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

[zeke]

These three paragraphs were from the NASA web site and very interesting.



The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."



But you know that NASA is full of scientists. What do they know eh?

 

[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.

FAO - NORTH AMERICAN FOREST COMMISSION

It seems the concept of mass balance doesn't enter people's minds. An area of land once contained a certain amount of carbon as a forest and when that area is changed the amount of carbon changes. The amount of carbon in an old growth forest can be many times the amount of what someone wants to call a forest today. The difference is, it may take 400 years or more for today's forest to get back to that original amount of carbon. In the mean time that carbon is somewhere and it doesn't last long in wood products.

An old growth forest has very large trees which obviously contain large amounts of carbon, but the forest has many other things containing carbon. For one thing those trees have many scars from previous forest fires, but they were large enough to survive them and keep their carbon. There are snags or trees that have died from old age. The ground has layers of foilage and limbs that are rotting away as fast as new material accumulates, so there is a thick layer of carbon on the ground. Beneath the ground there are hugh amounts of carbon stored in roots that are alive and dead. When such forests cover large areas of land, they can store large amounts of carbon and are at equilibrium in the carbon cycle.

Now, if that forest is cut down, they may haul away a quarter of that carbon to be made into something that will last even for centuries, but a quick look around the world shows not much of that old wood survives or there would be plenty of wood lasting throughout the centuries. The other carbon left in that forest will decay in twenty to thirty years. If the land becomes crop land, it will have a very small fraction of the original amount of carbon and it will be a small fraction for hundreds of years before a forest can replace near the original amount of carbon.

 

[Dubya]

These three paragraphs were from the NASA web site and very interesting.



The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."



But you know that NASA is full of scientists. What do they know eh?

Another factor is water vapor has a natural affinity for itself and stays gathered together near the surface of the Earth. CO2 and methane don't and will spread throughout the atmosphere. There is also a big difference in the temperatures needed for phase change.

 

[Freewill]

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

If you are really worried, quit using electricity.

 

[Dubya]

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

If you are really worried, quit using electricity.

We can make cheap electricity that doesn't produce CO2.

 

[Freewill]

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?

The left wing liberal argument is always the same, everyone that doesn't agree is obviously being paid off or is lying. They can't stand that everyone doesn't believe EXACTLY as they do. Doesn't matter to them what actually does happen they are fear mongers like no other. Tell them that Al Gore has said for well over 20 years that we only have 20 years to act and it doesn't even faze them. Let's not worry about 6 trillion in debt put on our grandchildren let's worry about GW. So the left has to event a conspiracy. I seriously doubt the oil companies really even care. It is not like the liberals are going to stop using oil or there isn't a market in China or India for all the oil they can sell. No, the liberal wants to put the coal miners out of business, you know the people they say they love.

What I am really not sure of is why the working man would ever return this regime back to power. I an not sure by looking at the unemployment numbers what blacks are thinking. The democrat policies of the last 6 years have hurt them the most.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Notice, he had to say "old growth" because he probably damn well knows that the forest coverage in America is growing is is a large as it was in the 1600s. But facts be damned.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/mdr/mapss/publications/pdf/17color.pdf

 

[Dubya]

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?

The left wing liberal argument is always the same, everyone that doesn't agree is obviously being paid off or is lying. They can't stand that everyone doesn't believe EXACTLY as they do. Doesn't matter to them what actually does happen they are fear mongers like no other. Tell them that Al Gore has said for well over 20 years that we only have 20 years to act and it doesn't even faze them. Let's not worry about 6 trillion in debt put on our grandchildren let's worry about GW. So the left has to event a conspiracy. I seriously doubt the oil companies really even care. It is not like the liberals are going to stop using oil or there isn't a market in China or India for all the oil they can sell. No, the liberal wants to put the coal miners out of business, you know the people they say they love.

What I am really not sure of is why the working man would ever return this regime back to power. I an not sure by looking at the unemployment numbers what blacks are thinking. The democrat policies of the last 6 years have hurt them the most.

Of course you don't understand anything beyond dumb!

 

[SinJinsg]

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.

Actually I did address the "carbon sink." I said it had absolutely zero effect on the temperature of the earth because there wasn't enough trees cut down to POSSIBLY change anything. Really, the more you try to claim that pre-industrial camp fires warmed the planet the more of an idiot you make of yourself. Really guy, just let it go.

And "exceptional" weather has been occurring since about the time the Earth's crust cooled. It is like walking outside and "predicting" that it will either be raining or not. That way no matter what happens you're right. But one thing you did NOT predict is that global warming would come to a complete stand-still for about 16 years all while CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere. And yet that is exactly what happened.

 

[Freewill]

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

If you are really worried, quit using electricity.

We can make cheap electricity that doesn't produce CO2.

You should do that, you would make a fortune. But until then shut off your computer you are destroying the world.

 

[Dubya]

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.

