See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Farce
Source:
realclearpolitics.com
URL Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar ... global_warming_is_a_farce.html
Published: Dec 25, 2009
Author: Alexander Cockburn
Post Date: 2009-12-25 01:43:05 by farmfriend
Ping List: *Agriculture-Environment* Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Keywords: None
Views: 892
Comments: 65
By Alexander Cockburn The global warming jamboree in Copenhagen was surely the most outlandish foray into intellectual fantasizing since the fourth-century Christian bishops assembled in 325 AD for the Council of Nicaea to debate whether God the Father was supreme or had to share equal status in the pecking order of eternity with his Son and the Holy Ghost. Shortly before the Copenhagen summit, the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) were embarrassed by a whistleblower who put on the Web more than a thousand e-mails either sent from or received at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, headed by Dr. Phil Jones. The CRU was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum. It became one of the climate-modeling grant mills supplying tainted data from which the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concocted its reports. Deceitful manipulation of data, concealment or straightforward destruction of inconvenient evidence, vindictive conspiracies to silence critics, are par for the course in all scientific debate. But in displaying all these characteristics, the CRU e-mails graphically undermine the claim of the Warmers that they command the moral as well as scientific high ground. It has been a standard ploy of the Warmers to revile the skeptics as whores of the energy industry, swaddled in munificent grants and with large personal stakes in discrediting AGW. Actually, the precise opposite is true. Billions in funding and research grants sluice into the big climate-modeling enterprises and a vast archipelago of research departments and "institutes of climate change" across academia. It's where the money is. Skepticism, particularly for a young climatologist or atmospheric physicist, can be a career breaker. Many of the landmines in the CRU e-mails tend to buttress longstanding charges by skeptics (yours truly included) that statistical chicanery by professor Michael Mann and others occluded the highly inconvenient Medieval Warm Period, running from 800 to 1300 AD, with temperatures in excess of the highest we saw in the 20th century, a historical fact that makes nonsense of the thesis that global warming could be attributed to the auto-industrial civilization of the 20th century. Here's Keith Briffa, of the CRU, letting his hair down in an e-mail Sept. 22, 1999: "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. ... I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago." Now, in the fall of 1999, the IPCC was squaring up to its all-important "Summary for Policymakers" - essentially a press release, one that eventually featured the notorious graph flatlining into nonexistence the Medieval Warm Period and displaying a terrifying, supposedly unprecedented surge in 20th-century temperatures. Briffa's reconstruction of temperature changes, one showing a mid- to late-20th-century decline, was regarded by Mann, in a Sept. 22, 1999, e-mail to the CRU, as a "problem and a potential distraction/detraction." So Mann, a lead author on this chapter of the IPCC report, simply deleted the embarrassing post-1960 portion of Briffa's reconstruction. The CRU's Jones happily applauded Mann's deceptions in an e-mail in which he crowed over "Mike's Nature trick." Other landmines include e-mails from Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. On Oct. 14, he wrote to the CRU's Tom Wigley: "How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!" Only a few weeks before Copenhagen, here is a scientist in the inner AGW circle disclosing that "we are no where close to knowing" how the supposedly proven AGW warming model might actually work, and that therefore geoengineering - such as carbon mitigation - is "hopeless." This admission edges close to acknowledgment of a huge core problem: that "greenhouse" theory violates the second law of thermodynamics, which says that a cooler body cannot warm a hotter body without compensation. Greenhouse gases in the cold upper atmosphere cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer earth, and in fact radiate their absorbed heat into outer space. (Readers interested in the science can read Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner's "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics," updated in January 2009.) Recent data from many monitors including the CRU, available on climate4you.com, show that the average temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans near the surface of the earth has decreased significantly across the past eight years or so. CO2 is a benign gas essential to life, occurring in past eras at five times present levels. Changes in atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with human emissions of CO2, the latter being entirely trivial in the global balance. The battles in Nicaea in 325 were faith based, with no relation to science or reason. So were the premises of the Copenhagen summit, that the planet faces catastrophic warming caused by manmade CO2 buildup, and that human intervention - geoengineering - could avert the coming disaster. Properly speaking, it's a farce. In terms of distraction from cleaning up the pollutants that are actually killing people, it's a terrible tragedy.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Farce
December 24, 2009
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-13) not displayed.
.
.
.
#14. To: buckeroo (#13)
Actually sea levels have dropped because the oceans have cooled. Your science is lagging.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
Prove your contention anyway you can.
