Environmentalism is a Religion. Climate Progress is the Global Warming propaganda arm of Think Progress. Think Progress is a wholly owned megaphone of Dread King George Soros. "Denier" is an ad hominem. And you, sir, are a troll.
Please find another site to engage in your agit-prop and harassment.
Hey, I just posted an article... I am not being rude and just having a friendly debate... If you don't want to take part in it that is your choice. I hold no ill feeling to anyone in this debate. believer or not. Merry Christmas
I'm at roughly at the 23.5 parallel and think progress is not a legitimate site. global warming advocates have consistently lied, manipulated data and that is a fact. Unless this article admits that, why would I trust anything it says? The boys who cried wolf.
Would you believe the USGS http://www.usgs.gov/science/science.php?... Do you not believe because of your colder snowier than normal (record breaking) winter? Our government in Canada rejects climate change because if they acknowledge it then they would have much more work to do justifying the Bituminous Sands (Not tar or oil) in Alberta
Nitrogen is inert as N2 When it is combine with sulpher and hydrogen in smelting and refining processes however it creates acidic compounds which can decimate terrestrial ecosystems and acidify lakes and oceans
Nitrogen's chemical properties are irrelevant to my question.
So Nitrogen outgassing doesn't contribute to globular warming. Why aren't you panicked that our atmosphere is getting thinner and thinner with all this outgassing???
Looked into it... No such thing as Nitrogen off gassing except to the atmosphere via geological processes such as Hydrothermal vents and volcanoes. We do not add or take nitrogen from the atmosphere. It is a central component required to support all life on earth other than perhaps some 'Extemophiles". The basis of proteins and amino acids required for any cellular system. It cycles through the planets systems through natural fixation and nitrification. It is human caused fixation, a result of industrial processes which causes problems. This video is a bit hokey (sorry for that) but it explains very well how the Nitrogen cycle works in simplistic terms. http://youtu.be/FCuuibZR6NQ
N2 is inert Hiraghm. It is the largest component of the air we breathe. When you say thinner do you refer to vertical distance or concentrations per volume?
Actually the loss of sea ice (indisputable) is allowing for the absorption of more solar radiation. This affect ocean currents huge and thus affect the jet stream... Yes your colder than normal winter is a result of global climate change global warming its all the same.
Canada acknowledges opportunity costs. Making decisions on faulty or unproven theory is not prudent. If you are India and spend a billion on complying with Kyoto and those resources are taken away from -say-clean water-a much more immediate and dangerous issue in India due to environmentalist pressure, that would be a very bad decision. People die. That is immediate and important. Policy is government driven and racks up casualties.
"union of concerned scientists" why cannot you agree that people calling themselves such, value feelings and consensus over scientific method? They were started in the late 60s as an anti-war movement. They aggressively advocate for laws and regulations. They are against GMOs and nuclear power- both technological advances that have great benefit to the population. They are Luddites with an agenda and political purpose. I like to get my facts from scientists who do not have an agenda.
You are correct that there are much more acute issues to be dealt with on a humanitarian level such as the water issue. You should do a little research about the much more serious water issue coming to India.
India has nuclear power, a large labor force, and an ocean on their southern border.
If they have a water issue, that's their fault.
There's one and a quarter quintillion tons of water on the planet. If there are water shortages, it's the fault of socialists who'd rather wring their hands than see technology solve problems.
Check this link... you mention the water crisis in India. The Himalayas provide water for one third of the planets population. http://youtu.be/jXM3eMqQrwY Merry Christmas... Sincerely
Every drop of water in your body at one time was in the ocean. Where do you think the Himalayas get the water they allegedly provide? Where do you think that water ends up? Before it evaporates and lands on the mountains as rain or snow?
Here's an idea. To reduce the percentage of the world's population dependent upon Himalayan water... forcibly relocate the populations of those densely populated countries. That's why the Himalayas provide the water for so great a percentage of the population.
EDIT: reworded last line to make my meaning clearer.
