E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NOAA
The primary site for the Mauna Loa Observatory and its carbon dioxide sampling equipment is located at the 11,000-foot level on the island of Hawaii. The Weather Bureau founded the observatory in 1956 to gain access to clean, particle-free air when it could not find a suitable site in the continental U.S.
WASHINGTON — The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air jumped dramatically in 2012, making it very unlikely that global warming can be limited to another 2 degrees Fahrenheit, as many global leaders have hoped, new federal figures show.
Scientists say the rise in CO2 reflects the world's economy revving up and burning more fossil fuels, especially in China.
Carbon dioxide levels jumped by 2.67 parts per million since 2011 to total just under 395 parts per million, said Pieter Tans, who leads the greenhouse gas measurement team for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That's the second highest rise in carbon emissions since recordkeeping began in 1959. The measurements are taken from air samples captured away from civilization near a volcano in Mauna Loa, Hawaii.
More coal-burning power plants, especially in the developing world, are the main reason emissions keep going up — even as they have declined in the U.S. and other places, in part through conservation and cleaner energy.
At the same time, plants and the world's oceans which normally absorb some carbon dioxide, last year took in less than they do on average, said John Reilly, co-director of Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. Plant and ocean absorption of carbon varies naturally year to year.
But Tans told The Associated Press that the major factor is ever-rising fossil fuel burning: "It's just a testament to human influence being dominant."
Only 1998 had a bigger annual increase in carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas from human activity. That year, 2.93 parts per million of CO2 was added. From 2000 to 2010, the world averaged a yearly rise of just under 2 parts per million. Levels rose by less than 1 part per million in the 1960s.
In 2009, the world's nations agreed on a voluntary goal of limiting global warming to 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees Celsius) over pre-industrial temperature levels. Since the mid-1800s temperatures haven already risen about 1.5 degrees F (0.9 degrees C). Current pollution trends translate to another 2.5 to 4.5 degrees F (1.5 to 2.5 degrees C) of warming within the next several decades, Reilly says.
"The prospects of keeping climate change below that (2-degree goal) are fading away," Tans says.
Scientists track carbon pollution both by monitoring what comes out of factories and what winds up in the atmosphere. Both are rising at rates faster than worst-case scenarios that climate scientists used in their most recent international projections, according to Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann. That means harmful effects of climate change will happen sooner, Mann says.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Leave a Comment:
But yet no significant warming for 17 years now. Something other than C02 must be the dominant driving force for the climate. Now lets see, wonder what that could be?
It is true that CO2 is not the only factor that affects climate, but on the scale of decades to centuries it is generally dominant. The climate is still warming; the long term trend is obvious. The pace has slackened over the last few years for whatever reasons, but it is only if you cherry-pick the anomolous year of 1998 as a baseline that you could convince yourself that there is "no significant warming."
Roasted
The past ten years are ten of the hottest twelve years in recorded history. The iced caps are melting. The permafrost is melting. Your idea of "significant" is wrong. A few degrees may not seem to be much when you are thinking about the temperature on a particular day, but a few degrees AVERAGE temperature increase causes more severe storms, depletion of usable water, more drought, higher sea levels (and loss of land mass), and lots of other outcomes .... most of which are not positives for the human population.
To say that the past 17 years has show "no significant warming" is significantly erroneous.
It is interesting that so many poorly educated or poorly informed people continue to try to debate the issue of global warming when there simply is no issue open to debate.
Scientists who study climate concluded overwhelmingly around 40 years ago that man was responsible for run away global warming, caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels. There has really been no scientific debate on this issue in four decades.
Scientists who study climate concluded that the "tipping point" had already been passed when it would be possible to stop or reverse the course of global warming. There have been some who held out the possibility that with a golbal effort that the effets might be limited to an overall rise of 2C. This has turned out to be a false hope unsupported by any science.
The current debate in the scientific community concerns the effects of release of methane caused by the melting of methane hydrates from ocean warming and from the thawing of permafrost. These quintillions of tons of methane are 20-40 times as bad a greenhouse gas as CO/CO2 and there is nothing we can do to prevent it at this stage.
I would point out that every major study that has tried to predict the rate of global warming has been wrong. Every single study has underestimated both the amount of increase and the rate of increase.
