[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Whitney Webb: Foreign Intelligence Affiliated CTI League Poses Major National Security Risk Paul Joseph Watson: What Fresh Hell Is This? Watch: 50 Kids Loot 7-Eleven In Beverly Hills For Candy & Snacks "No Americans": Insider Of Alleged Trafficking Network Reveals How Migrants Ended Up At Charleroi, PA Factory Ford scraps its SUV electric vehicle; the US consumer decides what should be produced, not the Government The Doctor is In the House [Two and a half hours early?] Trump Walks Into Gun Store & The Owner Says This... His Reaction Gets Everyone Talking! Here’s How Explosive—and Short-Lived—Silver Spikes Have Been This Popeyes Fired All the Blacks And Hired ALL Latinos ‘He’s setting us up’: Jewish leaders express alarm at Trump’s blaming Jews if he loses Asia Not Nearly Gay Enough Yet, CNN Laments Undecided Black Voters In Georgia Deliver Brutal Responses on Harris (VIDEO) Biden-Harris Admin Sued For Records On Trans Surgeries On Minors Rasmussen Poll Numbers: Kamala's 'Bounce' Didn't Faze Trump Trump BREAKS Internet With Hysterical Ad TORCHING Kamala | 'She is For They/Them!' 45 Funny Cybertruck Memes So Good, Even Elon Might Crack A Smile Possible Trump Rally Attack - Serious Injuries Reported BULLETIN: ISRAEL IS ENTERING **** UKRAINE **** WAR ! Missile Defenses in Kiev ! ATF TO USE 2ND TRUMP ATTACK TO JUSTIFY NEW GUN CONTROL... An EMP Attack on the U.S. Power Grids and Critical National Infrastructure New York Residents Beg Trump to Come Back, Solve Out-of-Control Illegal Immigration Chicago Teachers Confess They Were told to Give Illegals Passing Grades Am I Racist? Reviewed by a BLACK MAN Ukraine and Israel Following the Same Playbook, But Uncle Sam Doesn't Want to Play "The Diddy indictment is PROTECTING the highest people in power" Ian Carroll The White House just held its first cabinet meeting in almost a year. Guess who was running it. The Democrats' War On America, Part One: What "Saving Our Democracy" Really Means New York's MTA Proposes $65.4 Billion In Upgrades With Cash It Doesn't Have More than 100 killed or missing as Sinaloa Cartel war rages in Mexico New York state reports 1st human case of EEE in nearly a decade

Science/Tech
See other Science/Tech Articles

Title: Warning on rising Med Sea levels
Source: BBC
URL Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7197379.stm
Published: Jan 19, 2008
Author: BBC
Post Date: 2008-01-19 00:25:26 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 1257
Comments: 130

Scientists noted sea temperatures had also risen significantly The level of the Mediterranean Sea is rising rapidly and could increase by up to half a metre in the next 50 years, scientists in Spain have warned. A study by the Spanish Oceanographic Institute says levels have been rising since the 1970s with the rate of increase growing in recent years. It says even a small rise could have serious consequences in coastal areas. The study noted that the findings were consistent with other investigations into the effects of climate change. The study, entitled Climate Change in the Spanish Mediterranean, said the sea had risen "between 2.5mm and 10mm (0.1 and 0.4in) per year since the 1990s". If the trend continued it would have "very serious consequences" in low-lying coastal areas even in the case of a small rise, and "catastrophic consequences" if a half-metre increase occurred, the study warned. Global climate change Scientists noted that sea temperatures had also risen significantly by 0.12 to 0.5C since the 1970s. Sea level rise is a key effect of global climate change. There are two major contributory effects: the melting of ice, and expansion of sea water as the oceans warm. Last month, a study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the world's sea levels could rise twice as much this century as UN climate scientists had previously predicted. The Nobel Prize-winning IPCC predicted a maximum sea level rise of 81cm (32in) this century.

(1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

#1. To: All, *Global Climate Change* (#0)

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   0:26:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It was warmer during the medieval warm period yet there was no mass melting of glaciers or catostrophic rise in sea levels.

If the trend continued it would have "very serious consequences" in low-lying coastal areas even in the case of a small rise, and "catastrophic consequences" if a half-metre increase occurred, the study warned.

But the trend is not continuing. The oceans are already showing cooling, record ice in Antarctica and record cold in many places. Cooling is much more dangerous for all species yet we do not prepare.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   1:33:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Every year billions of tons of earth get washed into the sea, raising sea levels. In 100 million years, mountains become plains. Most people, except for the scientific, believe short term trends will continue.

Global temperature changes for number of reasons and none are man made. One is because the sun has a variable output another is due to the wobble of the earth. The current warm period will reverse in about 20 years and we will start a cooling trend that will make most humans wish it was warmer.

When certain astronomical events occur all at once, there will be another ice age and with our present technology man will be unable to prevent it. If an ice age occurs with man's present level of technology, billions of people will die. Well, they will die anyway; but the the death rate will exceed the birth rate to such an extent that the population of the earth will be billions less. We are advancing toward a Type I civilization. Such a civilization should be able to prevent an ice age.

DWornock  posted on  2008-01-19   1:57:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Global temperature changes for number of reasons and none are man made.

Most scientists agree that global warming is at least in part man made; and most of those who disagree are paid by Exxon.

We all need to keep an open mind. Most scientists are apolitical, but not all of them. I'm sure you can find politics involved on both sides, in an attempt to control us and lead us astray. Certainly Big Oil has obvious reasons for wanting to confuse the facts on this issue.

www.motherjones.com/news/.../05/some_like_it_hot.html
News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.

Cold comfort in British Antarctic deep ice core results

Submitted by Fred Bortz on Tue, 2006-09-05 08:52.

A BBC News story reports findings from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) that the rate of increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere is unprecedented, at least over the past 800,000 years.

Studying a deep ice core sample, the scientists have not only been able to measure the greenhouse gas concentrations in ancient atmospheres but also the average temperatures. The result, according to the BBC report, is that carbon dioxide concentration and temperature rise and fall in lockstep.

The report quotes BAS scientist Dr. Eric Wolff, who saw no signs that geological or biological systems have served as CO₂ sinks to mitigate the increases.

Wolff told the BBC that the fastest observed increase in CO₂ was about 30 parts per million (ppm) in 1000 years, in contrast to present circumstances in which "the last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have any analogue in our records."

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   12:24:39 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Most scientists agree that global warming is at least in part man made;

Oh really? Name one that is not bribed by research grants.

DWornock  posted on  2008-01-19   15:55:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I guess you didn't read the link or anything I just posted. There's really no point in discussing this subject with someone who has such a closed mind.

www.motherjones.com/news/.../05/some_like_it_hot.html
News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   17:37:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I guess you didn't read the link or anything I just posted. There's really no point in discussing this subject with someone who has such a closed mind.

Hell, there's many that refuse to acknowledge that there IS such a thing as global warming, either by ignorance or deceit. I'm at a point where I really don't know if I care anymore, since if the majority wish to pollute the planet and ignore any evidence contrary to their opinion, perhaps they deserve what they end up with.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   17:47:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I guess you didn't read the link or anything I just posted.

Oh! You mean like "most of those who disagree are paid by Exxon."
And, "They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil."

