AGW-deniers argue that global warming has stalled, because the hottest year on record may or not be 1998. But that ignores the fact that most of the 10 hottest years on record, were during the last decade. Knowing this, how can anyone argue that AGW has stalled? if the average temperature for the 2000s was still hotter than the average temperature for the 1990s, than the Earth is still warming. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
simple enough to comprehend for someone with average cognitive ability and high school level science...but there are many in denier world who struggle with basic grade school science and reading comprehension...
Some Problems with GW Theory are: 1) It is still cooler now than the "Little Warm Up" period of some 1000 years ago. 2) And now I have to wonder about the lies of higher CO2 will cause Ocean acidification killing off the oysters and the clams, etc. http://news.yahoo.com/dinosaur-era-had-5-times-todays-co2-212124284.html?bcmt=comments-postbox It seems, "they" are saying CO2 levels were 5 times higher in the dinosaur era. Yet oysters, clams, etc. survived it. See the lie mentioned above ? 3) A natural Earth weather cycle. Yes, I believe in the man made ozone depletion problem, man made global effects is not impossible. I just don't believe the current "global warming" is man made as opposed to a natural cycle. Similar to any other Liberal Cause. If one disagrees with Man Made GW Theory, well you know, , , you may as well be Kobe refusing a Hoodie group pic. Moi If YOU believe in GW, Support Moi's National Fresh Water Management Program with Reservoirs, Aqueducts, Run Off capture, and able to deliver water in Bread Basket production quantities to drought areas. No
But what did you think of "An Inconvenient Truth?" I personally thought that Mr. Gore did do an excellent job of linking global atmospheric temperatures with CO2 levels! I disagree with him though on the best opening gambit to attempt to stabilize climate. In my opinion a New Mexico biologist has a more practical approach that could even be packaged properly and marketed to conservatives! "So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breathe, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere.. ." "Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes...." "Just take a look at any satellite picture of the earth showing heat and you will see that our deserts are the warmest spots on the planet by far. More heat is being generated by just one of the top four or five deserts than by all of our cities combined.... " "The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave ." "So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive ." "Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds " "We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell)." After all... this point by Bjorn Lomborg Ph. D. sure does sound logical: "Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years." (lomborg.com/coolit/)
No it's not. And I have to wonder who said that. In what peer-reviewed paper. Because yes, higher CO2 does cause ocean acidification, and yes, that will make it harder for calciferous species to form shells. But "killing off"? Citation, please. Is this a natural cycle? Is this a natural cycle? Is this a natural cycle?
Numero Uno from above YES it is cooler today that it was during the "little warm up". Evidence: Pasture animals cannot be raised in Greenland today, without electricity and other modern stuff. It is NOT too hot in France to make good wine. Such things happened in the Little Warm Up and records were made by literate folks. So, the problem with GW Theorists is a refusal to acknowledge history and any stuff that is counter to a science with advocacy that can only be matched by a pharmaceutical company scientist making evidence "it" is save and effective. A recent article states the CO2 levels in dinosaur times was five times higher than today. Wow ! How did the shellfish survive that era? YOUR science says five times the CO2 levels of today would cause sufficient ocean acidification to. Yet we have clams, oysters, etc. I guess it is best to ignore the CO2 levels in the dinosaur era because it doesn't fit. Si? As to the graphs, Drug Company Science ! Someone paid enough to acquire data that fits a theory. It happens. Moi Choose Historical Records Over Theory No They are so dogmatic.
Not True ! Such was said before the Little Warm Up was acknowledged. The earliest Vikings settlers on Greenland got 80% of their dietary protein from land animal sources. That was home grown/pastured land animals. Isotopes of Nitrogen are different in marine protein and land protein. The determination of their diets came from studies of Viking Graveyard sources in Greenland. At this time France was too hot to produce good wine. This is written in records of the time. Try a SEARCH! Little Warm Up. Moi No
and by the end of the viking occupation of Greenland their diet was 80% marine, the exact cause of their settlement's failure isn't known... heat isn't an issue, grapes were grown in the middle east by Phoenicians and by their Carthaginians relatives in north Africa... grapes are commonly grown in parts of Canada that are hot arid regions in summer and very cold in winter...viticulture as evidence for or against climate change issue is bogus...it tolerates summer heat and winter cold, it's primary requirement is lots of sunshine...
You've no doubt heard of a barn?...vikings even before they had stand alone barns lived in the same building as their livestock during cold weather...this was common practice in Europe, my grandfathers home was attached to the barn only 50 yrs ago... vikings recorded very little of their routine daily lives
I see. And you have evidence that Greenland = the world? And you have evidence that it was in 900 AD? Citation, please. So far, I haven't seen any history. All I've seen are illogical constructs and bare assertions unsupported by evidence. To what? Don't you actually know what science says? If that's the case, you have no standing to criticize it. On the contrary, it fits perfectly: CO2 was five times higher then. And it was a lot hotter then. If you have actual evidence that any data in any of those graphs is fake or fraudulent, present it. If you don't, you're being dishonest.