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
‘Sea level in the Arctic is falling’—Sea level is a surprisingly complicated thing "The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
The FACTS are simple to understand about the general trends in measured (and documented) ways to objectively see the exposure of and about heightened sea levels around the globe as opposed to spitting out some local phenomena. You see, around the globe no matter where you go the levels are generally rising not falling. And using the Arctic region as a perspective to support lower sea level measurements is fictitious since that region is normally cooler anyway. BTW, who lives in the Arctic region that would be affected in their local way of life: a pile of scientists and a few hunters. Little crop development occurs in that specific Arctic region.
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
Actually that is not true. In areas that were heavily covered in ice during the last ice age the continent is still rebounding and consequently sea levels are falling. As for other areas, levels are rising 2 to 3 mm per year. This has remained unchanged since prior to the supposed temp increase.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
I see that you have acquiesced to using the Arctic region as a basis for further rebuttal concerning your own defense. So, moving along ..... using the past Ice Age (as you vividly point out): And to further demonstrate your poor perspective: Now, what is your rebuttal? Using Al Gore's BS as a political weapon about facts while entertaining fantasy?
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
The hockey stick was "documented." I must say that I'm less than impressed by temperature and "sea level rise" graphs put out by UCAR and all the rest of the sophmores that ate up the preposterous hash that institutions like the University of East Anglia served up. Sea level have risen in past decades, but only only barely enough to be ststistically meaningful. It is measured in millimters. The British Navy left numerous tide markers chiseled in stone on islands across the globe in the 18th and 19th centuries, and nowhere is a rise in sea levels measured in centimeters in evidence. Go down to Galveston and you will sea the seawall built by the Corps of Engineers at the same level at which it was built over a hundred years ago. The twaddle you bring impresses no one. Yet you are welcome to bring it. It's a free country after all.
Although I haven't introduced that FACT on this thread, I am glad your brought it up. Oh no, the REAL hockey stick *IS* documented: Some nations in Africa are currently unable to adequately feed their citizens and yet Africa's population could double within the next 30 years. Africa can address this by reducing the continent's resource burden by reducing its birth rate (as China has done). Feeding everyone requires changes within Africa and from elsewhere. The western world has for too long supplied the guns used in African wars. And the west continues to implement subjugating economic policies (BBC Report on Africa Commission Report, 2005). Global Warming and Energy Consumption Global warming has been brought about by industrial activity pumping too many chemicals into the earth's atmosphere for it to cope. We have treated the planet as if it has an infinite capacity to deal with the effects of our industrialisation. Some people and organisations are now modifying their behaviour to reduce the impact they have on the planet. We can increase this positive effect even further by reducing the number of people that the planet has to sustain. In one year, each person on the planet consumes 1,675 units of energy (World Resources Institute, 2003) which have to be generated by some means, such as burning fossil fuels. That person also generates waste that needs to be disposed of. Each person in the US generates 2Kg of waste per day (US EPA. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2005). If this person didn't exist, they wouldn't have an impact. Not only that, but if they don't exist, all of their descendants would never exist. Such an approach has a cumulative effect as less people means less descendants. China has had a policy of encouraging families to have only one child since 1979. For most of the 1970s China had a voluntary policy of "late, long, few" which called for later childbearing, greater spacing between children, and fewer children. This caused the total fertility rate to halve from 5.9 to 2.9. A country's fertility rate is likely to drop due to increased economic prosperity as can be seen in India which has seen its rate drop from about 6 in 1950 to 2.7 today. Ads by Google Global Warming The science & impacts of global warming. What can be done? www.PewTrusts.org Earth Pollution One of the World's Most Toxic Industries. Watch this Documentary! www.Babelgum.com/Documentary Planet-Wide Challenges If we are to effectively deal with the planet-wide challenges of the 21st century (global warming being the most well-known), we have to address the issue of how many people the planet can effectively support. Overpopulation can lead to epidemics, overwhelmed social services (health, education, law enforcement, and more), and strain on the ecosystem from abuse of fertile land and production of high volumes of waste (Malcolm Potts, Popul Dev Rev 1997;23: 1-40, cited in BMJ 2006 article). Most of the projected extra 3 billion people will be born in less developed regions which don't yet have the social infrastructure to cope with such an increase. Many people may have a life of unemployment and poverty, without access to a good education. They may starve. In a world of plenty, it is morally and ethically unacceptable to be condemning so many people to death. It is economic genocide. Read more at Suite101: World Overpopulation Killing Earth: The Root Cause Of The Earth's Problems: Too Many People http://environmentalism.suite101.com/article.cfm/we_are_the_environmental_problem#ixzz0ajGnkkMm “Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
I acquiesce to nothing. Off to Grandma's for dinner. Merry Christmas my friend.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