Even the Pentagon considers global warming as the most significant external threat to peace and to the continued existence of the United States.
Chris-749391........
You are probably wasting your facts on this audience. They can't believe in the inconvenient truth of AGW because it requires a change in their economics and culture.
Many of these folks also refused to believe the link between tobacco and disease, the relationship between DDT and avian depopulation, the connection between ultra-violet light reaching Earth's surface and chlorofluorocarbon, and the negative contribution of tetra-ethyl leaded fuels to human health.
Apparently, it is in their DNA. We can only hope for a mutation.
And what takes CO2 and turns it into oxygen??? Trees and plants, green stuff. The problem started to kick in big time when we started to deforest the rain forests and not replacing the timber we have been over harvesting. It is not rocket science. The fix for all of this is to stop paving over the planet. Concrete and asphalt traps heat and causes the temperature to rise and if done at the expense of trees, it may be the biggest factor. Simple science, not impossible.
Fear not mortals.
When I tire of your doings,
I shall purge you from my back,
like the parasites you are.
Sincerely, Mother Nature
Visit Cryosphere Today and see the sea ice totals and look at the anomalies over the last 10 to 15 years for both the Northern and Southern hemispheres as well as the total sea ice amounts.
hang on theyre taking their measurments next to a volcano? wouldnt that skew the results?
Load of bull. We had the 12 hottest years on record just the last 15 years. Check with NASA or NOAA.
CO2 it is not the only driving force, but it is a big one. Additional warming will release methane from the permafrost.
No, you're a denier.....of fact.
The UK Met Office, Hadley Center confirms via their HadCrut temp data set, one of the 6 major data sets used worldwide by all legit climate scientists, that there has been NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING FOR 15 YEARS.
NOBODY ever accused the UK Met Office/ Hadley Ctr./UEA (which exposed scientists abrogating the scientific method) of being "climate deniers" or "shills for the fossil fuel industry". Just the opposite.
And your "hottest 12 years on record..." is a fabrication of data set "adjustments".
Pravda has plunked you. Sorry. And before you get all huffy, educate yourself on the dust up between the catholic church and Copernicus and Galileo, circa 1630.
History repeats itself. You are relying on faith. Like Copernicus and Galileo, we are in the minority but all of you faith-based anti-science appeal-to-authority people will be wearing the egg..
Earth has been warming since the last ice age.
The warming during the past 250 years is the most dramatic warming in the past 500 million years, and the past decade is even more pronounced. The temperatures during the few thousand years prior to the late 1700's were actually quite stable and included some significant cooling periods lasting several generations.
Actually, it hasn't. The temperature peaked over 10,000 years ago and has been varying just below that ever since. The ice age cycles are not a sine curve and they have nothing to do with what is happening now.
Wrong!
400,000 years ago, the Earth's average temperature was 1.5 degrees Celsius hotter than today. See Vaks et al. Speleothems Reveal 500,000-Year History of Siberian Permafrost. Science Express.
JohnCarter, the Earth has been a lot hotter than that before. So?
@John Carter,
Actually the study you cite says no such thing. Period. Here is the abstract:
"Soils in permafrost regions contain twice as much carbon as the atmosphere, and permafrost has an important influence of the natural and built environment at high northern latitudes. The response of permafrost to warming climate is uncertain and occurs on time scales longer than has been assessed by direct observation. In this study, we date periods of speleothem growth in a north-south transect of caves in Siberia to reconstruct the history of permafrost in past climate states. Speleothem growth is restricted to full interglacial conditions in all studied caves. In the northernmost cave (at 60°N), no growth has occurred since Marine Isotopic Stage (MIS) 11. Growth at that time indicates that global climates only slightly warmer than today are sufficient to thaw significant regions of permafrost."
What you have called out is a peak in CO2 levels (and therefore in temperstures) caused by the Hoxian deglaciation. The deglaciation caused massives releases of CO/CO2 as biomass was exposed and melted as the ice retreated.
This is, however, a good example of how half-witted interpretation of things not well understood leads to completely incorrect conclusions. Actually the paper gives some good insights into the additional CO2 and methane that will be released as the permafrost melts.
Nowhere in the study does it even hint that the Earth's average temp was 1.5C hotter than today. Just another pop story gone sour.