References Medieval Climatic Anomaly, Medieval Climate Optimum, Medieval Warm Period https://www.google.com/#q=Medieval+Warm+Period+%28Med ieval+Climate+Optimum%29 Study up and get back to me. Hey, If CO2 levels rising causes increasing ocean acidity killing off shell fish life; how did shell fish life survive the dinosaur era which had 5 times today's CO2 levels? Further Ref: And, History Channel, "Little Ice Age, Big Chill". The beginning discusses the warm up before the cool down. Evidence we should respect we live in one of those brief interglacial periods and we should really prepare for the next glaciation. It is easier to aqueduct water to drought food production areas than manage them in a glacial age. Food production would collapse with the cold. [video]http://www.veoh.com/watch/v158890018kQaxQaK?h1=Little+Ic e+Age%2C+Big+Chill[/video] Moi No
and who claimed that they all went extinct? ....and how do you know many shellfish didnt go extinct?...you're making leaps of logic based on nothing...
It hasn't stalled in my part of the country. We didn't have a winter, it was dry as a bone, and we already have temps in the 90s. Things started growing in early February that usually don't grow until mid-April.
it's colder today than it was yesterday and I saw a snowflake outside my window this morning, it's all a hoax I tell ya! ...
That was a regional, not a global, phenomenon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period The effects of ocean acidification on some species of shellfish are real and already being observed: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/northwest_oyster_die-offs_show_ocean_acidification_has_arrived/2466/ The problem is less overall acidification levels, than it is the rapidity with which it is happening. The shellfish do not have time to adapt to the new environment. Here's a great article that goes into detail on precisely this topic: http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/shell-shocked-how-different-creatures-deal-acidifying-ocean Key points: In the past high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were accompanied by an offsetting rise in alkalinity in seawater, cushioning the impact. That's not happening today. On the other hand, as might be expected, the response to increased acidification varies widely between species. Mollusks in general get screwed, but crustaceans like lobster and shrimp do okay. The adaptation comes at a metabolic cost, of course; but these species clearly evolved ways to deal with past episodes of acidification that will come in handy in the future. That said, one of the biggest marine extinctions on record -- the Permian-Triassic extinction that hit 251 million years ago -- is thought to be largely due to ocean acidification. Multiple extinctions in the high-C02 Jurassic also have significant ocean-acidification components. C02 is not the sole driver of ocean acidity, which is why previous high-CO2 eras were not always accompanied by high levels of ocean acidity. Bully for you. Of course, 99%+ of people who actually study climate disagree with you. There is no serious scientific disagreement that humans are contributing to global warming.
Sure Humans contribute to global warming, we radiate 98.6F ! More humans, more heat radiators, etc. It sure was nice of that oceanic alkalinity to offset the problems of higher CO2 levels. Can we trust it won't happen again. What of urbanization creating islands of heat? What are you gonna do about it? Now it's happening in the interior for tar sands. GW theory is just too hung up on dogmatism. There is a gross failure to explain it within the framework of geological time and events. Remember, Scientist and their publications are mostly academic whores in today's science world. Yes they are! Moi History shows it is cooler today than in the "Medieval Warm Up", Remember what followed it the warm up. View attachment 26524
This is your "citation"? To a Google search results page? Climate denier FAIL. You have NOT cited one scrap of evidence that Greenland is the entire world. You have NOT cited one scrap of evidence that the MWP was so hot there were no grapes in France. Your entire previous post is nothing but falsehoods from beginning to end. FAIL.
You can't find an adequate reference amongst a plethora? Whose the failure. I have studied this period of history paying attention to the warm up's effects. Have you. It is folks such as, , , that makes science so "faith" based and as intolerant as a Liberal to other ideas. Moi I study HIStory, not HERstory. No
Hey, buddy. YOU made the claim, so it's up to YOU to back it up. Which you can't. Which means you're just flat-out wrong. Denier FAIL. YOUR failure. You said stuff which is just plain not true. And now you can't provide a shred of evidence to support it. If you had actually studied it, you could have provided a citation to back up your false statements. The fact that you are unable to provide such a citation indicates that you haven't studied anything except denier websites.
Personal study is hard to give a citation. I offered materials & even a video upload above. Study the period of history that transitioned the Dark Ages to the Medieval Period. There was a big change in peoples' lives and organization. Gee, could they have been influenced by the Medieval Climate Optimum? Probably. Citation needed. Here is a link to History Channel's "Little Ice Age, Big Chill". The Medieval Warm Period is covered at the beginning. [video]http://www.veoh.com/watch/v158890018kQaxQaK?h1=Little+Ic e+Age%2C+Big+Chill[/video] Moi Just because someone published it don't make it true. Just because someone connected dots of history, don't make it untrue. What prompted the transition from the Dark Ages to the Medieval Period? Hint: Climate warming No
I guess that means you think you read it somewhere, at some time, but haven't the vaguest idea of where or when. Or who wrote it, on what authority. Or what they actually said, or didn't say. In other words, you've still got bupkus. FAIL. You have posted exactly two links on this thread, and one of them was to a Google search results page. Neither link supports your statement about France and grapes. FAIL. And when the "climate optimum" was over and it got cold again, we had the Renaissance. Brilliant theory you've got there. Did you just make that one up, or do you have a citation? Since MWP ended in about 1100 and the Dark Ages ended about 1300, you're about 200 years off. FAIL.
The Dark Ages, Early Middle Ages, lasted from the 5th century to the 10th century. Take a course. Try some personal study. Consider, Renaissance people had a jump in technology and adapted. Although villages that got swallowed up by an advancing glacier did just that, or crop failures due to failure to adapt to climate. And these things, like food availability, effected history. I am finished and YOU may have the last word. I sincerely hope you try a bit of study with a thought beyond one, single, discipline. Like history + global weather. And think a thought of your very, very own. Or simply to get your dates correct if your gonna go atomic on Moi. Moi No