DWornock  posted on  2008-01-19   18:14:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I didn't write that, it was at the link I provided, along with evidence. But there seems to be no point in posting research like the ice core samples and other evidence and links to evidence to you. Good luck with your further education brainwashing.

EXXONMOBIL’S FUNDING OF THINK TANKS hardly compares with its lobbying expenditures—$55 million over the past six years, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked
List of "Scientists" Includes Economists, Amateurs, TV Weathermen and Industry Hacks

Inhofe's list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.)

84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   18:24:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

What I can't understand is why these people are against alternative energy and wish to continue to rely on fossil fuels. It's bad enough we use fossil fuels for energy in regards to tranportation, but few even know that we produce all the plastics, most synthetic textiles, as well as food colorings from petroleum.

They somehow swallow the lie that the oil companies wish to ELIMINATE our reliance on oil, hence their alleged concern towards global warming. They think the "good guys" are those that ridicule those that show concern about global warming, even though most if not all of the supposed "scientists" that dismiss global warming are PAID by oil companies for their "research".

The brainwashing must be quite effective. I can see no other reason why people would be so carefree about the possibility that the earth's climate is being irreversibly affected, where soon, no matter what we do, it'll be too late to stop a runaway cycle of warming due to the oceans producing more CO2 from the higher tempertures. The more CO2 they produce, the warmer it gets, and the warmer it gets, the more CO2 they produce.

Just because it's cold this winter doesn't mean there isn't global warming. Global warming involves the tempertures of the oceans and of the atmosphere at higher elevations. It also involves changes in weather patterns, including more violent storms due to the higher retained energy of the planet's climate.

Of course, the melting of glaciers and the polar ice are strong indications that the earth isn't getting colder.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   18:48:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

What I can't understand is why these people are against alternative energy and wish to continue to rely on fossil fuels.

Can you spell EXXON?

There are good economic and geopolitical reasons for alternative energy sources too.

Whatever science continues to learn about what is actually happening to the 3rd marble from the sun, we should remain open minded. Whenever someone claims they KNOW global climate change is NOT man made, I am instantly suspicious. They simply cannot KNOW that for a fact.

www.grida.no/climate/vital/19.htm

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   18:52:15 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Studying a deep ice core sample, the scientists have not only been able to measure the greenhouse gas concentrations in ancient atmospheres but also the average temperatures.

Ice cores are not good proxies for past climate and atmosphere concentrations. I have a friend who is writing a paper for publication on this right now in relation to the Younger Dryas.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   18:58:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

My opinion, for what it's worth: this is just another fear tactic the elite are using to push us in one direction or another. I don't claim to know what yet. But it isn't good. I'm not so worried about global warming. I'm worried about the mass fear of it.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-19   19:00:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I agree, the topic will be and is being used to control us.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   19:01:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I have a friend who is writing a paper for publication on this right now in relation to the Younger Dryas.

You appear to have a lot of "friends" that attempt to say there is no such thing as global warming. Why are these people your friends?

Don't you care if the earth becomes uninhabitable, with all of our children and grandchildren suffering horrible deaths in the not too distant future, if global warming turns out to be true? Why are you so willing to gamble with the earth's future, and why do you support those that wish to continue to pollute the planet, regardless of global warming?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:03:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Here is a quote from another one of my friends on AGW:

There are several climate forcing solar cycles at play. The "Maunder" cycle, which brought the Medieval Warm period 300-year Little ice Age 1400-1700 is a 1 000 year cycle, and the next LIA is due in 2400- 2700. We are now at the end of a 210 year Vries cycle and a 60 year Gleissberg cycle. In a few years, temperatures will plunge and the Londonders can look forward to ice markets on the Thames for the first time since 1814. The ensuing global famine is less amusing. The warmest years in Uppsala, Sweden were 1789, 1930 and 1999, all 7,7 degrees Celsius. In 1801 it was 6,0 and in 1805 3,7. In the famine year of of 1868, it was 2,5. This kind of sudden drop is typical of a Vries cycle, and today it is once more imminent. AGW and environmentalism will have its place in history alongside the witch processes.

Magnus Hagelstam, Finland

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:10:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why are these people your friends

Because they are intelligent.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:12:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm not so worried about global warming. I'm worried about the mass fear of it.

My concern is twofold. First is the fact that globnl warming is deadly serious, and if it IS true, could be fatal for mankind if allowed to continue unabated.

Secondly, I'm concerned that otherwise rational people are being conditioned to not be concered about the matter. The info IS conflicting, perhaps purposely so.

Regardless of individual motivations, it IS a fact that global warming is occuring, with natural events certainly playing a role, however it is more than likely ALSO true that man-made pollution is a factor as well.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:13:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Because they are intelligent

There are a LOT of intelligent people that understand the climate and the science behind it, that are saying the OPPOSITE of what you believe, and what your "friends" say.

So your answer is quite lame and evasive.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:15:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BTW, you never explained what you mean by "AGW"..

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:15:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I see more people worrying about it than not. I think the hysteria is with the worriers. There's a lot to analyze and discuss over the next couple of hundred years, but if we start limiting our potential because of fears that might or might not be valid, we'll certainly do more damage than if we simply ignore the danger.

The biggest concern I have is the collectivism being advocated as a solution. Carbon credits are the biggest Stalinist nightmare I've seen in a long time.

Fear is what we have most to fear, especially since 9/11.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-19   19:16:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

First is the fact that globnl warming is deadly serious, and if it IS true, could be fatal for mankind if allowed to continue unabated.

The risks are much greater with global cooling though. Nothing catastrophic happened during the medieval warm period and it was much warmer then. We even call it climate optimum. However, the little ice age was very devastating. Historically cooling periods have always been worse than warming periods. So if your concern were genuine you would be preparing for cooling.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:17:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Don't you care if the earth becomes uninhabitable, with all of our children and grandchildren suffering horrible deaths in the not too distant future, if global warming turns out to be true? Why are you so willing to gamble with the earth's future, and why do you support those that wish to continue to pollute the planet, regardless of global warming?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:17:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Hysteria.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-19   19:18:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The risks are much greater with global cooling though.

So global cooling is melting the glaciers and ice caps uh? And federal deficits are a good thing, as printing more money means everybody gets more of it, right?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:18:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Don't you care if the earth becomes uninhabitable, with all of our children and grandchildren suffering horrible deaths in the not too distant future, if global warming turns out to be true?

Global cooling is much more likely to do that. It always has historically.

Why are you so willing to gamble with the earth's future, and why do you support those that wish to continue to pollute the planet, regardless of global warming?

CO2 is not a pollutant! Man only contributes 3%. CO2 follows temperature. Cause does not follow effect.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:20:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It is rapid Global Climate Change. That cooling follows warming and warming follows cooling is part of what we must learn to deal with.

Currently, the ice sheets are breaking and melting, leaving polar bears to drown. The Northwest passage is open. The sea levels are rising.

news.nationalgeographic.c...17-northwest-passage.html

Climate models had projected the passage would eventually open as warming temperatures melted the Arctic sea ice—but no one had predicted it would happen this soon.

"We're probably 30 years ahead of schedule in terms of the loss of the Arctic sea ice," said Mark Serreze, a senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado.

"We're on this fast track of change."

This should concern the people who inhabit earth.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   19:21:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Hysteria.

You don't know that. I have a problem with people that dismiss science and believe what they are told by those with an agenda. I think caution is certainly the best policy here, especially when it comes to the future of mankind.

