NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...

[Redfish]

We could easily wipe out some of the main agricultural production areas on Earth and the bad shit is just getting started. With the world's population increasing as it has, it isn't far fetched that events in the near future could create a famine that would kill off a billion people. It's going to take time to flood out major cities along the coasts, but the odds of escaping a major food catastrophe before then are slim to none. If you think America is immune, you're full of shit. Our breadbasket is one of the most vulnerable.

You're going to be too business paying the price for extreme weather events to put enough away enough to pay for a new capital and the largest naval base in the world. When you see Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover in June staying at the 6 million square kilometer range or increasing and notice those every 150 year thaws to Greenland are happening more often, you might have noticed the arctic sea ice is ice free during it's summer melt. That isn't going to happen in the distant future, so get used to it happening in your lifetime.

Predictions of doom are not realizations of doom. You people come up with your own prophecies and cling to them more than any zealot of any religion I've ever seen. Idiots / zealots like you have been spouting the same drivel for decades now. None of it has come true. And now even your chief prophet and oracle James Hansen has been forced to admit that the world hasn't warmed for at least ten years. And yet CO2 has been increasing that entire time.

Your silly religion is based on phony computer models that people like you have been treating like ancient Greek oracles.

You had arctic sea ice breaking every record last year, record snow cover minimum in June and 97% of Greenland melting. We've had a persistent drought in the plains and it's currently throughout Texas and the southern Rockies. If things don't change soon another year of poor harvests will happen.

US Drought Monitor

It isn't a prediction when it's happening. We could have another dust bowl in the making and how would you know?

and the dust bowl of the 1930s was caused by?-------------------------soccer moms in SUVs and chinese coal fired power plants----------oh wait -------------

 

[SinJinsg]

We could easily wipe out some of the main agricultural production areas on Earth and the bad shit is just getting started. With the world's population increasing as it has, it isn't far fetched that events in the near future could create a famine that would kill off a billion people. It's going to take time to flood out major cities along the coasts, but the odds of escaping a major food catastrophe before then are slim to none. If you think America is immune, you're full of shit. Our breadbasket is one of the most vulnerable.

You're going to be too business paying the price for extreme weather events to put enough away enough to pay for a new capital and the largest naval base in the world. When you see Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover in June staying at the 6 million square kilometer range or increasing and notice those every 150 year thaws to Greenland are happening more often, you might have noticed the arctic sea ice is ice free during it's summer melt. That isn't going to happen in the distant future, so get used to it happening in your lifetime.

Predictions of doom are not realizations of doom. You people come up with your own prophecies and cling to them more than any zealot of any religion I've ever seen. Idiots / zealots like you have been spouting the same drivel for decades now. None of it has come true. And now even your chief prophet and oracle James Hansen has been forced to admit that the world hasn't warmed for at least ten years. And yet CO2 has been increasing that entire time.

Your silly religion is based on phony computer models that people like you have been treating like ancient Greek oracles.

You had arctic sea ice breaking every record last year, record snow cover minimum in June and 97% of Greenland melting. We've had a persistent drought in the plains and it's currently throughout Texas and the southern Rockies. If things don't change soon another year of poor harvests will happen.

US Drought Monitor

It isn't a prediction when it's happening. We could have another dust bowl in the making and how would you know?

I've lived in the Midwest for most of my life. Droughts are nothing new. In fact, I understand there is even some evidence of droughts stretching all the way back at least a few thousand years. Who knows, they may have even been happening before that!

 

[Redfish]

Redfish -

I do agree with some of your points here, and certainly there are large areas of uncertainty remaining in this debate - although it has to be said that man's ability to impact the atmopshere is not one of them.



The thing you have to realise is that this really is no longer true. Of the major most significant international scientifi organisations - not one rejects the idea that human acitivity influences the climate. Fifty of fifty have stated that human acitivity is a factor.

Now granted there are still some scientists out there with opposing views and good on them for sticking to their guns, but this is not a 50/50 situation - it is a 99/1 situation.