Chris-749391.....
Do you suppose JohnCarter-428979 simply failed to understand the study? Or do you believe he intentionally misrepresented it?
When the Earth was hotter a half a billion years ago the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was significantly higher than it is today. Look it up.
There's no money in admitting guilt, there's no money in mea culpa, but there's lots of money in obfuscating and obstructing.
Look at how the tobacco industry fought tooth and nail against everything that came up against them regarding relating consuming tobacco products and cancer and addiction.
Compare the costs of the settlements that the tobacco companies were forced to pay against the earnings they were able to achieve during the entire period between discovery of the issue, the cover-ups, and the subsequent uncovering and irrefutable findings after scads of scientists sacrificed their credibility for big handouts by said industry.
Same thing is happening with the energy industry and other heavy industrial polluters.
There's no money in making the switch now while they still have a bus-load of politicians willing to take kickbacks at the public's expense. Doubly important are the throngs of zealots willing to buy into the pseudo science and support every bit of their confirmation bias because the very notion that they could possibly be wrong is far too scary for them to fathom...it's better to believe that the heavy polluters are right and that it's the super-wealthy scientists exercising their powers to control the media and politicians to obstruct economic prosperity
...it couldn't possibly be a bunch of heavy industry moguls that don't want to retire their aging capital and move to cleaner methods...that's an upfront cost vs. pollution that has no direct impact to these companies' bottom lines (one of the reasons why so many fight Cap-and-Trade so feverishly).
As for developing nations, China and India's pollution problem is largely a self-correcting one. They are poisoning themselves and their gender-gap is so severe at this point that they are going to have a serious health-crisis and population bust right around the same time as each other...both of which will sufficiently slow down their economies to allow them to fix the issue...or simply not be a part of the problem...either way.
@chris-749391
While your technically correct the ABSTRACT doesnt say MIS 11 was 1.5 C warmer than today, plenty of articles based on the full report do:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=siberian-caves-reveal-permafrost-thaw
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/uoo-cpt022113.php
The last interglacial, the Eemian, was warmer than today also.
Yes, the UAH global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for February, 2013 is +0.18 deg. C.
OMG, run for the hills. We are now up to .18 degrees anomaly!
That is a significant departure from the failed IPCC models.
Models cannot predict monthly or yearly anomalies and none are intended to do so.
Obviously.
jock59801.....
RoastedChickenLittle is a new registration (January 2013). Comments from this account exclusively refute global warming.
It is likely this account is controlled by a special interest whose sole concern is financial and perceives AGW science as a (financial) threat.
In other words, RoastedChickenLittle has no interest in the truth and exists only to propagandize Newsvine.
@ Ian Emdee
Agreed. It's very apparent that there are so many dummy accounts that crop up to try and shift the conversation on hot-botton political issues.
I wonder how many of these "professional-bloggers" are paid to spend hours arguing with each other on the political threads especially.
My favorites however are the stories about Chinese hacking and corruption. There always seem to be similarly written posts by brand-new accounts taking the side of the Chinese without ever trying to support their point...or only doing so by simply denying everything and never supporting their own points. Hopefully the ChiComs compensate them better than the gold-farmers on WoW.
It's all those bicycle riders. . .. Honest, just ask Washington State Representative Ed Orcutt, anyone want to guess which Party?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/ed-orcutt-bike-riders-pollute-environment-washington_n_2805658.html
The Human race is still an infant, and we seem to be heading for a spanking from Mother Nature.
None of this will matter when the comet c/2013 A1 hits Mars.
How could that possibly affect us, charlie? It looks unlikely to happen anyway.
@jock,
Actually the Russians just released some more refined figures on 2013A1 and it looks like the comet will come even closer with Mars within the CEP. It is unlikely to happen, but the numbers aren't in yet.
Humor, Jock, humor.
Well, Mars could certainly use some more mass. Although we'd probably lose our latest rover. I imagine that it would be significantly easier to terraform Mars if it suddenly was handed an extra large supply of water from space.
Honestly though, someone with more experience than I on the subject, how much more mass would Mars need to be able to get a molten core again and support an atmosphere dense enough for humans to breathe...perhaps equivalent to extreme altitudes around Everest-heights on Earth?