Of course, if mankind is at a point where it doesn't care about it's own future, perhaps it deserves whatever fate awaits it...

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:21:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So global cooling is melting the glaciers and ice caps uh?

No that would be the increased sun spots over the last 3 sun cycles.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:22:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This should concern the people who inhabit earth.

Serious talk of global taxation using the United Nations should, at this time, concern them much, much more. We can live without polar bears, but we can't live without our economic freedom.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-19   19:23:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Currently, the ice sheets are breaking and melting, leaving polar bears to drown.

LOL! Right, that's why bear populations have been increasing.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:23:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I have a problem with people that dismiss science and believe what they are told by those with an agenda.

So you have a problem with yourself?

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:24:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BTW, you never explained what you mean by "AGW"..

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming

And yes I have explained it.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:27:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Study Says Polar Bears Could Face Extinction

Warming Shrinks Sea Ice Mammals Depend On

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, November 9, 2004; Page A13

Global warming could cause polar bears to go extinct by the end of the century by eroding the sea ice that sustains them, according to the most comprehensive international assessment ever done of Arctic climate change.

The thinning of sea ice -- which is projected to shrink by at least half by the end of the century and could disappear altogether, according to some computer models -- could determine the fate of many other key Arctic species, said the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the product of four years of work by more than 300 scientists. ....

The sea ice in Hudson Bay, Canada, now breaks up 2 1/2 weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, said Canadian Wildlife Service research scientist Ian Stirling, and as a result female polar bears there weigh 55 pounds less than they did then. Assuming the current rate of ice shrinkage and accompanying weight loss in the Hudson Bay region, bears there could become so thin by 2012 they may no longer be able to reproduce, said Lara Hansen, chief scientist for the World Wildlife Fund.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp...cles/A35233-2004Nov8.html

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   19:27:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

CO2 is not a pollutant!

CO2 is a by-product of various man-made emissions. It goes hand in hand with hydrocarbon emissions. But why stop there, what about the coal burning plants that in addition to CO2 dump enormous quanitites of mercury into the lakes, rivers, streams, and oceans, making it close to impossible to find fish that don't contain dangerous levels of mercury.

Oh that's right, mercury is good for you, isn't it...

In any case, CO2 by itself is not a pollutant, but it DOES lead to higher tempertures, so if we add CO2 to an already overtaxed environment, we are playing with fire if we simply ignore it and continue as if there is "nothing to see here".

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:28:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So you have a problem with yourself?

Apparently so. If people are the problem, we must all curtail ourselves.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-19   19:28:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

according to some computer models

You have to read these things a little more carefully. This is not science nor is it proof of anything.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:29:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Global warming could cause polar bears to go extinct by the end of the century by eroding the sea ice that sustains them, according to the most comprehensive international assessment ever done of Arctic climate change.

I wonder how many people will simply dismiss that info with "oh well, it doesn't affect me"?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:29:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So you have a problem with yourself?

Nope, but I DO have a problem with you.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:30:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The sea ice in Hudson Bay, Canada, now breaks up 2 1/2 weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, said Canadian Wildlife Service research scientist Ian Stirling, and as a result female polar bears there weigh 55 pounds less than they did then. Assuming the current rate of ice shrinkage and accompanying weight loss in the Hudson Bay region, bears there could become so thin by 2012 they may no longer be able to reproduce, said Lara Hansen, chief scientist for the World Wildlife Fund.

They already weigh 55 pounds less than 30 years ago.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   19:31:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I wonder how many people will simply dismiss that info with "oh well, it doesn't affect me"?

The disinfo is intended to increase the apathy with confusion. That way Exxon and Halliburton may continue their policies and profits with fewer objections.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   19:32:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

LOL! Right, that's why bear populations have been increasing.

LIAR. It's not the first whopper of a lie I've seen you post, and I'm sure it won't be the last...

I sometimes wonder if you might be a new and improved version of someone that used to haunt LP a year or so ago.. I'm just waiting for a ROTFLOL from you in order to be sure..

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:33:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

but it DOES lead to higher tempertures,

No, it doesn't. CO2 follows temperature. Temperatures go up, then CO2 goes up. Mostly from evaporating oceans.

Oh that's right, mercury is good for you, isn't it...

I never said that. What I said, for the record, is that Thimerisol in vaccines was not a contributing factor in autism. If it was, autism would have gone down when they removed thimerisol from the vaccines. It didn't.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:33:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The disinfo is intended to increase the apathy with confusion.

Or fire bombings of SUVs.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-19   19:33:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Mostly from evaporating oceans.

The oceans mostly ABSORB the WORLD'S CO2 from ALL the WORLD'S sources, of which the ocean itself is a MINOR source, as the only CO2 produced by the oceans are in isolated regions in the equatorial lattitudes.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:36:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I never said that.

You stated that it was not a cause for concern. I'm fairly certain that NO amount of mercury in the system is a GOOD amount of mercury, thus there is absolutely ZERO good reason to place it into vaccines that will be injected into humans.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:39:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

LIAR. It's not the first whopper of a lie I've seen you post, and I'm sure it won't be the last...

I'm not lying. Research the studies yourself. Google is your friend. Polar bear populations have been increasing. They are not endangered.

I sometimes wonder if you might be a new and improved version of someone that used to haunt LP a year or so ago.. I'm just waiting for a ROTFLOL from you in order to be sure..

I have only had one registration at LP, farmfriend. I used it for all my registrations until it was banned by FR. Who I am was well known on both LP and FR. There is at least one person on this forum who has met me in real life. There were several on LP who knew my real name and worked with me on property rights. There are a few from FR who met me and worked with me. I don't know who you think I was but I'm too well known for that one to fly.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:41:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You stated that it was not a cause for concern. I'm fairly certain that NO amount of mercury in the system is a GOOD amount of mercury, thus there is absolutely ZERO good reason to place it into vaccines that will be injected into humans.

You are misrepresenting what I said but that is not surprising. I repeat, what I said was that thimerisol in vaccines was not a contributing factor in autism.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:43:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Mixing the fringe environmental wackos into the mix would also suit their purpose. The majority of scientists believe something new is going on, and they are concerned. How much is man made and how much is a natural cycle is not clear. Just as all the consequences are unknown, so are all the causes.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   19:44:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The oceans mostly ABSORB the WORLD'S CO2 from ALL the WORLD'S sources, of which the ocean itself is a MINOR source, as the only CO2 produced by the oceans are in isolated regions in the equatorial lattitudes.

LOL! Now that is funny. You really don't read the science do you. The ocean is not a minor source, it is the main source. Man only contributes 3%.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   19:46:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Mixing the fringe environmental wackos into the mix would also suit their purpose.

"Their" purpose? Serious talk about global warming as if it were man-made is all it takes. That's well-supported in every element of our mass media, our educational institutions from grade school and beyond, and in our government. Even Bush "acknowledges" it, whatever he thinks he means.

The violent environmentalists don't need any conspiracy other than the information we are constantly bombarded with seeming to prove that human CO2 is the root cause of impending disaster.

These words mean things, and we should not be surprised when some people take them too seriously.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-19   19:50:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Are you or are you not aware of the fact that the oceans are the world's largest CO2 sink? Do you know what a CO2 sink is?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   19:55:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I wonder if they could be a black op or false flag paid for by Exxon. They only make the Global Climate Change argument look bad.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   19:58:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

chief scientist for the World Wildlife Fund.

