Would love to see how the Global Warming idiots explain this one...

[TopGunna]

Infact it IS rising at an unatural level of almost half a degree per year.

Do you know the implications of even a half a degree per year rise in tempurature? Do you care?

Half a degree a year? You can't possibly be serious. Tell me you were having a brain fart when you wrote that.

 

[52ndStreet]

It was an undergraduate thesis and yes you are wrong. I have already done the type of research your speaking of and just to make sure I looked further into it last night and just as I suspected, it is not the number one concern for climate change

Global Warming: The Causes

scroll down above and you will once again see some real data on methane gas

"While carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas, methane is second most important"

While ofcourse it is a concern, I never said it was not......My point was that it was not the principal methane level that was the problem, that NATURALLY derived methane gas is not causing the concentrations to rise by 145% over the last 100 years. You were the one who said it was natural methane cycles that are out of whack naturally, I am the one who said you are wrong and that it was anthropogenic. You do realize that methane is also a byproduct of burning fossil fuels dont you?

"Methane is derived from sources such as rice paddies, bovine flatulence, bacteria in bogs and fossil fuel production" (according to US emissions inventory in 2004)

Trust me, I have seen first hand the data from concentrations of methane on the sea floor, obviously it is safe to assume that the rising levels of the concentrations of C02 and methane over the last 100 years is probably a byproduct of the same global event. While ofcourse we can not prove this, I think it is safe to assume this based on the mountains of evidence collected over the last 5 years and comparing that evidence to ice core data collected from the arctic. Clearly all the data shows that something very complex and very different from the events over the last million years is happening right now and began to happen only 100 years ago.


Look 52, I am not trying to say I am better than you or know more than you at all. I am just speaking about something I know a little bit about, that is all. There are millions of things I wish I knew more about like business economics or phsycology and social behavior or physics etc....How does looking at data make me an elitist?

It is not how you look at the data which gives off an attitude of a elistist, it
is your over attitude. I have looked at the CO2 data, that you provided.And
I have looked at historical comparisons. My findings indicate, that human input with regards to global warming, and CO2, just don't add up to humans
having any considerable effect, on the overall global temperature rise of the Earth.You have an attitude, that your theory, and your data is the only reason for "Earht cyclical climate change". And that you can never be wrong.
I think you need to look at more of the info I posted a bit closer.

 

[Old Rocks]

We have undeniable proof that the additional 39% of CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere in the last 150 years is from human activities. There was some discussion of links. Here are a few that discuss the history of man's knowledge on this subject in detail.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Methane catastrophe

Global Warming (The Warming of the Earth) - The Woods Hole Research Center

Climate change

 

[AllieBaba]

A perfect example of how people with a little bit of knowledge are dangerous. For how many years now have our children had this bullshit scare propaganda crammed into their brains at school instead of things that might really educate them ?
Save the world by giving Al Gore and the UN money ?

I love the film of the implied last polar bear on the earth swimming around with nowhere to land...and that it's all our fault.

Never mind that it's a well known fact that polar bears swim for MILES AND MILES AND MILES on the open ocean and always have. Hell, horses will swim between islands....is this a sign of the die-off of horses, and man's culpability?

It's all such a load of crap.

 

[AllieBaba]

We have undeniable proof that the additional 39% of CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere in the last 150 years is from human activities. There was some discussion of links. Here are a few that discuss the history of man's knowledge on this subject in detail.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Methane catastrophe

Global Warming (The Warming of the Earth) - The Woods Hole Research Center

Climate change

More crap.

I guess you missed the national geographic article where they said the theory was nice...but for some reason nobody could find these huge deposits of CO2 that humans were allegedly creating.

"killerinourmidst". I'm sure that's a nice, unbiased source. Nice reporting.

 

[Vintij]

Half a degree a year? You can't possibly be serious. Tell me you were having a brain fart when you wrote that.

Yes, half a degree a year or more in 25 years you moron. I am not saying we are rising half a degree a year right now. I am saying we are rising at an exponential rate .13 degrees per year which WILL be .50 degrees per year in less than 15 years.


Please show me where I said earths tempurature is rising half a degree a year.

If you read correctly like a normal literate human being, you would know that I asked a question. I did not make a statement. I asked "do you know the implications of even a half degree rise in tempurature a year?"

Stop taking my words out of context you pathetic piece of fecal matter. Why dont you add something to the conversation rather than divert attention to a statement taken out of context. Does that make you feel better?


I will tell you why, because you literally know NOTHING about climate change. And what you do know, is what you googled just today. So dont embarrass yourself again by coming to me with a false accusation of mis-interpretation.

 

[Vintij]

More crap.

I guess you missed the national geographic article where they said the theory was nice...but for some reason nobody could find these huge deposits of CO2 that humans were allegedly creating.

"killerinourmidst". I'm sure that's a nice, unbiased source. Nice reporting.

I still dont understand why people think they can be funny without saying anything of substance. It boggles my mind. You have literally added nothing to this conversation. At least 52 added a false link with false data, thats a start for non-science majors. You have nothing. All you have is "national geographic article" lol. Yea since national geographic is a research foundation right?


Infact, why are all these people adding things to the converstation that have nothing to do with climate change? All I see is false accusation. If 52 refuses to open his dense skull and read actuall data, that is not my problem.....but my problem is with people like you who just join the converstaion and refuse to admit they know absolutely nothing about the topic. It embarrassing.
When will you people give it up.

 

[Old Rocks]

More crap.

