Think the Planet Isn't Warming? Check...

Think the Planet Isn't Warming? Check the Ocean

There are 37 comments on the news.discovery.com story from Apr 11, 2013, titled Think the Planet Isn't Warming? Check the Ocean. In it, news.discovery.com reports that:

A recent article in The Economist stated that "over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar." The Economist went to great lengths to point out that "the mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures a does not mean global warming is ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at news.discovery.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
SpaceBlues

United States

#22 Apr 11, 2013
Ole Humlum has become the deniers expert for Ė CO2 increases are natural, and increased temperatures are just natural variations. Deniers may also cite that the last inter-glacial period was warmer, and that we are following a similar trend [which will ultimately lead to another ice age]. The message is donít worry, itís natural, the increased CO2 comes from the oceans, and humanity can carry on burning fossil fuels.

NOAA: How do we know that humans are responsible?

The evidence for a dominating human role in the CO2 increase is extremely strong. The 38% increase (in 2009) in atmospheric CO2 observed since pre-industrial times cannot be explained by natural causes. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have varied naturally throughout Earthís history. However, CO2 levels are now higher than any seen in the past 800,000 years. When we add the observed CO2 increase in the atmosphere to the observed increase in the oceans, the sum is approximately equal to all of the coal, oil, and natural gas burned since the 19th century. Furthermore, the observed progressive depletion in carbon-13 (see the question below about isotopes) shows that the source of the CO2 is either fossil fuels or deforestation because both produce CO2 depleted in carbon-13. The atmospheric CO2 increase cannot have come from the oceans because that would not have caused any depletion of carbon-13. In fact, carbon in the oceans has itself become gradually depleted in carbon-13, with the greatest depletion at the surface. That implies that the signal is imposed from the atmosphere. The next piece of evidence is that we also observe a depletion of radioactive carbon-14 in the atmosphere and oceans, with the strongest signal in the atmosphere suggesting it is the place where the depletion originates. Fossil fuels contain no carbon-14, and their combustion produces CO2 without carbon-14. Deforestation does not cause a change in atmospheric carbon-14. Finally, the annual mean CO2 abundance in the northern hemisphere is higher than in the southern hemisphere, and more so in recent years compared to the early years of atmospheric CO2 measurements. This suggests a growing source of CO2 in the northern hemisphere, which is
SpaceBlues

United States

#23 Apr 11, 2013
[This suggests a growing source of CO2 in the northern hemisphere,] which is in fact where most of the fossil fuel burning takes place.

Again, from NOAA:

How do we know that humans are responsible?

The evidence for a dominating human role in the CO2 increase is extremely strong. The 38% increase (in 2009) in atmospheric CO2 observed since pre-industrial times cannot be explained by natural causes. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have varied naturally throughout Earthís history. However, CO2 levels are now higher than any seen in the past 800,000 years. When we add the observed CO2 increase in the atmosphere to the observed increase in the oceans, the sum is approximately equal to all of the coal, oil, and natural gas burned since the 19th century. Furthermore, the observed progressive depletion in carbon-13 (see the question below about isotopes) shows that the source of the CO2 is either fossil fuels or deforestation because both produce CO2 depleted in carbon-13. The atmospheric CO2 increase cannot have come from the oceans because that would not have caused any depletion of carbon-13. In fact, carbon in the oceans has itself become gradually depleted in carbon-13, with the greatest depletion at the surface. That implies that the signal is imposed from the atmosphere. The next piece of evidence is that we also observe a depletion of radioactive carbon-14 in the atmosphere and oceans, with the strongest signal in the atmosphere suggesting it is the place where the depletion originates. Fossil fuels contain no carbon-14, and their combustion produces CO2 without carbon-14. Deforestation does not cause a change in atmospheric carbon-14. Finally, the annual mean CO2 abundance in the northern hemisphere is higher than in the southern hemisphere, and more so in recent years compared to the early years of atmospheric CO2 measurements. This suggests a growing source of CO2 in the northern hemisphere, which is in fact where most of the fossil fuel burning takes place.

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

#24 Apr 11, 2013
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
<quoted text>
Brilliant...just brilliant..(Chuckle)
the idiots are on parade...
and that idiot is the grand marshal

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#25 Apr 11, 2013
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
<quoted text>
Brilliant...just brilliant..(Chuckle)
Thanks. I just love it when frightwingnut morons like you realize libs are way superior to teabag troglodyte Luddites like you.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#26 Apr 11, 2013
carey529 wrote:
<quoted text>
the idiots are on parade...
and that idiot is the grand marshal
But no one is watching you lead the parade.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#27 Apr 11, 2013
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't need to tell Dr. Spencer anything...too far over your head.
Thursday, August 30, 2012New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming
An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.
Send big al another 20...he's down to his last 400 million!! LMAO
You do know that that paper proved to be so full of errors that the editor of the journal appeared in apologised for publishing it and resigned?

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#28 Apr 12, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know that that paper proved to be so full of errors that the editor of the journal appeared in apologised for publishing it and resigned?
I have come to the theory that people like the poster you answered above are no longer connected to reality.

The whole movement toward deliberate and profound ignorance by GOP supporters has damaged their ability to see reality as reality.