As was mentioned earlier, rising atmospheric temperatures will gradually produce elevated temperatures in the oceans as well. This temperature rise is likely to be quite small at first; however, the volume of water affected is immense. The table (left) shows the percent volume increase for a quantity of water for each 1° C of increased temperature, at various initial temperatures. Here's an example. Suppose 1 liter of water, initially at 20° C, was heated to 21° C. It would expand by 0.021%. It would increase in volume by 0.21 milliliters. This tiny increase seems trivial, until we recall that the world's oceans contain some 1,400,000,000 cubic kilometers of water! Even a tiny fractional increase adds up to a very large actual increase in volume, and hence substantial sea level rise. Of course, the different layers of the ocean (surface layers and deep ocean) will not be heated equally. Also, the volumes of the different layers are not the same; nor are their initial temperatures, which affects the rate at which they expand (see table). The surface layer of the ocean contains roughly 50,000,000 km3 of water, and has temperatures ranging from freezing near the poles to around 30° C in the tropics. The mid ocean, where the thermocline produces the transition from warm surface to cold deep water, holds about 460,000,000 km3 of water and spans a large range of temperatures. The deep ocean holds the most water, some 890,000,000 km3, but because of its relatively cool temperatures of 4° C or less is also less prone to expansion as its temperature rises slightly. Once again, the story is complex and scientists do not yet have all the answers. It is easy to understand why supercomputers are so widely used in climate research! Suffice it to say that computer models of climate change predict that thermal expansion of sea water will play as large a role, or possibly greater, than meltwater runoff in raising sea levels in the coming decades and centuries. “Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
Merry Christmas, my friend. I love you. I love your debating spirit.
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
I don't have to refute anything, buck. It's up to the warmists to show a rise in sea level. In order for them to do that, the sea has to have perceptibly risen where the it actually meets the land. It's quite simple. BTW, when the ocean temps reach 50°C, the Earth will have reach an entirely new geologic age. Don't ring me when that happens. I'll be out of here.
Sea levels rising at nearly double previous estimates due to global warming The new estimates nearly double the worst-case scenario presented in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which projected a global sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. Scientists are observing accelerated ice flow and melting in some glaciers and many studies now estimate the increased rise in global sea levels as a result, the EPA report, “Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region,” states. Now, researchers said, planners are faced with two choices: hold back the water or prepare for nature to take its course. Traditional responses to sea-level rise have included rebuilding homes and businesses at the same location or using engineering to hold back the sea water. But such responses may no longer be economical or even possible in some areas, according to the EPA report. Parts of New York City would be at risk of submersion even with roughly 16 inches of local sea-level rise, according to research from Columbia University. Because the additional water would weaken or destroy wetlands and flood protection, major storms could submerge Coney Island, much of southern Brooklyn and Queens, portions of Long Island City, Astoria, Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, Lower Manhattan, and eastern Staten Island, one study showed. New York has created a dedicated state task force and held a series of meetings this month for public comment on the issue. The task force will tap “the best available science to evaluate ways to protect New York’s remaining coastal ecosystems and natural habitats and increase coastal community resilience in the face of sea level rise,” according to the task force Web site. The task force will produce a final report by Dec. 31. “Sea-level rise could be faster than what people had been thinking because at least one mechanism that people haven’t realized is possible,” said Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist and climatologist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland who was not involved with the report. This mechanism involves crevasses in glaciers called moulins. “Melt-water from an ice sheet can flow rapidly down these moulins and the speculation is that therefore it could speed the outward flow of the ice,” Parkinson said. The IPCC did not address this mechanism in its 2007 report because no research had been published about it yet, she said. The EPA report, which involved the EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, outlines the impact of sea-level rise and strategies for regional preparation. States in addition to New York are taking steps to address the predicted threat. “A number of state coastal zone management offices are starting to figure out what they really want to do to plan for accelerated sea-level rise,” said James Titus, project manager for sea-level rise at the EPA and a lead author of the report. “This science assessment was done to inform anybody who wants to be informed about the state of the science,” he said. The problem, he noted, is that government leaders are making management decisions under the assumption that the sea level is stable. But U.S. tidal wetlands in areas such as the Mississippi River Delta in Louisiana “are already experiencing submergence by relative sea-level rise,” the report states. Scientists note that, in addition to flooding low-lying lands and wetlands, sea-level rise can bring flooding farther inland and cause other changes that fundamentally impact the environment and populated areas. Wetlands are important because they provide flood control, act as a storm surge buffer and protect water quality, as well as house a variety of species. The consequences of wetland degradation were exemplified during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Dense populations, other effects of climate change and susceptibility to storms and environmental stresses compound the problem for coastal regions, according to the report. Although Titus said states including New York and Delaware are stepping up their response planning, he said the EPA researchers involved in the report expected no specific tasks to result from the report. “What you expect and hope is that gradually people read it – people who might not have been up to date on the issue” and that ultimately it will help regional planners get ahead of the curve, he said. “Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
Thanks! And I don't care what anyone says about you, I think you are sweet.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
Knock it off!