That doesn't make the 1% wrong, but it does mean you are a very small minority.

and how many of those AGW believers have a political agenda? Do you consider Al Gore an unbiased source of information?

you ignore the real motives of many of the AGW promoters, its called MONEY. There is money in AGW.

There's a lot more money in trying to debunk it. Who do you think is funding the deniers?

why exactly would oil companies want the earth to be destroyed? what would be in it for them if the AGW guys are right? Remember, oil companies are composed of human beings that need oxygen, food, and water to survive.

But I guess your left wing ideology claims that they are just evil and want to be the only ones in heaven or hell with money, Do you have any idea how foolish you sound?

 

[boedicca]

We should hope we can keep the warming going. Given that for much of its history, the Earth has been a giant Snow Ball In Space, the odds of another Ice Age are much higher than is a warming episode which causes the oceans to boil away.

In the new research, scheduled for publication on Friday in the journal Science, Shaun Marcott, an earth scientist at Oregon State University, and his colleagues compiled the most meticulous reconstruction yet of global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, virtually the entire Holocene. They used indicators like the distribution of microscopic, temperature-sensitive ocean creatures to determine past climate.

Like previous such efforts, the method gives only an approximation. Michael E. Mann, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University who is an expert in the relevant techniques but was not involved in the new research, said the authors had made conservative data choices in their analysis.

“It’s another important achievement and significant result as we continue to refine our knowledge and understanding of climate change,” Dr. Mann said.

Though the paper is the most complete reconstruction of global temperature, it is roughly consistent with previous work on a regional scale. It suggests that changes in the amount and distribution of incoming sunlight, caused by wobbles in the earth’s orbit, contributed to a sharp temperature rise in the early Holocene.

The climate then stabilized at relatively warm temperatures about 10,000 years ago, hitting a plateau that lasted for roughly 5,000 years, the paper shows. After that, shifts of incoming sunshine prompted a long, slow cooling trend.

The cooling was interrupted, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, by a fairly brief spike during the Middle Ages, known as the Medieval Warm Period. (It was then that the Vikings settled Greenland, dying out there when the climate cooled again.)

Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age,” Dr. Marcott said.

Instead, scientists believe the enormous increase in greenhouse gases caused by industrialization will almost certainly prevent that...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/s...s-highest-in-4000-years-study-says.html?_r=1&

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

March 7, 2013

Global Temperatures
Highest In 4,000 Years​

"Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years, scientists reported Thursday, and over the coming decades are likely to surpass levels not seen on the planet since before the last ice age.

Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age,” Dr. Marcott said.

Instead, scientists believe the enormous increase in greenhouse gases caused by industrialization will almost certainly prevent that.

The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike. If the rise continues apace, early Holocene temperatures are likely to be surpassed within this century, Dr. Marcott said.

Dr. Mann pointed out that the early Holocene temperature increase was almost certainly slow, giving plants and creatures time to adjust.

Is that why we can still find weather forecasters stating how we are setting new recorded high temperatures recorded back as far as the very early 1900s? Behind these claims of global warming, are special interest groups looking to capitalize by pushing for government regulations on others in order to generate a profit.

 

[Dubya]

Predictions of doom are not realizations of doom. You people come up with your own prophecies and cling to them more than any zealot of any religion I've ever seen. Idiots / zealots like you have been spouting the same drivel for decades now. None of it has come true. And now even your chief prophet and oracle James Hansen has been forced to admit that the world hasn't warmed for at least ten years. And yet CO2 has been increasing that entire time.

Your silly religion is based on phony computer models that people like you have been treating like ancient Greek oracles.

You had arctic sea ice breaking every record last year, record snow cover minimum in June and 97% of Greenland melting. We've had a persistent drought in the plains and it's currently throughout Texas and the southern Rockies. If things don't change soon another year of poor harvests will happen.

