Global Warming

[TennTradition]

That's an interesting point about the word moot, gs.....dictionary.com lists the following

–adjective
1.
open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2.
of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3.
Chiefly Law . not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.

My usage would fit squarely in with the 2nd definition.

 

[gsvol]

and i guess la nina and el nino just started when humans came around.. That must explain why we're warming up faster than at any other time in history.

You guess wrong, humans have nothing at all to do with the el nino, la nina cycles.

Your basic premis that the earth is warming faster than any time is history is also wrong.

I understand you are a true believer and there is nothing I can say to get you to remove your finger from your mental panic button but here are a few facts for you to consider.

Rendered down to basic math, human activity affects 'greenhouse gas' levels less than one percent of the total.


The Geologic Record and Climate Change - TCS Daily

Although these British Columbia records, indicating a clear influence of the sun on climate, are very good they not the first studies to make such a correlation. Here are a couple of examples. The first graphic shows a clear correlation between global sea surface temperature and sunspot number. The warming as we came out of the Little Ice Age is very clear.

"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago [Myr]. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present." [also see 180 million years ago, same thing happened]:

I'm sure we will have no shortage of chicken little's, especially with the media continually hyping the lie but one thing is for sure, the Tennessean article is an insult to anyone's intelligence at least for anyone with a double digit or beter IQ.

 

[gsvol]

That's an interesting point about the word moot, gs.....dictionary.com lists the following



My usage would fit squarely in with the 2nd definition.

I was aware of that but my point is that everyone uses the 2nd defintion these days, can you remember the last time you heard someone use it with the 1st defintion.

Looks they would go ahead and switch the numbers in the dictionairy to reflect popular usage.

 

[TennTradition]

Agreed. I wasn't aware of definition number 1, that's why I noted it was an interesting point you made.

 

[gsvol]

Agreed. I wasn't aware of definition number 1, that's why I noted it was an interesting point you made.

Is that moot?

Here is another exmple of word usage changing.

A hundred years ago the two words 'conversation' and 'intercourse' were used the opposite of today.

For instance if a kid went indoors and told dad an older sister was having conversation with a young man in the front porch swing, he would probably rush out with his shotgun in hand but if the kid reported the big sister was having intercourse with an young man in the front porch swing, he might ask what they were talking about.

 

[gsvol]

The real reason for the volcanic eruptions in Iceland.

http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/news/qadhafi-ash-cloud-divine-punishment

 

[Sabanocchio]

Either the satellite observations are incorrect, says Trenberth, or, more likely, large amounts of heat are penetrating to regions that are not adequately measured, such as the deepest parts of the oceans. Compounding the problem, Earth's surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years. Yet melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising sea levels, indicate that heat is continuing to have profound effects on the planet.

"Global warming at its heart is driven by an imbalance of energy: more solar energy is entering the atmosphere than leaving it," says NCAR scientist John Fasullo. "Our concern is that we aren't able to entirely monitor or understand the imbalance. This reveals a glaring hole in our ability to observe the build-up of heat in our climate system."

"The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later," says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author. "The reprieve we've had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue.

'Missing' heat may affect future climate change

 

[Sabanocchio]

I find it hilarious that the skeptic's rebuttal to the Global Warming situation has shifted from "It simply is not happening" to "we aren't causing it."

Both statements are un-researched and, although not entirely, ultimately incorrect.

There is clear and undeniable data which shows that the oceans are, in fact, warming and sea levels are rising. Much of this can be attributed to the natural shifting climate of the globe, but not all -- and that is the opinion held by nearly every single person researching the matter. The ones denying this are not even doing the research themselves. They are examinging and twisting data that has been and is being gathered by the same persons sounding the warning bell.

We are clearly on an upswing in terms of temperature increases at micro, yet measurable levels. The scary part of this is that we are adding to this situation rather than detracting from it. Perhaps if we were headed toward another ice age the man-made effect on the climate would not be so concerning.

 

[gsvol]

'Missing' heat may affect future climate change

Evidently you either didn't read post 77 or you don't comprehend what it says, in either case you just ignore it.


DailyTech - NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming

100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles

I find it hilarious that the skeptic's rebuttal to the Global Warming situation has shifted from "It simply is not happening" to "we aren't causing it."

Both statements are un-researched and, although not entirely, ultimately incorrect.