And you would relocate them where Hiragm? Yes and as the Himalayas melt away as the Glaciers in North America are doing where does that water end up my friend? In the ocean. And it stays there in vast saline quantities for thousands of years before it gets evaporated into the atmosphere and falls again onto lands so dry that it evaporates again almost immediately or it falls onto tilled agricultural lands and washes away more nutrients creating even more unfertile soil. Your perspective sir is flawed. http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.asp...
I'm not surprised that you can't recognize sarcasm when it's directed at you. You used a BS stat, I gave you a BS solution for that BS stat.
The Himalayas are not melting away. The glaciers in North America are not melting away, more's the pity. They melt, more arable land to farm.
Yeah, the water ONLY rains on deserts... Yeah, the soil in Iowa and Nebraska is so unfertile. Just don't tell the farmers.
In order for the rain to stay in the oceans for millennia, it would have to NOT RAIN for millennia. Water evaporates from the ocean every day (thank goodness for globular warming!) and is deposited around the world.
Who cares?
We Are Man
We can build desalinization plants and pipe the fresh water to where it's needed... if we A) had the willpower and B) were allowed to kill all the socialist pieces of crap who keep pretending that Mankind is a plague on the world and therefore stand in the way.
I think honestly we are going to have to just agree that we disagree. I am not a sarcastic person and did not join this group to engage in sarcasm but to learn about what other opinions exist in the world and more about my own. I believe much of what this group believes in terms of a capitalist state and a free market. About an individuals rights and freedoms and responsibilities (which nobody here ever talks about) to not just yourself but others. We are Man. We have the ability to do all the things you mention. Should we not use it wisely and maintain the planet for future generations? Capitalists and a free market with all their technology should be able to accomplish that.
The IPCC (Inter Planetary Carbonic Conspiracy) put out a forecast that the Himalayas would melt in 35 years. They 'only use peer reviewed' studies, that one was a wet dream from a Greenpeace activist picked up by a New Scientist (Climate Change Weekly) journalist. The IPCC were forced to retract.
Economist Amartra Sen, (mainstream, not a compliment) said "there has never been a famine in a democracy". Interesting point, I wonder. I suggest- there has never been a famine in a capitalist economy. I'd like to see a discussion on - -water crisis, try freeing the market.
In accordance with established rules, knowledge, principles or standards. I am assuming this is the definition you were looking for as it relates to the legitimacy of science. The ability to stand up to scrutiny as in peer review.
No, I do not believe in Science, because science is not faith.
Science deals in theory, i.e. our best current understanding; not truth, i.e. metaphysics and faith.
So, a better question would be, do you believe that the current understanding has merit. The answer to that is, no, I do not. I think the current understanding is thoroughly driven by politics,
See Lysenko-Minchurism, and then go troll elsewhere.
Metaphysics: Aristotelianism phylosophy. At the heart of which lies the following questions: What is existence, and what sorts of things exist in the world? How can things continue to exist, and yet undergo the change we see about us in the natural world? And how can this world be understood? You have obviously chosen faith to explain that for you but will respectfully decline that argument. We are at loggerheads as I do believe in science. I believe in a proactive approach as opposed to your faith based approach which (correct me if I'm wrong) gives you faith that all will be well as the creator intended.
Absolutely wrong. I have said nothing about faith, you have.
You believe that Science is Truth: That is faith. I believe that Science presents theories and I evaluate those theories on their merits and make my own decisions.
Belief and faith are two separate words for a reason. You can believe something but retain skepticism, but faith is regarding something as true regardless of evidence against it.
To be fair Eudaimonia you did say "truth, i.e. metaphysics and faith." It is natural to assume that you think that truth can only be found through faith.
Of course the idea of state run science being biased in a communist state would hold true. You do realize that most governments in the world today are run by corporations and not Government. That all the denier organizations are corporate funded. What would happen if Climate Change was proven true. What would those corporations do then? That is why the Koch Brothers and MANY more fund the anti climate organizations. They need the truth concealed so the create confusion and fill the media with red herrings, causing doubt and more and more debates like this one. Merry Christmas
You... uhm... aren't very clever, are you? Your side keeps claiming a "consensus" among scientists on globular warming, where there is none. An example of that kind of propaganda is found in Atlas Shrugged where the consensus of the world's "best" metallurgists is that Rearden Metal is dangerous.
