Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30925 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#31454 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^That's no hope, its wrong. Each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere produces the same increase in temperature. That means each molecule of CO2 you admit has less greenhouse effect than the previous molecule.
.
<quoted text>There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation; no experimental data on climate feedback. That's why climate change mitigation is a hoax and global warming alarmism is pseudoscience.
, the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not the whole argument because we have:
1) the measured absorption spectrum of CO2
2) the prediction that GHG warming will lead to a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere - which is observed by both radiosonde balloon and satellite microwave observation.
3) the prediction that expanding greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations will cause the troposphere to rise - and we have the observations that this is occurring
4) the prediction that GHG gas warming will cause the Earth to radiate less energy back into space than it absorbs from the Sun - and we have the observations that observe that happening too.

Then we add on the fact that we have amazingly detailed data of a very strong correlation between temperature and CO2 in all the proxy climate sets (barring the iceball Earth episodes - for which greenhouse gas warming is thought to have saved Earth from albedo). The correlation is clearly evidence in the instrument data sets as well. All of these things taken together present a cohesive theory. So the argument that correlation doesn't equal causation is a form of cherry picking that ignores the wider spectrum of evidence.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31455 Feb 6, 2013
Associated Press

Two of the Great Lakes have hit their lowest water levels ever recorded, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Tuesday, capping more than a decade of below-normal rain and snowfall and higher temperatures that boost evaporation.

Measurements taken last month show Lake Huron and Lake Michigan have reached their lowest ebb since record keeping began in 1918, and the lakes could set additional records over the next few months, the corps said. The lakes were 29 inches below their long-term average and had declined 17 inches since January 2012.

The other Great Lakes — Superior, Erie and Ontario — were also well below average.

"We're in an extreme situation," said Keith Kompoltowicz, watershed hydrology chief for the corps district office in Detroit.

The low water has caused heavy economic losses by forcing cargo ships to carry lighter loads, leaving boat docks high and dry, and damaging fish-spawning areas. And vegetation has sprung up in newly exposed shoreline bottomlands, a turnoff for hotel customers who prefer sandy beaches.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>

Don't worry about the government taxing your coal and oil. Global warming is already taxing us!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#31456 Feb 7, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
They're looked upon as science.
You post purely from right wing ideology sites.
<quoted text>
You admitted you don't think NASA's official climatology is a science site.
Is that also an admission you were lying when you said you could find me an official NASA website that was opposed to global warming?
NAH, you aren't that honest.
<quoted text>
Let's see: You insisted all the scientists were saying global warming was a hoax.
I showed all the world renown, top science agencies (not based on petroleum) had statements strongly in support of global warming; same as all the mainstream science media and world renown journals.
I gave you an official NASA citation. What else do you call it when you insisted there were "other" official NASA websites that were calling global warming a hoax. Except, OOPS you couldn;t produce them. Nor will you admit it, even now.
A higher truth -- you know "above" the real truth. HA HA HA
<quoted text>
I've switched to voting you a peanut, down from clueless.
Looked on by who as science sites. The only ones who seem to are like yourself who are in need of something you can offer as proof. the fact that they have as much fiction as fact would indicate that they are anything but a science site. It could be said that they are nothing more than left wing ideology sites. The fact that you have to call what I provide right wing means that there has to be a left wing version. It also points out that the discussion is about politics and not science. Science has no right wing or left wing. The speed of light does not change because the person measuring it has political leaning to the right or left. The mass of the earth does not change based on if the person measuring it is liberal or libertarian.