There is clear and undeniable data which shows that the oceans are, in fact, warming and sea levels are rising. Much of this can be attributed to the natural shifting climate of the globe, but not all -- and that is the opinion held by nearly every single person researching the matter. The ones denying this are not even doing the research themselves. They are examinging and twisting data that has been and is being gathered by the same persons sounding the warning bell.

We are clearly on an upswing in terms of temperature increases at micro, yet measurable levels. The scary part of this is that we are adding to this situation rather than detracting from it. Perhaps if we were headed toward another ice age the man-made effect on the climate would not be so concerning.

What's funny is the morph from global warming to climate change.

Nothing at all scary about what you say, even if it were all true then we would be less likely to enter another ice age, there would be increased plant growth also, both good things.

There has been no study at all of how much 20,000 active undersea volcanoes affect the oceans.

Now what is scary is the proposal to regulate CO2 when that isn't a problem, not only is it an ignorant option it's also stupid move, and stupid on our part to allow it to happen.

 

[BeecherVol]

I find it hilarious that the skeptic's rebuttal to the Global Warming situation has shifted from "It simply is not happening" to "we aren't causing it."

Both statements are un-researched and, although not entirely, ultimately incorrect.

There is clear and undeniable data which shows that the oceans are, in fact, warming and sea levels are rising. Much of this can be attributed to the natural shifting climate of the globe, but not all -- and that is the opinion held by nearly every single person researching the matter. The ones denying this are not even doing the research themselves. They are examinging and twisting data that has been and is being gathered by the same persons sounding the warning bell.

We are clearly on an upswing in terms of temperature increases at micro, yet measurable levels. The scary part of this is that we are adding to this situation rather than detracting from it. Perhaps if we were headed toward another ice age the man-made effect on the climate would not be so concerning.

Did you mean "Climate Change"?

Or have they gone back to "Global Warming"?

Im all confused now.:crazy:

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Did you mean "Climate Change"?

Or have they gone back to "Global Warming"?

Im all confused now.:crazy:

I'm sure you noticed that some said we were heading into Global Cooling as well?? It's safe to say that neither side has it right, and legislating the people isn't the answer either. So, let's study this for years to come, get a SOLID grip on everything, debate the results sanely, and then make an INFORMED decision based on ALL data, not just the alarmist data that has been in question.

 

[BeecherVol]

I'm sure you noticed that some said we were heading into Global Cooling as well?? It's safe to say that neither side has it right, and legislating the people isn't the answer either. So, let's studying this for years to come, get a SOLID grip on everything, debate the results sanely, and then make an INFORMED decision based on ALL data, not just the alarmist data that has been in question.

Makes too much sense.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Makes too much sense.

I know right. It's like realizing that pulling out is effective birth control.

 

[IPorange]

You guys are priceless!

It's amazing how the same BS just gets said over and over by you guys. It's like debating evolution.

Oh, wait.

 

[BeecherVol]

Many thanks IP:hi:

 

[gsvol]

Ok, I got it.

"Man Made" global warming is caused by what?
Answer- MAN!

Answer to that problem.
A reduction in man.

Any volunteers?

More like made by men with crooked pencils.

Confirmed: global warming zealots hate people – Telegraph Blogs

 

[IPorange]

lol

gsvol, is everyone who thinks differently than you a monster?

 

[gsvol]

lol

gsvol, is everyone who thinks differently than you a monster?

Huh??? I've never depicted anyone as a monster, I've never posted a picture of a monster, I've never even used the word, 'monster' until this post in response to your question.

Did you think long to come up with that??

 

[KentheOrange]

In all the talk about climate change and the possible causes for the increase in the level of CO2, I have not seen any arguments that blame deforestation for the increase. It is logical to assume that fewer plants would yield higher levels of CO2.

 

[gsvol]

'Missing' heat may affect future climate change

The word 'may' sets off all kinds of alarm bells.

Earth may be hit by huge asteroid which kills everyone.

You guys are priceless!

It's amazing how the same BS just gets said over and over by you guys. It's like debating evolution.

Oh, wait.

Global warming scare industry suppresses benefits of CO2

Here are a few truths about the benefits of CO2, routinely suppressed or glossed over in the hysterics-laden propaganda about catastrophic global warming (a term renamed “climate change” as global temperatures leveled off and began to decline) disseminated by agenda-driven scientists and politicians and their chief ally, the negligent and slothful reporter.