Perhaps if Mars and Venus were to be combined...
Now, Now We all know that the earth's temperatures are supposed to be stable at all times and any variation is due to humans. NASA & NOAA are less than 80 years old but can tell you the temperatures on March 5, 1902, with extreme accuracy. The mini-ice age ended about 1900 and we should still be at those temperatures when the human population has increased exponentially.
Stop breeding and producing all the co2 expellers.
"We all know that the earth's temperatures are supposed to be stable at all times and any variation is due to humans"
Nobody has ever said that. Ever.
We actually have spotty observational weather data going back over 3000 years and really spotty for another 1000 years. The Chinese meticulously recorded daily weather in a large number of locations going back to 1000 BC or so. Ships logs from all over the workd recorded daily weather as well. And then there are occasional mentions of weather on given dates going back to about 2500 BC. Jefferson and Thoreau as examples kept detained records not only of temperature and rainfall, but of blooming dates of plants and harvest daters of crops. The National Weather Service goes back only about 150 years, but there is still lots of data out there, data that can be effectively modeled even though it is very incomplete.
The "mini ice age" that ended in 1900 is a myth. It wasn't an ice age at all, but a minor period of cooling. It was a cool period from 1550 thru 1850 that was caused by volcanic activity. During the preceeding Medieval Warm Period (which probably ended the "Dark Ages") there was a huge amount of volcanic activity and some well-documented shifts in ocean currents.
Interesting stuff if you were to do a little reading instead of reading off the Commie Koch Brothers playbook.
The cooling down period between 1550 and 1850 was due to reforestation of the western hemisphere due to the deaths of 25 million native americans. Most of the natives died off after Columbus and other Europeans spread their diseases...leaving farms and cities to revert back to forest and jungle. These new carbon traps reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere, cooling the globe signicantly over a period of a few hundred years. This is an example of how reforestation (not genocide) can be used to reduce CO2 fairly quickly.
tbone
Nice story, but completely wrong.
The timeframe between the cooling and exploration of the new world is not a coincidence....anthropogenic global warming is real, and this puts it right in your face.
I believe that anthropoligic global climate change is real, but that belief is not based on your story.
It doesn't matter what you believe...the effects of the carbon sinks that established themselves after the genocide in the new world coincide with the cooling of the planet...this data has been retrieved from antarctic ice core samples. The CO2 drop was significant...10ppm or so. The scary thing is that if this small drop caused the mini-ice age, what lies in store for us when the CO2 recently deposited in our atmosphere retains the radiant energy of the sun for the next 300 years...
There is evidence of a vast civilization that existed in the Amazon that was wiped out after the first Europeans came through. It's there, if you are willing to dig for the facts. There is also the fact that adding particulate polution to the atmosphere will cool the planet. The Clean Air Act stopped that, and allowed the clear gasses to have their sway more readily. They proved this on September 12th, 2001. When all the world's airplanes were grounded, the difference was measurable.
Some might question the independence of government scientists, but not me. I believe everything the US government tells me. So can I get a bailout or a tax break now?
But it would also be silly to assume that the opposite of what government scientists say must be true. Most climate scientists do not work directly for the government, but they do often get funding through NSF or other government related entity; but steps are taken to assure independence, and these are among the best scientists in the world. Where do you think money for reseacrh is going to come from? Government or industry are about the only options.
Yeah, if a guy has a PhD, he is a "scientist", and therefore "knows what he is talking about". There was one prominent "scientist" who made big money by going around and selling "global warming" to scare people into doing without heat in the winter, sweltering in the summer, throwing away their light bulbs, etc. The "scientist" has a PhD in English Literature...
jerryb- anyone with a Ph.D. in a non-science area is a fraud if he/she claims to be a scientist. Anyways, it doesn't matter much because legitimate, peer-reviewed, published studies are not published by non-scientists. Anyone can claim to be an expert, but very few non-experts are able to produce high quality data that is suitable for publication.
Is a scientist who is not a knee-jerk skeptic really a scientist? I don't think that a mere PhD qualifies a person as a scientist. Of course, we could just be talking about good scientists and crappy ones. To me, it's an open question: What qualifies one as a scientist?
