Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 47,486
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2051 Jan 12, 2009
The waves of the ocean hiss with air, every wave a breath. It’s always been, it will always be. This is not a man made thing, the atmosphere will not bend to man and the oceans do not still. Change, Storm, these are facts.

Climate change has three lies, the trend, the hazard and the cause.

A tax is the obvious fix, huh?
Plain Jane

San Francisco, CA

#2052 Jan 12, 2009
fishaholic wrote:
<quoted text>
There is something wrong with your thought process. It is impossible to heat the ocean uniformly, therefore, that demonstration is not valid as applied to oceans. But, just for fun, what is the prediction IF it were possible to heat an entire ocean to it's "tipping point"? Using logic, wouldn't you expect the ocean to get to equilibrium with the heat source? It can't get hotter without more heat being applied. Correct?
BTW, the ocean absorbs CO2 in warm areas also. It doesn't just absorb it in cold areas and transport it to warm areas and emit it.
If you apply uniform heat, water will continue to increase in temperature at a steady pace until it reaches a tipping point and then the temperature will increase more rapidly without increasing the temperature of the heat applied. When water reaches the temperature of the heat source, it will maintain that temperature.

Again, I never said that cold water doesn't emit carbon. Cold water sequesters more carbon and emits less than warm water.

Your inability to understand simple statements is puzzling and makes me suspect your are just exhibiting trollish behavior rather than truly misunderstanding.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#2053 Jan 12, 2009
Pachelbel wrote:
<quoted text>
I certainly won't need it until you present some evidence on your claims.
Pachelbel, I don't have time to do all your research for you. If you choose not to verify your sources, don't be shocked when you are held to account. Remember, you are the one refuting every major scientific body on Earth; the burden of proof is therefore on you.

Sourcewatch and Factcheck are fine places to learn all you like about alleged scientists and their backers. Seitz, Singer, Lindzen, Carter and all make interesting reading, as do their organizations.
T Leary

Mico, TX

#2054 Jan 12, 2009
JRobert wrote:
<quoted text>
Pay no attention to the 'green' JRobert. She is a fraud and a troll who has been following me around on Topix for months, adopting whatever name I use. So far, she's changed her name about 4 times.
She wants to have my babies, but I turned her down. I have my standards, she has diseaes.
She's a crazy little head case. Pay her no mind.
Wow. I'm confused now. I guess any poster with the name Robert in it I now to agree with and attack at the same time?

Since: Aug 08

Pittsburgh, PA

#2055 Jan 12, 2009
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did your political agenda dresssed up as envirometnalism notice these facts that have nothing to do with "neocons"?
How after 19 years of IPCC predictions, did 2008 end up being the coldest year of the century?
How is that warming itself is proof of the CAUSE of climate change?
How did warming without SUV's for countless millions of years take place?
How is it that despite wide spread scientific debate, the theory and it’s followers morally discount it and still call it “science”?
If global warming’s legitimacy is the "they say, they say, they say", what gives the followers of the theory any right to expressing their perosnal opinion?
How long has this climate crisis being going on for?
Describe this crisis in detail (no googling).
How has this crisis in climate affected ourselves or someone we know personally?
Who was Rachel Carson?
Do we all have chocking fits when breathing the air?
Why are we living longer now than at any time in human history?
Should we miss living in smoke filled mud huts, fighting for the water hole and using peat moss for toilet paper?
What is the difference between sustainability and poverty?
Since La Nina delayed global warming, why is La Nina not considered to be stropnger than all of themagical forces of global warming itself?
What would have to happen to prove the theory was wrong after all?”HINT: cold.
The theory started in 1986 and the IPCC has been making predictions of climate crisis for 19 years (based on the theory that says it started 140 years ago with the industrial revolution), so how much longer is the world’s longest emergency going to go on for and how much longer to you really expect us all to wait for this coming crisis?
How is the IPCC’s plan of “precaution” worthy of being called an “exact” science, let alone consensus?
Why do we bow to scientists after they infected our planet with their evil chemicals and are being bought out by evil oil companies to kill clean technology according to the theory’s followers?
Calling a paid consultant a scientist is not illegal we can assume?
Why isn’t there a shortage of Oxygen from all of this increased combustion from China, cars and coal plants?
If volcanoes can’t be banned, will they be taxed?
What a trash heap answer delivered only 6 minutes after my post! It was so long I can't even get it in the allowed 4000 character QUOTE. He can sure out type me. Altho he never answered about the tobacco & energy company connection.
Somehow, connecting energy boardroom company, PEOPLE & STRATEGIES with tobacco boardroom company, PEOPLE & STRATEGIES really really hit a soft spot. Yes, indeed, TOBACCO & ENERGY companies have much in common, except I never drove a cigarette around the block.