BP and Shell.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:00:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The violent environmentalists don't need any conspiracy other than the information we are constantly bombarded with seeming to prove that human CO2 is the root cause of impending disaster.

Those that ignore the problem are simply part of the problem itself. Words DO have meaning, too bad there are some that refuse to attempt to understand them.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:02:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Polar bears drown, islands appear in Arctic thaw

Polar bears are drowning and receding Arctic glaciers have uncovered previously unknown islands in a drastic thaw that is being blamed on global warming.

Signs of huge changes are appearing around the Arctic region due to unusual warmth.

Rune Bergstrom, the environmental adviser to the Governor of Svalbard, a Norwegian archipelago about 1,000 kilometres from the North Pole, says islands as large as 300 metres by 100 metres have been revealed.

"We know about three new islands this year that have been uncovered because the glaciers have retreated," he said.

The head of England's Scott Polar Research Institute, Julian Dowdeswell, says that during a trip this northern summer he saw polar bears that had apparently been stranded at sea by melting ice.

"We saw a couple of polar bears in the sea east of Svalbard - one of them looked to be dead and the other one looked to be exhausted," he said.

The bears generally live around the fringes of the ice, where they find it easiest to hunt seals.

NASA projected this week that Arctic sea ice is likely to recede in 2006 to a point close to a low recorded in 2005, as part of a melting trend in recent decades.

...

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   20:03:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You really don't read the science do you.

Do you understand the concept of oceanic CO2 exchange?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:04:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index...title=World_Wildlife_Fund

Sir Julian Huxley, and the Eugenics Society would be proud. We apparently need fewer, better, more efficient people in order to protect the fuzzy animals.

buckeye  posted on  2008-01-19   20:05:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Are you or are you not aware of the fact that the oceans are the world's largest CO2 sink? Do you know what a CO2 sink is?

I am aware of that and I NEVER said it wasn't. I have even repeated this on other threads but apparently you don't read what I post.

Being a NET sink doesn't preclude it from also being the major source. You don't seem to get that part and because you don't get that you try to twist what I say into something it's not.

Let me use small example numbers so you get it this time. If the over all contribution to CO2 was 10 and the oceans contributed 8 of that but then took back 9 it would be a net sink but the largest contributor.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:07:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Do you understand the concept of oceanic CO2 exchange?

Better than you apparently.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:07:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Faster carbon dioxide emissions will overwhelm capacity of land and ocean to absorb carbon

Oceans’ uptake of global CO2 emissions has halved in the last decade

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:08:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Methane hydrates and global warming

A little good news:

Scientists Find Good News About Methane Bubbling Up From The Ocean Floor
About half of these bubbles dissolve into the ocean, but the fate of this dissolved methane remains uncertain. Researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara have discovered that only one percent of this dissolved methane escapes into the air –– good news for the Earth's atmosphere.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   20:10:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Don't get cute with me farmfriend, answer the question. Do you understand that the oceans are the world's largest CO2 sink, and do you understand oceanic CO2 exchange?

I doubt you do, because if you did, you wouldn't be spewing what you're spewing...

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:10:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Faster carbon dioxide emissions will overwhelm capacity of land and ocean to absorb carbon

BERKELEY – One in a new generation of computer climate models that include the effects of Earth's carbon cycle indicates there are limits to the planet's ability to absorb increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Computer models are not science and prove nothing.

Oceans’ uptake of global CO2 emissions has halved in the last decade

Environment analyst Roger Harrabin said: “The researchers don't know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations”.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:13:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Don't get cute with me farmfriend, answer the question. Do you understand that the oceans are the world's largest CO2 sink, and do you understand oceanic CO2 exchange?

I doubt you do, because if you did, you wouldn't be spewing what you're spewing...

I'm not getting cute with you and I'm not spewing anything. I've explained it several times already. You didn't read what I posted the first time, why should I repeat it?

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:15:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I've explained it several times already. You didn't read what I posted the first time, why should I repeat it?

You are tying to say that the oceans are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other source, whereas the TRUTH of the matter is they REMOVE more CO2 from the atmosphere than any other source.

So regardless of what you claim or imply you've said in the past, your assertion that the oceans are the major cause of CO2 in the atmosphere is either a huge error on your part, or a huge lie.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:22:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Environment analyst Roger Harrabin said: “The researchers don't know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations”.

You conveniently left out this part...

“But they say it is a tremendous surprise and very worrying because there were grounds for believing that in time the ocean might become 'saturated' with our emissions - unable to soak up any more,” the BBC quoted him as saying.

Harrabin said the saturation of the oceans would “leave all our emissions to warm the atmosphere”.

Of all the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, only half of it stays there; the rest goes into carbon sinks.

There are two major natural carbon sinks: the oceans and the land “biosphere”. They are equivalent in size and absorb a quarter of all CO2 emissions each. (ANI)

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:26:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You are tying to say that the oceans are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other source, whereas the TRUTH of the matter is they REMOVE more CO2 from the atmosphere than any other source.

So regardless of what you claim or imply you've said in the past, your assertion that the oceans are the major cause of CO2 in the atmosphere is either a huge error on your part, or a huge lie.

Did you even read my post #59? You seem to think being a major source and a sink are mutually exclusive. They're not. Ocean outgassing is the largest source of CO2. It is however also a NET sink. For someone who keeps talking about how words have meaning you seem to leave that one word "net" out. It's the most important one.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:26:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

But they say it is a tremendous surprise and very worrying because there were grounds for believing

LOL! Believing is not science either, it's religion!

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:28:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Computer models are not science and prove nothing.

Uh huh.

From the link..

The studies were supported by the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, LBNL and the Ocean and Climate Change Institute of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Her colleagues on the paper looking at spring and summer CO2 uptake in northern climes were A. Angert, S. Biraud, C. Bonfils, C. C. Henning and W. Buermann of the Berkeley Atmospheric Sciences Center; and J. Pinzon and C. J. Tucker of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

So farmfriend, what do YOUR experts use to determine their "findings", tea leaves, or do they simply use a magic eight ball?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:30:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It is however also a NET sink.

You neglected to say that, and outright REFUSED to acknowledge it in previous discussions. Can you also admit that it's the world's LARGEST sink?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:32:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

LOL! Believing is not science either, it's religion!

Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe that you know what gravity is?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:33:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So farmfriend, what do YOUR experts use to determine their "findings", tea leaves, or do they simply use a magic eight ball?

No. Like traditional scientists they use observations and verifications.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:33:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The oceans mostly ABSORB the WORLD'S CO2 from ALL the WORLD'S sources, of which the ocean itself is a MINOR source, as the only CO2 produced by the oceans are in isolated regions in the equatorial lattitudes.

So the ocean is the major sink, it is also a minor source, but obviously as you point out in post #45 here, the major sink.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   20:34:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You neglected to say that, and outright REFUSED to acknowledge it in previous discussions.

No I didn't. I have said it on every thread. Repeatedly. Claiming I haven't doesn't make it true.

Can you also admit that it's the world's LARGEST sink?