I don't believe in science, I understand science. there is not a ton of empirical evidence. advocates of AGW have consistently lied, manipulated, the data. I do not trust their data because they have lied. explain any ice age. a theory that cannot explain the most obvious facts, is not valid in science. science is not consensus.
Your are correct... Science never claims to be perfect... In fact most statistical methods used in science run on a 95% probability margin to be considered sound science(that's not perfect). That being said as to the reasons for past ice ages... Well you are correct the jury is still out but some modelling being done by scientists has come up with a few ideas... Nothing proven to 95% yet. What has been proven is that for thousands of years the temperature of the planet has gone up and down in almost perfect unison with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. And don't try the volcano routine... Humans excrete about 30 billions tonnes of CO2 a year... On a good year volcanoes emit 300 million (1%) of human emissions.
" for thousands of years the temperature of the planet has gone up and down in almost perfect unison with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. " This was one of many wrong claims by Al Gore. Actually, using the 'data' available, by smoothing lines on charts going back a few hundred thousand years, there are regular ups and downs in temperature with an average cycle of about 10,000 years. The CO2 curve appears to precede (to lead) the global temperature curve by about 900 years. This is incongruous if global warming was due to more CO2, but consistent with what is known about CO2 density in sea water, increasing temperature causes lower CO2 density. The correct correlation is thus higher temperature causes more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Beats me, it is hard enough to explain things that happen but the real skill is explaining things that don't happen. This rare ability predominates in our new governing classes and progressivists. On solubility, yes there is irregular behavior of various gasses in various liquids perhaps related to surface tension, compounds which change with temperature, and energy at the molecular level. Even the concept of 'things that happen' is not solid, ie data. A relevant example is how NASA and various other government agencies in several countries manage to revise temperature records so as to support prevailing policies.
"excrete"? We poop CO2? I tell you what.. you stand in a crowded room. Then stand on the lip of an active volcano. Tell me which one killed you first. (hint, it's the one spewing the poisonous gasses).
"Humans excrete about 30 billions tonnes of CO2 a year... On a good year volcanoes emit 300 million (1%) of human emissions. "
Apples to apples (while holding my tongue...)
Anyway, I just heard from the union of concerned plants and vegetables, and they say...
"WHOO HOO! THANKS FOR ALL THE CO2!"
Croplands emit more oxygen than do "rain forests", (aka, jungles) and without the CO cloud overhead. They also raise the albedo of the planet, which "rainforests" fail to do. Similarly with "wetlands" (aka swamps) when we reclaim them for crop production.
I keep providing science whether you believe it or not. For once H. Provide me something to back this cropland claim of yours. There is much more oxygen producing biomass in a rainforest than croplands. O2 is produced by plants by sequestering Carbon and using it to help create sugars, proteins and enzymes to sustain itself. O2 is a byproduct of that. Send me a link that provides the science behind your claim...
Why are you here? How about we don’t care what the science says, we don’t like the manner the current global unit bends the message to make money for itself at the expense of free enterprise.
You should be offended too, seeing that lately you like to spend every free available moment you have hanging out with people who are inspired by the writings of Ayn Rand and believe in pursuing liberty and free-enterprise solutions to the problems we face. You believe in climate change? Cool. Don’t most some stupid article from ThinkProgress that often spends it’s time berating people in society like us, instead, post links to solutions geared- products and innovations that are on the cutting edge of what the mind of man can come with. Otherwise...
I must say Mimi that I respect your candor. Yes I believe in climate change and I think we can; even if you don't believe, spend some energy as a species protecting the planet. The debate has become so confusing I will wash my hands of it now and do as you suggest. Post on technology that can help solve the problems instead of arguing about who or what is responsible. How is this... I will never post again anything for or against climate change. Does that make you happy? I never anticipated the hate I got. I am only looking for truth to find freedom and if I have offended anyone else I apologize. I do believe in liberty and freedom from despotic rule. I do claim my individuality, freedoms and rights.