Actually I did address the "carbon sink." I said it had absolutely zero effect on the temperature of the earth because there wasn't enough trees cut down to POSSIBLY change anything. Really, the more you try to claim that pre-industrial camp fires warmed the planet the more of an idiot you make of yourself. Really guy, just let it go.

And "exceptional" weather has been occurring since about the time the Earth's crust cooled. It is like walking outside and "predicting" that it will either be raining or not. That way no matter what happens you're right. But one thing you did NOT predict is that global warming would come to a complete stand-still for about 16 years all while CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere. And yet that is exactly what happened.

That isn't addressing reality. Do you have a clue how much carbon is locked up in hugh expanses of old growth forest and how much carbon is released when those forests are removed? Just the change from forest or not forest has to change the albedo effect and radiative forcing. When you walk barefoot in the summer time on asphalt, is it hot?

 

[GuyPinestra]

Wow, 7 more pages and not ONE doable idea for reducing carbon emissions GLOBALLY.

This thread is the epitome of pointless.

 

[zeke]

Wow, 7 more pages and not ONE doable idea for reducing carbon emissions GLOBALLY.

This thread is the epitome of pointless.

That maybe. But there are some people around the world who are trying to do something.

For instance. I live in Ohio. We get like 85% of our electricity from coal fired facilities.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Great Lakes, (which be Canada) they are in the process of shutting down their last coal fired generator. Ahead of schedule.

Seems like they have more will to do something than we do.

I personally think it to late to change course. But it is worth while to understand what we did to ourselves.

Nothing last forever.

 

[bripat9643]

These three paragraphs were from the NASA web site and very interesting.



The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."

But you know that NASA is full of scientists. What do they know eh?

What's interesting about propaganda?

 

[Gadawg73]

I have fished the Apalachicola Bay in Florida for over 25 years.
Used to the trout would head up river in late September when the water started to cool. Now it is late November.
Used to the trout would come back down into the bay when the water warmed in late April.
They have been there for a few weeks now.
Used to the oyster beds had no problems and were alive and well.
Now many are dead and there are massive problems in the bay as oyster production this year was about 15% of what it used to be.
And the water warming and more warmer each and every year is the problem.
River and bay fishing guides, oyster men, crab trap men and the work force down there in that area that is dependent on that estuary for their livelihood are not political.
They know for a fact that the warming has caused all of the problems that bay has now.
Only a dumb ass would claim that there is no warming going on on this planet.
I can point to 40 other estuaries on this country the same thing is going on.
And it is NOT part of any cycle as this has never happened before.
The water is warming because the climate has warmed.
That is FACT.
We can argue on how best to lower the POLLUTION which is causing it or we can continue to keep our dumb ass heads in the sand and make it a petty absurd political argument like the far right KOOKS do.

 

[Gadawg73]

Coal fired power plants have caused a 400% increase in asthma rates in north Georgia as there is a large on in Cartersville, Ga. which is north west of Atlanta and the winds come from that way 90% of the time here and cover a 100 mile long area stretching from Calhoun, Ga. to south Fulton county and covers 100 miles to the east.

 

[ima]

Wow, 7 more pages and not ONE doable idea for reducing carbon emissions GLOBALLY.

This thread is the epitome of pointless.

Get rid of half the world's people. That'll do it. mother Nature will take care of that for us. Not to worry.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.
The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements3,4.

We have had times before when there was a temporary decrease in temperature. This is not even that, this is just a level period when we should be having a marked decrease in temperatures because of decreased solar irradiance, and the current balance of El Nino's and La Nina's. Watch what happens on the next strong El Nino.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have fished the Apalachicola Bay in Florida for over 25 years.
Used to the trout would head up river in late September when the water started to cool. Now it is late November.
Used to the trout would come back down into the bay when the water warmed in late April.
They have been there for a few weeks now.
Used to the oyster beds had no problems and were alive and well.
Now many are dead and there are massive problems in the bay as oyster production this year was about 15% of what it used to be.
And the water warming and more warmer each and every year is the problem.
River and bay fishing guides, oyster men, crab trap men and the work force down there in that area that is dependent on that estuary for their livelihood are not political.
They know for a fact that the warming has caused all of the problems that bay has now.
Only a dumb ass would claim that there is no warming going on on this planet.
I can point to 40 other estuaries on this country the same thing is going on.
And it is NOT part of any cycle as this has never happened before.
The water is warming because the climate has warmed.
That is FACT.
We can argue on how best to lower the POLLUTION which is causing it or we can continue to keep our dumb ass heads in the sand and make it a petty absurd political argument like the far right KOOKS do.

Gadawg, It is unfortunate that the GOP does not have a lot more people like you. Then I could go back to being an independent. As of now, the GOP supports the far right on this issue, and it is harming our nation substancially.

 

[Old Rocks]

These three paragraphs were from the NASA web site and very interesting.



The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."

But you know that NASA is full of scientists. What do they know eh?

What's interesting about propaganda?

What interesting is how willfully ignorant people like you can ignore reality.