If that would make you happy, yes they are the largest sink. What does that prove? Nothing! They are still the largest source, man's contribution is only 3%.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:39:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So the ocean is the major sink, it is also a minor source,

It is not a "minor" source. It is the major source. It is a "net" sink meaning it absorbs more than it outgasses. The distinction is key.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:41:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

They are still the largest source, man's contribution is only 3%.

I doubt you have any proof of that.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:42:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

No. Like traditional scientists they use observations and verifications.

So how do they "verify" their observations, and what does it prove?

Do they hang up pictures of their "observations" on a dart board and whichever one has the most darts, is the "verified" observation?

You don't understand what science is. Science is the study of nature, and the pursuit of determining the laws that natural events follow. It is totally within the realm of science to model a system in order to understand it, contrary to your blatently false claim that "computer models are not science".

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:43:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It is not a "minor" source. It is the major source.

Prove it. I want a legitimate source, not a link to Exxon's website.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:44:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

www.i-sis.org.uk/OceanCarbonSink.php

One big question the SeaWiFS project wants to answer is whether the oceans are a carbon source that adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or a carbon sink that removes it from the atmosphere, which is crucial to monitoring climate change and taking appropriate action. The oceans not only contain 97 percent of all the water on earth, they are also the biggest carbon reservoir, and hence a major player in climate and climate change (Oceans and global warming, this series).

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   20:45:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You neglected to say that, and outright REFUSED to acknowledge it in previous discussions.

#65

Well since that was the original argument, stop saying I was lying and wrong.

In response to the articles ascertains that man is the main source of CO2 I replied that the oceans were. They are. You challenged that claiming they don't produce CO2. I proved that wrong.

Your response to this was to move the goal post. You now start talking about the difference between absorption and out gassing. The oceans are currently a net sink for CO2. I have NEVER said they weren't nor have I challenged your statements that they were. I have not lied anywhere in this exchange, nor made claims I didn't back up. And, unlike you, I didn't change the argument to try and make myself right.

If you can't except that man's contributions to CO2 are only 3%, that's not my problem.

So much for my not saying that or refusing to acknowledge it in previous discussions.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   20:53:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

From Carbon dioxide sink

A carbon dioxide (CO2) sink is a carbon dioxide reservoir that is increasing in size, and is the opposite of a carbon dioxide "source". The main natural sinks are (1) the oceans and (2) plants and other organisms that use photosynthesis to remove carbon from the atmosphere by incorporating it into biomass and release oxygen into the atmosphere. This concept of CO2 sinks has become more widely known because the Kyoto Protocol allows the use of carbon dioxide sinks as a form of carbon offset.

Oceans

Oceans are natural CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth. This role as a sink for CO2 is driven by two processes, the solubility pump and the biological pump.[3] The former is primarily a function of differential CO2 solubility in seawater and the thermohaline circulation, while the latter is the sum of a series of biological processes that transport carbon (in organic and inorganic forms) from the surface euphotic zone to the ocean's interior. A small fraction of the organic carbon transported by the biological pump to the seafloor is buried in anoxic conditions under sediments and ultimately forms fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas.

At the present time, approximately one third[4] of anthropogenic emissions are estimated to be entering the ocean. The solubility pump is the primary mechanism driving this, with the biological pump playing a negligible role. This stems from the limitation of the biological pump by ambient light and nutrients required by the phytoplankton that ultimately drive it. Total inorganic carbon is not believed to limit primary production in the oceans, so its increasing availability in the ocean does not directly affect production (the situation on land is different, since enhanced atmospheric levels of CO2 essentially "fertilize" land plant growth). However, ocean acidification by invading anthropogenic CO2 may affect the biological pump by negatively impacting calcifying organisms such as coccolithophores, foraminiferans and pteropods. Climate change may also affect the biological pump in the future by warming and stratifying the surface ocean, thus reducing the supply of limiting nutrients to surface waters.

From Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change

Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO₂ Sink Due to Recent Climate Change

Corinne Le Quéré ^1*,

Christian Rödenbeck ²,

Erik T. Buitenhuis ³,

Thomas J. Conway ⁴,

Ray Langenfelds ⁵,

Antony Gomez ⁶,

Casper Labuschagne ⁷,

Michel Ramonet ⁸,

Takakiyo Nakazawa ⁹,

Nicolas Metzl ¹⁰,

Nathan Gillett ¹¹,

Martin Heimann ²

¹ Max Planck Institut fur Biogeochemie, Postfach 100164, D- 07701 Jena, Germany; University of East Anglia, Norwich, and the British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK.

² Max Planck Institut fur Biogeochemie, Postfach 100164, D- 07701 Jena, Germany.

³ Max Planck Institut fur Biogeochemie, Postfach 100164, D- 07701 Jena, Germany; Present address: University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

⁴ Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics Laboratory (NOAA/CMDL), Boulder, USA.

⁵ CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Australia.

⁶ National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Wellington, NZ.

⁷ South African Weather Service (SAWS), Stellenbosch, South Africa.

⁸ Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement/Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (LSCE/IPSL), Gif, France.

⁹ Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Studies, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.

¹⁰ LOCEAN, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, CNRS, Univ. P. and M. Curie, Paris, France.

¹¹ Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK.

Based on observed atmospheric CO₂ concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the Southern Ocean sink of CO₂ has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 PgC/y per decade relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO₂. This weakening is attributed to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities and projected to continue in the future. Consequences include a reduction in the efficiency of the Southern Ocean sink of CO₂ in the short term (~25 years) and possibly a higher level of stabilization of atmospheric CO₂ on a multicentury time scale.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:57:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#65

Well since that was the original argument, stop saying I was lying and wrong.

Well, it only took 65 posts for you to admit that at least.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   20:59:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So much for my not saying that or refusing to acknowledge it in previous discussions.

And BTW, there were more than one.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   21:01:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Don't you care if the earth becomes uninhabitable, with all of our children and grandchildren suffering horrible deaths in the not too distant future, if global warming turns out to be true?

Global cooling is much more likely to do that. It always has historically.

I am amazed at how many people will look at a very short term trend and believe it is going to continue and refuse to see that climate change is normal and up- and-down. When it comes to their belief in man made global warming, their minds are made up. Don't you dare confuse them with facts.

They make false statements such as their claim that there is a scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And, when you ask them to name one scientist, not bribed by research grants, that makes such a claim, instead of providing a name, which they cannot, they resort to name calling.

If anyone wants to know the cause of global warming, they only need to take a look at the fireball in the sky. Is our burning fossil fuel also the cause of the melting the polar caps on Mars? Did man burning fossil fuel also cause the Medieval Warm Period from 1000 to 1200 that was warmer than the current warm period? The sun has a variable output; probably one of the the causes of ice ages and certainly may have contributed to the mini ice ages and warm periods such as the Medieval Warm Period.

Man made global warming is political nonsense by politicians and the media. Most of the variations of CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of climate change and not the cause of climate change. In other words CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming and cooling of the earth’s atmosphere. When the sun heats up the ocean, CO2 is released. That increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. When the sun is cooler, the ocean cools and absorbs more CO2. If man has any effect at all, it’s negligible.

