2012 warmest year on NM record

Full story: KOB-TV New Mexico

Since 2000 we have had more dry years than wet years, according to the National Weather Service.

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 33 of33
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Perspective wrote:
One average volcano eruption emits more greenhouse gasses in one day than humans have since recorded history.
Idiot environuts!
Let' ban volcanos!!!!!
Wrong again, Bubba. Volcanoes are certainly the largest natural source of CO2, but they emit about one percent or less of the amount of CO2 that humans emit.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Lobo Viejo wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again, Bubba. Volcanoes are certainly the largest natural source of CO2, but they emit about one percent or less of the amount of CO2 that humans emit.
Truth is no one really knows...and the studies are biased on either side trying to prove their point...

The earth has its cycles...

I'm pretty sure God wouldn't allow us humans to destroy ourselves completely...

Besides...

The changes in the earths axis from earthquakes can change climates a lot faster than our puny contriubtions...
Nope

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Perspective wrote:
One average volcano eruption emits more greenhouse gasses in one day than humans have since recorded history.
Idiot environuts!
Let' ban volcanos!!!!!
better to ban ignorant liars.
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities?
Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal,“No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate...

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jan 5, 2013
 
Hagar wrote:
<quoted text>This is one of the few times that I agree with you, LV, but as a physicist I think we may need to be very careful on how we separate out man made influences from natural cyclic variations. When the "noise" of natural variations is much larger than the "man made" causes the data is much more difficult to separate and understand. I'm sure that there people who think they understand the differences and perhaps they do.
Absolutely. The challenge is separating man-made influences from natural variations, not the least of which is the slow warming over the last 20,000 years or so from the last ice age. I was actually one of the signers of the "petition project" a decade or more ago, mostly because I did not like the alarmist misuse of legitimate science.

But, when I look at the numbers for human emissions of GHG, I really can't think of a credible hypothesis as to how these emissions DO NOT have a significant impact on climate.

As I am sure you are aware, the American Institute of Physics and AGU have some of the more cautiously worded policy statements on climate change, but still rather strong statements regarding human influence.

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century." http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_...

Glad you are chiming on on this discussion.
The old

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth is no one really knows...and the studies are biased on either side trying to prove their point...
The earth has its cycles...
I'm pretty sure God wouldn't allow us humans to destroy ourselves completely...
Besides...
The changes in the earths axis from earthquakes can change climates a lot faster than our puny contriubtions...
fallacy that there are always two sides to every issue that are equally valid and equally biased.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Lobo Viejo wrote:
<quoted text>So, as we enter a new forest fire season, and if you see the dry hills around Ruidoso burning once again, may you be comforted by your belief that humans have absolutely nothing to do with climate change and drought.
Were the forest service to allow and/or clean up some of the years if accumulation of debris there might be less, however there are benefits to FFs too. Nature is doing what it does, part of the cycle of life. Obviously I'm not talking about personal losses.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lobo Viejo wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely. The challenge is separating man-made influences from natural variations, not the least of which is the slow warming over the last 20,000 years or so from the last ice age. I was actually one of the signers of the "petition project" a decade or more ago, mostly because I did not like the alarmist misuse of legitimate science.
But, when I look at the numbers for human emissions of GHG, I really can't think of a credible hypothesis as to how these emissions DO NOT have a significant impact on climate.
In general that's where I have no problem -civilly- looking at ways to curtail our contributory methods. Unfortunately the eco-nuts seems to think we are the sole cause of this and ignore what nature does.
you are

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
In general that's where I have no problem -civilly- looking at ways to curtail our contributory methods. Unfortunately the eco-nuts seems to think we are the sole cause of this and ignore what nature does.
helping by pushing that BS.
The

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
Were the forest service to allow and/or clean up some of the years if accumulation of debris there might be less, however there are benefits to FFs too. Nature is doing what it does, part of the cycle of life. Obviously I'm not talking about personal losses.
Forest Service changed course 20 years ago and has been doing a combination of vegetation management practices ever since. It is never enough to catch up and the funding has been limited. And when it is fire season all their resources get tied up with fighting fires.

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
In general that's where I have no problem -civilly- looking at ways to curtail our contributory methods. Unfortunately the eco-nuts seems to think we are the sole cause of this and ignore what nature does.
There are nutjobs on both sides of this issue, CD, not just the lefties. The real debate on this issue is taking place in civil discourse in the peer-reviewed journals of professional science organizations. Most of the abstracts of these papers are available online for free. The correct answers will eventually emerge from this process. But, in the meantime, we can all entertained by the ignorant politicians, prostituting industry consultants, and foaming-at-the-mouth self-proclaimed experts on the extreme left and right.

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
Were the forest service to allow and/or clean up some of the years if accumulation of debris there might be less, however there are benefits to FFs too. Nature is doing what it does, part of the cycle of life. Obviously I'm not talking about personal losses.
Our piece of heaven is in a heavily forested rural area, and I bought our home well aware of the fact that forest fires are a natural part of the environment. Most people who live up here do not understand this and blame fires on the government or, even worse, the environmentalists. A pathetic combo of ignorance and arrogance. Yet, at the first sign of smoke, they expect the government to run up and protect them. We have a good fire safe and a large vault at our bank in town. Living with the risk of fire is part of the price we pay for living in an incredibly beautiful area. If we get burned down, we won't be one of these cry-baby hypocrites who wants to have their cake and eat it too.

“US Navy”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Well spoken Lobo, both posts.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Last time my common sense kiced in, it warms after ice ages, and humans wasn't around for most of them. If we are screing it up, natre willtake care of the problem. Odds are from past history, the PHD's are wrong. Burn some more coal as you type on your computer......O.L.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 33 of33
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••