Climatechangevangelistas! Please explain this...

[edthecynic]

We are in a post glacial warming period. It will end one of these days and we go back to an ice age.

We've been hearing that from deniers since the 1970s.

 

[Asclepias]

Ummm.. because they hadn't evolved yet?

They hadnt evolved yet because we couldn't survive the heat and atmosphere.

 

[Asclepias]

Wrong, The Sahara was quite moist in that era.

You got something right for a change. Congratulations.

 

[Asclepias]

And of course you are wrong again, as usual.

After the climatic optimum ended, so did the green Sahara.

It called the climatic optimum for a reason.

You are correct. I got it mixed up with another period.

 

[g5000]

I was watching network news tonight with the weather person describing the "1 in 500 years" rain in NYC and stating it was clearly caused by "climate change".
It made me wonder then about these two FACTs that the global warming evangelistas seemingly are unaware of.

Fact 1.
Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research.
A sediment core excavated from 400m (1,300ft) below the seabed of the Arctic Ocean has enabled scientists to delve far back into the region's past.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic's tropical past uncovered

news.bbc.co.uk

Fact 2.
Projections show that the area of land and sea that falls within the Arctic Circle is home to an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil, an incredible 13% of Earth's reserves.

Why Is There So Much Oil in the Arctic?

Why is there so much oil beneath the Arctic — and do we really need it?

www.livescience.com

So please tell me you global warming, climate change "evangelistas"......
BIG question ?
Why 50 million years ago did the North Pole have tropical temperatures... was there "global warming"?
(Tropical climates are characterized by monthly average temperatures of 18 ℃ (64.4 ℉)
2nd Big question ?
If oil is formed from mixtures of hydrocarbons that formed from the remains of animals and plants (diatoms) that lived millions of years ,
how come there is 90 billion barrels in the Arctic Circle? Was there "global warming" when this animals and plants were in the Arctic Circle?

I've provided the FACTS that support the premise "global warming" has occurred in the past... Now refute these facts.

Um, retard? From your own link:

"This time period is associated with a very enhanced greenhouse effect," explained Appy Sluijs, a palaeoecologist from Utrecht University in the Netherlands, and the lead author on one of the papers.

"Basically, it looks like the Earth released a gigantic fart of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - and globally the Earth warmed by about 5C (9F).


More here: Arctic greenhouse: 55 million years ago, it was balmy - Health & Science - International Herald Tribune (Published 2006)

The findings, detailed in three papers in the journal Nature, show how much remains to be learned about climate change, both natural and human- caused.

But experts said that if anything, the papers suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of greenhouse gases to warm the planet.

[snip]

The new analysis confirms that the Arctic Ocean warmed to a remarkable degree 55 million years ago and that the warming was driven at least in part by an explosive buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases - one far greater than the current human-caused rise.


And here: Early Eocene Period – 54 to 48 Million Years Ago | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

The Early Eocene was characterized by high carbon dioxide levels, inferred to be between 1,000 and 2,000 parts per million. Scientists think that increased volcanic activity was an important cause of these high levels of carbon dioxide.

 

[healthmyths]

Already proved to you with a link, the last time you posted this LIE, that trees are carbon neutral when you add in the decay cycle, so your claim of 72.9 billion tons of CO2 absorbed is still a proven lie because it is only HALF the carbon cycle of trees, in a full cycle CO2 absorbed is ZERO, but you knew that already as you learned when you first posted your LIE!!!!!

"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest."
- Anonymous

WHERE IS YOUR proof? GEEZ you make a dumb ass comment like trees are carbon neutral! PROVE IT!!! Show me the proof that trees when they decay equal in one year the amount of absorption they do with CO2? I'm not saying this MY LINKS are telling us that TREES absorb at least
72.9 billion a year in CO2. I've given you the proof! NOW you give me the proof that all TREES decay in one year and in doing so give up all the carbon they absorbed! Prove it!

 

[g5000]

Why 50 million years ago did the North Pole have tropical temperatures... was there "global warming"?

Yes. Exactly. There was global warming. Yes.

See my previous post.

