- May 20, 2009
- 144,267
- 66,584
- 2,330
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Finally! An Explanation Of The "global Warming" Scam!
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,370
- 27,906
- 2,180
My favorite. See this, it's sand, do you know what it will be 100 years from now, it's gonna be SAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!! One of the Greatest bits. Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so!!!Global Average Surface temp has gone up about 0.5degC in your lifetime. That's pretty much it. The Surface temp record is pretty secure since about 1979 when the satellites went up.. They (NOAA, GISS, etc) are still monkeying around today with ground temp records from the early 20th century. Yep -- they change the daily temps from 1938 almost monthly..
LARGELY to make new "record highs" that make the news.
TONS of evidence that temperature increases like this have popped up GLOBALLY in the past 3000 years.
It's all out there man.. And it's not rocket science..
Hmm. 0.5 degrees Celsius over a period of about (let's say) 33 1/3 years (for the simplicity of math) would be what over a period of about 200 years? In Fahrenheit?
0.5 degees times 3 (for 100 years) would be 1.5 degrees. That would be 3 degrees for a period of 200 years.
Each degree of Celsius is equivalent to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. So, 3 times 1.8 equals 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Over just one thousand years (which is far short of being an example of geologic time), would be 27 degrees. Still think there's no problem? Keep in mind that the warming will likely accelerate after the ice melts in much the same way that the temperature in a glass of ice water sitting in the sun will spike after the ice cubes have melted.
How hot do you think it has to get before food like grains won't grow and farm animals die from the heat?
That's kind of important considering that people won't be living very long if there's no food to eat. But who knows, maybe people will move into caves and live on mushrooms.
Your math was correct. Although for 33 yrs -- you just managed to hit a hot spell. The average is now about 0.13degC/decade since the 1900s.
AND that is going down annually as the temp fails to rise.
So over 100 years --- the expected change would be more like 1.3degC.
What would that effect? The temperature here is 3 degC warmer than yesterday. And it is hardly within 2 DegC of our "average temp" for any given day.
Deal is that the textbook warming power of CO2 diminishes with higher concentrations. Meaning that 280 ppm to 560ppm will give about 1 DegC. But to get ANOTHER 1 DegC --- you have to get all the way to 1120ppm.. TWICE the amount of CO2. Not gonna happen by 2100..
In fact -- we haven't even completed the FIRST doubling of CO2 since the industrial revolution began..
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Roughly 130 ppm of CO2 and when natural variation is considered, there is no increase that can be attributed to CO2..
It's the sun stupid, makes earth hot.........
You are a bit behind the times, there, old boy. It was in the 1820's that Joseph Fourier first noted that by the amount of energy recieved from the sun, and that re-radiated, that the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. One of the hypotheses's that he thought possilble to explain why not, was that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing energy. In 1858, Tyndall measured the absorption of IR of CO2, CH4, and other gases in our atmosphere. In 1896, Arrhenious quantified that, and came up with a surprisingly accurate estimation of the amount of heat that a doubling of CO2 would create in the atmosphere.
This is the 21st century...and climate science is still stuck in the 19th century...little wonder that they can't seem to get anything right.
Not stuck in the 19th century. STARTED in the 19th century. Shows the depth of what you're trying to reject based on unqualified conclusions on inadequate data.
As temperatures rise, the effect of those "magic multipliers" will increase. There will be greater and greater loss of albedo worldwide. Methane emissions from melting tundra will increase. Average global humidity will increase. Do you think they will not or do you simply choose to ignore those inconvenient truths?
As temperatures rise, the effect of those "magic multipliers" will increase. There will be greater and greater loss of albedo worldwide. Methane emissions from melting tundra will increase. Average global humidity will increase. Do you think they will not or do you simply choose to ignore those inconvenient truths?
Humidity, CO2 perfusion, and heat.. Folks pay a lot of money to build greenhouses like that.. How much frozen tundra thawed when the glaciers retreated from Milwaukee? Compared to what's left, the earth has about farted as much methane as it can..
Those aren't truths, they are unfounded assumptions. If the earth was gonna go beserk over a small increase in temperature -- the greenhouse would have died after the FIRST ice age. And you'd still be a cross-eyed crawfish prototype living in pond scum..
Do you deny that albedo is decreasing with rising temperatures? Yes or no.
Do you deny that increased average temperatures will lead to increased average humidity?