US Drought Monitor

It isn't a prediction when it's happening. We could have another dust bowl in the making and how would you know?

and the dust bowl of the 1930s was caused by?-------------------------soccer moms in SUVs and chinese coal fired power plants----------oh wait -------------

What happened to the old growth forests that once covered North America and Europe? What happened to all those forests that once covered China and Southeast Asia before rice was planted? If you don't think mankind has been changing the face of the Earth for thousands of years, you're stupid!

If the chances for something happening are one in a hundred, what makes you think those odds can't be changed? What do you think the odds are right now of having another one of those one in a hundred and fifty year melts in Greenland in the next three years? Hint: it isn't one in fifty!

If that drought continues for the next year in the Great Plains, let's see how many of those Republican farmers still believe your bullshit that global warming isn't causing exceptional weather! I've already predicted the only way to get rid of stupid is to hit it in it's wallet.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I don't believe in man made global warming.

Period. And al gore selling his tv station to al jazeera cemented my opinion even more.

One has nothing to do with the other. He's just reporting the science, perhaps more forcefully than others, but the facts are undeniable considering the properties of CO2 and the other GHGs. All the deniers have is politics, because they really don't have an answer to or really understand the science. You can argue all day about how much the temperature has actually gone up, but none of that changes the fact that, if there are more GHGs in the atmosphere, more IR will be trapped. It's simple logic that the deniers choose to ignore, preferring to stick their heads in the sand and make fun of Gore.

Yes I'm quite familiar of history and the media's claims over these sudden weather changes.

 

[SinJinsg]

You had arctic sea ice breaking every record last year, record snow cover minimum in June and 97% of Greenland melting. We've had a persistent drought in the plains and it's currently throughout Texas and the southern Rockies. If things don't change soon another year of poor harvests will happen.

US Drought Monitor

It isn't a prediction when it's happening. We could have another dust bowl in the making and how would you know?

and the dust bowl of the 1930s was caused by?-------------------------soccer moms in SUVs and chinese coal fired power plants----------oh wait -------------

What happened to the old growth forests that once covered North America and Europe? What happened to all those forests that once covered China and Southeast Asia before rice was planted? If you don't think mankind has been changing the face of the Earth for thousands of years, you're stupid!

If the chances for something happening are one in a hundred, what makes you think those odds can't be changed? What do you think the odds are right now of having another one of those one in a hundred and fifty year melts in Greenland in the next three years? Hint: it isn't one in fifty!

If that drought continues for the next year in the Great Plains, let's see how many of those Republican farmers still believe your bullshit that global warming isn't causing exceptional weather! I've already predicted the only way to get rid of stupid is to hit it in it's wallet.

So you think that man warmed the Earth by cutting down trees and setting them on fire? Man caused global warming because of CAMP FIRES!? HAHA!!

And I hate to break it to you dude, but the globe stopped warming ten years ago. Even Hansen has admitted it now. You need to find some new material.

 

[konradv]

and how many of those AGW believers have a political agenda? Do you consider Al Gore an unbiased source of information?

you ignore the real motives of many of the AGW promoters, its called MONEY. There is money in AGW.

There's a lot more money in trying to debunk it. Who do you think is funding the deniers?

why exactly would oil companies want the earth to be destroyed? what would be in it for them if the AGW guys are right? Remember, oil companies are composed of human beings that need oxygen, food, and water to survive.

But I guess your left wing ideology claims that they are just evil and want to be the only ones in heaven or hell with money, Do you have any idea how foolish you sound?

Foolish enough to get you to say who's funding the deniers. I never mentioned who. You and Pat, another denier who claims that the deniers aren't being funded, need to get on the same page.

 

[konradv]

and the dust bowl of the 1930s was caused by?-------------------------soccer moms in SUVs and chinese coal fired power plants----------oh wait -------------

What happened to the old growth forests that once covered North America and Europe? What happened to all those forests that once covered China and Southeast Asia before rice was planted? If you don't think mankind has been changing the face of the Earth for thousands of years, you're stupid!

If the chances for something happening are one in a hundred, what makes you think those odds can't be changed? What do you think the odds are right now of having another one of those one in a hundred and fifty year melts in Greenland in the next three years? Hint: it isn't one in fifty!