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
Ron Paul on Global Warming: note, he doesn't dismiss GW ... he discusses failed government intervention plans. “Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
He is a politician of course. I like Ron Paul. I've heard he is planning on running for Pres again.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
We need to differentiate FACTS about GW, certainly from geophysics and lame political attempts at the control of the phenomena. Just because a pile of political lamers think they can run the world addressing a FACT such as global warming, doesn't dismiss the truth. I don't think we can turn the phenomena back as in the attempt within the recent Copenhagen conference. We are doomed no matter what we attempt to do.
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
I disagree. We are in a natural cycle. CO2 is irrelevant.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
That brings up a question: are you "regular" on a day to day basis? Without answering, what do you imagine happens to the Earth when 6,500,000,000 humans take a dump each and every day? Absolutely no impact to the Earth's fragile eco-system?
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
And that is the key point which needs to be re-iterated over and over. "An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
What happens when all those insects in the rain forest take a dump? How about the wales? Humans are a small part of a very large eco system.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
It recycles nutrients back into the eco-system. Next question?
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
I keep going back to one of the greatest posts I've ever seen. Researched and posted by Carry_Okie it contained this relevant paragraph. "The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
How?
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
How is methane broken down? By majick faeries entertained within your own mind?
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
How is methane broken down? By majick faeries entertained within your own mind? Methane, a.k.a. Natural Gas, (CH4) is an organic molecule. In many different combinations it forms compounds which are extremely useful and common in the environment. Your question makes no sense, and illustrates your lack of knowledge, as it is a building block organic chemical.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
These people are energy investors who use federal money and their own tax-exempt "charitable" donations to fund lawsuits that manipulate access to resources, control processing of energy feedstocks, and set attainment targets in a manner preferential to their own investments. ALL of the resulting capital gains in their trusts are tax-exempt. You may be surprised to find the Hewlett and Packard fortunes listed as energy investors, but they just gave over 130 million to Stanford to research extraction of methane hydrates and are directly tied in with Exxon/Mobil in that effort. Keeping it in the family they've put Lynn Orr, who is married to Susan Packard, in charge of the global energy project. The idea is that they can use the energy revenues and the carbon credits for removing a principal source of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. They need Kyoto or this will be a big loser of an investment. Curiously, if they disturb those nodules foolishly, they may end up releasing a great deal of methane to the surface which would release the gases into the atmosphere. This has been obvious, at least to me, for some time. The entire environmental movement, as we know it today, is the creation of wealthy interests for uses other than cleaning up the environment i.e., Greenwash, increasing the value of existing assets, creating a new type of paper to trade i.e. "Carbon Credits" and the primary funding source for much of the environmental movement comes from Robber Baron Family "Foundations". Foundations are a great tax dodge for the very very wealthy because they can plunk money in there that remains untaxed and then the foundation does "good works" such as for the environment which by pure utter complete sheer unqualified undiluted one hundred percent chance just happens to benefit their other financial holdings to a degree much greater than the money spent by the foundation in their unquestionably "charitable" "giving".
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
CH4(g) + 2 O2(g) ------> CO2(g) + 2 H2O(l) H = –891 kJ; compounded by 6,500,000,000 dumps a day. Your noxious and casual point doesn't address the serious issue that affects all of us.
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
You dismiss FACTS based upon political hacks. Face it, you are becoming the "Baghdad Bob of Iraq" of well known fame, right here on 4um.
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
you are so correct.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
Mellow out sweetie, it's Christmas.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
We are part of God's creation not separate from it.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
OK. I just had a shot of Redbreast.