“Recall Congress”

Since: Jan 09

Naples, Maine

#2056 Jan 12, 2009
fishaholic wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is where you contradict your own belief.
1) The ocean sequesters more carbon only when it cools. It emits CO2 when it warms.
2) Better explain the thermal principle that says that the ocean will continue warming even when the air temps stop increasing. Does a pot of boiling water keep boiling when you take it off the stove?
3) You did get one thing right. Ocean currents affect the climate. I believe I remember something that scientist say that due to a stoppage of the atlantic conveyor, earth might have been a complete snowball at some point it it's history.
My point is you better go back and either get your facts straight or stop listening to PBS if that's where you got those "facts" from. There's also an alternative to PBS called Google that will let you expand your horizons beyond a narrow point of view.
The only thing ruining our Oceans right now is all the Crap coming out of
"outfall" pipes...especially the one from New Jersey and New York that dumps
out about 70 miles south east of Nantucket and the Deer island treatment
plant in Boston Harbor dumping about a Billion gpd.of treated waste out into
the Atlantic. Not only are New Yorks
Financial GURU's from Wall street killing our economy. They are killing our fisheries with their rotten shit.
-Baller

Juneau, WI

#2057 Jan 12, 2009
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.
BTW: President Johnson was informed in 1965 about the dangers in increasing the amount of CO2.
Wow... A little too scientific for me LOL :)
Plain Jane

San Francisco, CA

#2058 Jan 12, 2009
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
What a trash heap answer delivered only 6 minutes after my post! It was so long I can't even get it in the allowed 4000 character QUOTE. He can sure out type me. Altho he never answered about the tobacco & energy company connection.
Somehow, connecting energy boardroom company, PEOPLE & STRATEGIES with tobacco boardroom company, PEOPLE & STRATEGIES really really hit a soft spot. Yes, indeed, TOBACCO & ENERGY companies have much in common, except I never drove a cigarette around the block.
That is just copy / paste spam that he has posted repeatedly several times a day.

Since: Jan 09

Connecticut

#2059 Jan 12, 2009
T Leary wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. I'm confused now. I guess any poster with the name Robert in it I now to agree with and attack at the same time?
Nah. Its easy to tell the difference.

I posted as "Robert" for a long time, but I didn't register with Topix (green field) until Zonker the brain damaged House Troll developed a fixation on me and began pretending to be me.

So I registered with Topix and changed to "JRobert." He/she began using JRobert, too, but he/she can't use the green field.

Since: Aug 08

Pittsburgh, PA

#2060 Jan 12, 2009
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
What a trash heap answer delivered only 6 minutes after my post! It was so long I can't even get it in the allowed 4000 character QUOTE. He can sure out type me. Altho he never answered about the tobacco & energy company connection.
Somehow, connecting energy boardroom company, PEOPLE & STRATEGIES with tobacco boardroom company, PEOPLE & STRATEGIES really really hit a soft spot. Yes, indeed, TOBACCO & ENERGY companies have much in common, except I never drove a cigarette around the block.
I see mememine69 addressed my post for a similar but other reason than for the reason I posted here. I actually got replies to different but similar posts crossed. Not sure why Mememine69 posted such a vigorous response to my post, except 'possibly' for the reason Plain Jane posted as a standardized answer.
T Leary

Mico, TX

#2061 Jan 12, 2009
JRobert wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah. Its easy to tell the difference.
I posted as "Robert" for a long time, but I didn't register with Topix (green field) until Zonker the brain damaged House Troll developed a fixation on me and began pretending to be me.
So I registered with Topix and changed to "JRobert." He/she began using JRobert, too, but he/she can't use the green field.
You do sound more like the 'real' Robert. You sound more intellegent than the other.

Since: Jan 09

Connecticut

#2062 Jan 12, 2009
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad to hear you turn the thermostat to 61, wear 2 warm shirts & long underwear, turn a/c to 78, & take the bus or heaven forbid drive a 50MPG car(can't pick up hot dates, tho according to denialists).
I'm agenda-driven too. Love to take the telescope out & show the Universe to people who have never looked at the stars thru a telescope.
Take your energy company propaganda back to the tobacco companies who started the science denial strategies. The same boardroom spokespeople can be found in both places.
Wow. You take the telescope out to show people the stars? So that's how you "walk the walk?" Impressive (not).