There is very substantial CO2 emitted thru fissures that could be described as small volcanoes but not included in your 300 b.tonnes figure. (It could be as high as several times, calculated to better accuracy than the $1b pa conservative group spending to fight action etc). But, do not worry! Neither volcanoes nor CO2 cause climate change. Further, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the oceans varies and declines unless replenished being absorbed by plant and animal organisms and becoming acidic in sea water. You may care to do a calculation- at the current rate of anthropomorphic CO2 production, if all goes into the oceans, in how many years will ocean pH go from alkaline to acidic?
You got me on that one, Not sure anyone has tried to calculate that and honestly don't see the point. And the oceans are already acidic. Coral reefs are disappearing, dead zones exist in the seas globally. Jellyfish colonies are blossoming in the millions because they are almost the only animal that can survive in such anoxious conditions. Can you even explain how the CO2 causes Ocean acidification and how that is important to life on the planet, Ever taken a basic chemistry class? You realize of course that those who are actively pounding the science around climate change are fully funded by billion dollar multinational corporations who would be in big trouble if the truth they are trying to debunk. ever gets out. Give me some science to back up your claims. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
wrt the Nat Geo link, it shows how unreliable the National Geographic is, repeat, the oceans are alkaline even tho' becoming less so. The percentages are, well meaningless. (what compared with what?) For another link - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/... To evaluate the claim, you need to know the present height of the statue above sea level, and the rate at which ocean levels are rising over the past 50 odd years say 2.8mm per year. and read the comments. National Geographic benefits from the scare, it is part of the problem.
When CO2 is mixed with water there are reaction which produces acids among other things. This point is seized on by the climate alarmist movement who state that the oceans which are alkaline will become acidic. The argument is correct as to direction only. I've seen unreliable calculations that the time for pH (the acid/alkalinity measure) to reach neutral is a few hundred thousand years. There is unreliable evidence that this is happening already, with disastrous results, with beneficial results, and will never happen. Choose, according to who pays for the research, or say- not proven.
Alkaline is the wrong term, it is the ability of a substance to withstand acidification or buffering capacity. Basic is the opposite of acidic. When you talk pH remember it is a logarithmic scale. Each change in pH represents a 10 fold change in acidification: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/noaa_...
The details of the reactions look like this: CO2+H2O <> H2CO3 When CO2 dissolves in seawater, carbonic acid is produced via the reaction: H2CO3 <> {H+] + HCO3 This carbonic acid dissociates in the water, releasing hydrogen ions and bicarbonate: [H+]+[CO32-] <> [HCO3-] [H+] represents a single positive H ion and so on The increase in the hydrogen ion concentration causes an increase in acidity, since acidity is defined by the pH scale, where pH = -log [H+] (so as hydrogen increases, the pH decreases). This log scale means that for every unit decrease on the pH scale, the hydrogen ion concentration has increased 10-fold.
One result of the release of hydrogen ions is that they combine with any carbonate ions in the water to form bicarbonate:
This removes carbonate ions from the water, making it more difficult for organisms to form the CaCO3 they need for their shells.
The oceans are not, in fact, acidic, but slightly basic.
Acidity is measured using the pH scale, where 7.0 is defined as neutral, with higher levels called "basic" and lower levels called "acidic".
Historical global mean seawater values are approximately 8.16 on this scale, making them slightly basic.
To put this in perspective, pure water has a pH of 7.0 (neutral), whereas household bleach has a pH of 12 (highly basic) and battery acid has a pH of zero (highly acidic).
However, even a small change in pH may lead to large changes in ocean chemistry and ecosystem functioning. Over the past 300 million years, global mean ocean pH values have probably never been more than 0.6 units lower than today (6). Ocean ecosystems have thus evolved over time in a very stable pH environment, and it is unknown if they can adapt to such large and rapid changes.
Albedo is a red herring used by deniers. No science: The albedo of a vegetated surface determines how much shortwave energy is absorbed or reflected, however, it is not an exact indication of local climate. Other physical factors of vegetation such as canopy height, surface roughness, and soil moisture affect local surface temperature, humidity and energy fluxes.The albedo and surface temperature associated with various land covers differ latitudinally and seasonally although 28% reforestation and afforestation occurring within the Eastern U.S. would probably cause local cooling. You really should take a lesson in basic ecology and soils. http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bit... As for the apples to apples I was only pointing out that trying to use volcanic activity to explain rising temps and CO2 is also a red herring. However comparing a crowded room to standing at an active volcanoes edge. Well there is a science study you can take part in. Phhht.
Measuring Albedo on a global scale is fraught with problems and none of it is finding easy acceptance, but the research continues. However as per my previous post measuring the albedo of areas of the earth is easier and this is true that much more is reflected from agricultural lands than forested. The same when you consider deserts and oceans. However the croplands are also absorbing the energy in the form of heat like a desert and surface temps rise dramatically. Reflection as in a mirror does not pertain to heat absorption entirely. Ever wonder why its so damn hot in the desert or on agricultural lands? The farmer beside us harvests soy every year. We have a lawn. When I walk across my lawn and onto the farmers field I feel an immediate change in temperature as the heat absorbed by the soil is being radiated back out. (Micro climate) There are way to many variables to claim albedo is affecting climate change either way.
the CEO took a bad philosophy and combined it with bad government. He is speaking from a social responsibility sort tack and it's nonsense. Water is not a right. It is a resource. If you have an unconditional right to a resource, it means others are a slave to you. He is a big time global crony supporter but his arguments boil down to "it's more efficient if we give water a price." He did not bring up water rights. there was nothing about patents in the video.
A great man once said that "a man forced to change his mind is a man of the same mind still." So for those of you who do not believe then take my responses for what they are - MY opinion. You do not need to believe or agree and for the record I find the banter fun and engaging. Discussions and disagreements like this open the door to personal reflection and that is not bad. I'm off to eat my Christmas Turkey. Merry Christmas
For reliable data on arctic sea ice, go to http://www.climate4you.com/ click on 'Sea Ice' then 'NSIDC recent Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent' You can see the charts show that the 2013/14 extent of Arctic sea ice is slightly below the long term average (years 1981 to 2010) and above that of year 2012/13. For the Antarctic, ice coverage 2013/14 is more than last year (2012/13), both year's being above the long term average. Since about 1998, carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing, and global average surface temperatures have decreased. Thus this evidence, among much other, effectively falsifies the proposition that more carbon dioxide warms the globe.
You are correct, over the ~30 years there is a declining trend of Arctic sea ice extent tho' this year there is more ice than last year. (as stated in my post). You may care to look at the corresponding data for the Antarctic. You may be interested in the historical records for and stories about ice extent and how it has varied.
I have know for quite some time why the Antarctic responds differently to Global Warming.. .There are actually a couple of scientifically proven reasons. 1. The Antarctic is a land mass surrounded by sea and thus the warming sea has no affect. It also reflects much of the solar radiation back into the upper reaches of the troposphere. and it is a couple kilometers thick (Think Ice Age). Different than the Arctic where the floating sea ice melts seasonally more and more as the water and atmosphere are warmed it melts the ice. It has a much faster compound effect on the speed of change. You should also know that the mass of the sea ice is drastically reducing as well in the Arctic it is getting thinner. This cold dense melt water has a profound effect on the Thermohaline currents of the oceans which have a huge affect on the jet stream which have a huge effect on local climate. The thermocline is also responsible for transporting nutrients Zooplankton and Phytoplankton (which provides almost half of the oxygen we breathe) and mixing of the water. 2. Antarctic is mountainous and the higher you go the colder it gets. Things will change much slower in Antarctica... That is expected. Ice over land reacts much different than ice over water to temp change. And the mass of Antarctic Ice is much greater than Arctic ice.
So, it is 'scientifically proven' that there is undoubted climate change (warming), that the warming is fast and calamitous in the Arctic (ignore big-corporate funded data showing more ice) and warming is slow in the Antarctic despite the expected big-corporate data showing cooling. There are things happening here that are not for the public good.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwar... This comes from (referenced) the site you sent me and shows clearly the long term decline in Arctic sea ice. You have to observe the long term trend, otherwise as you have demonstrated your results are skewed and no self respecting scientist would agree with your conclusion.. Like me.
The only graph in that link is of CO2, temp. against time which runs from left to right. It shows red following blue. Thus, to the extent that this graph means anything, carbon dioxide follows temperature changes.
Expand the graph in the link that you posted up by accident. There are many others on the web. Al Gore showed a version in his first propaganda movie, I cannot recall if he got the labels right or wrong but he said there is a link, the implication of what caused what was the wrong way round. There have been statistical analyses that show a cycle of 10,000 years, and temp leading CO2 by 900 years. Of course another interpretation is that CO2 leads temp by 9,100 years.
I know of no climate deniers. I know more and more people are doubting the hoax of climate change being perpetrated on them. They'd wake up faster if they hadn't spent 12 years or so in a public indoctrination center.
Climate Progress is the Global Warming propaganda arm of Think Progress.
Think Progress is a wholly owned megaphone of Dread King George Soros.
"Denier" is an ad hominem.
And you, sir, are a troll.
Please find another site to engage in your agit-prop and harassment.
http://www.usgs.gov/science/science.php?...
Do you not believe because of your colder snowier than normal (record breaking) winter?
Our government in Canada rejects climate change because if they acknowledge it then they would have much more work to do justifying the Bituminous Sands (Not tar or oil) in Alberta
How much globular warming is caused by nitrogen outgassing?
Nitrogen's chemical properties are irrelevant to my question.
So Nitrogen outgassing doesn't contribute to globular warming. Why aren't you panicked that our atmosphere is getting thinner and thinner with all this outgassing???
No, I do not believe that my colder snowier than "normal" winter is caused by the Earth getting warmer.
What is "normal"? What's happened in the past 10 years? How about the past 6 months?
My winter is not colder than normal, however.
A primer by the union of concerned scientists.
why cannot you agree that people calling themselves such, value feelings and consensus over scientific method?
They were started in the late 60s as an anti-war movement. They aggressively advocate for laws and regulations. They are against GMOs and nuclear power- both technological advances that have great benefit to the population. They are Luddites with an agenda and political purpose. I like to get my facts from scientists who do not have an agenda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZj0L9TEu...
There's a link back at you, from the NIPCC...
http://ncse.com/blog/2013/10/alternative...
If they have a water issue, that's their fault.
There's one and a quarter quintillion tons of water on the planet. If there are water shortages, it's the fault of socialists who'd rather wring their hands than see technology solve problems.
http://youtu.be/jXM3eMqQrwY
Merry Christmas... Sincerely
Every drop of water in your body at one time was in the ocean. Where do you think the Himalayas get the water they allegedly provide? Where do you think that water ends up? Before it evaporates and lands on the mountains as rain or snow?
Here's an idea. To reduce the percentage of the world's population dependent upon Himalayan water... forcibly relocate the populations of those densely populated countries. That's why the Himalayas provide the water for so great a percentage of the population.
EDIT: reworded last line to make my meaning clearer.
Yes and as the Himalayas melt away as the Glaciers in North America are doing where does that water end up my friend? In the ocean. And it stays there in vast saline quantities for thousands of years before it gets evaporated into the atmosphere and falls again onto lands so dry that it evaporates again almost immediately or it falls onto tilled agricultural lands and washes away more nutrients creating even more unfertile soil.
Your perspective sir is flawed.
http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.asp...
I'm not surprised that you can't recognize sarcasm when it's directed at you. You used a BS stat, I gave you a BS solution for that BS stat.
The Himalayas are not melting away.
The glaciers in North America are not melting away, more's the pity. They melt, more arable land to farm.
Yeah, the water ONLY rains on deserts...
Yeah, the soil in Iowa and Nebraska is so unfertile. Just don't tell the farmers.
In order for the rain to stay in the oceans for millennia, it would have to NOT RAIN for millennia. Water evaporates from the ocean every day (thank goodness for globular warming!) and is deposited around the world.
Who cares?
We
Are
Man
We can build desalinization plants and pipe the fresh water to where it's needed... if we A) had the willpower and B) were allowed to kill all the socialist pieces of crap who keep pretending that Mankind is a plague on the world and therefore stand in the way.