There is no scientific theory that supports Global Warming as presently defined in the media. In fact I know of no reputable scientists that are not paid or bribed with research grants that support man causing global warming. These are the undisputed facts:

People point to Venus. However, Venus receives about twice the solar radiation as the earth and the atmosphere of Venus is 90 times heaver than the Earth’s atmosphere. This is like what a submarine experiences at 3000 ft below the surface of the Earth's ocean. And the atmosphere of Venus is 97 percent CO2 while the Earth’s atmosphere is 0.03 percent CO2. Otherwise Venus has 90x0.97/0.0003 or about 300,000 times as much CO2 in their Atmosphere as the Earth. (300,000 is my calculation. Some experts state Venus has only 250,000 times as much CO2 as the earth.) In my opinion, if man could double or triple the CO2 in our atmosphere it was have almost no effect on global warming.

In referring to the referring to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ) the AP made a number of quotes:

Quote 1: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year..."

Facts: Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapor is).

Carbon dioxide accounts for about five percent of the greenhouse effect. Only about 0.03 percent (1 part in 3,000) of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).

The sun and the earth’s wobble, etc., not CO2, is primarily to "blame" for global warming -- and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well. For example, the planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming, lending support to many climatologists' claims that the Earth's modest warming during the past century is due primarily to a recent upsurge in solar energy. According to a September 20 NASA news release, "for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size" Because a Martian year is approximately twice as long as an Earth year, the shrinking of the Martian polar ice cap has been ongoing for at least six Earth years.

Quote 2: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space."

Fact: Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.

Quote 3: The AP said: "Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases."

Facts: Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century, before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century).

The AP should become aware that the IPCC report itself (the part written by scientists) reached no consensus on climate change. What did reach a conclusion was an IPCC "summary for policymakers" prepared by political appointees. Most reporters quote only the summary, being either too lazy or too undereducated to understand the actual report. This does not explain, however, why reporters don't more frequently interview scientists who helped prepare it -- scientists such as IPCC participant Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who says the IPCC report is typically "presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists... and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on." Lindzen also draws a sharp distinction between the scientists' document and its politicized summary: "the document itself is informative; the summary is not."

DWornock  posted on  2008-01-19   21:11:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This is NOT NORMAL UP and DOWN.

A BBC News story reports findings from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) that the rate of increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere is unprecedented, at least over the past 800,000 years.

Studying a deep ice core sample, the scientists have not only been able to measure the greenhouse gas concentrations in ancient atmospheres but also the average temperatures. The result, according to the BBC report, is that carbon dioxide concentration and temperature rise and fall in lockstep.

The report quotes BAS scientist Dr. Eric Wolff, who saw no signs that geological or biological systems have served as CO₂ sinks to mitigate the increases.

Wolff told the BBC that the fastest observed increase in CO₂ was about 30 parts per million (ppm) in 1000 years, in contrast to present circumstances in which "the last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have any analogue in our records."

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   21:14:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Prove it. I want a legitimate source, not a link to Exxon's website.

Sigh, been there done that, but you rejected them last time.

CO2 MEASUREMENTS
Ferdinand gets his CO2 numbers from the Mono Loa site. His reference list is at the bottom of the page.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   21:17:25 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

CO2 MEASUREMENTS Ferdinand gets his CO2 numbers from the Mono Loa site. His reference list is at the bottom of the page.

All the data from Mauna Loa is simply CO2 measurements from that one spot, and doesn't represent the planetary levels.

[1] Carbon Dioxide Concentrations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, 1958-1999, CDIAC NDP-001: http://ceos.neonet.nl/metadata/dif/CDIAC_NDP1.xml

BTW, did you notice what Ferdinand wrote at the end of his summary?

Here it is in case you missed it..

This proves beyond doubt that human emissions are the main cause of the increase of CO2, at least over the past near 50 years. But there is even more proof of that...

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   21:23:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BTW, I'm not finding that graphic on the page you linked. Do you have a link to the webpage that actually includes the graphic you posted?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   21:25:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Well, it only took 65 posts for you to admit that at least.

I was too busy showing you the oceans outgassed. It wasn't until I posted an article that also mentioned the net sink did you capitulate on that and started in on the net part.

You keep calling me a liar but it is you who have lied. I've proved it.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   21:29:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BTW, I'm not finding that graphic on the page you linked. Do you have a link to the webpage that actually includes the graphic you posted?

That graphic isn't from that page. Right click is your friend.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   21:31:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This graphic is at the link I posted earlier:

The Carbon Cycle

The carbon cycle supports life on earth and keeps its climate stable. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element on earth, and makes up 50 percent of the dry weight of living organisms [4]. The global carbon cycle involves the flow of carbon between the major carbon reservoirs: the atmosphere, the oceans, the vegetation and soils of terrestrial ecosystems, and fossil fuels deposits (Fig. 1).

As can be seen, huge amounts of carbon are stored in the oceans (especially the deep oceans), in the fossil fuels reserves, and the soils, compared with what’s in the atmosphere. There is no returning arrow to the fossil fuels to balance the outflow, at least not over timescales shorter than millions of years, which means that the carbon released into the atmosphere cannot be reabsorbed. In addition, change in land use also releases the carbon stored in old forests over thousands of years into the atmosphere.

Figure 1. The Carbon Cycle

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   21:33:46 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That graphic isn't from that page.

So what are you hiding? Post a link to the page containing the graphic that you are using as "proof".

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   21:39:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This graphic is at the link I posted earlier:

Thanks robin.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   21:40:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

BTW, did you notice what Ferdinand wrote at the end of his summary?

I am well aware of Ferdinand's work as there has been an ongoing exchange between him and Richard S. Courtney that is driving me nuts. Yes, Ferdinand is one of the scientists I talk to.

This proves beyond doubt that human emissions are the main cause of the increase of CO2, at least over the past near 50 years. But there is even more proof of that...

What Ferdinand says is that the amount of increase is less than the amount of human emissions. Therefor the increase can be attributed to man. I have never claimed otherwise, nor have I ever said there wasn't an increase in CO2. Even in my post #59 I say as much.

He opens with this:

In climate sceptics circles, there is rather much confusion about historical/present CO2 measurements. This is in part based on the fact that rather accurate direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere show much higher values in certain periods of time (especially around 1942), than the around 280 ppmv which is measured in Antarctic ice cores. 280 ppmv is assumed to be the pre-industrial amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the scientific community. This is quite important, as if there were (much) higher levels of CO2 in the recent past, that may indicate that current CO2 levels are not from the use of fossil fuels, but a natural fluctuation and hence its influence on temperature is subject to (huge) natural fluctuations too and the current warmer climate is not caused by the use of fossil fuels.

To be sure about my scepticism: I like to see and examine the arguments of both sides of the fence, and I make up my own mind, based on these arguments. I am pretty sure that current climate models underestimate the role of the sun in climate variability and overestimate the role of greenhouse gases and aerosols. But I am as sure that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution is mainly from the use of fossil fuels.

As a responsible climate skeptic, I have given a lot of comments in different discussion groups like sci.environment and UK weatherworld, and on the blogs of RealClimate and Climateaudit.

Why "responsible"? I think that it is prudent to reduce the use of fossil fuels, not for the amount of CO2, but for other pollutants. And as it is a finite resource, to reduce the dependency of not-so-stable countries. And it is prudent to spend a lot of money into research of fossil fuel alternatives. That will have a much higher return on investment than ten Kyoto's on middle long term. Kyoto in my opinion is a waste of money wich will cost much without any benefit.

Why "skeptic"? As I have some experience with models, be it in chemical processes, not climate, I know how difficult it is to even make a model of a simple process where most, if not all, physico-chemical parameters and equations are exactly known. To make a climate model, where a lot of parameters and reactions are not even known to any accuracy, for me seems a little bit overblown. And to speak of any predictive power of such models, which are hardly validated, is as scientific as looking into a crystal ball...

I have read a lot about climate, long before the "global warming" scare started. Especially about the link between solar variability and climate on earth. I have heard about the dangers of "global cooling" of the seventies. And I was upset by the acceptance, without much debate, of the "hockey stick" by MBH (Mann, Bradley, Hughes) in 1998, which made the MWP and the LIA some trivial episodes in the world's history, completely overriding the accepted science of that moment. This was a trigger for me to look deeper into this debate... But I try to keep the debate on scientific grounds...

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   21:44:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Even Robin's graph shows the oceans as producing more CO2 than man. I don't understand your reluctance to see that.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   21:48:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There is no returning arrow to the fossil fuels to balance the outflow, at least not over timescales shorter than millions of years, which means that the carbon released into the atmosphere cannot be reabsorbed. In addition, change in land use also releases the carbon stored in old forests over thousands of years into the atmosphere.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   21:49:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So what are you hiding? Post a link to the page containing the graphic that you are using as "proof".

Because I won't right click for you I'm hiding something? Talk about making assumptions.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   21:49:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There is no returning arrow to the fossil fuels to balance the outflow, at least not over timescales shorter than millions of years,

And you point? This doesn't make what I said wrong. Your graph supports what I said. The oceans are the largest source of CO2. They are a net sink. Man's contributions are larger than the increase so the increase can be attributed to man rather than natural sources. I have never disputed that or claimed otherwise.

I do however dispute the contention that CO2 increases are causing warming.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   21:53:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I've been up since 10pm yesterday. I'm going to have to bow out for now and get some sleep. Nite!

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   21:54:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

which means that the carbon released into the atmosphere cannot be reabsorbed.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   21:54:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Man's contributions are larger than the increase so the increase can be attributed to man rather than natural sources. I have never disputed that or claimed otherwise.

So after all of these posts, what was your point in trying to divert attention away from that fact?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   21:56:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Because I won't right click for you I'm hiding something? Talk about making assumptions.

People shouldn't have to jump through hoops to find your source. Post a link to the page as a courtesy to the readers here.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   21:58:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Ho Hum.

I think I'll change my screen moniker to freezingmyassoffinToledo.

Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?

iconoclast  posted on  2008-01-19   21:58:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There is still some resistance to the theory that the increase in CO2 results from the burning of fossil fuel, and that the increase in CO2 is responsible for global warming. There is little pressure on the US power plants to reduce CO2 emissions; so here it's still "Burning of fossil fuel is good for the environment" and "the world is flat." However, European power plants faced with reducing their CO2 emissions significantly by 2008 and even more between 2008 and 2012 as required by the Kyoto Protocol, have embarked upon a unique way to reduce the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere (9). The technique known as carbon capture and storage (CCS) involves siphoning off and burying the CO2 underground. While the CO2 is not "gone," it is contained. For now they have to report it as "released CO2," but The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is working out plans to give industries credit for carbon capturing and storing in the second phase, from 2008-12, of the European carbon trading scheme. It will be interesting to see the effect of keeping the CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere. Of course, the next step would be to find a way to treat the stored CO2 or find a use for it.

environmentalchemistry.co...0611CO2globalwarming.html

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!

robin  posted on  2008-01-19   22:00:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So after all of these posts, what was your point in trying to divert attention away from that fact?

I NEVER diverted attention away from that. It was never a topic of discussion. Move that goal post one more time!

One more time, oceans are the largest source of CO2. That point has never changed. Nothing you have said on this thread or previous threads changes that fact. Man's contribution is 3%. CO2 is not the cause of recent temperature increases, sun activity is.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   22:06:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You do know that the US has reduced carbon emissions more than the EU don't you? I'll have to find the link later. I'm too tired and going to bed.

farmfriend  posted on  2008-01-19   22:08:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Even Robin's graph shows the oceans as producing more CO2 than man. I don't understand your reluctance to see that.

I'm looking at the net effect, where fossil fuels cause a much higher net increase in CO2 levels, since the oceans have effectively zero or less net increase, where most literature indicates they ABSORB more than they EMIT, at least for now.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   22:11:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

CO2 is not the cause of recent temperature increases, sun activity is.

Sun activity could well be PART of the reason, but to dismiss CO2 levels is assinine. CO2 levels contribute to the climate and oceanic cycles, and cannot be overlooked.

I'll see if I can find some more detailed info on all that sometime..

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-19   22:14:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The level of the Mediterranean Sea is rising rapidly and could increase by up to half a metre in the next 50 years, scientists in Spain have warned.

The level of the Mediterranean Sea has risen by 2.5 millimeters per year this past decade. It could also drop by up to 18 inches or more in the next 50 years, an old man in Nevada recently has said.

An earthquake could also occur on the floor of the Mediterranean Sea opening a cavity greater than the size of the Grand Ganyon which would cause such a sea level drop.

Yes, I am pulling your chain because I don't recall ever reading anywhere that this earth is a stable planet upon which no changes shall ever happen. Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornados, rogue waves all occur with little warning.

The forecasted rise in the Mediterranean Sea is not something that I consider to be frightening in the least. A fifteen foot snowfall would cause more deaths than a slow water level rise.

Sparker  posted on  2008-01-19   23:10:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Don't you care if the earth becomes uninhabitable, with all of our children and grandchildren suffering horrible deaths in the not too distant future, if global warming turns out to be true? Why are you so willing to gamble with the earth's future, and why do you support those that wish to continue to pollute the planet, regardless of global warming?

Seems to me that the type of folks that believe in Global Warming are the same type that think 19 Arabs brought down the WTC with aeroplanes etc.

Chemtrails, dude, chemtrails.

That's where it's at.

Imo, anyway.

Now I'll try to get through the rest of the thread and hope I'm not too wrong.

wudidiz  posted on  2008-01-20   3:07:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I wonder how many people will simply dismiss that info with "oh well, it doesn't affect me"?

The disinfo is intended to increase the apathy with confusion. That way Exxon and Halliburton may continue their policies and profits with fewer objections.

Okay, that's it.

This is bullshit.

Is it getting warmer?

No.

It's getting fucking colder.

wudidiz  posted on  2008-01-20   3:17:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm just waiting for a ROTFLOL from you in order to be sure..

ROTFLOLAY!

yukon  posted on  2008-01-20   3:21:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The majority of scientists believe something new is going on, and they are concerned

...chemtrails

wudidiz  posted on  2008-01-20   3:30:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Don't you care if the earth becomes uninhabitable, with all of our children and grandchildren suffering horrible deaths

You are missing the point. Who would not care about the earth getting inhabitable. Of course we have the obligation to leave behind a better world. But we can only do that if we have a correct and adequate picture about what is going on.

We could identify three problem areas, pollution, energy demand exceeding supply and the effect of greenhouse gasses on climate.

It would be very nice if there would have been a single golden solution to all of them: stop emitting greenhouse gasses. But it isn't. The effect of greenhouse gasses is highly overrated, the capability of renewable energy sources are even more overrated and CO2 is not a polluter but a essential fertilizer.