 

[IPorange]

Huh??? I've never depicted anyone as a monster, I've never posted a picture of a monster, I've never even used the word, 'monster' until this post in response to your question.

Did you think long to come up with that??

Ok. Animal Rights activists are nazis, people who believe in climate change are trying to economically sabotage the western world to bring about a socialist/communist renaissance, democrats stole the 2008 election through fraud, Obama is a diabolically manufactured foreign entity who was placed in office, virtually all Muslims are evil and complicit with violent Jihad against the rest of the world, Apartheid was a good thing for South Africa, and those lousy black Afrikaners are now ruining everything, but-- BUT!-- I am the one drinking the kool aid.

And I am a "lefty" since I don't agree with any of the ridiculously slanted and kooky things above that have less basis in reality than an average episode of Star Trek.

Got it.

 

[IPorange]

In all the talk about climate change and the possible causes for the increase in the level of CO2, I have not seen any arguments that blame deforestation for the increase. It is logical to assume that fewer plants would yield higher levels of CO2.

Worldwide, forest cover has increased rather than decreased over the last 200 years, while at the same time atmospheric CO2 has quickly skyrocketed in a way unprecedented in records stretching back well before the rise of man. While tropical forests in mostly developing countries have shrunk, vast sects of land that used to be deforested for agriculture in the northern hemisphere are now thickly forested. Take a look sometime of historical photographs from the Civil War. You'll see an American countryside nearly devoid of two trees together surrounding Knoxville, for example. Not so, now.

Even if that were a factor, remember that most of the photosynthesis that takes place on Earth actually occurs in the oceans with phytoplankton, and they are considered a carbon sink because when they die they sink with their little carbonate shells to the bottom of the ocean, effectively removing the CO2 they sequestered to grow their shell from the carbon cycle. The limestone we have in East Tennessee is a relic of a time when this part of the continent was covered in a shallow sea.

So, the data and trends of the last few hundred years wouldn't even exist, if the cause were simply deforestation or some sort of disruption of the biosphere.

 

[KentheOrange]

Worldwide, forest cover has increased rather than decreased over the last 200 years, while at the same time atmospheric CO2 has quickly skyrocketed in a way unprecedented in records stretching back well before the rise of man. While tropical forests in mostly developing countries have shrunk, vast sects of land that used to be deforested for agriculture in the northern hemisphere are now thickly forested. Take a look sometime of historical photographs from the Civil War. You'll see an American countryside nearly devoid of two trees together surrounding Knoxville, for example. Not so, now.

Even if that were a factor, remember that most of the photosynthesis that takes place on Earth actually occurs in the oceans with phytoplankton, and they are considered a carbon sink because when they die they sink with their little carbonate shells to the bottom of the ocean, effectively removing the CO2 they sequestered to grow their shell from the carbon cycle. The limestone we have in East Tennessee is a relic of a time when this part of the continent was covered in a shallow sea.

So, the data and trends of the last few hundred years wouldn't even exist, if the cause were simply deforestation or some sort of disruption of the biosphere.

Well, you seem to be the only person that believes this. See below:

World deforestation rates and forest cover statistics, 2000-2005

Land Use and the Global Carbon Cycle - The Woods Hole Research Center

I hate to ruin your day with facts, but........

 

[Sabanocchio]

I'm sure you noticed that some said we were heading into Global Cooling as well?? It's safe to say that neither side has it right, and legislating the people isn't the answer either. So, let's study this for years to come, get a SOLID grip on everything, debate the results sanely, and then make an INFORMED decision based on ALL data, not just the alarmist data that has been in question.

Are you serious? Global cooling was last thought of seriously in the late seventies. The only people suggesting it today are the same detractors I mentioned earlier that are not even doing their own research. There is ZERO evidence to support a global cooling theory. The fact that there is quantifiable data to support an increase in temperature and a rise in ocean levels is not a debatable one. Glaciers are melting at a level that has never been seen before. I guess that's because things are "cooling" huh?

You tend to trust what you hear way too much, Eric, rather than doing your own research.

 

[IPorange]

Well, you seem to be the only person that believes this. See below:

World deforestation rates and forest cover statistics, 2000-2005

Land Use and the Global Carbon Cycle - The Woods Hole Research Center

I hate to ruin your day with facts, but........

I must have been thinking of the Northern Hemisphere... Hmm, my bad.

But if you googled what else I said, the bottom line remains the same: most of the photosynthesis and thus storage of carbon is going on in the oceans, not the forests.