in the atmosphere.

.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

naturelover said:


> The cattle are manufacturing greater amounts of methane gas than what most other ungulants and herbivores do. As to the greenhouse gases emitted by other breathing fauna, the CO2 was already always there to start with, *it isn't being manufactured by the breathers the way methane gas is manufactured by cattle, it is just getting breathed in and out and being recycled over and over again*.


not true, in the process of breaking down other organic molecules (like carbohydrates) CO2 is produced and through respiration is exchanged for O2 molecules (so that the excess carbon can be bonded to it to make CO2). so all respiratory fauna exhale more CO2 than they inhale.
in fact if that were true you could sit in a sealed box as long as you want w/o any danger of suffocation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> it was *never in the air *to start with, *it was captured *and staying static inside the fossil fuels deep in the earth.


It WAS in the air, or it couldn't have been "captured" by the plants.

Links in this thread show atmospheric CO2 levels have been higher in the past, as have temperatures


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Okay.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Both measurements and models show considerable uncertainty and variation; however, *all point to carbon dioxide levels in the past that have been signifcantly higher than they are at present*.












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



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


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

greg273 said:


> What a statement. Does it need to be pointed out to you that bugs dont dig up 100million years worth of buried fossil fuels in a few short generations and put it back into the atmosphere?


I think that bugs don't like the fossil fuels because quite often they are the basis for WMD-styled bug poisons. But, in fact, we "don't dig dig up 100million years worth of buried _fossil fuels_" at all. We refine _oil_ which is just dead stuff that ancient bugs failed to devour in the first place. 

And we don't "put it back in the atmosphere" which, you (ironically) imply is where it came from in the first place. Sounds like we're just _recycling_ then. Doesn't it?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

Oh. And the link between CO2 and atmospheric heating is-

1) The atmosphere begins to heat for reasons as yet unknown.
2) CO2 levels begin to rise as the atmosphere warms.

It ain't CO2 > warming. It is Warming > CO2!

Get it? We aren't causing the effect. It's just a normal planetary change we have no control over. I blame the bugs!


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

It's all Hollywood's fault.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Oh. And the link between CO2 and atmospheric heating is-
> 
> 1) The atmosphere begins to heat for reasons as yet unknown.
> 2) CO2 levels begin to rise as the atmosphere warms.
> ...


 The only reason the atmosphere EVER heats in any meaningful way is solar radiation. And increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere causes MORE of that heat to be retained. 

CO2 and temperature closely follow each other on a global, long term scale. The lag you are talking about has been known about since 1990. Considering the times between warming and cooling phases, historically, the lag amounts to a small fraction of that time.
That does nothing to change the fact that, for the first time in at least 650,000 years, CO2 is now LEADING a documented, long term temperature increase. And no one is claiming temps would not be rising without humans, but adding CO2 to an already warming atmosphere has the potential to accelerate the changes already occuring. Doubling of CO2 is predicted to raise global average temperature by 2-4C.
I am not claiming this will be any sort of disaster to the long term survival of our species. I think most people can outrun an ocean that rises a few centimeters per decade. But there are vast areas where people live that would become uninhabitable, if we continue on our present course, and the scientists are correct. So far, the math and the observed data match up.



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


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> I'll bet you didn't read any of them did you? What are YOU doing to offset yourself and family? I see your using a computer, you live in a man-made dwelling, i'm sure you use fossil fuels, etc... So your guility of helping to destroy the planet too!(if you believe in this stuff) Interesting!!


 You'd have bet wrong, I looked at each link you posted. They all reference the same data thats been known and understood for over a decade. 
And I never said anything about climate change 'destroying the planet'.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Pops2 said:


> not true, in the process of breaking down other organic molecules (like carbohydrates) CO2 is produced and through respiration is exchanged for O2 molecules (so that the excess carbon can be bonded to it to make CO2). *so all respiratory fauna exhale more CO2 than they inhale.*
> in fact if that were true you could sit in a sealed box as long as you want w/o any danger of suffocation.


?
If that were true, plants would be considered global warming problems ages ago. No, for the most part, plants and animals are net carbon negative (photosynthesis). Burning fossil fuel is net carbon positive.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Justin Thyme said:


> 2) CO2 levels begin to rise as the atmosphere warms.


This seems to be a very simple statement. Because of that, it should be exceedingly easy to find some science to actually back it up, preferably not from a skeptics website. The air temperature, however, is going to have relatively little effect on CO2 (although it is affecting the oceans ability to absorb CO2), and could not cause such a drastic spike in atmospheric CO2 levels. Your #1 reason also was completely false since it had absolutely no scientific backing.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> I just heard bubbles bursting. Bet your ignored Jeffrey.


No bubbles bursting over here. Also, who's Jeffrey?
Are you turning skeptical?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Good info here to keep the truth flowing...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Your #1 reason also was completely false since it had absolutely* no scientific backing*.


As is yours

Why not just let it die?


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> ?
> If that were true, plants would be considered global warming problems ages ago. No, for the most part, plants and animals are net carbon negative (photosynthesis). Burning fossil fuel is net carbon positive.


actually it is true, all fauna (animals) exhale more CO2 than they inhale it's basic biology. it is the reason why if i stick you (or any animal) in a sealed box you will eventually suffocate. you WILL remove all the O2 & you WILL replace it w/ CO2.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Pops2 said:


> actually it is true, all fauna (animals) exhale more CO2 than they inhale it's basic biology. it is the reason why if i stick you (or any animal) in a sealed box you will eventually suffocate. you WILL remove all the O2 & you WILL replace it w/ CO2.


And your point is what? I'm looking at the entire cycle: an animal also poops, which returns plenty of carbon back to the ground. You inhale O2, exhale CO2 - what is your point?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> You'd have bet wrong, I looked at each link you posted. They all reference the same data thats been known and understood for over a decade.
> And I never said anything about climate change 'destroying the planet'.


Looking and reading are two different things! They happen to be correct, yet you dismiss them! I find that very telling, you have an agenda! You also failed to answer some questions I posed to you. How about answering them!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Looking and reading are two different things! They happen to be correct, yet you dismiss them! I find that very telling, you have an agenda! You also failed to answer some questions I posed to you. How about answering them!


 You asked me 'why dont THEY call it global warming anymore'... heck I dont know, ask THEM, whoever THEY are. Some people still do... Maybe because when someone hears that term they think its supposed to be hotter everywhere, all the time. 

I definitely read your articles... I am not dismissing them, merely pointing out that they are outdated. 


> Even for a near record-breaking year like 2010 the broader context is more important than a single year. "Certainly, it is interesting that 2010 was so warm despite the presence of a La NiÃ±a and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet, but far more important than any particular year's ranking are the decadal trends," Hansen said.
> 
> One of the problems with focusing on annual rankings, rather than the longer trend, is that the rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses â from GISS, NCDC, and the Met Office â a situation that can generate confusion.
> 
> ...


 http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

They don't call GW because it is Not Global Warming. 
It may Just Be just this it is just A Natural Climate Change. Period.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

New peer reviewed study discovers that when CO2 was higher in the past, not as hot as previously thought



> Posted on July 5, 2011 by Anthony Watts
> 
> How hot did Earth get in the past?
> By Judy Holmes, Syracuse University (press release)
> ...


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/...in-the-past-not-as-hot-as-previously-thought/

And that made me think about the Thermostat Hypothesis:



> Abstract
> 
> The Thermostat Hypothesis is that tropical clouds and thunderstorms actively regulate the temperature of the earth. This keeps the earth at a equilibrium temperature.
> 
> ...


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> And your point is what? I'm looking at the entire cycle: an animal also poops, which returns plenty of carbon back to the ground. You inhale O2, exhale CO2 - what is your point?


the point was in my original question how is the flatulence of millions of cows a greater cause of global warming than the exhalation of CO2 by billions of animals?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> the point was in my original question how is the flatulence of millions of cows a greater cause of global warming than the exhalation of CO2 by billions of animals?


Because cattle flatulence is methane. 

Methane emissions have 25 times more effect on atmospheric temperature than carbon dioxide emissions of the same mass. Methane holds infrared radiation closer to the earth than CO2 does and it also contributes to destroying the ozone layer, which CO2 does not do.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

2006-2009 methane concentration in the upper troposphere
From Wikipedia


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> so all respiratory *fauna* exhale more CO2 than they inhale.





> ?
> If that were true,* plants *would be considered global warming problems ages ago.


"Fauna" has nothing to do with "plants".

Statements like that don't help your credibility


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

naturelover said:


> Because cattle flatulence is methane.
> 
> Methane emissions have 25 times more effect on atmospheric temperature than carbon dioxide emissions of the same mass. Methane holds infrared radiation closer to the earth than CO2 does and it also contributes to destroying the ozone layer, which CO2 does not do.


but all the fauna of the world isn't breathing out 2 or 3 times as much CO2 as cattle are farting methane. all of the animal life in the world is *producing* 100s maybe 1000s of times as much CO2 as cattle are farting methane.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> but all the fauna of the world isn't breathing out 2 or 3 times as much CO2 as cattle are farting methane. all of the animal life in the world is *producing* 100s maybe 1000s of times as much CO2 as cattle are farting methane.


