The North Pole could melt this year

[Chris]

Do you realize how this article shows your weak support for man made global warming? I have showed you where, droughts haven't increased, a study done over the last 100 years. To point out individual cases is silly, of course there are droughts in the world but its not due to global warming. We have had droughts in the last 100 years but nothing you have shown is out of the ordinary for the last 100 years.

Do you realize you are lying about what the article said? Of course you do.

 

[Chris]

Lmao...does this come from one of those scientist benefiting from my tax dollars(grants)?

LMAO! You do realize that CO2 causes the earth to warm? You do realize that we have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere by one third in the last 200 years? You do realize that we are pumping 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year? We are warming the earth. The only question is, how much?

 

[editec]

I can get used to global warming, habitate destruction, famines, floods and hurricanes.

But this incessant bitching about whether or not mankind is responsible for it is as unbearable as it is pointless.

It's happening, so let's deal with that.

We're about ready to get off the carbon based energy economy anyway.

We need to find the quickest transition to sustainable energy sources we can, that don't destroy our economy at the same time. Some pain is unavoidable.

Surely this is something everyone can agree on who isn't on the payroll of the hydrocarbon cabal, yes?

 

[BrianH]

Oh yeah, we're really experiencing the worst drout conditions ever seen....

 

[sealybobo]

I hope your Exxon donor list, isn't coming from Greenpeace because Greenpeace isn't exactly a non partisan source. So until you start citing your post, you can't be taken seriously. I am sure that Greenpeace thinks that all anti-global warming studies are funded by Exxon.

Hey, didn't you say that Iraq wants the US to stay in Iraq?

Did you see today?

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

I'm sure Chaney is going to make them an offer they can't refuse, but stop acting like you know the truth. You are oblivious to the truth. On every issue. YOu use tainted sources. You call our sources tainted. You are gullable and call the media liberal when it so clearly has been taken over. What do you have to say to that stupid?

 

[Foxfyre]

LMAO! You do realize that CO2 causes the earth to warm? You do realize that we have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere by one third in the last 200 years? You do realize that we are pumping 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year? We are warming the earth. The only question is, how much?

Doesn't it embarrass you to write stuff like this? CO2 is maybe 1/3 higher now than it was 100 to 200 years ago, but any competent scientist or student of science knows that the vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is emitted by the oceans, vegetation, decaying matter in the soil, the soil itself, and seismic activity. It is blatantly FALSE to say that WE have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere by one third.

Further the present levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now are lower than they have been in some previous eras when the average Earth temperatures were lower and there have also been very warm periods on Earth when the concentration of CO2 was up to 20% more than now. Humankind wasn't driving too many SUVs then. Dinosaur farts maybe?

 

[Chris]

Doesn't it embarrass you to write stuff like this? CO2 is maybe 1/3 higher now than it was 100 to 200 years ago, but any competent scientist or student of science knows that the vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is emitted by the oceans, vegetation, decaying matter in the soil, the soil itself, and seismic activity. It is blatantly FALSE to say that WE have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere by one third.

Further the present levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now are lower than they have been in some previous eras when the average Earth temperatures were lower and there have also been very warm periods on Earth when the concentration of CO2 was up to 20% more than now. Humankind wasn't driving too many SUVs then. Dinosaur farts maybe?

CO2 in the atmosphere at the highest level ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years. What in nature caused the increase? I am sure it had nothing to do with the 8 billion metric tons of CO2 we are pumping into the air each year.

And keep in mind the level of CO2 is still rising and will probably double in this century.

 

[sealybobo]

I can get used to global warming, habitate destruction, famines, floods and hurricanes.

But this incessant bitching about whether or not mankind is responsible for it is as unbearable as it is pointless.

It's happening, so let's deal with that.

We're about ready to get off the carbon based energy economy anyway.

We need to find the quickest transition to sustainable energy sources we can, that don't destroy our economy at the same time. Some pain is unavoidable.

Surely this is something everyone can agree on who isn't on the payroll of the hydrocarbon cabal, yes?

HOW CAN THEY ARGUE WITH THAT?

 

[Foxfyre]

Kirk, I have only one.....okay two words for your point of view. CHICKEN LITTLE. But according to some modern endings of the tale, C.L. accepted that he was wrong so that his foolishness did not lead him into a perilous predicament. I suspect, however, that you would stubbornly defend your initial thoughts even when Foxy Loxy is basting you for dinner.

 

[Chris]

Kirk, I have only one.....okay two words for your point of view. CHICKEN LITTLE. But according to some modern endings of the tale, C.L. accepted that he was wrong so that his foolishness did not lead him into a perilous predicament. I suspect, however, that you would stubbornly defend your initial thoughts even when Foxy Loxy is basting you for dinner.

Insults are not convincing arguments.

One thing is certain. We are going to pump billions and billions of tons more CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 20 years, and this will warm the earth. That is indisputable. The only question is, how much?

 

[Foxfyre]

Insults are not convincing arguments.

One thing is certain. We are going to pump billions and billions of tons more CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 20 years, and this will warm the earth. That is indisputable. The only question is, how much?

Well I suppose comparing your tenacity to believe erroneous information to that demonstrated by Chicken Little does approximate an insult. It was intended more as an illustration than an insult, but I do apologize if you took it as an insult.

But as you summarily dismiss any documented information provided to you by others while continuing to parrot the environmental religionist doctrine is tedious and quickly becomes boring. I probably will not continue in this discussion with you.

 

[AllieBaba]

Insults are not convincing arguments.

One thing is certain. We are going to pump billions and billions of tons more CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 20 years, and this will warm the earth. That is indisputable. The only question is, how much?

It is disputable, as nobody has actually proved that the earth has warmed any because of man.

 

[sealybobo]

what are reputation comments? i'm new so I don't know.