If that drought continues for the next year in the Great Plains, let's see how many of those Republican farmers still believe your bullshit that global warming isn't causing exceptional weather! I've already predicted the only way to get rid of stupid is to hit it in it's wallet.

So you think that man warmed the Earth by cutting down trees and setting them on fire? Man caused global warming because of CAMP FIRES!? HAHA!!

And I hate to break it to you dude, but the globe stopped warming ten years ago. Even Hansen has admitted it now. You need to find some new material.

Burning trees may not have contributed as much to CO2 as fossil fuels, but cutting down forests does remove a large portion of the carbon sink that keeps temps in balance. You lose!

Once again, you're ignoring natural cycles when it suits you. If temps were going up, you'd undoubtedly be screaming about them, hypocrite!

 

[Dubya]

and the dust bowl of the 1930s was caused by?-------------------------soccer moms in SUVs and chinese coal fired power plants----------oh wait -------------

What happened to the old growth forests that once covered North America and Europe? What happened to all those forests that once covered China and Southeast Asia before rice was planted? If you don't think mankind has been changing the face of the Earth for thousands of years, you're stupid!

If the chances for something happening are one in a hundred, what makes you think those odds can't be changed? What do you think the odds are right now of having another one of those one in a hundred and fifty year melts in Greenland in the next three years? Hint: it isn't one in fifty!

If that drought continues for the next year in the Great Plains, let's see how many of those Republican farmers still believe your bullshit that global warming isn't causing exceptional weather! I've already predicted the only way to get rid of stupid is to hit it in it's wallet.

So you think that man warmed the Earth by cutting down trees and setting them on fire? Man caused global warming because of CAMP FIRES!? HAHA!!

And I hate to break it to you dude, but the globe stopped warming ten years ago. Even Hansen has admitted it now. You need to find some new material.

Do you know anything about this subject? If you change the surface of the Earth from a forested area to an area without forests, it changes the way the Earth handles sunlight, especially in winter. Only about a quarter of the carbon is in the wood harvested from a forest. Some of that wood may last in items for awhile, but try finding some of that wood that was all over Europe when Julius Caesar was there!

As we warm areas that presently are tundra, that area can become forested taiga, which doesn't reflect sunlight the way a flat snow covered area reflects it. Snow cover in a forest is different than snow cover on open land. There are so many positive feedback to current warming that you would think anyone with a brain would believe that warming should continue. How can you lose an area of Northern Hemisphere snow cover three times the size of Greenland in June and it not cause warming? Compare the difference between the sunlight reflected off of sea ice and the sunlight absorbed by open ocean! It's like night and day. The wind blowing across sea ice blows like it does across land, but remove that sea ice and the ocean moves in giant waves with the wind. That wind will mix up the relatively salt free surface of the Arctic ocean with the saltier water below and once the surface is salty, it will be harder to freeze.

Since the Earth has so much water, the effects of warming are dampened as the water warms, but eventually the surface temperatures of the air have to warm. Eventually, the heat used to melt ice can do other things when there is no ice to melt. It takes a lot of heat to change the phase of water compared to the amount of heat needed to raise it's temperature.

 

[SinJinsg]

What happened to the old growth forests that once covered North America and Europe? What happened to all those forests that once covered China and Southeast Asia before rice was planted? If you don't think mankind has been changing the face of the Earth for thousands of years, you're stupid!

If the chances for something happening are one in a hundred, what makes you think those odds can't be changed? What do you think the odds are right now of having another one of those one in a hundred and fifty year melts in Greenland in the next three years? Hint: it isn't one in fifty!

If that drought continues for the next year in the Great Plains, let's see how many of those Republican farmers still believe your bullshit that global warming isn't causing exceptional weather! I've already predicted the only way to get rid of stupid is to hit it in it's wallet.

So you think that man warmed the Earth by cutting down trees and setting them on fire? Man caused global warming because of CAMP FIRES!? HAHA!!