Therefore CO2 emission reduction doesn't accomplishing anything else than severely damaging the society. One should fight pollution by attacking the problem itself, the energy depletion with a smart use of economicallt feasible alternatives and climate?

As I will demonstrate we have no clue about happened with climate in the past as we are good in misinterpreting about anything that fits our agenda. Just go here or here to see what I mean. So without that clue there is no change to do anything right.

andre  posted on  2008-01-20   4:26:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Science is the study of nature, and the pursuit of determining the laws that natural events follow. It is totally within the realm of science to model a system in order to understand it, contrary to your blatently false claim that "computer models are not science".

I think that FF intended to indicate that it is not science using of models to claim predictions to be true. Scientific methods include testing ideas and hypotheses with prognoses and then wait to see if those were accurate. Use of models to predict some much temperature rise per decade if we do not curb CO2 emission, is not science.

andre  posted on  2008-01-20   7:43:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There are growing indications of global climate change, due to increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere that could be due to burning fossil fuels.

These global climate changes could cause a rising sea level, obliterating entire islands. The arctic ice shelves are melting, the Northwest Passage is open and polar bears are drowning and losing weight from lack of food.

Perhaps you don't care because you are not a polar bear and do not live on an island. And because before these changes impact you, you will be dead and you don't care about anyone else. Fine, there is no need for you to learn about global climate change.

For the rest of us, if there is a way to balance things and not disturb the earth more than necessary, we would like to find a way.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The Revolution will not be televised!
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson

robin  posted on  2008-01-20   11:37:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

There are growing indications of global climate change, due to increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere that could be due to burning fossil fuels.

These global climate changes could cause a rising sea level, obliterating entire islands. The arctic ice shelves are melting, the Northwest Passage is open and polar bears are drowning and losing weight from lack of food.

Perhaps you don't care because you are not a polar bear and do not live on an island. And because before these changes impact you, you will be dead and you don't care about anyone else. Fine, there is no need for you to learn about global climate change.

For the rest of us, if there is a way to balance things and not disturb the earth more than necessary, we would like to find a way.

Of course I care.

Trust me, if anyone cares, I care.

I just don't believe what 'they' are saying. I have good reason to disbelieve.

Ask yourself this:

Why are the same people that are up in arms about 'global climate change' not saying a word about CHEMTRAILS?

wudidiz  posted on  2008-01-20   13:47:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

chemtrails...

wudidiz  posted on  2008-01-20   13:48:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why are the same people that are up in arms about 'global climate change' not saying a word about CHEMTRAILS?

I'm not sure that's true. Quite a bit has been posted on 4um about it. There is even a ping list for Chemtrails. I've been open to the reports about Chemtrails.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised!
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson

robin  posted on  2008-01-20   13:54:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

No, I didn't mean people like us, I meant the people that are putting out the 'global climate change' information.

You know, I don't know much about it at all, but I just have a strong feeling that the whole global warming thing is a hoax, that's all.

wudidiz  posted on  2008-01-20   14:12:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sorry, it's more than just a feeling. There is lots to back up what I'm saying. Like, why would Al Gore do that movie?

Why did it have so many mistakes?

Why didn't he contest the election?

Consider the sources of the information about global warming...

If the mainstream media says it's so, then good chance it isn't.

wudidiz  posted on  2008-01-20   14:15:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Big Oil would love for you to continue in this state of mind.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised!
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson

robin  posted on  2008-01-20   14:16:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I have to go out.

Then I'm gonna have to start looking into this, eh?

Thanks to you...

;^)

wudidiz  posted on  2008-01-20   14:20:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Wolff told the BBC that the fastest observed increase in CO2 was about 30 parts per million (ppm) in 1000 years, in contrast to present circumstances in which "the last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don't have any analogue in our records."

Every year before it snows the leaves turn brown and fall off the trees. Therefore, according to your logic the leaves turning brown and falling off the trees causes it to snow.

Over time the temperture of our atmosphers tracks the levels of CO2. It is offset by several hundred years. That is mostly because during warmer periods the oceans become warmer and release CO2 and cooler oceans absorb CO2.

Man by burning oil may be increasing the CO2 level of the earth and that may be related to polution. However, it has almost no effect on the temperture of the earth's atmosphere.

Around 4.5 billion years ago, some scientists think CO2 may have made up as much as 80% of Earth's atmosphere. That is 2,000 times as much CO2 as is in the atmosphers at present and the earth was fine. At one part per 3,000 there is to little CO2 to have any significant effect on the earth's temperture. Water vapor, not CO2 is earth's greenhouse gas.

Free Oxygen was almost non-existent in earth's early atmosphere, and indeed poisonous to most of the anaerobic life forms that existed. Human life as we know it today would have been impossible in such a CO2-rich atmosphere. Most of this carbon dioxide was removed from the atmosphere later in Earth's history when sea-dwelling life, the earliest algae, evolved the process of photosynthesis. In photosynthesis, plants use light energy from the Sun to turn carbon dioxide and water into sugar and oxygen. Eventually, algae - and more highly evolved organisms, like plankton, plants, and trees - died and locked up most of this carbon in the forms of carbonate minerals, oil shale, coal, and petroleum in Earth's crust. What was left in the atmosphere is the oxygen we breathe today.

Algae and other plants thrive on CO2 and the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the more plants grow and the faster they remove CO2 from the atmosphere. That tends to limit the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

DWornock  posted on  2008-01-20   16:58:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why are the same people that are up in arms about 'global climate change' not saying a word about CHEMTRAILS?

You are well aware that I've posted on the CHEMTRAIL subject many times. How often have those who insist there "is nothing to see here" concerning global warming posted on CHEMTRAILS?

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-21   11:52:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If the mainstream media says it's so, then good chance it isn't.

You can't always assume that what they say is a lie. Their GOALS might be different than what might be the best course of action, but the facts of the matter might not be that far off base.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-21   11:54:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Is it getting warmer?

No.

It's getting fucking colder.

An individual day might be colder than the same day the year before, but that is not the same as GLOBAL temperature change, where the polar regions are getting warmer, and the weather patterns are changing.

The sun HAS become hotter apparently, as other planets in the solar system are ALSO getting warmer. HOWEVER, we should not ADD to the problem and would be wise not to ignore it, thinking it's just some "conspiracy theory"..

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-21   11:57:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Seems to me that the type of folks that believe in Global Warming are the same type that think 19 Arabs brought down the WTC with aeroplanes etc.

Those that claim 19 Arabs brought down the WTC are ALSO saying there is no such thing as global warming. Check on ElPee, many of the shillsters there agree with your view that it isn't happening.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-21   11:59:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Use of models to predict some much temperature rise per decade if we do not curb CO2 emission, is not science.

Have you ever studied meteorology. Computer models are EXACTLY how weather forecasts are made, so go tell the National Weather Service that they don't know what they're doing and that they aren't using science to forecast the weather.

Mathematical predictions concerning the weather can ONLY be made using a model of some type. Computers simply make possible elaborate models that would take centuries to solve otherwise.

Take nuclear warheads for example. Crays are used (or at least have been used in the past) to model various characteristics of weather patterns in the atmosphere in order to provide pinpoint accuracy as the warheads reenter the atmosphere.

It's called rocket science, and is certainly not make-believe.

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-01-21   12:07:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]