What you just said was, "Let Nestle sell the oceans."
I see no problem with that.
I hope this isn't what free enterprise is supposed to look like.
Science deals in theory, i.e. our best current understanding; not truth, i.e. metaphysics and faith.
So, a better question would be, do you believe that the current understanding has merit.
The answer to that is, no, I do not.
I think the current understanding is thoroughly driven by politics,
See Lysenko-Minchurism, and then go troll elsewhere.
I have said nothing about faith, you have.
You believe that Science is Truth: That is faith.
I believe that Science presents theories and I evaluate those theories on their merits and make my own decisions.
To be fair Eudaimonia you did say "truth, i.e. metaphysics and faith." It is natural to assume that you think that truth can only be found through faith.
Not according to Mr. Reardon. LOL!
Your side keeps claiming a "consensus" among scientists on globular warming, where there is none. An example of that kind of propaganda is found in Atlas Shrugged where the consensus of the world's "best" metallurgists is that Rearden Metal is dangerous.
(which it is... socially dangerous).
Oh, another newsflash... bumblebees can't fly.
explain any ice age. a theory that cannot explain the most obvious facts, is not valid in science. science is not consensus.
Humans excrete about 30 billions tonnes of CO2 a year... On a good year volcanoes emit 300 million (1%) of human emissions.
This was one of many wrong claims by Al Gore.
Actually, using the 'data' available, by smoothing lines on charts going back a few hundred thousand years, there are regular ups and downs in temperature with an average cycle of about 10,000 years. The CO2 curve appears to precede (to lead) the global temperature curve by about 900 years. This is incongruous if global warming was due to more CO2, but consistent with what is known about CO2 density in sea water, increasing temperature causes lower CO2 density. The correct correlation is thus higher temperature causes more CO2 in the atmosphere.
On solubility, yes there is irregular behavior of various gasses in various liquids perhaps related to surface tension, compounds which change with temperature, and energy at the molecular level. Even the concept of 'things that happen' is not solid, ie data. A relevant example is how NASA and various other government agencies in several countries manage to revise temperature records so as to support prevailing policies.
I tell you what.. you stand in a crowded room.
Then stand on the lip of an active volcano.
Tell me which one killed you first.
(hint, it's the one spewing the poisonous gasses).
Apples to apples (while holding my tongue...)
Anyway, I just heard from the union of concerned plants and vegetables, and they say...
"WHOO HOO! THANKS FOR ALL THE CO2!"
Croplands emit more oxygen than do "rain forests", (aka, jungles) and without the CO cloud overhead. They also raise the albedo of the planet, which "rainforests" fail to do. Similarly with "wetlands" (aka swamps) when we reclaim them for crop production.
(Croplands are caused by humans, btw).
You should be offended too, seeing that lately you like to spend every free available moment you have hanging out with people who are inspired by the writings of Ayn Rand and believe in pursuing liberty and free-enterprise solutions to the problems we face.
You believe in climate change? Cool. Don’t most some stupid article from ThinkProgress that often spends it’s time berating people in society like us, instead, post links to solutions geared- products and innovations that are on the cutting edge of what the mind of man can come with. Otherwise...
quit wasting our time.
What do you think caused the "runaway" greenhouse effect on Venus? They're still pumping S2O4 and CO2 into the atmosphere...
For another link -
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
To evaluate the claim, you need to know the present height of the statue above sea level, and the rate at which ocean levels are rising over the past 50 odd years say 2.8mm per year.
and read the comments.
National Geographic benefits from the scare, it is part of the problem.
Each change in pH represents a 10 fold change in acidification:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/noaa_...
CO2+H2O <> H2CO3
When CO2 dissolves in seawater, carbonic acid is produced via the reaction:
H2CO3 <> {H+] + HCO3
This carbonic acid dissociates in the water, releasing hydrogen ions and bicarbonate:
[H+]+[CO32-] <> [HCO3-]
[H+] represents a single positive H ion and so on
The increase in the hydrogen ion concentration causes an increase in acidity, since acidity is defined by the pH scale, where pH = -log [H+] (so as hydrogen increases, the pH decreases). This log scale means that for every unit decrease on the pH scale, the hydrogen ion concentration has increased 10-fold.