And I hate to break it to you dude, but the globe stopped warming ten years ago. Even Hansen has admitted it now. You need to find some new material.

Burning trees may not have contributed as much to CO2 as fossil fuels, but cutting down forests does remove a large portion of the carbon sink that keeps temps in balance. You lose!

Once again, you're ignoring natural cycles when it suits you. If temps were going up, you'd undoubtedly be screaming about them, hypocrite!

No, guy, you lose. You lose any hope of even a shred of credibility. There is NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE anywhere who claims that man had even one iota of impact on the global temperatures before about the 1940's. Most of the CO2 sequestration happens in the ocean - and the amount of trees that were "lost" wouldn't come close to making any kind of a significant impact.

And do I see right? Do I see a global warming alarmist raging on about natural cycles? Really? How convenient. Here's a clue dude: It's all natural.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

This is not about fear. It is about science.

The following link provides a response to every single claim made by those who deny the science. Not to scare you. Just asking you to use your fucking head.

Please spend a few minutes looking over the site.

Thanks.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

Science or opportunity? Should we make better choices and be more concerned about what we do that effects our environment? Individually yes. However this "panic" that's being interjected here is more about establishing a trend in order to create an opportunity. There's a lot of money behind efforts to create policies and regulations to move people towards solar, wind power, battery cars, etc ... after all there needs to be a demand to justify investment towards latest "trend". Obama tried to create government incentives to move more people towards more battery operated cars, combined with Federal Government regulations and taxes against those companies that aren't moving towards green energy (such as coal and oil). Such incentives failed, as demand for the Chevy Volt dropped far below production goals.

Decisions to purchase a Diesel vehicle or a hybrid battery car should be an individual decision, where the CONSUMER establishes the latest demand. It's not the role of Government to establish what are to be [consumer needs] for the sole profit of others and those profitable donors who contribute to their political cause.

 

[SinJinsg]

Do you know anything about this subject? If you change the surface of the Earth from a forested area to an area without forests, it changes the way the Earth handles sunlight, especially in winter. Only about a quarter of the carbon is in the wood harvested from a forest. Some of that wood may last in items for awhile, but try finding some of that wood that was all over Europe when Julius Caesar was there!

As we warm areas that presently are tundra, that area can become forested taiga, which doesn't reflect sunlight the way a flat snow covered area reflects it. Snow cover in a forest is different than snow cover on open land. There are so many positive feedback to current warming that you would think anyone with a brain would believe that warming should continue. How can you lose an area of Northern Hemisphere snow cover three times the size of Greenland in June and it not cause warming? Compare the difference between the sunlight reflected off of sea ice and the sunlight absorbed by open ocean! It's like night and day. The wind blowing across sea ice blows like it does across land, but remove that sea ice and the ocean moves in giant waves with the wind. That wind will mix up the relatively salt free surface of the Arctic ocean with the saltier water below and once the surface is salty, it will be harder to freeze.

Since the Earth has so much water, the effects of warming are dampened as the water warms, but eventually the surface temperatures of the air have to warm. Eventually, the heat used to melt ice can do other things when there is no ice to melt. It takes a lot of heat to change the phase of water compared to the amount of heat needed to raise it's temperature.

It would seem I know a lot more about it than you do. The trees that were cut down by the early natives was hardly enough to affect the temperature of the globe. You are stark raving mad. Simply insane.

And still all you can do is predict more great disasters. You can't actually show, however, where any of your predictions have come true. And if the current "stoppage" in warming was to be expected then why did none of you people EXPECT IT?! You have been predicting continually climbing temperatures for as far as the eye can see.

That didn't happen.

 

[Dubya]

Do you know anything about this subject? If you change the surface of the Earth from a forested area to an area without forests, it changes the way the Earth handles sunlight, especially in winter. Only about a quarter of the carbon is in the wood harvested from a forest. Some of that wood may last in items for awhile, but try finding some of that wood that was all over Europe when Julius Caesar was there!