You wanted a site with an offical NASA logo and I found one. One that did not back your misguided beliefs. And as for your world renown agencies, have you ever taken a look at what some of them are renown for? A few are world renown for the serious mistakes they have made. NASA has lost satellites, the IPCC had so many mistakes that they were considering asking for the head of the IPCC to step down. AAAS is a lobbing group and it wasn't the only one on the list. In fact the only thing required to make this list was to say the man was the cause of climate change. As for your mainstream media and science journals, the main stream media has dropped the subject since it isn't selling like it once was and many of your journals are actually magazines trying to sell subscriptions.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#31457 Feb 7, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Associated Press
Two of the Great Lakes have hit their lowest water levels ever recorded, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Tuesday, capping more than a decade of below-normal rain and snowfall and higher temperatures that boost evaporation.
Measurements taken last month show Lake Huron and Lake Michigan have reached their lowest ebb since record keeping began in 1918, and the lakes could set additional records over the next few months, the corps said. The lakes were 29 inches below their long-term average and had declined 17 inches since January 2012.
The other Great Lakes — Superior, Erie and Ontario — were also well below average.
"We're in an extreme situation," said Keith Kompoltowicz, watershed hydrology chief for the corps district office in Detroit.
The low water has caused heavy economic losses by forcing cargo ships to carry lighter loads, leaving boat docks high and dry, and damaging fish-spawning areas. And vegetation has sprung up in newly exposed shoreline bottomlands, a turnoff for hotel customers who prefer sandy beaches.
<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>
Don't worry about the government taxing your coal and oil. Global warming is already taxing us!
Great, maybe my old home town will not have to suffer the spring floods this year. Then again they have had that problem for the last ten years.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31458 Feb 7, 2013
Nothing better in life than reading the wallop10 getting walloped again and again.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31459 Feb 7, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Looked on by who as science sites...
Science has no right wing or left wing. The speed of light does not change because the person measuring it has political leaning to the right or left...
You wanted a site with an offical NASA logo and I found one... the IPCC had so many mistakes that they were considering asking for the head of the IPCC to step down. AAAS is a lobbing group and it wasn't the only one on the list...
You're absolutely right that scientific facts don't come in left & right political versions. But by denying AGW/CC you're taking on ALL mainstream science organizations & media. You think Scientific American, Discover, New Scientist, Science, Nature & all of them were ALL taken over by leftists? What, did they storm the barricades all at once?

Remember, 8 of the 12 largest companies in the world by revenue are oil companies. They all have profound economic interests in AGW/CC denial. The other 4 also have interests in denial, but careful laws could make them more neutral.

The bottom line is that there is way, way, way, way, WAY more money in AGW/CC denial than there is in supporting it.

So - WHAT NASA site? If you posted te link, I didn't see it. Can you repost?

And the IPCC has been remarkably accurate overall since they made their correction for aerosols in 1995. They're human, so they make occasional mistakes, but they've been minor, despite the aggressive right wing spin.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31460 Feb 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>As atmospheric CO2 increases, plants have an easier time dealing with the atmosphere, therefor they lose less water. I've never claimed te greenhouse gas effect works like a real greenhouse; you can experimentally test greenhouse efficiency but you can't test the effects of man made greenhouse gas on climate in the atmosphere.
As water vapor rises it reaches cooler temperatures so water falls out of solution with the air. Life is beautiful, I support global warming.
Plants don't like the heat caused by CO2. They stop respirating and therefore, stop growing.

Too much CO2 is bad and you are a bad, bad boy for promoting it.

Ask my tomatoes.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31461 Feb 8, 2013
Nothing better in life than reading the wallop10 getting walloped again and again.

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31462 Feb 8, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Plants don't like the heat caused by CO2. They stop respirating and therefore, stop growing.
Plants don't like heat? Any proof, like evidence of more plant life at the poles than on the equator?

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
Too much CO2 is bad and you are a bad, bad boy for promoting it. Ask my tomatoes.
Did you forget to water your tomatoes?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31463 Feb 8, 2013
The cactus likes heat.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31464 Feb 8, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Plants don't like the heat caused by CO2. They stop respirating and therefore, stop growing.
Too much CO2 is bad and you are a bad, bad boy for promoting it.
Ask my tomatoes.
We Have been here before. Big Goof does not agree that it can be too hot for tomatoes to pollinate. Oh Well, he does not understand much else either except how to blather on and on.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31465 Feb 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Did you forget to water your tomatoes?
Ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Yes, heat & CO2 can be good for SOME plants, but typically they need more water & more fixed nitrogen (from soil bacteria). Droughts will reduce access to both these things. It also depends on whether they use C3 or C4 photosynthesis.