 

[jreeves]

Hey, didn't you say that Iraq wants the US to stay in Iraq?

Did you see today?

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

I'm sure Chaney is going to make them an offer they can't refuse, but stop acting like you know the truth. You are oblivious to the truth. On every issue. YOu use tainted sources. You call our sources tainted. You are gullable and call the media liberal when it so clearly has been taken over. What do you have to say to that stupid?

Umm....this is about the north pole melting and your post is about Iraq. Hmm...it doesn't take a genius to figure out who is lacking upstairs.

 

[jreeves]

LMAO! You do realize that CO2 causes the earth to warm? You do realize that we have increased the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere by one third in the last 200 years? You do realize that we are pumping 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year? We are warming the earth. The only question is, how much?

Can you show me a reputable scientist who claims that the 1/3 increase is due to carbon emmissions? No, so therefore your claim is moot.

 

[AllieBaba]

what are reputation comments? i'm new so I don't know.

Find a post you do or don't like and click on the scales at the top. A box will come up giving you the opportunity to give rep points or take rep points.

It's like Drew Carey's comedy show Whose Line Is It Anyway......you get points but they mean nothing.

 

[jreeves]

Do you realize you are lying about what the article said? Of course you do.

Oh sorry I did get it wrong CA's wildfires aren't extraordinary compared to the last 500 years, not the last 100 years.....sorry my bad

Moreover, charcoal
records from Santa Barbara Channel sediments
indicate the frequency of wildfires in the
region has not changed significantly in the
last 500 years [Mensing et al.,1999].

http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/~westerling/pdffiles/04EOS_Westerling.pdf

 

[Chris]

Oh sorry I did get it wrong CA's wildfires aren't extraordinary compared to the last 500 years, not the last 100 years.....sorry my bad

Moreover, charcoal
records from Santa Barbara Channel sediments
indicate the frequency of wildfires in the
region has not changed significantly in the
last 500 years [Mensing et al.,1999].

http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/~westerling/pdffiles/04EOS_Westerling.pdf

The wildfire season has changed significantly in the last 20 years. That's the point. Please read this article again.

Global Warming Fuels U.S. Forest Fires | LiveScience

 

[Chris]

Can you show me a reputable scientist who claims that the 1/3 increase is due to carbon emmissions? No, so therefore your claim is moot.

You have to be joking on this one. Have you ever heard of NOAA? Here's a quote from their website...

"Global combustion of fossil fuels and other materials places almost 7 billion tons of carbon, in the form of CO2, into the atmosphere each year. On average, Earth's oceans, trees, plants and soils absorb about one-half of this carbon. The balance remains in the air and is responsible for the annual increase.

Most of the variability in the year-to-year CO2 uptake is related to natural processes, including droughts and fires as well as such factors as global temperatures, rainfall amounts and volcanic eruptions.

Understanding these processes is key to forecasting annual CO2 increases, thus providing important information for future CO2 management. NOAA's Carbon Cycle Research Program, which includes surface-, ocean- and space-based measurements of CO2 and other important atmospheric gases, is aimed at developing a comprehensive picture of how CO2 is stored and released. The carbon-cycle studies are a part of NOAA's Climate Program, an integral part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

"Reducing scientific uncertainties of carbon sources and sinks is a priority for the Climate Change Science Program, as carbon dioxide is the single largest forcing agent of climate change," said James R. Mahoney, NOAA deputy administrator and CCSP director.

NOAA scientists have been tracking CO2 levels around the world for more than 25 years. The oldest record comes from the Mauna Loa Observatory, which is located atop a Hawaiian volcano. There, Charles Keeling began CO2 measurements in 1958. Following NOAA's formation in 1970, measurements continued at Mauna Loa and began at other places around the world. There are now more than 60 monitoring sites worldwide.

Mahoney adds, "The measurement capabilities established at NOAA's Mauna Loa and other sites around the world demonstrates the importance of observational networks as a contribution to understanding the complexities of the carbon cycle."

Each year since global measurements of CO2 began, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.

Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent."

 

[jreeves]

You have to be joking on this one. Have you ever heard of NOAA? Here's a quote from their website...

"Global combustion of fossil fuels and other materials places almost 7 billion tons of carbon, in the form of CO2, into the atmosphere each year. On average, Earth's oceans, trees, plants and soils absorb about one-half of this carbon. The balance remains in the air and is responsible for the annual increase.

Most of the variability in the year-to-year CO2 uptake is related to natural processes, including droughts and fires as well as such factors as global temperatures, rainfall amounts and volcanic eruptions.

Understanding these processes is key to forecasting annual CO2 increases, thus providing important information for future CO2 management. NOAA's Carbon Cycle Research Program, which includes surface-, ocean- and space-based measurements of CO2 and other important atmospheric gases, is aimed at developing a comprehensive picture of how CO2 is stored and released. The carbon-cycle studies are a part of NOAA's Climate Program, an integral part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

"Reducing scientific uncertainties of carbon sources and sinks is a priority for the Climate Change Science Program, as carbon dioxide is the single largest forcing agent of climate change," said James R. Mahoney, NOAA deputy administrator and CCSP director.

NOAA scientists have been tracking CO2 levels around the world for more than 25 years. The oldest record comes from the Mauna Loa Observatory, which is located atop a Hawaiian volcano. There, Charles Keeling began CO2 measurements in 1958. Following NOAA's formation in 1970, measurements continued at Mauna Loa and began at other places around the world. There are now more than 60 monitoring sites worldwide.

Mahoney adds, "The measurement capabilities established at NOAA's Mauna Loa and other sites around the world demonstrates the importance of observational networks as a contribution to understanding the complexities of the carbon cycle."

Each year since global measurements of CO2 began, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.

Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent."

Got a link?