As we warm areas that presently are tundra, that area can become forested taiga, which doesn't reflect sunlight the way a flat snow covered area reflects it. Snow cover in a forest is different than snow cover on open land. There are so many positive feedback to current warming that you would think anyone with a brain would believe that warming should continue. How can you lose an area of Northern Hemisphere snow cover three times the size of Greenland in June and it not cause warming? Compare the difference between the sunlight reflected off of sea ice and the sunlight absorbed by open ocean! It's like night and day. The wind blowing across sea ice blows like it does across land, but remove that sea ice and the ocean moves in giant waves with the wind. That wind will mix up the relatively salt free surface of the Arctic ocean with the saltier water below and once the surface is salty, it will be harder to freeze.

Since the Earth has so much water, the effects of warming are dampened as the water warms, but eventually the surface temperatures of the air have to warm. Eventually, the heat used to melt ice can do other things when there is no ice to melt. It takes a lot of heat to change the phase of water compared to the amount of heat needed to raise it's temperature.

It would seem I know a lot more about it than you do. The trees that were cut down by the early natives was hardly enough to affect the temperature of the globe. You are stark raving mad. Simply insane.

And still all you can do is predict more great disasters. You can't actually show, however, where any of your predictions have come true. And if the current "stoppage" in warming was to be expected then why did none of you people EXPECT IT?! You have been predicting continually climbing temperatures for as far as the eye can see.

That didn't happen.

You don't know jack shit about deforestation in Europe and North America. Now, you can add the rainforest to the list. If you knew about forest, you would have addressed the carbon sink question that was posed. The fact is an old growth forest isn't a carbon sink and is at equalibrium with it giving up carbon as fast as it gains it. An actively growing younger forest is a carbon sink. The forests in North America and Europe were old growth forests, so they had already stored their carbon and were no longer sinking it, except in areas where the forest was destroyed. A rainforest is a different matter, because the constant rains cool the Earth and emits heat to space.

You've been told for years to expect exceptional weather events and they've been happening. It's been pointed out the changes in arctic temperatures are affecting the jet stream, causing it to stall over areas and making prolonged periods of similar weather events. It's also been predicted that the arctic will warm faster than expected. The fact is no one has predicted a disaster to happen this soon and you fucking know it. You're just a scumbag liar about everything pertaining to this subject and you know that too. It would be good for your kind to live another 50 years, so you can enjoy the world you worked so hard to fuck up.

 

[tjvh]

You had arctic sea ice breaking every record last year, record snow cover minimum in June and 97% of Greenland melting. We've had a persistent drought in the plains and it's currently throughout Texas and the southern Rockies. If things don't change soon another year of poor harvests will happen.

US Drought Monitor

It isn't a prediction when it's happening. We could have another dust bowl in the making and how would you know?

and the dust bowl of the 1930s was caused by?-------------------------soccer moms in SUVs and chinese coal fired power plants----------oh wait -------------

What happened to the old growth forests that once covered North America and Europe? What happened to all those forests that once covered China and Southeast Asia before rice was planted? If you don't think mankind has been changing the face of the Earth for thousands of years, you're stupid!

If the chances for something happening are one in a hundred, what makes you think those odds can't be changed? What do you think the odds are right now of having another one of those one in a hundred and fifty year melts in Greenland in the next three years? Hint: it isn't one in fifty!

If that drought continues for the next year in the Great Plains, let's see how many of those Republican farmers still believe your bullshit that global warming isn't causing exceptional weather! I've already predicted the only way to get rid of stupid is to hit it in it's wallet.

What happened to the old growth forests that once covered North America and Europe? Um... People chopped them down.

 

[Dubya]

and the dust bowl of the 1930s was caused by?-------------------------soccer moms in SUVs and chinese coal fired power plants----------oh wait -------------

What happened to the old growth forests that once covered North America and Europe? What happened to all those forests that once covered China and Southeast Asia before rice was planted? If you don't think mankind has been changing the face of the Earth for thousands of years, you're stupid!

If the chances for something happening are one in a hundred, what makes you think those odds can't be changed? What do you think the odds are right now of having another one of those one in a hundred and fifty year melts in Greenland in the next three years? Hint: it isn't one in fifty!

