global warming keeps on keeping on

global warming keeps on keeping on

Posted in the Global Warming Forum

First Prev
of 15
Next Last
jhnsn d-s

Seattle, WA

#1 Apr 27, 2017
After this quote appears a NASA graph that shows the fluctuation as well as the steady climb of temp change and the incline it took from 2014-2016 reminded me of some good downhill jumps at about 1 minute and 10 seconds into this youtube link


Quote: "Careful observation of the graph shows that the last three years (2014, 2015, and 2016) were all record-breakers. It makes you wonder, what the chances are that global warming has sped up?" End of Quote

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/clima...
jhnsn d-s

Seattle, WA

#2 Apr 27, 2017
when did TOPIX allow video?
Cabbage

West Babylon, NY

#3 Apr 28, 2017
Its a fraud that it is caused by humans ... just look at your spokesmen Bill Bye. Gore cites Bye as his scientific authority. While Elizabeth Warren states all those who disagree are racist women hating anti islamic xenophobic homophobes.
jhnsn d-s

Seattle, WA

#4 Aug 6, 2017
Here is another brilliant attempt at educating peoples on the realisim of what has happened with temperature change. It has been presented in so many different ways to appeal to each ones awarness of what's happening. So, for the common people does it really matter who wins the debate.

jhnsn d-s

Seattle, WA

#5 Sep 20, 2017
With yet another large earthquake in Mexico its giving opprotunity to highlight climate change but some peoples who make their living off writing and talking about these kinds of matters such as media and politicians... think its unethical to raise the issue during a time when peoples are adversly affected but I'm not a business interest and do not make a living off the diaster of others and am into the science of it learning a little how the system works.

What is know the climate is warming up and their is no issue its scientific fact and as a result the artic ice is melting and not returning back in the from of ice and snow like it should but flows to the equater then the ocean fills up. Eccleiastes 1:7 As a consequence their is all kinds of rain that are wreaking havoc all over the place but when huge amounts of weight are redistributed on the earth it causes the axis to move which can affect the plates. Any mass movement of weight such as earthquakes, building of dams, citys, wind against mountains...cause the axis to move inturn effecting plate movement.

I have been watching the earthquake activiy since hurricane harvey and their is definity an up tick in the amount but also the size 5 pointers are common now. A person might be become filled with awe after looking at this NOAA site that shows activity for the day*. Can volcanic activity be expected because of all this plate movement. It would be great if NOAA could simplfy their volcanoe page to show the common people which direction the blast went and direction the winds are carring the fall out.

Most sane people hope things settle down and that things do not escalate where the earth tries to find that exact rubix cube combination.

* https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/ (click on zoom at top right of page then "world")

1226AMPST 092017
Edwardo

Burlington, VT

#6 Sep 21, 2017
I think that naysayers simply want to destroy the world :/
Weather Or Climate

Minneapolis, MN

#7 Sep 23, 2017
Actually ...naysayers are saying some impressionable people are confusing normal geologic and normal atmospheric events with the idea of catastrophic global warming.
jhnsn d-s

Seattle, WA

#8 Sep 23, 2017
Weather Or Climate wrote:
Actually ...naysayers are saying some impressionable people are confusing normal geologic and normal atmospheric events with the idea of catastrophic global warming.
what's problematic about that theory climate change is normal is that it's 100 million years ahead of schedule because of human contribution. In other words what humans have put into the atmosphere in terms of trillions of tons of "heat trapping gasses" including Co2 in just a few hundred years would take the earth on its own without human influence hundred of millions of years. The industrial revolution created an imbalance. One might conclude the prosperity doctrine promted by religion that obligates God to bless the righteous with wealth has turned into a curse because of high consumption that produces the very gasses that will cause their end.