This condition meets every test of being a superstition.
It would be a religion, given that it is so well financed, except that there is no worship componant; only a superstitious insisting on, repeating, and clinging to known incorrect beliefs in the face of scientific or basic knowledge.

The denial of global warming, the insistance that President Obama is a Moslem, that he was born somewhere in Africa; that trickle down (under any name )economics can possibley lead to more and better jobs; all these are proven false, yet are part of an unshakable belief system.

Simple superstition.
PHD

Thornton, TX

#29 Apr 12, 2013
AKA scientific science fiction usless babble to extract more tax dollars from the real tax payers.

“Baby Obama”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#30 Apr 12, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Ole Humlum has become the deniers expert for Ė CO2 increases are natural, and increased temperatures are just natural variations. Deniers may also cite that the last inter-glacial period was warmer, and that we are following a similar trend [which will ultimately lead to another ice age]. The message is donít worry, itís natural, the increased CO2 comes from the oceans, and humanity can carry on burning fossil fuels.
NOAA: How do we know that humans are responsible?
The evidence for a dominating human role in the CO2 increase is extremely strong. The 38% increase (in 2009) in atmospheric CO2 observed since pre-industrial times cannot be explained by natural causes. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have varied naturally throughout Earthís history. However, CO2 levels are now higher than any seen in the past 800,000 years. When we add the observed CO2 increase in the atmosphere to the observed increase in the oceans, the sum is approximately equal to all of the coal, oil, and natural gas burned since the 19th century. Furthermore, the observed progressive depletion in carbon-13 (see the question below about isotopes) shows that the source of the CO2 is either fossil fuels or deforestation because both produce CO2 depleted in carbon-13. The atmospheric CO2 increase cannot have come from the oceans because that would not have caused any depletion of carbon-13. In fact, carbon in the oceans has itself become gradually depleted in carbon-13, with the greatest depletion at the surface. That implies that the signal is imposed from the atmosphere. The next piece of evidence is that we also observe a depletion of radioactive carbon-14 in the atmosphere and oceans, with the strongest signal in the atmosphere suggesting it is the place where the depletion originates. Fossil fuels contain no carbon-14, and their combustion produces CO2 without carbon-14. Deforestation does not cause a change in atmospheric carbon-14. Finally, the annual mean CO2 abundance in the northern hemisphere is higher than in the southern hemisphere, and more so in recent years compared to the early years of atmospheric CO2 measurements. This suggests a growing source of CO2 in the northern hemisphere, which is
Blah, Blah, Blah

Global Warming is a man-made bullshit story.
SpaceBlues

United States

#31 Apr 12, 2013
Space Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah, Blah, Blah
Global Warming is a man-made bullshit story.
What's your evidence?

“Baby Obama”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#32 Apr 12, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What's your evidence?
It's called Common Sense.

Man cannot control Mother Nature, by throwing billions of dollars at her.
SpaceBlues

United States

#33 Apr 12, 2013
Space Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called Common Sense.
Man cannot control Mother Nature, by throwing billions of dollars at her.
Well, it's happening via emitting man-made CO2 at rates of 90 million tons every day into the MN's face!

“Baby Obama”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#34 Apr 12, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Well, it's happening via emitting man-made CO2 at rates of 90 million tons every day into the MN's face!
Believe the lies if you want.

Turn over all your money to fix it.
SpaceBlues

United States

#35 Apr 12, 2013
Space Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Believe the lies if you want.
Turn over all your money to fix it.
You are the one believing in lies.

You are not facing the reality of the global climate change caused by fossil fuels burning. I wonder why.

“Baby Obama”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#37 Apr 12, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Well, it's happening via emitting man-made CO2 at rates of 90 million tons every day into the MN's face!
Blah Blah Blah
SpaceBlues

United States

#38 Apr 12, 2013
Space Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah Blah Blah
OK. You concede. Good.

P.S. Denier dictionary.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#39 Apr 12, 2013
Mr_Bill wrote:
The whole movement toward deliberate and profound ignorance by GOP supporters has damaged their ability to see reality as reality.
This condition meets every test of being a superstition.
It would be a religion......
It is deeper than even you portray. Toxic AGW deniers decided before school, NOT to have science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc for their poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. The percent difference between toxic AGW deniers & AGW advocates who accept science data & ideas that AGW as true, is very great. As for toxic topix AGW deniers, at least six posters have no hi skule DEE-plooomaas, at all. As for hi skule or college AGW denier graduates, a large hi percentage have no science or mathematics classes, & an even higher percentage have no science or mathematics degrees.

Even while young, potential AGW deniers, have purposefully & broadly stepped away from science.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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 Calif. sues carmakers over greenhouse gas (Sep '06) 10 hr IbdaMann 3
Wow cold 10 hr IbdaMann 2
News High court ponders greenhouse gases rules (Nov '06) 10 hr Reality Speaks 3
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 15 hr hojo 39,132
The Pseudoscience of Global Warming 22 hr hojo 59
global warming keeps on keeping on (Apr '17) Sun Patriot AKA Bozo 268
News Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warmin... (Sep '15) Sat hojo 32