As to methane from permafrost:
Loss of permafrost
Main article: Permafrost
Sea ice loss is correlated with warming of Northern latitudes. This has melting effects on permafrost, both in the sea,[16] and on land.[17] Lawrence et al. suggest that current rapid melting of the sea ice may induce a rapid melting of arctic permafrost.[17][18] This has consequential effects on methane release,[3] and wildlife.[17] Some studies imply a direct link, as they predict cold air passing over ice is replaced by warm air passing over the sea. This warm air carries heat to the permafrost around the Arctic, and melts it.[17] This permafrost then releases huge quantities of methane.[19] Methane release can be gaseous, but is also transported in solution by rivers.[5] NewScientist states that "Since existing models do not include feedback effects such as the heat generated by decomposition, the permafrost could melt far faster than generally thought."[20]
There is another possible mechanism for rapid methane release. As the Arctic ocean becomes more and more ice free, the ocean absorbs more of the incident energy from the sun. The Arctic ocean becomes warmer than the former ice cover and much more water vapour enters the air. At times when the adjacent land is colder than the sea, this causes rising air above the sea and an off-shore wind as air over the land comes in to replace the rising air over the sea. As the air rises, the dew point is reached and clouds form, releasing latent heat and further reinforcing the buoyancy of the air over the ocean. All this results in air being drawn from the south across the tundra rather than the present situation of cold air flowing toward the south from the cold sinking air over the Arctic ocean. The extra heat being drawn from the south further accelerates the warming of the permafrost and the Arctic ocean with increased release of methane.[citation needed]
A sinkhole discovered in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, Russia in July 2014 is believed by Russian researchers to have been caused by methane released due to permafrost thawing. Near the bottom of the sinkhole, air contained unusually high concentrations of methane, according to tests conducted by the researchers.[21]
Clathrate breakdown[edit]
Main article: Clathrate gun hypothesis
Marine extinction intensity during the Phanerozoiceon
%
Millions of years ago
K–Pg
Tr–J
P–Tr
Late D
O–S
The Permian–Triassic extinction event (the Great Dying) may have been caused by release of methane fromclathrates. An estimated 52% of marine genus went extinct, representing 96% of all marine species.
Sea ice, and the cold conditions it sustains, serves to stabilise methane deposits on and near the shoreline,[22] preventing the clathrate breaking down and outgassing methane into the atmosphere, causing further warming. Melting of this ice may release large quantities of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, causing further warming in a strongpositive feedback cycle.[23]
Even with existing levels of warming and melting of the Arctic region, submarine methane releases linked to clathratebreakdown have been discovered,[24] and demonstrated to be leaking into the atmosphere.[5][25][26][27] A 2011 Russian survey off the East Siberian coast found plumes wider than one kilometer releasing methane directly into the atmosphere.[24]
According to monitoring carried out in 2003/2004 by Shakhova et al., the surface layer of shelf water in the East Siberian Seaand Laptev Sea was supersaturated up to 2500% relative to then present average atmospheric methane content of 1.85 ppm. Anomalously high concentrations (up to 154 nM or 4400% supersaturation) of dissolved methane in the bottom layer of shelf water suggest that the bottom layer is somehow affected by near-bottom sources. Considering the possible formation mechanisms of such plumes, their studies indicated thermoabrasion and the effects of shallow gas or gas hydrates release.[4]
Research in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown clathrate-derived methane being released through perforations in the seabed permafrost.[28]
The climatic effects of a potential release of methane from ocean clathrates may be significant on timescales of 1–100 thousand years.[29]
Do you deny that increased average temperatures will lead to increased average humidity?
As to methane from permafrost:
Loss of permafrost
Main article: Permafrost
Sea ice loss is correlated with warming of Northern latitudes. This has melting effects on permafrost, both in the sea,[16] and on land.[17] Lawrence et al. suggest that current rapid melting of the sea ice may induce a rapid melting of arctic permafrost.[17][18] This has consequential effects on methane release,[3] and wildlife.[17] Some studies imply a direct link, as they predict cold air passing over ice is replaced by warm air passing over the sea. This warm air carries heat to the permafrost around the Arctic, and melts it.[17] This permafrost then releases huge quantities of methane.[19] Methane release can be gaseous, but is also transported in solution by rivers.[5] NewScientist states that "Since existing models do not include feedback effects such as the heat generated by decomposition, the permafrost could melt far faster than generally thought."[20]
There is another possible mechanism for rapid methane release. As the Arctic ocean becomes more and more ice free, the ocean absorbs more of the incident energy from the sun. The Arctic ocean becomes warmer than the former ice cover and much more water vapour enters the air. At times when the adjacent land is colder than the sea, this causes rising air above the sea and an off-shore wind as air over the land comes in to replace the rising air over the sea. As the air rises, the dew point is reached and clouds form, releasing latent heat and further reinforcing the buoyancy of the air over the ocean. All this results in air being drawn from the south across the tundra rather than the present situation of cold air flowing toward the south from the cold sinking air over the Arctic ocean. The extra heat being drawn from the south further accelerates the warming of the permafrost and the Arctic ocean with increased release of methane.[citation needed]
A sinkhole discovered in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, Russia in July 2014 is believed by Russian researchers to have been caused by methane released due to permafrost thawing. Near the bottom of the sinkhole, air contained unusually high concentrations of methane, according to tests conducted by the researchers.[21]
Clathrate breakdown[edit]
Main article: Clathrate gun hypothesis
Marine extinction intensity during the Phanerozoiceon
%
Millions of years ago
K–Pg
Tr–J
P–Tr
Late D
O–S
The Permian–Triassic extinction event (the Great Dying) may have been caused by release of methane fromclathrates. An estimated 52% of marine genus went extinct, representing 96% of all marine species.