Also, stuff isn't peer-reviewed as rigorously as the science world would have you believe. That's how studies like "Eating two pomegranates per day will increase your....." can get published. Who would waste time peer-reviewing such a study? Real science is hard and we shouldn't expect dramatic new science developments in the news on a daily basis.
Science should be above money but it is not. Remain skeptical regardless of the size of the "consensus". Freeman Dyson has observed that scientific heretics are vital to the advancement of knowledge.
Oh? published in what scientific journal? References please.
OH NO, 395 parts per million OMG! Sheep follow with BAA BAA!
So what's your point? 395 ppm is pretty high. .0395% To trivialize it indicates a remarkable lack of education.
@TAF,
Here's a good test of your understanding of global warming: A gallon of gasoline weighs about 6 pounds. If you burn that gallon of gasoline in an average car, what would be the weight of the pollutants (C, CO, CO2, S02)? If you can't easily guess this one, you have no idea what you are talking about with global warming.
The scary part is that anyone listens to Mann and his group when they have been proven to have manipulated their data. You do the math each human produces 25 watts of energy per hour and there are 2.5 billion more now than back in 1950, well man made global warming is more due to that than our CO2 production, the greatest threat to man is his propensity to procreate at an ever growing rate. This simple fact is the one all alarmists will ignore, and at the expense of the future, let alone the .2 % rise in solar output and the tilt of the earth putting more sunlight directly on the polar regions of this planet but again facts aren't these scientists forte, they want grant money and will LIE, CHEAT , and Self regulate to get it. What ramifications are there if they lie, none. If I were to pedal snake oil I would be jailed, they do it and say oops! when they are caught. Seems fair to me.
Somehow I think you're exaggerating a tad. Just a hunch.
morwens- Hogwash! I dare you to give evidence to support any of your statements. You know nothing about the scientific process and choose to believe what you want to believe, with no regard for the truth.
morwens
Your statements are totally false. And if you actually believe that thousands of scientists in more than a hundred countries have entered into a conspiracy to put forward a false theory you are living in a @!$%#ing dream world. There is no better way for a scientist to make his or her reputation than to prove an accepted theory wrong. Scientists who come up with the correct explanations for natural phenomena win Nobel Prizes, get their ideas named for themselves (as in Darwin's Theory of Evolution), make huge money writing books and becoming appointed to endowed chairs at prestigious universities.
Your conspiracy theory is moronic and totally without evidence. If you are merely repeating the disinformation you heard from Rush, Glenn, the Fox News Clown Posse and others you are clearly a dupe ..... a low information conspiracy junkie who is an easy mark for the energy folks like the Koch brothers who would like for you to keep using lots of fossil fuels without restrictions. If this is something you dreamed up on your own, you are a bonehead.
Morwens
New physics is better than the old tried and true physics when you're trying to make a political point. I am offended by your accusations, actually, but to no avail.
Just because the computer models have been completely wrong so far doesn't mean they aren't right now, you climate change heretics!
Just because there has been no warming for the past fifteen years means nothing.
Just because there is no evidence of the tropospheric hot spot the models predict DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE WRONG!!!
All you global warming skeptics need to be rounded up and executed.
For the children.
Joe's head exploded.
"Recorded history" of the daily temperatures started in 1879, when thermometers came into common use. Hardly enough time to establish a "normal" climate, when we are still emerging from the last ice age. The "sky" looks blue most of the time. Mars has a CO2 atmosphere, which is kinda red. But "scientists" who get gov't grants and help the gov't grab more and more control over our daily lives will ride the "climate change" bullcrap for all it is worth. Money.
There are plenty of ways to measure historical temperatures and CO2 levels without thermometers. Scientists are a lot smarter than you are.
Progressive lecture 101 if you can't dazzel them with brilliance call on the b. s. Skeptics is how science is regulated and you sheeple should know it, but a theory is just a theory and until proven with accurate data and review, a theory it stays.( man made global warming is not anything close to a theory yet it is still in the hypothesis state and you want me to feel for you.) NOT HAPPENNING!
Ten years ago the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 381 ppm or 0.0381% and now it is 395 ppm or 0.0395% an increase of 0.0014%! That may be the detection limit of the equipment used and if that is the case, then all the figures should be questioned!