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
You can't look upto heaven and believe in some sort of God to save us from our own sins about the world around us. Aren't we responsible for the shenanigans that we personally create by ourselves?
“Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.”
I'll be generous and lets suppose two dumps a day and make it a nice round 13,000,000,000 dumps per day. A large percentage of which is water - are you saying water is toxic in the environment now? Are we having environmental problems from the overproduction of water? The rest is primarily organic solids which is immediately feasted upon by bacteria and other pestilential shit dwellers which begin breaking it down into simpler organic compounds. Those organic compounds are in turn feasted upon by algae and related organisms, which in turn breaks down further into raw components taken up and used by other plants and the entire cycle continues over and over. That's why they call it an eco-SYSTEM. Because it is a System in the sense that a System's Scientist/Engineer would recognize as a semi-open system. Sunlight is required to power some of it in terms of warmth, UV radiation, etc., .... So again your point is nonsensical as waste problems are self solving to a large degree. There have even been prototypes, and very successful ones, using human waste and water as an input with clean water and bio-mass as an output. While we do have environmental problems they are mainly created by the industrial concerns owned by the Robber Baron progeny, and others of their ilk, who use the environmental movement, funded into other avenues of concern, to run off chasing their tails and pursuing, unwittingly (or witlessly - your choice), non-problems which benefit their overall portfolio.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
don't you think it has all been factored into his plan?
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
And where does all that energy come from? Why it couldn't be Mr. Sun could it? Your point would be of concern only in a closed system. We do not live in a closed system we live in a half open system. Last I checked the Earth was not located in an Erlenmeyer Flask. As detailed elsewhere so I won't repeat the problem is self solving.
"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France
Comments (55 - 65) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#15. To: farmfriend (#14)
#16. To: buckeroo (#15)
Yes, a new study using Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite has determined that over the last 10 years, sea level in the Arctic Ocean has been falling at an average rate of about 2 mm/year. This is very new and very interesting news, though it is preliminary and not published in any peer-reviewed journals yet.
#17. To: farmfriend (#16)
#18. To: buckeroo (#17)
You see, around the globe no matter where you go the levels are generally rising not falling.
#19. To: farmfriend (#18)
In areas that were heavily covered in ice during the last ice age the continent is still rebounding and consequently sea levels are falling. As for other areas, levels are rising 2 to 3 mm per year. This has remained unchanged since prior to the supposed temp increase.
The Wisconsin glacial began around 110,000 years ago, while the prior interglacial lasted about 20,000 years starting 130,000 years ago. Certain periodic changes in Earth's orbital motions, referred to as a group as Milankovitch Cycles, tend to usher glacial and interglacial periods in and out during the course of an ice age. These cycles have periods of 40,000 and 100,000 years. Scientists believe, based on the Milankovitch Cycles, that the current interglacial is likely to end roughly 50,000 years from now, barring excessive human disruption of natural patterns of climate change.
During the peak of the Wisconsin glacial glaciers covered almost a third of Earth's land surface, as compared to about 11% today. At the time of the last glacial maximum, about 20,000 years ago, sea levels were about 122 meters (400 feet) lower than they are today. As global temperatures began to rise and the ice began to recede, sea levels rose relatively rapidly at an average rate of about 10 mm/year (a meter per century) between 15,000 and 6,000 years ago. This rate of sea level rise is about 5 to 10 times as rapid as the rise we are currently experiencing. A vertical rise of sea level by a meter per century may not seem an especially radical change. However, recall that coastal plains and continental shelves have shallow slopes; so a vertical rise of one meter corresponds to a change in location of the coastline of roughly a kilometer in many places.
#20. To: buckeroo (#17)
The FACTS are simple to understand about the general trends in measured (and documented)
#21. To: randge (#20)
The hockey stick was "documented."
The world has too many people. In the next 40 years, the world's population could grow by another 50% to 9 billion people (UN World Population to 2300 report (PDF)), page 14, table 1) with most of the growth taking place in less developed regions. This will create a significant burden on the world's resources. Although dealing now with the causes of climate change is important, it's more important to deal with the underlying problem. There are too many of us.
#22. To: buckeroo (#19)
I see that you have acquiesced
#23. To: randge (#20)
Sea level have risen in past decades, but only only barely enough to be ststistically meaningful. It is measured in millimters.
Thermal Expansion of Sea Water
temperature
per each 1° C
temperature increase
So refute that evidence, randge.