If that drought continues for the next year in the Great Plains, let's see how many of those Republican farmers still believe your bullshit that global warming isn't causing exceptional weather! I've already predicted the only way to get rid of stupid is to hit it in it's wallet.

What happened to the old growth forests that once covered North America and Europe? Um... People chopped them down.

And where is that carbon?

 

[konradv]

So you think that man warmed the Earth by cutting down trees and setting them on fire? Man caused global warming because of CAMP FIRES!? HAHA!!

And I hate to break it to you dude, but the globe stopped warming ten years ago. Even Hansen has admitted it now. You need to find some new material.

Burning trees may not have contributed as much to CO2 as fossil fuels, but cutting down forests does remove a large portion of the carbon sink that keeps temps in balance. You lose!

Once again, you're ignoring natural cycles when it suits you. If temps were going up, you'd undoubtedly be screaming about them, hypocrite!

No, guy, you lose. You lose any hope of even a shred of credibility. There is NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE anywhere who claims that man had even one iota of impact on the global temperatures before about the 1940's. Most of the CO2 sequestration happens in the ocean - and the amount of trees that were "lost" wouldn't come close to making any kind of a significant impact.

And do I see right? Do I see a global warming alarmist raging on about natural cycles? Really? How convenient. Here's a clue dude: It's all natural.

Man puts out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year and you call it "natural"?!?!

The contribution of forests and oceans to carbon sequestration is nearly the same, so your contention that loss of forests would have no effect FAILS!!!

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the annual uptake and release of carbon dioxide by the land and the ocean had been on average just about balanced.

Carbon Cycle - NASA Science

 

[hunarcy]

You had arctic sea ice breaking every record last year, record snow cover minimum in June and 97% of Greenland melting. We've had a persistent drought in the plains and it's currently throughout Texas and the southern Rockies. If things don't change soon another year of poor harvests will happen.

US Drought Monitor

It isn't a prediction when it's happening. We could have another dust bowl in the making and how would you know?

and the dust bowl of the 1930s was caused by?-------------------------soccer moms in SUVs and chinese coal fired power plants----------oh wait -------------

What happened to the old growth forests that once covered North America and Europe? What happened to all those forests that once covered China and Southeast Asia before rice was planted? If you don't think mankind has been changing the face of the Earth for thousands of years, you're stupid!

If the chances for something happening are one in a hundred, what makes you think those odds can't be changed? What do you think the odds are right now of having another one of those one in a hundred and fifty year melts in Greenland in the next three years? Hint: it isn't one in fifty!

If that drought continues for the next year in the Great Plains, let's see how many of those Republican farmers still believe your bullshit that global warming isn't causing exceptional weather! I've already predicted the only way to get rid of stupid is to hit it in it's wallet.

FAO - NORTH AMERICAN FOREST COMMISSION

 

[Dubya]

So you think that man warmed the Earth by cutting down trees and setting them on fire? Man caused global warming because of CAMP FIRES!? HAHA!!

And I hate to break it to you dude, but the globe stopped warming ten years ago. Even Hansen has admitted it now. You need to find some new material.

Burning trees may not have contributed as much to CO2 as fossil fuels, but cutting down forests does remove a large portion of the carbon sink that keeps temps in balance. You lose!

Once again, you're ignoring natural cycles when it suits you. If temps were going up, you'd undoubtedly be screaming about them, hypocrite!

No, guy, you lose. You lose any hope of even a shred of credibility. There is NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE anywhere who claims that man had even one iota of impact on the global temperatures before about the 1940's. Most of the CO2 sequestration happens in the ocean - and the amount of trees that were "lost" wouldn't come close to making any kind of a significant impact.

And do I see right? Do I see a global warming alarmist raging on about natural cycles? Really? How convenient. Here's a clue dude: It's all natural.

CO2 sequestration is the carbon buried in sediments and not the CO2 added to oceans. Carbon sequestration is a very slow process.