All animals fart methane, not just cattle. The only animals that don't fart are the lower order animals that don't have intestines, like certain types of worms and corals. So all animals are producing more methane than CO2 but cattle produce the most. Termites produce more methane in their farts than any other creature by mass. Elephants produce the most amount of methane of all animals with all cattle and other ungulants coming a close second to elephants. The problem with cattle is there are more cattle in the world than any other ungulants or herbivores than what there naturally would be because cattle are mass produced by man all over the world.

And there are 7 billion people on the planet who all fart and all produce methane as well as CO2.

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Cattle don't fart methane, they eructate it, or burp it if you prefer.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

They fart it too Ed. Anything that farts also farts methane.

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

The farts contain very minor amounts compared to the burps. And not all farts or farters produce methane. Only some.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

naturelover said:


> All animals fart methane, not just cattle. The only animals that don't fart are the lower order animals that don't have intestines, like certain types of worms and corals. So all animals are producing more methane than CO2 but cattle produce the most. Termites produce more methane in their farts than any other creature by mass. Elephants produce the most amount of methane of all animals with all cattle and other ungulants coming a close second to elephants. The problem with cattle is there are more cattle in the world than any other ungulants or herbivores than what there naturally would be because cattle are mass produced by man all over the world.
> 
> And there are 7 billion people on the planet who all fart and all produce methane as well as CO2.
> 
> .


as i've gotten older i fart everyday, i guarantee i exhale ALOT more CO2 than i fart out methane. i normally fart enough methane to fill a glad snack baggie. on a bad day enough to fill a 2 liter bottle (w/o any compression just regular gas volume). OTH i can fill at least 2-4 5 gallon jugs to lethal levels of CO2 just in my sleep. so i seriously doubt all animals are producing more methane than CO2, do you have a cite on that? i also have to wonder how much methan production in cattle comes from feeding grain instead of grazing.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

LOL. Well, it's .... interesting .... that you've measured your methane and CO2 output by the baggie and bottle. :hysterical: Whatever prompted you to do something like that?

No, I don't have any citations for that but I think if you do an internet search on methane production in animals and humans you should most likely find the statistics. 

And I should clarify, I made a mis-statement in saying animals produce more methane than CO2. I don't know if they do or not. What I was getting at was that no matter how much methane or CO2 animals produce, the methane emissions that are produced have 25 times more effect on atmospheric temperature than CO2 emissions of the same mass. So ... not 25 times more production but 25 times more effect than CO2.

.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

not an accurate measure just an estimate.
i don't think people really have much of an affect on the global climate, nor do i think it is truly warming beause well we had snowfall in june and there is still some snow pack on the mountains around us. but i'm also open to hearing the reasoning behind opinions to the contrary.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> the methane emissions that are produced have 25 times more effect on atmospheric temperature than CO2 emissions of the same mass. So ... not 25 times more production but 25 times more effect than CO2.


So if we stop eating beans we can save the world?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> All animals fart methane, not just cattle


I've found the problem:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

naturelover said:


> All animals fart methane, not just cattle. The only animals that don't fart are the lower order animals that don't have intestines, like certain types of worms and corals. So all animals are producing more methane than CO2 but cattle produce the most. Termites produce more methane in their farts than any other creature by mass. Elephants produce the most amount of methane of all animals with all cattle and other ungulants coming a close second to elephants. The problem with cattle is there are more cattle in the world than any other ungulants or herbivores than what there naturally would be because cattle are mass produced by man all over the world.
> 
> And there are 7 billion people on the planet who all fart and all produce methane as well as CO2.
> 
> .


Yet the bottom line is that animals are carbon neutral, and carbon negative. You forget to take into account the grass they eat; they help put carbon back into the soil faster than it would otherwise. Also, methane from cattle has never been a problem in the thousands of years before. Also remember the millions of bison on the Plains?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Pops2 said:


> not an accurate measure just an estimate.
> i don't think people really have much of an affect on the global climate, nor do i think it is truly warming beause well we had snowfall in june and there is still some snow pack on the mountains around us. but i'm also open to hearing the reasoning behind opinions to the contrary.


What? Snow? Oh crud, now we have to completely redo our line of thinking. What were those scientists THINKING? Now the whole scientific she-bang is completely popped and those AGW scientists are confirmed total crackpots now!! :bouncy::bouncy::bouncy::bouncy::bouncy:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yet the bottom line is that animals are carbon neutral, and carbon negative. You forget to take into account the grass they eat; they help put carbon back into the soil faster than it would otherwise. *Also, methane from cattle has never been a problem in the thousands of years before. Also remember the millions of bison on the Plains? *


There weren't as many cattle thousands of years ago as there is now, and when there were millions of bison on the Plains there wasn't 7 billion people on the planet.