 

[WEATHER53]

We need to look more into deep ocean water and whether earthquakes combined with deep volcanos are allowing release of magma. Oceans are likely warming bottom up and not top down. Also, The earths exact positioning on its axis can be effected by extreme earthquake action.
It is possible that mankind could be overstimulating the tree canopy via industrialization and cars and like kind. It is not possible that Mankind is directly pouring things into the air that cause this; 95% of the planet is unpopulated, 70% huge and deep water-we are simply too puny.

 

[g5000]

So let's see, when you subtract 43.1 billion tons CO2 emitted /year from 72.96 billion tons absorbed,
that leaves 29 billion tons to cover the CO2 emitted due to decaying leaves, etc.
Now it is UP to YOU to prove that 29 billion tons of CO2 emitted by decaying leaves is wrong!
AGAIN... If 72.9 billion tons of CO2 is absorbed by 3+ trillion trees and the world emits 43.1 billion tons... WHERE did the other
29 billion tons of absorbed CO2 was not absorbed? In other words maybe 29 billion tons of DECaYING leaves, etc were absorbed!
Prove me wrong!

Argument from ignorance. It is up to you to prove your claim.

 

[fncceo]

They hadnt evolved yet because we couldn't survive the heat and atmosphere.

50 million years ago there were prosimian primates that were nearly genetically identical to hominids.

There is no evidence to support the idea that hominids cannot evolve in a warm climate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I was watching network news tonight with the weather person describing the "1 in 500 years" rain in NYC and stating it was clearly caused by "climate change".
It made me wonder then about these two FACTs that the global warming evangelistas seemingly are unaware of.

Fact 1.
Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research.
A sediment core excavated from 400m (1,300ft) below the seabed of the Arctic Ocean has enabled scientists to delve far back into the region's past.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic's tropical past uncovered

news.bbc.co.uk

Fact 2.
Projections show that the area of land and sea that falls within the Arctic Circle is home to an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil, an incredible 13% of Earth's reserves.

Why Is There So Much Oil in the Arctic?

Why is there so much oil beneath the Arctic — and do we really need it?

www.livescience.com

So please tell me you global warming, climate change "evangelistas"......
BIG question ?
Why 50 million years ago did the North Pole have tropical temperatures... was there "global warming"?
(Tropical climates are characterized by monthly average temperatures of 18 ℃ (64.4 ℉)
2nd Big question ?
If oil is formed from mixtures of hydrocarbons that formed from the remains of animals and plants (diatoms) that lived millions of years ,
how come there is 90 billion barrels in the Arctic Circle? Was there "global warming" when this animals and plants were in the Arctic Circle?

I've provided the FACTS that support the premise "global warming" has occurred in the past... Now refute these facts.

If you are so confident, then why did you run to an anonymous message board populated by nonscientists to wag your ass?

Why not email a prominent climate scientist? I can provide some contacts for you. Email them your nonsense. Post the replies, so we can all laugh at you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We need to look more into deep ocean water and whether earthquakes combined with deep volcanos are allowing release of magma. Oceans are likely warming bottom up and not top down. Also, The earths exact positioning on its axis can be effected by extreme earthquake action.
It is possible that mankind could be overstimulating the tree canopy via industrialization and cars and like kind. It is not possible that Mankind is directly pouring things into the air that cause thus. 95% of the planet is unpopulated, 70% huge and deep water-we are simply too puny.

Haha, the uneducated slob with zero education or experience in any related field thinks he outsmarted the global scientific community. Good stuff.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

50 million years ago there were prosimian primates that were nearly genetically identical to hominids.

There is no evidence to support the idea that hominids cannot evolve in a warm climate.

True. But there are mountains of evidence of extinctions due to relatively rapid climate change. And AGW is very rapid.

 

[Asclepias]

50 million years ago there were prosimian primates that were nearly genetically identical to hominids.

There is no evidence to support the idea that hominids cannot evolve in a warm climate.

Of course there is evidence. You can't even live at some temperatures let alone survive long enough to evolve. Once we hit a wet bulb temperature of 95 degrees its over for humans no matter how much water you drink.

How hot is too hot for the human body?

Climate change is bringing extreme heat and testing the limits of what people can tolerate.

www.technologyreview.com

 

[22lcidw]

We've been hearing that from deniers since the 1970s.