But derisive laughter aside, you once again attempt to deflect. What I do isn't the issue. I'm not part of a hypocritical movement of Warmists who claim to want to "save the planet."

ALL of you Warmists talk the talk, but NONE of you walk the walk.
T Leary

Mico, TX

#2063 Jan 12, 2009
JRobert wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. You take the telescope out to show people the stars? So that's how you "walk the walk?" Impressive (not).
But derisive laughter aside, you once again attempt to deflect. What I do isn't the issue. I'm not part of a hypocritical movement of Warmists who claim to want to "save the planet."
ALL of you Warmists talk the talk, but NONE of you walk the walk.
Ah, now I know for sure this is the real Robert. Case closed.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2064 Jan 12, 2009
WOW, only three lies, it’s happening, it will be horrible, we did it.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#2065 Jan 12, 2009
Plain Jane wrote:
<quoted text>
If you apply uniform heat, water will continue to increase in temperature at a steady pace until it reaches a tipping point and then the temperature will increase more rapidly without increasing the temperature of the heat applied. When water reaches the temperature of the heat source, it will maintain that temperature.
Again, I never said that cold water doesn't emit carbon. Cold water sequesters more carbon and emits less than warm water.
Your inability to understand simple statements is puzzling and makes me suspect your are just exhibiting trollish behavior rather than truly misunderstanding.
Then why didn't you say what you meant in it's entirety instead of rambling about heating and tipping point and not increasing in temp, blah, blah, blah. Again, your description is a great lab demonstration but does not apply to reality. I'll state again that the ocean cannot be heated uniformly so it's a moot point, besides being a MR OBVIOUS moment from your description.

You did say in a previous post this:

"The ocean is sequestering carbon in cold regions and releasing it in warmer regions."

You appear to talk in so many circles that you forget what you said and didn't say. I'm not a displaying trollish behavior. I just don't understand what you're talking about when you post such rambling statements. You tend to cloud your point by disjointed thoughts. I think there is not hope unless you have better retention of your research.
jon24

Alexandria, VA

#2066 Jan 12, 2009
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
I ask you & others to call me litesong. It is courteous to such.
litesong, no disrespect intended.
Why, have sea levels been rising at te same rate for the last 10k years?
better?
jon24

Alexandria, VA

#2067 Jan 12, 2009
Plain Jane wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had read the post or the link you would already have the answer which is probably why no one answered you.
Again:
"The ice cover in 2008 began the year heavily influenced by the record-breaking2007 melt season. Because so much ice had melted out during the previous summer, a vast expanse of ocean was exposed to low winter air temperatures, encouraging ice growth. Although still well below average, March 2008 saw slightly greater ice extent at the annual maximum than measured in recent years. However, the ice was also thin: less than a year old and vulnerable to melting in summer."
There is greater EXTENT but much less MASS so it is still a loss, not a gain.
Ok so how with gobal warming, is any gain back to 1979 levels, thin or not possible? Have we cut back on CO2 emmissions? Has anyone?
Has China in fact, surpassed the US in CO2 emmissions? How is it that the Hockey stick tempature display is now going the wrong direction?

“based on morphology like DNA”

Since: Jun 08

Vermont USA

#2068 Jan 12, 2009
That's farce. Still nothing but tax scheme.
readysettruth

United States

#2069 Jan 12, 2009
yeah it has sped up so much that areas of Spain that hadn't seen snow in 20 years just got 2 inches last week.Da mn global warming for causing all that SNOW!
Say the Truth

Wallingford, PA

#2070 Jan 12, 2009
It's a swindle for sure.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Obama wants an election about the economy, not him 1 min Here Is One 503
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 min Valerrie 269,691
New fear: What happens in Ferguson if no charges? 2 min Dr Jethro White MD 1,174
Obama admin. to allow thousands of Haitians int... 4 min Here Is One 45
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min woodtick57 1,125,371
Mystery of Charlotte woman missing since 1965 l... 6 min uirtmvciomera 1
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 10 min Mitt s Santorum S... 1,416
GOP governors don't see 'Obamacare' going away 47 min Edmond Pulpo 40
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr polymath257 120,861
Justices allow Texas to enforce strict voter ID... 1 hr Inform me 126

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE