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.
"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.
" 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.
"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.
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.
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???
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.
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
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.
"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).
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Not according to Mr. Reardon. LOL!
http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-mo...
Sorry this is the sea ice link I meant on the previous post.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
My winter is not colder than normal, however.
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???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jzBWmpzi...
How much globular warming is caused by nitrogen outgassing?
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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZj0L9TEu...
There's a link back at you, from the NIPCC...
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).
Load more comments...