The bottom line is that AGW/CC is terrible for msot plants overall. Don't forget the current droughts in Brazil. You've heard of "the lungs of the world"? If the Amazon rainforest makes the transition to open savannah, we'll be in deep doo-doo, so to speak.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31466 Feb 8, 2013
Only if you believe in scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#31467 Feb 8, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

Tina Anne talking about NASA's official climatology site explaining How Scientists know there is global warming:

Looked on by who as science sites. The only ones who seem to are like yourself who are in need of something you can offer as proof. the fact that they have as much fiction as fact would indicate that they are anything but a science site. It could be said that they are nothing more than left wing ideology sites.
You're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to explain why NASA's official climatology website is not really science or proof, but it is ideology.

And when you only put out right wing anti-science websites, you scream foul at anyone calling them what they are.

HA HA HA
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you have to call what I provide right wing means that there has to be a left wing version. It also points out that the discussion is about politics and not science. Science has no right wing or left wing.
There are conservatives who take the scientific view too. They'd take NASA's website seriously, dear.

And I have already demonstrated ALL the world renown science organizations like NASA take the same position they do in warming about the dangers of man made global warming.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

You wanted a site with an offical NASA logo and I found one.
Liar! You found me an article about Roy Spencer who worked for NASA many years ago. I proved the NASA climatologists had also debunked the paper you put out, and gave you a citation by BBC showing his editor (of a satellite magazine) was so upset by his flawed analysis, that he resigned his position to show the extent of his humiliation.)

THAT doesn't come anywhere near being a "official NASA website."
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And as for your world renown agencies, have you ever taken a look at what some of them are renown for? A few are world renown for the serious mistakes they have made. NASA has lost satellites, the IPCC had so many mistakes that they were considering asking for the head of the IPCC to step down.
wow== talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
You're already made so many EGREGIOUS MONSTROUS MISTAKES here, most people would hide their face in shame, dear.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#31468 Feb 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Plants don't like heat? Any proof, like evidence of more plant life at the poles than on the equator?
.
<quoted text>Did you forget to water your tomatoes?
Seen any in the Sahara desert?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/...

While it is true a greenhouse effect has a CO2 fertilization effect -- this is only true if there is enough rain and fertilizer to sustain the added growth. Turns out the real world doesn't work like a commercial greenhouse.

There are season cereals (Wheat, rye, triticale, oats, barley, and spelt) that grow in moderate weather but cease to grow in hot climates.

A study of the warming from this century has shown a very uneven distribution of rains –
And the warmer temperatures means more evaporation of moisture in the soil leading to MORE intense and larger drought areas

More important global warming has been estimated to harm the oceans. This has the greatest negative effect of all!

(i) Science studies have shown that as the surface water of the oceans warmed up, phytoplankton biomass declined -- which means that there will be less ocean plants to uptake this greenhouse gas and less food in the chain for ocean life.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/061206...

(ii) Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid, resulting in ocean acidification. This is already killing off the coral reefs and creating dead spots.

<<New study says oceans' chemistry changing rapidly
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100422/ap_on_sc/...

WASHINGTON – The chemistry of the oceans is changing faster than it has in hundreds of thousands of years because of the carbon dioxide being absorbed from the atmosphere, the National Research Council reported Thursday.

Carbon dioxide and other industrial gases have been a concern for several years because of their impact on the air, raising global temperatures in a process called the greenhouse effect.
One factor easing that warmth has been the amount of CO2 taken up by the oceans, but that has also caused scientific concerns because the chemicals make the water more acidic, which can affect sea life.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the pH of ocean water has declined from 8.2 to 8.1 and a further decline of 0.2 to 0.3 units is expected by the end of this century, according to the Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Science.
The current rate of change "exceeds any known change in ocean chemistry for at least 800,000 years," the report said.
As most folks will remember from school chemistry, pH is a measure of how alkaline or acidic something is. A pH of 7 is neutral, while higher numbers are more alkaline and lower numbers are more acidic.

As the ocean becomes more acidic scientists have raised concern about dissolving coral reefs and potential effects on fish and other sea life.

For example, studies have shown that increasing seawater acidity affects photosynthesis, nutrient acquisition, growth, reproduction and individual survival of certain sea life.

++++++++++

So cut the right wing crap, ok?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31469 Feb 8, 2013
PHD wrote:
The cactus likes heat.
Eat cactus on your cheeseburger, then.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31470 Feb 8, 2013
Brian, Teener, other deniers on here, they can't help it. They watch Fox News.

Fox News Claims Solar Won't Work in America Because It's Not Sunny Like Germany

With Fox, it's hard to tell if this is ignorance or dishonesty. They must not know how to use a computer; that's the ignorance part. That's pretty bad, since probably 75% of the people in the US and the UK know how to use a search engine.

So it must be dishonesty. They assume their audience is stupid so they tell these outrageous lies. And their audience believes them.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31471 Feb 8, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
We Have been here before. Big Goof does not agree that it can be too hot for tomatoes to pollinate. Oh Well, he does not understand much else either except how to blather on and on.
And too hot for the blooms to set.

He probably never grew anything in his life but toenail fungus.

I take care of my tomatoes. They produce, but not like they do during milder summers (that's below 95F).

These idiots are so tiresome.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31472 Feb 9, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Seen any in the Sahara desert?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/...
While it is true a greenhouse effect has a CO2 fertilization effect -- this is only true if there is enough rain and fertilizer to sustain the added growth. Turns out the real world doesn't work like a commercial greenhouse.
There are season cereals (Wheat, rye, triticale, oats, barley, and spelt) that grow in moderate weather but cease to grow in hot climates.
A study of the warming from this century has shown a very uneven distribution of rains –
And the warmer temperatures means more evaporation of moisture in the soil leading to MORE intense and larger drought areas
More important global warming has been estimated to harm the oceans. This has the greatest negative effect of all!
(i) Science studies have shown that as the surface water of the oceans warmed up, phytoplankton biomass declined -- which means that there will be less ocean plants to uptake this greenhouse gas and less food in the chain for ocean life.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/061206...
(ii) Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid, resulting in ocean acidification. This is already killing off the coral reefs and creating dead spots.
<<New study says oceans' chemistry changing rapidly
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100422/ap_on_sc/...
WASHINGTON – The chemistry of the oceans is changing faster than it has in hundreds of thousands of years because of the carbon dioxide being absorbed from the atmosphere, the National Research Council reported Thursday.
Carbon dioxide and other industrial gases have been a concern for several years because of their impact on the air, raising global temperatures in a process called the greenhouse effect.
One factor easing that warmth has been the amount of CO2 taken up by the oceans, but that has also caused scientific concerns because the chemicals make the water more acidic, which can affect sea life.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the pH of ocean water has declined from 8.2 to 8.1 and a further decline of 0.2 to 0.3 units is expected by the end of this century, according to the Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Science.
The current rate of change "exceeds any known change in ocean chemistry for at least 800,000 years," the report said.
As most folks will remember from school chemistry, pH is a measure of how alkaline or acidic something is. A pH of 7 is neutral, while higher numbers are more alkaline and lower numbers are more acidic.
As the ocean becomes more acidic scientists have raised concern about dissolving coral reefs and potential effects on fish and other sea life.
For example, studies have shown that increasing seawater acidity affects photosynthesis, nutrient acquisition, growth, reproduction and individual survival of certain sea life.
++++++++++
So cut the right wing crap, ok?
Your last statement exemplifies all of your scientific science fiction.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31473 Feb 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Eat cactus on your cheeseburger, then.
Try it you may like it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Farmington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) Sun Marc 6,935
Barack Obama COUNTDOWN Clock 1000 days left & c... (Apr '14) Sat 117 Days Remaining 635
News Woman pleads to murder for role in drunken fight (May '09) Sep 22 reese 51
Farmington Racism-Part One (Dec '11) Sep 20 Blah ha NAILED IT 150
New in town Sep 20 Blah ha NAILED IT 2
News Blanco man charged with molesting 13-year-old r... (Jun '15) Sep 20 Hughes 12
News Identity Inc. presents anti-hate crimes rally Sep 20 Ralph 10

Farmington Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Farmington Mortgages