#24. To: farmfriend (#22)
#25. To: buckeroo (#23)
So refute that evidence, randge.
#26. To: randge (#25)
It's up to the warmists to show a rise in sea level. In order for them to do that, the sea has to have perceptibly risen where the it actually meets the land. It's quite simple.
Scientists predict that global sea levels could rise nearly 40 inches by the end of the century, according to a recent report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
#27. To: randge (#25)
#28. To: buckeroo (#24)
Merry Christmas, my friend. I love you. I love your debating spirit.
#29. To: farmfriend (#28)
#30. To: buckeroo (#29)
Knock it off!
#31. To: farmfriend (#30)
#32. To: buckeroo (#31)
#33. To: farmfriend (#32)
#34. To: buckeroo (#33)
#35. To: farmfriend (#34)
We are in a natural cycle.
#36. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#0)
The battles in Nicaea in 325 were faith based, with no relation to science or reason. So were the premises of the Copenhagen summit, that the planet faces catastrophic warming caused by manmade CO2 buildup, and that human intervention - geoengineering - could avert the coming disaster. Properly speaking, it's a farce. In terms of distraction from cleaning up the pollutants that are actually killing people, it's a terrible tragedy.
In terms of distraction from cleaning up the pollutants that are actually killing people, it's a terrible tragedy.
In terms of distraction from cleaning up the pollutants that are actually killing people, it's a terrible tragedy.
In terms of distraction from cleaning up the pollutants that are actually killing people, it's a terrible tragedy.
#37. To: buckeroo (#35)
#38. To: buckeroo, farmfriend (#35)
That brings up a question: are you "regular" on a day to day basis? Without answering, what do you imagine happens to the Earth when 6,500,000,000 humans take a dump each and every day? Absolutely no impact to the Earth's fragile eco-system?
#39. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#36)
These people are energy investors who use federal money and their own tax-exempt "charitable" donations to fund lawsuits that manipulate access to resources, control processing of energy feedstocks, and set attainment targets in a manner preferential to their own investments. ALL of the resulting capital gains in their trusts are tax-exempt. You may be surprised to find the Hewlett and Packard fortunes listed as energy investors, but they just gave over 130 million to Stanford to research extraction of methane hydrates and are directly tied in with Exxon/Mobil in that effort. Keeping it in the family they've put Lynn Orr, who is married to Susan Packard, in charge of the global energy project. The idea is that they can use the energy revenues and the carbon credits for removing a principal source of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. They need Kyoto or this will be a big loser of an investment. Curiously, if they disturb those nodules foolishly, they may end up releasing a great deal of methane to the surface which would release the gases into the atmosphere.
#40. To: farmfriend (#37)
Humans are a small part of a very large eco system.
#41. To: Original_Intent (#38)
It [mother nature] recycles nutrients back into the eco-system.
#42. To: farmfriend (#37)
Humans are a small part of a very large eco system.
Oh sure.
#43. To: buckeroo, farmfriend (#41)
It [mother nature] recycles nutrients back into the eco-system.
#44. To: farmfriend (#39)
I keep going back to one of the greatest posts I've ever seen. Researched and posted by Carry_Okie it contained this relevant paragraph.
#45. To: Original_Intent (#43)
Natural Gas
#46. To: Original_Intent (#44)
The entire environmental movement, as we know it today, is the creation of wealthy interests for uses other than cleaning up the environment i.e., Greenwash, increasing the value of existing assets, creating a new type of paper to trade i.e. "Carbon Credits" and the primary funding source for much of the environmental movement comes from Robber Baron Family "Foundations". Foundations are a great tax dodge for the very very wealthy because they can plunk money in there that remains untaxed and then the foundation does "good works" such as for the environment which by pure utter complete sheer unqualified undiluted one hundred percent chance just happens to benefit their other financial holdings to a degree much greater than the money spent by the foundation in their unquestionably "charitable" "giving".
#47. To: Original_Intent (#44)
#48. To: buckeroo (#46)
#49. To: buckeroo (#40)
How?
#50. To: farmfriend (#48)
Mellow out sweetie, it's Christmas.
#51. To: farmfriend (#49)
We are part of God's creation not separate from it.
#52. To: buckeroo (#45)
#53. To: buckeroo (#51)
Aren't we responsible for the shenanigans that we personally create by ourselves?
#54. To: buckeroo (#45)
= –891 kJ; compounded by 6,500,000,000 dumps a day.
.
.
.