Sea ice, and the cold conditions it sustains, serves to stabilise methane deposits on and near the shoreline,[22] preventing the clathrate breaking down and outgassing methane into the atmosphere, causing further warming. Melting of this ice may release large quantities of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, causing further warming in a strongpositive feedback cycle.[23]
Even with existing levels of warming and melting of the Arctic region, submarine methane releases linked to clathratebreakdown have been discovered,[24] and demonstrated to be leaking into the atmosphere.[5][25][26][27] A 2011 Russian survey off the East Siberian coast found plumes wider than one kilometer releasing methane directly into the atmosphere.[24]
According to monitoring carried out in 2003/2004 by Shakhova et al., the surface layer of shelf water in the East Siberian Seaand Laptev Sea was supersaturated up to 2500% relative to then present average atmospheric methane content of 1.85 ppm. Anomalously high concentrations (up to 154 nM or 4400% supersaturation) of dissolved methane in the bottom layer of shelf water suggest that the bottom layer is somehow affected by near-bottom sources. Considering the possible formation mechanisms of such plumes, their studies indicated thermoabrasion and the effects of shallow gas or gas hydrates release.[4]
Research in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown clathrate-derived methane being released through perforations in the seabed permafrost.[28]
The climatic effects of a potential release of methane from ocean clathrates may be significant on timescales of 1–100 thousand years.[29]
Do you deny that albedo is decreasing with rising temperatures? Yes or no.
Do you deny that increased average temperatures will lead to increased average humidity?
As to methane from permafrost:
Loss of permafrost
Main article: Permafrost
Sea ice loss is correlated with warming of Northern latitudes. This has melting effects on permafrost, both in the sea,[16] and on land.[17] Lawrence et al. suggest that current rapid melting of the sea ice may induce a rapid melting of arctic permafrost.[17][18] This has consequential effects on methane release,[3] and wildlife.[17] Some studies imply a direct link, as they predict cold air passing over ice is replaced by warm air passing over the sea. This warm air carries heat to the permafrost around the Arctic, and melts it.[17] This permafrost then releases huge quantities of methane.[19] Methane release can be gaseous, but is also transported in solution by rivers.[5] NewScientist states that "Since existing models do not include feedback effects such as the heat generated by decomposition, the permafrost could melt far faster than generally thought."[20]
There is another possible mechanism for rapid methane release. As the Arctic ocean becomes more and more ice free, the ocean absorbs more of the incident energy from the sun. The Arctic ocean becomes warmer than the former ice cover and much more water vapour enters the air. At times when the adjacent land is colder than the sea, this causes rising air above the sea and an off-shore wind as air over the land comes in to replace the rising air over the sea. As the air rises, the dew point is reached and clouds form, releasing latent heat and further reinforcing the buoyancy of the air over the ocean. All this results in air being drawn from the south across the tundra rather than the present situation of cold air flowing toward the south from the cold sinking air over the Arctic ocean. The extra heat being drawn from the south further accelerates the warming of the permafrost and the Arctic ocean with increased release of methane.[citation needed]
A sinkhole discovered in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, Russia in July 2014 is believed by Russian researchers to have been caused by methane released due to permafrost thawing. Near the bottom of the sinkhole, air contained unusually high concentrations of methane, according to tests conducted by the researchers.[21]
Clathrate breakdown[edit]
Main article: Clathrate gun hypothesis
Marine extinction intensity during the Phanerozoiceon
%
Millions of years ago
K–Pg
Tr–J
P–Tr
Late D
O–S
The Permian–Triassic extinction event (the Great Dying) may have been caused by release of methane fromclathrates. An estimated 52% of marine genus went extinct, representing 96% of all marine species.