It is more about corruption and making people rich on the backs of the peasants. From Reuters...Judge Miranda Du, nominated by Obama a decade ago or so ruled against Native Americans twice in a couple of months who claimed that Lithium Mines in Nevada were sacred Indian burial grounds. Lithium is used for batteries to run electric cars. So the oil pipelines are no good. But this is good as the progs crap on the little guy with their politics. Trump probably would approve of this but he is a Republican. See the stench of your party. So noble. The global climate agenda is a scam to tax the hell out of the peons.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is more about corruption and making people rich on the backs of the peasants. From Reuters...Judge Miranda Du, nominated by Obama a decade ago or so ruled against Native Americans twice in a couple of months who claimed that Lithium Mines in Nevada were sacred Indian burial grounds. Lithium is used for batteries to run electric cars. So the oil pipelines are no good. But this is good as the progs crap on the little guy with their politics. Trump probably would approve of this but he is a Republican. See the stench of your party. So noble. The global climate agenda is a scam to tax the hell out of the peons.

Neato. But the science is quite independent of that.

 

[g5000]

healthmyths edthecynic
Some interesting reads which show scientists have started to question the ability of trees to reduce carbon emissions.

How much can forests fight climate change?

Trees are supposed to slow global warming, but growing evidence suggests they might not always be climate saviours.

www.nature.com

Idea that forests are 'carbon sinks' no longer holds

bioenergy trade, bio-energy, sustainable development, biofuels, biodiesel, ethanol

global.mongabay.com

New research now shows that instead of carbon sinks, some forests emit more carbon than they store. Forests can do little to improve the future climate or to lower the atmosphere's carbon levels. What they can do is make global warming worse.

[snip]

Still, the net CO2 contribution of forests is far lower than that of simply burning fossil fuels, so planting new energy trees (either as part of a re- or afforestation effort) to use them as bioenergy feedstocks to be used instead of coal, gas or oil, remains a good strategy to tackle climate change:

[snip]

The team made 22,000 hours of intensive measurements of the soil, the surface of the ground, and all the way up through the 120-year-old forest past the canopy to open air. They learned carbon goes both ways. From late May through July, new growth made the spruce forest 'inhale' one to one and a half grams of carbon per square metre of forest per day. In August and September, the hottest, driest period, the rate of carbon dioxide movement fell to about zero.

But in the late summer and fall, the forest 'exhaled' carbon back into the atmosphere at a rate of a little less than one gram per square metre per day, as warmer soil allowed soil bacteria to digest organic matter and release carbon dioxide. This fell to a much lower rate through the winter

Overall, in three of the four years they measured, the forest was putting slightly more carbon into the air than it took out a bad thing, if we want forests to store this material. The fourth year, the balance tilted the other way: The forest sucked out and stored carbon but not a lot of it.

'Forests on average certainly exchange a lot of carbon with the atmosphere,' team leader Steve Wofsy of Harvard University said in an interview. 'So if you want to say: `Do they remove a lot of carbon from the atmosphere?' yeah, sure they do. Do they put back a lot? Sure, they do that, too.'

 

[Flash]

We've been hearing that from deniers since the 1970s.

Back in the 1970s you stupid Environmental Wackos were telling us that the doom would be an ice age. That is if over population didn't get us first.

This chart says we will probably get an ice age in the not too distant future.

 

[edthecynic]

WHERE IS YOUR proof? GEEZ you make a dumb ass comment like trees are carbon neutral! PROVE IT!!! Show me the proof that trees when they decay equal in one year the amount of absorption they do with CO2? I'm not saying this MY LINKS are telling us that TREES absorb at least
72.9 billion a year in CO2. I've given you the proof! NOW you give me the proof that all TREES decay in one year and in doing so give up all the carbon they absorbed! Prove it!

I gave you the link the first time you posted your LIE, you ignored it then and abandoned that thread rather than admit you were wrong, so why should I waste more of my time doing it again?
As you recall the link pointed out that the leaves combine CO2 and H2O to form a sugar and when the leaves fall, those same sugars decay and release the same CO2 and H2O back into the atmosphere, remember.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This chart says we will probably get an ice age in the not too distant future.

But it will be warmer, because of global warming.

Yes genius, as it turns out, the people who actually made that chart for us understand the chart.