What it comes down to is the humans were never intended to live like this but considerd Satans unsucccessful attempts to cause the first humans pair death but God let them live on and have kids and now their are some 7 billion on the surface of the earth so with that being unsuccessful at killing the humans its not to far fetched that they would make attempts at ruining their living enviorment.
Science Trumps Religion

Albuquerque, NM

#9 Sep 28, 2017
jhnsn d-s wrote:
<quoted text>

what's problematic about that theory climate change is normal is that it's 100 million years ahead of schedule because of human contribution. In other words what humans have put into the atmosphere in terms of trillions of tons of "heat trapping gasses" including Co2 in just a few hundred years would take the earth on its own without human influence hundred of millions of years. The industrial revolution created an imbalance. One might conclude the prosperity doctrine promted by religion that obligates God to bless the righteous with wealth has turned into a curse because of high consumption that produces the very gasses that will cause their end.

What it comes down to is the humans were never intended to live like this but considerd Satans unsucccessful attempts to cause the first humans pair death but God let them live on and have kids and now their are some 7 billion on the surface of the earth so with that being unsuccessful at killing the humans its not to far fetched that they would make attempts at ruining their living enviorment.
Excellent supporting evidence that faith and religious dogma are the foundations for the apostles, prophets and acolytes of A/OACDDCGWA (Save The Planet)
Science Trumps Religion

Albuquerque, NM

#10 Sep 28, 2017
The basic premise that 'CO2 above 350ppm is bad'...is flawed.

CO2 is a vital part of the 'life cycle'...another name for 'it' is the 'Carbon Cycle'.

The experts' ideas are basically backward.

Rather than a robust Carbon cycle being bad for life on Earth ...a robust Carbon cycle (higher levels of CO2 circulating to O2) is good for life.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#11 Sep 28, 2017
Science Trumps Religion wrote:
The basic premise that 'CO2 above 350ppm is bad'...is flawed.

CO2 is a vital part of the 'life cycle'...another name for 'it' is the 'Carbon Cycle'.

The experts' ideas are basically backward.

Rather than a robust Carbon cycle being bad for life on Earth ...a robust Carbon cycle (higher levels of CO2 circulating to O2) is good for life.
More RW talking points that do not consider the negative aspects of increasing CO2. Of course it is vital for life. So are many things but too much of a good thing is often a problem. The problem is that CO2 is a GHG and accumulates and is residual in the atmosphere for decades. This increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the climate to warm as well as decreasing the pH of the oceans. Conditions for life have to be just right!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Sep 28, 2017
Science Trumps Religion wrote:
The basic premise that 'CO2 above 350ppm is bad'...is flawed.

CO2 is a vital part of the 'life cycle'...another name for 'it' is the 'Carbon Cycle'.

The experts' ideas are basically backward.

Rather than a robust Carbon cycle being bad for life on Earth ...a robust Carbon cycle (higher levels of CO2 circulating to O2) is good for life.
BTW, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere results in decreasing O2 in the atmosphere. That is a fact.
jhnsn d-s

Seattle, WA

#13 Sep 28, 2017
Thats how it starts out. A person needs somthing an idea or shred of an idea that they find for themselves to believe in and indicates to God they have faith. A person can even express to God their appreciation for coming to know somthing of his son or in some relation to his son without having any expectation of getting a return but just a genuine apprication for knowing. From this God can if he so chooses call a person to become a part of his immediate family. Its intimacy. Romans 8:16

Today, the disciples of corporate religion who are known for superficial knowledge and even less understanding pales in comparison to the common everyday knowledge the uneducated Jews were known for and aluded to at John 1:45 but if you keep reading its discovered their faith and doctrines were supplemented with real experience which can be expected today. It's in the words and the spirit of the words.

On robust cycle. The upside is some crops and fruit trees or other will start performing like race cars or high performance refinerys absorbing more Co2 and making more o2. The down side is the soil of many land based growing things will need to be spiked with nitrgon just like how its done today so the land can be continuously used but the chemicals in the fertilizers are said to cause enviormental, inland water ways and even ocean damage. Life forms that lack nitrogen nutriant can become weak, poor production, suseptable to diaease, heat...and then what about the life cycle of these high performers and other forms that do not directly make food for humans. Its so complex, even if the earths soil could some how be selectively spiked with the right amount of nitrgon* through natual means it merely perpetuates the exsiting but can also be loaded with unforseen problems. 1258AMUTC 092917 #13

*With emphasis: in the short run, to much nitrgon can be just as adverse as not enough.
Science Trumps Religion

Albuquerque, NM

#14 Sep 29, 2017
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>

Of course it is vital for life. So are many things but too much of a good thing is often a problem.
Yes. Thanks for bringing that up, Mr. Bozo.
We are discussing fractions of one percent here.