Sea ice, and the cold conditions it sustains, serves to stabilise methane deposits on and near the shoreline,[22] preventing the clathrate breaking down and outgassing methane into the atmosphere, causing further warming. Melting of this ice may release large quantities of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, causing further warming in a strongpositive feedback cycle.[23]
Even with existing levels of warming and melting of the Arctic region, submarine methane releases linked to clathratebreakdown have been discovered,[24] and demonstrated to be leaking into the atmosphere.[5][25][26][27] A 2011 Russian survey off the East Siberian coast found plumes wider than one kilometer releasing methane directly into the atmosphere.[24]
According to monitoring carried out in 2003/2004 by Shakhova et al., the surface layer of shelf water in the East Siberian Seaand Laptev Sea was supersaturated up to 2500% relative to then present average atmospheric methane content of 1.85 ppm. Anomalously high concentrations (up to 154 nM or 4400% supersaturation) of dissolved methane in the bottom layer of shelf water suggest that the bottom layer is somehow affected by near-bottom sources. Considering the possible formation mechanisms of such plumes, their studies indicated thermoabrasion and the effects of shallow gas or gas hydrates release.[4]
Research in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown clathrate-derived methane being released through perforations in the seabed permafrost.[28]
The climatic effects of a potential release of methane from ocean clathrates may be significant on timescales of 1–100 thousand years.[29]
Will you finally admit that humans are NOT causing "Climate Change"?
Will you finally admit that CO2 does NOT drive climate?
Will you finally admit that AGW is bunk?
Why would I do that? The answer is no, no and no.
Human activity is the primary cause of the warming we've observed over the last 150 years. Your comment about "driving climate" is a meaningless soundbite. AGW is accepted as a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate by better than 97% of those most qualified to make that judgement. It is accepted either implicitly or explicitly by better than 98% of the climate papers published in the last ten years which express an opinion one way or the other.
I know it must be hard to accept what a mistake you've made throwing your bag in with the deniers, but you've made a mistake. The deniers are wrong. The world is getting warmer and human combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation is the primary cause.
Human activity is the primary cause of the warming we've observed over the last 150 years. Your comment about "driving climate" is a meaningless soundbite. AGW is accepted as a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate by better than 97% of those most qualified to make that judgement. It is accepted either implicitly or explicitly by better than 98% of the climate papers published in the last ten years which express an opinion one way or the other.
I know it must be hard to accept what a mistake you've made throwing your bag in with the deniers, but you've made a mistake. The deniers are wrong. The world is getting warmer and human combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation is the primary cause.
- May 20, 2009
- 144,267
- 66,584
- 2,330
Do we have water vapor measurement for the past 150 years?
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,370
- 27,906
- 2,180
cough, cough, coughWhy would I do that? The answer is no, no and no.
Human activity is the primary cause of the warming we've observed over the last 150 years. Your comment about "driving climate" is a meaningless soundbite. AGW is accepted as a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate by better than 97% of those most qualified to make that judgement. It is accepted either implicitly or explicitly by better than 98% of the climate papers published in the last ten years which express an opinion one way or the other.
I know it must be hard to accept what a mistake you've made throwing your bag in with the deniers, but you've made a mistake. The deniers are wrong. The world is getting warmer and human combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation is the primary cause.
.Hah, you can't prove jack jiminie. You lose, I'm WiNNiNg......
- May 20, 2009
- 144,267
- 66,584
- 2,330
The ocean ate my global warming!
Liberals, Democrats, are anti-science.
Despite their google links.
Despite their google links.
Why would I do that? The answer is no, no and no.
Human activity is the primary cause of the warming we've observed over the last 150 years. Your comment about "driving climate" is a meaningless soundbite. AGW is accepted as a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate by better than 97% of those most qualified to make that judgement. It is accepted either implicitly or explicitly by better than 98% of the climate papers published in the last ten years which express an opinion one way or the other.
I know it must be hard to accept what a mistake you've made throwing your bag in with the deniers, but you've made a mistake. The deniers are wrong. The world is getting warmer and human combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation is the primary cause.
cough, cough, cough
Hah, you can't prove jack jiminie. You lose, I'm WiNNiNg......
Of course I can't prove it. It's part of the natural sciences you dimwit.
The ocean ate my global warming!
Is that really all you guys have got? I feel like I'm babysitting at a preschool.
Liberals, Democrats, are anti-science.
Despite their google links.
Education correlates with a number of interesting parameters.
The more educated one is, the more likely that one is an atheist and not a christian, a left of center humanist democrat and not a conservative, not a republican, not a racist and someone who accepts AGW as valid.
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,370
- 27,906
- 2,180
I can understand that, when the discussion goes beyond your comprehension, your mind ends up in preschool. Gotcha. And you still can't prove any of what you claimThe ocean ate my global warming!
Is that really all you guys have got? I feel like I'm babysitting at a preschool.
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,370
- 27,906
- 2,180
More WiNNiNgI'm sorry, but you are just too stupid to bother responding to. I can have a more meaningful conversation with the wall.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 96
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 472
- Replies
- 117
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 61
- Views
- 845
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 77
- Views
- 252
- Replies
- 60
- Views
- 319
- Replies
- 338
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 145
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8049
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-