I guess you missed the national geographic article where they said the theory was nice...but for some reason nobody could find these huge deposits of CO2 that humans were allegedly creating.

"killerinourmidst". I'm sure that's a nice, unbiased source. Nice reporting.

What the hell are you talking about? The huge deposit of CO2 is in our atmosphere. A 39% increase in 150 years. The National Geographic articles are on the net, so instead of lying about something, post a referance.

If you would even bother to read a little of what the author of the book had to say, you might not have made fun of the title. Killer in Our Midst is a very well written book concerning what we know of prior extinctions caused by very rapid climate change. It was written by a post grad student who has since been awarded a Phd.

The cuckoo here is the person who remains willfully ignorant.

 

[Caligirl]

It's because of the recent rise in Somalian pirates.

 

[Chris]

Why do you hate pirates?

 

[Caligirl]

The evidence speaks for itself.

 

[52ndStreet]

We have undeniable proof that the additional 39% of CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere in the last 150 years is from human activities. There was some discussion of links. Here are a few that discuss the history of man's knowledge on this subject in detail.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Methane catastrophe

Global Warming (The Warming of the Earth) - The Woods Hole Research Center

Climate change

To vinjiti, read www.killerinourmidst.com/]methane catastrophe[/url
check this link out, and tell me if you still think my methane argument still
doesn't make any sense?.

 

[glockmail]

I have never had children.

Thank God for that.

 

[Old Rocks]

To vinjiti, read www.killerinourmidst.com/]methane catastrophe[/url
check this link out, and tell me if you still think my methane argument still
doesn't make any sense?.

52nd, the methane catastrophe that the book discusses is the result of outgassing of the clathrates, after initial warming from CH4 and CO2 from trap volcanics on the ocean floor. The yearly amount of CO2 that was added to the atmosphere in the leadup to the outgassing of the clathrates was less than we are adding right now, let alone what we will be adding in ten years if the increase keeps accelerating at the present rate.

Another point, the burning of fossil fuels adds over 130 times as much CO2 to the atmosphere all the volcanos in the world combined. That is a USGS figure.

The amount of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled in the last 150 years. Virtually all of this increase is the result of man's activities. But now the situation is changing. The warming that we have created is now melting the permafrost and releasing both CO2 and CH4 in vast amounts. Should this feedback begin to approach the amount that we are putting into the atmosphere, we will have created a feedback loop that we have no hope of controlling.

 

[glockmail]

52nd, the methane catastrophe that the book discusses is the result of outgassing of the clathrates, after initial warming from CH4 and CO2 from trap volcanics on the ocean floor. The yearly amount of CO2 that was added to the atmosphere in the leadup to the outgassing of the clathrates was less than we are adding right now, let alone what we will be adding in ten years if the increase keeps accelerating at the present rate.

Another point, the burning of fossil fuels adds over 130 times as much CO2 to the atmosphere all the volcanos in the world combined. That is a USGS figure.

The amount of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled in the last 150 years. Virtually all of this increase is the result of man's activities. But now the situation is changing. The warming that we have created is now melting the permafrost and releasing both CO2 and CH4 in vast amounts. Should this feedback begin to approach the amount that we are putting into the atmosphere, we will have created a feedback loop that we have no hope of controlling.

Looks like we best get started burning natural gas and building nukes then, right?

 

[editec]

Looks like we best get started burning natural gas and building nukes then, right?

Looks like.

 

[Caligirl]

Nukes preferred over natural gas.

 

[glockmail]

Nukes preferred over natural gas.

If we don't use it it leaks into the atmosphere anyway, and its 50 times worse as a greenhouse gas than the CO2 released if burned. In fact you can buy carbon credits from companies that build systems at old landfills to collect and burn the methane, and most of those systems are so small or off the power grid that they don't bother making electricity.

A little glock-fact for you that the liberals don't want you to know.

 

[Old Rocks]

If we don't use it it leaks into the atmosphere anyway, and its 50 times worse as a greenhouse gas than the CO2 released if burned. In fact you can buy carbon credits from companies that build systems at old landfills to collect and burn the methane, and most of those systems are so small or off the power grid that they don't bother making electricity.

A little glock-fact for you that the liberals don't want you to know.

No, it is only about 23 times as effective of a greenhouse gas as CO2. However, when CH4 oxidizes you end up with a CO2 and two H2O molecules, so you end up with a CO2 molecule for every CH4 molecule. The average time the CH4 remains in the atmosphere, at present levels of concentration, is about 10 to 15 years. For CO2, that is about 200 years. Every molecule of CH4 uses 4 Oxygen atoms. During the P-T extinction event, the atmospheric level of O2 dropped to 11%, equivelent to trying to breathe at 14,000 ft.

The shallow sources of CH4 that are capable of being used for energy are insignificant in the total global warming picture. In fact, it is the permafrost of the Arctic that is primary concern for rapid increase of both CO2 and CH4 in the coming decades. CH4 from sequestered sources will increase the amount of total CO2 in the atmosphere when it is burned. While we get more energy per ton of CH4 than for coal, we still end up with over two tons of CO2 for every ton of CH4 burned.

Much better not to use fossil fuels of any type.

 

[glockmail]

No, it is only about 23 times as effective of a greenhouse gas as CO2. ....
Much better not to use fossil fuels of any type.

Anyone who has sat by the edge of a pond know that gas bubbles up from the earth. That's methane. Better to burn it than let it go into the atmosphere wasted.

The true agenda for liberals is to eliminate much or most of the human population polluting this planet. Earth is their god.