Right now life on Earth is much closer to dangerously low levels of CO2 than it is to any dangerously high level.

For example:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

Arne Marco wrote:
"What we normally forget when talking about the amount of CO2, is the significance it has for the human (and other creatures) health. Above 425 ppm in the atmossphere the healthproblems will become more servere, because the blood will slowly be more acid. This will affect bloodpressure etc."
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>

Don't worry- Co2 concentration would have to be 50 times what it is today to cause health problems.

Basic Information about Concentrations of CO2 in Air

* 1,000,000 ppm of a gas = 100 % concentration of the gas, and 10,000 ppm of a gas in air = a 1% concentration.
* At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.
* The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over about 2%(20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations.
* Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations.
* If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal "acidosis" (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more frequently is absent.

http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.ht...
Science Trumps Religion

Albuquerque, NM

#15 Sep 29, 2017
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>

BTW, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere results in decreasing O2 in the atmosphere. That is a fact.
Again, the dogma of A/OACDDCGCD ignores the benefits of rising CO2 concentrations. More CO2 is more food for autotrophs which produce more O2. One never hears the acolytes of CAGW mention that. On the other hand...

If the planet had just 400ppm less than it has today then all life as we know it would parish.

That's:
<400ppm = death
>20,000ppm = noticeable discomfort

Clearly, CO2 is much closer to dangerously low levels than it is to a dangerously high level.
Science Trumps Religion

Albuquerque, NM

#16 Sep 29, 2017
jhnsn d-s wrote:
Thats how it starts out. A person needs somthing an idea or shred of an idea that they find for themselves to believe in and indicates to God they have faith. A person can even express to God their appreciation for coming to know somthing of his son or in some relation to his son without having any expectation of getting a return but just a genuine apprication for knowing. From this God can if he so chooses call a person to become a part of his immediate family. Its intimacy. Romans 8:16

Today, the disciples of corporate religion who are known for superficial knowledge and even less understanding pales in comparison to the common everyday knowledge the uneducated Jews were known for and aluded to at John 1:45 but if you keep reading its discovered their faith and doctrines were supplemented with real experience which can be expected today. It's in the words and the spirit of the words.
That's nice.
jhnsn d-s wrote:
On robust cycle. The upside is some crops and fruit trees or other will start performing like race cars or high performance refinerys absorbing more Co2 and making more o2.
Yes. And those kinds of positive effects are deliberately ignored or summarily dismissed by the apostles of CAGW.
jhnsn d-s wrote:
The down side is the soil of many land based growing things will need to be spiked with nitrgon just like how its done today so the land can be continuously used but the chemicals in the fertilizers are said to cause enviormental, inland water ways and even ocean damage. Life forms that lack nitrogen nutriant can become weak, poor production, suseptable to diaease, heat...
Actually, the opposite may be the case. With higher atmospheric CO2 _plant growth has been proven to be much MORE robust with LESS nitrogen.
This means that less chemical fertilizers are needed thus saving the oceans from runoff that create 'dead zones'.
jhnsn d-s wrote:
...and then what about the life cycle of these high performers and other forms that do not directly make food for humans.
Higher atmospheric levels of CO2 is indiscriminate ...it makes roses prettier just as it makes apples bigger.
jhnsn d-s wrote:
Its so complex,....
Yes it is. And all those who deny the benefits of 'more (food) CO2' would be helped by understanding that climate IS INDEED complex ...and not as simple as believing:'less CO2 is good/ more CO2 is bad'.
jhnsn d-s wrote:
... even if the earths soil could some how be selectively spiked with the right amount of nitrgon* through natual means it merely perpetuates the exsiting but can also be loaded with unforseen problems. 1258AMUTC 092917 #13

*With emphasis: in the short run, to much nitrgon can be just as adverse as not enough.
Again, tens of hundreds of independent tests and experiments conducted on a daily basis confirm the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere produces a much more vigorous crop ....and with less nitrogen required.

The empirical evidence is in ...and the science shows that more CO2 is good.
jhnsn d-s

Seattle, WA

#17 Sep 29, 2017
Trying to keep a complex subject simple is hard to do and is compounded when dealt in generalities and can even become misleading to an outside reader.

International farming has refined their growing operations and just a cursory search yields no great break through with using tried, true and proven applications. Depending on where the growing is taking place on the earth, amount of land available and crop type is in direct relation to how many pounds of nitrogen and other will be added to the soil to get the yield per acre. For example 1 acre requires 125 pounds of nitrogen purchased @.50 cents per pound equals $62.50 USD just for N to get the yeild or pounds per acre of food which translates in to either making some money, breaking even or worse and this is where the issue starts that industrial farming is over using fertilzers cause more concerend with getting yield than the quality of the food. Its been studied up and down and commonly known that over-use of fertilizer reduces the quality or health of the food.

As Co2 causes growing things to ramp up and puts demands on the soil for more N how will growing things in the wilderness fare outside the influence of intense farming or over-use of fertilizer. The assumption is if the soil is not repentished with the right amount of nitrogen nutriant the health of the plant will degrade and be unable to contribute in a meanful way and/or ultimatly it wll die off simular to if it gets to much.

What has come out of this beyond reciting other peoples discoverys is the "N" (nitrogen issue) or its global enviromental impact because of controlled farming and other...is said to become the next big global pollutant like Co2 but do they mean it will become the next big global pollutant because peoples do not know about it or because many more tons of the stuff needs to be floating around in the atmosphere, land and water before technically it becomes a pollutant. 952PMUTC 092917 #17

QUOTE" But downsides are piling up. Reactive nitrogen increases atmospheric ozone levels, causing respiratory diseases and hurting crop yields; produces acid rain; and spurs blooms of oxygen-gobbling oceanic algae, which can hurt fisheries. Nitrogen pollution could eventually render entire stretches of ocean dead, as is now the case in the Gulf of Mexico, where fertilizer runoff has created a 5,800 square mile dead zone. To top it off, oceanic nitrogen is converted to nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas." End of Quote

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#18 Oct 1, 2017
jhnsn d-s wrote:
Trying to keep a complex subject simple is hard to do and is compounded when dealt in generalities and can even become misleading to an outside reader.

International farming has refined their growing operations and just a cursory search yields no great break through with using tried, true and proven applications. Depending on where the growing is taking place on the earth, amount of land available and crop type is in direct relation to how many pounds of nitrogen and other will be added to the soil to get the yield per acre. For example 1 acre requires 125 pounds of nitrogen purchased @.50 cents per pound equals $62.50 USD just for N to get the yeild or pounds per acre of food which translates in to either making some money, breaking even or worse and this is where the issue starts that industrial farming is over using fertilzers cause more concerend with getting yield than the quality of the food. Its been studied up and down and commonly known that over-use of fertilizer reduces the quality or health of the food.

As Co2 causes growing things to ramp up and puts demands on the soil for more N how will growing things in the wilderness fare outside the influence of intense farming or over-use of fertilizer. The assumption is if the soil is not repentished with the right amount of nitrogen nutriant the health of the plant will degrade and be unable to contribute in a meanful way and/or ultimatly it wll die off simular to if it gets to much.