One result of the release of hydrogen ions is that they combine with any carbonate ions in the water to form bicarbonate:
This removes carbonate ions from the water, making it more difficult for organisms to form the CaCO3 they need for their shells.
The oceans are not, in fact, acidic, but slightly basic.
Acidity is measured using the pH scale, where 7.0 is defined as neutral, with higher levels called "basic" and lower levels called "acidic".
Historical global mean seawater values are approximately 8.16 on this scale, making them slightly basic.
To put this in perspective, pure water has a pH of 7.0 (neutral), whereas household bleach has a pH of 12 (highly basic) and battery acid has a pH of zero (highly acidic).
However, even a small change in pH may lead to large changes in ocean chemistry and ecosystem functioning. Over the past 300 million years, global mean ocean pH values have probably never been more than 0.6 units lower than today (6). Ocean ecosystems have thus evolved over time in a very stable pH environment, and it is unknown if they can adapt to such large and rapid changes.
The albedo of a vegetated surface determines how much shortwave energy is absorbed or reflected, however, it is not an exact indication
of local climate. Other physical factors of
vegetation such as canopy height, surface
roughness, and soil moisture affect local surface temperature, humidity and energy fluxes.The albedo and surface temperature
associated with various land covers differ latitudinally and seasonally although 28%
reforestation and afforestation occurring within
the Eastern U.S. would probably cause local cooling. You really should take a lesson in basic ecology and soils. http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bit...
As for the apples to apples I was only pointing out that trying to use volcanic activity to explain rising temps and CO2 is also a red herring. However comparing a crowded room to standing at an active volcanoes edge. Well there is a science study you can take part in. Phhht.
Or that croplands are "rougher" than jungles?
local surface temperatures, humidity and energy fluxes are NOT the planet's albedo.
You want to pretend global warming. As the planet's albedo goes up, it reflects more light energy into space, and absorbs less. Globally, not locally.
http://www.climate4you.com/
click on 'Sea Ice' then 'NSIDC recent Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent'
You can see the charts show that the 2013/14 extent of Arctic sea ice is slightly below the long term average (years 1981 to 2010) and above that of year 2012/13.
For the Antarctic, ice coverage 2013/14 is more than last year (2012/13), both year's being above the long term average.
Since about 1998, carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing, and global average surface temperatures have decreased. Thus this evidence, among much other, effectively falsifies the proposition that more carbon dioxide warms the globe.
Sorry this is the sea ice link I meant on the previous post.
1. The Antarctic is a land mass surrounded by sea and thus the warming sea has no affect. It also reflects much of the solar radiation back into the upper reaches of the troposphere. and it is a couple kilometers thick (Think Ice Age). Different than the Arctic where the floating sea ice melts seasonally more and more as the water and atmosphere are warmed it melts the ice. It has a much faster compound effect on the speed of change. You should also know that the mass of the sea ice is drastically reducing as well in the Arctic it is getting thinner. This cold dense melt water has a profound effect on the Thermohaline currents of the oceans which have a huge affect on the jet stream which have a huge effect on local climate. The thermocline is also responsible for transporting nutrients Zooplankton and Phytoplankton (which provides almost half of the oxygen we breathe) and mixing of the water.
2. Antarctic is mountainous and the higher you go the colder it gets. Things will change much slower in Antarctica... That is expected. Ice over land reacts much different than ice over water to temp change. And the mass of Antarctic Ice is much greater than Arctic ice.
So, it is 'scientifically proven' that there is undoubted climate change (warming), that the warming is fast and calamitous in the Arctic (ignore big-corporate funded data showing more ice) and warming is slow in the Antarctic despite the expected big-corporate data showing cooling. There are things happening here that are not for the public good.
This comes from (referenced) the site you sent me and shows clearly the long term decline in Arctic sea ice. You have to observe the long term trend, otherwise as you have demonstrated your results are skewed and no self respecting scientist would agree with your conclusion.. Like me.
Sorry.. sent the wrong link by accident.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jzBWmpzi...
http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-mo...