Nothing is going to convince me that the outgassing and other output of 7 billion people now is not going to have an effect on the atmosphere by comparison with what the atmosphere was like as little as 100 years ago.

.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

naturelover said:


> There weren't as many cattle thousands of years ago as there is now, and when there were millions of bison on the Plains there wasn't 7 billion people on the planet.
> 
> Nothing is going to convince me that the outgassing and other output of 7 billion people now is not going to have an effect on the atmosphere by comparison with what the atmosphere was like as little as 100 years ago.
> 
> .


In the overall scheme of things, I don't think people breathing is going to have much, if any at all, impact on the climate. Fossil fuel consumption is the biggest problem right now. If you compare the total plant matter that an animal consumes and excretes in the manure, it is carbon negative.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If you compare the total plant matter that an animal consumes and excretes in the manure, it is carbon negative.


When you deny every *fact * presented that doesn't fit your preconcieved (incorrect) notions there's no point in trying to discuss things


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> When you deny every *fact * presented that doesn't fit your preconcieved (incorrect) notions there's no point in trying to discuss things


Why do you insist on being blatantly rude and deliberately idiotic even when what I am saying actually agrees with your position in my opinion? :hysterical:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Why do you insist on being blatantly rude and deliberately idiotic even when *what I am saying actually agrees with your position *in my opinion?


LOL

Wrong again.

Read more carefully


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Heritagefarm said:


> No bubbles bursting over here. Also, who's Jeffrey?
> Are you turning skeptical?
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/
> Good info here to keep the truth flowing...


 You defend ALGORE then ask if I am a skeptic? Seriously? The man has set back the environmental movement 20 years and should be tried for crimes against humanity.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

greg273 said:


> adding CO2 to an already warming atmosphere _has the potential_ to accelerate ... changes....
> I am not claiming this will be any sort of disaster to the long term survival of our species. I think most people can outrun an ocean that rises a few centimeters per decade. But there are vast areas where people live that would become uninhabitable, if we continue on our present course, and the scientists are correct. So far, the math and the observed data match up.


A _Waterworld _scenario in our species future, perhaps? People living in enormous, ark-like cruise ships forever seeking a non-existent port-of-call? A new definition for the word "arkology"? (I know, it's arcology.)

I can see kelp-farms in the sea. Pressure to resurrect NASA and a renewed interest in settling other planets. All kinds of things that mankind can do in the face of a new challenge. 

It is really always a matter of what can we do to foresee, plan for and respond to inevitable changes that may be heading our way. Not how can we prevent the changes from happening and retain exactly what we have at this point in time.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> You defend ALGORE then ask if I am a skeptic? Seriously? The man has set back the environmental movement 20 years and should be tried for crimes against humanity.


How so? Also be aware that Al is in no way in charge of AGW... he is merely an activist.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> How so? Also be aware that Al is in no way in charge of AGW... he is merely an activist.


Based on his actions... we should all be using up natural resources at about 100 times the rate we are now. Based on his words we should be trying to conserve. I have a little trouble buying into anything the man says.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Heritagefarm said:


> How so? Also be aware that Al is in no way in charge of AGW... he is merely an activist.


 I understand that and I have been relatively active in the environmentalist movement since the 70s and in some areas we have made great strides but instead of concentrating on the fact that pollution is just bad for the environment and bad for people ALGORE decided to exploit the whole AGW movement to aggrandize and promote himself. His misleading movie and bizarre statements are now the butt of jokes and he is seen by many people as a charlatan so even the things he got right and the ideas that made sense have gotten the backlash from his association with them.

There are so many things that need to be addressed to combat pollution and destruction of our environment that are directly impacting us right now but here we are debating cow flatulence and discussing how a centimeter a decade rise in the oceans will affect us 100 years from now. When people are barely scraping by you arent going to get very far with that focus. I say arrest ALGORE and try him in the United Nations he loves so much for crimes against humanity.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> How so? Also be aware that Al is in no way in charge of AGW... he is merely an activist.


You mean by activist that he is, individually, one of the largest energy consumers and carbon foot stompers on the planet. Right?

If manmade global warming were factual and we were all activist in AG's mold temperatures would be running about 105* at the poles right now. His actions alone should give us some idea of how seriously we should be taking what he is activising about.

N'est ce pas? ( A little bit of foreign lingo to show I'm intee-lectual enough to comment on the subject.)


----------