What has come out of this beyond reciting other peoples discoverys is the "N" (nitrogen issue) or its global enviromental impact because of controlled farming and other...is said to become the next big global pollutant like Co2 but do they mean it will become the next big global pollutant because peoples do not know about it or because many more tons of the stuff needs to be floating around in the atmosphere, land and water before technically it becomes a pollutant. 952PMUTC 092917 #17

QUOTE" But downsides are piling up. Reactive nitrogen increases atmospheric ozone levels, causing respiratory diseases and hurting crop yields; produces acid rain; and spurs blooms of oxygen-gobbling oceanic algae, which can hurt fisheries. Nitrogen pollution could eventually render entire stretches of ocean dead, as is now the case in the Gulf of Mexico, where fertilizer runoff has created a 5,800 square mile dead zone. To top it off, oceanic nitrogen is converted to nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas." End of Quote
You disciples of denial, the problem is not direct health effects of CO2 or plant fertilizer. It is the contribution to global warming because CO2 is a confirmed GHG. That has been known for over a hundred years. Time for you to catch up.
jhnsn d-s

Seattle, WA

#19 Oct 2, 2017
I don't think any posts in this thread are in denial but might be biased or constrained in to a particular course because of employment, finanical interests, embarrasment, ego or other reasons...but if you are confined to just the cause of warming and just to Co2 being the culprit well then thats a preferential choice.

Plant fertilizers emits heat trapping greenhouse gases(GHG) but is not a Co2 or an element of Co2 (carbon Dioxide) and it's called Nitrous oxide (N20). What causes N2O is the life in the soil interacts with nitrogen fertilzers and is said to develope quickly when the ground is warm and moist. The warming effect N20 has on the atmosphere is estimated to be 300 times greater than equivalent amounts of Co2, gasp. Which breaks down faster is another matter.

A cursory look at the developement of climate change knowledge and understanding of has a long history (1824-1901) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effe...   but it was secluded and privleged information. Then it looks like it died out until 1938 but is still keep under wraps until the days of US President Lyndon Johnson that employee scientist(s) made him aware (although he was around in 1938) their was a problem and he inturn voiced his concerns to congress but history is silent on how congress responed so, for the most part the government continued to keep the common people ignorant then some 20 years later US President Jimmey Carter gave a speech that indirectly encouraged and discouraged climate change but did make a symbolic jesture and had a solar panel installed a top of the white house which was later removed by the celebrity President Ronald Reagan. So the common people continued to remain in ignorance and/or confused.

My best guess is probably it wasn't until after the internet that information on climate change/Global warming became widely available espically recently where many brave science, political, university and other writers simplified and presented their findings in a way that peoples who are busy living life can take a few minutes and get a good idea of the gravity of current and future problems beyond what can be seen through media pictures. And as typical most Governement and Religious leaders are following close behind.

note: i do remeber in the early 1980's a encounter with climate change and the scientist were saying it dosen't matter to the effect if industry came to a hault and all humans removed off the earth because the earth is going to continue in its course regardless for the next 30 or 50 years cause of what had already been emitted in to the atmosphere so from that perspective the earth and atmosphere current condition in 2017 is from the past. 445PMPST 100217
.
jhnsn d-s

Seattle, WA

#20 Oct 4, 2017
The IMF is reporting that climate change will be benefical to 22 countries out of 195. 13 of the 22 countires such as Russia is highlighted to increase winter out-put from warmer weather and where it's warmer and wetter can contribute to more agriculture growing, "volume and varity" plus melting of sea ice will enable easy access to the energy reserves under the ocean floor.

Countries with warmer or hot climate will be adversly effected as the tempratures increase, "lower agricultural out-put, reduced productivity of workers, damage to health...espically in poor coubtries.

International Monetary Fund global perspective is an over view knowing from country to country their can be positive as well as negative results as tempratures increase even within the 13 nations slated to benefit the most at least in the short run barring any unforseen occurances.

What got my attention from this write is Mongolia has warmed 3 times faster than rest of the earth and it is common among climate writers to claim the artic is warming twice as fast as rest of the earth. 837PMPST 100417

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russia-to...  

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 15
Next Last

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 9 min Into The Night 41,268
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 2 hr hojo 5,664
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr hojo 64,969
Global Cooling (Apr '15) 11 hr hojov 2,645
News White House will override Obama's climate plan (Oct '17) Mon hojo 5,888
News Obama paints doomsday scene of global warming i... (Sep '15) Mon Ala Tucky Puck 16
News Poll: Is Global Warming Real and Caused By Huma... (Jun '12) Mon don t drink the k... 7