There are gases in nature that are more plentiful and more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and make CO2 look almost non-existant by comparison!
There has been about 1500 active volcanic eruptions in the last decade. This is the highest its been in recorded history and those volcanoes put more CO2 in the air than all of man has put in it in a hundred years. Oh I forget FACTS are contrary to MMGW adherents belief system.
That's a grand statement! Now, something you don't do is provide a reliable source so that MMGW adherents can see the "truth" for themselves.
"those volcanoes put more CO2 in the air than all of man has put in it in a hundred years."
That is not only false, but it is easily discovered as false. Your much vaunted research turns out to go no further than the lies from your favorite denier website.
Republicans seem hell-bent on ending their political party for good.
VILIFYING scientists, teachers, police officers, firefighters, and government-WORKERS while spending inordinate effort DEFENDING the most rich and powerful among us (who do NOT require free DEFENSE, but they will certainly take advantage of it) is not a well-thought-out long term strategy.
They do not even know WHY they are doing it.
"Conservative" radio just tells them to; and so they do.
I just knew that politics would rear its ugly head, if the facts don't fit change the subject and if the MMGW adherents want me to give them every detail as to the research then call up some spurious garbage then what's the point. Look for the truth not the politics of the proposition and I'm not a republican I'm a concerned citizen with four degrees from accredited colleges that has taken the time to do the math, and if I had given my stats prof. the conclusions the MMGW crowd has given us he would have failed my dumb butt. The rho and Pearson for these statistics are inconclusive and never would support the conclusions statistically, so find the truth and stop performing mental gymnastics supporting things you are not willing to prove to yourself, is worthy of you faith. I for one will not accept shoddy workmanship in science, it reeks of profiteering and complicity to defraud. Not to mention a total lack of integrity. Again I'm not here to give you my work, do your own and learn so you can be self confident in your adherence one way or another.
"Do your own work"?
Why?
Climate SCIENTISTS are doing it!
They are camped out, they are in labs, they are plugging data into computers...
This is how humans do things; we let farmers farm, teachers teach, and police officers police.
Putting up with one party who thinks they know better than everyone else; WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW JACK; is getting old.
morwens ...
Well I took your advice, not that I needed it, and did a simple search about your claim that "There has been about 1500 active volcanic eruptions in the last decade." From several worldwide sites having to do with volcanic activity - short and long-term - this is the general agreement.
Remember: "active" doesn't necessarily imply an actual eruption. Keep that thought in mind. Something you failed to mention is that these 1500 active volcanic eruptions didn't happen during the last decade, they happened over the timeline of the Holocene period. You know, that geological epoch which began at the end of the Pleistocene (around 12,000 to 11,500C years ago) and continues to the present? You do know that timeline is just a tad longer than a decade?
Keep digging you'll find it. It's a good beginning you have. And no you haven't found the most recent data for this past decade and no you haven't looked deep enough yet and yes all active volcanos produce CO2 as eruption or as quiescent status. Even dormant ones produce CO2 off gassing, read further and learn it can actually be fun if you don't get hostile about the search, don't like my stance that's fine but do it for a legitimate reason not politics.
And they are making freshman mistakes when the release preliminary conclusions before the do due diligence and proper statistical analysis. Trust is earned not given because you say it should be. There are no authorities in climate change science, it is new to mankind, it is in it's infancy and your tone implies you'll believe what these newbies will feed you, then so be it, ignorance is truly bliss, enjoy it while you can and may peace be with you.
If you actually read any of the scientific studies, you would find that there is plenty of "due diligence and proper statistical analysis". The one who is making freshman mistakes is you.
morwins ...
Your reply is noted. I take it that one of your four degrees has something to do with climatology? Other than how to accurately read a thermometer? Your style of writing does not suggest that your four degrees were earned. Rather, they were purchased on the Internet.
And yet, in order for you to remain in the comfort zone of anonymity, you continue to deny any reference sources for your claims. Easier for you to damn "the others" than own up to your shortcomings and risk placing yourself upon the world stage. You’re one person on a huge planet. You alone have concluded that the community of climate scientists are in error? How presumptive, how arrogant you are in your lone assessments!
OK no one has to tell me when to give up learn from the ones that have published the report on the Hockey stick fraud then come at me again from the direction, live and learn, never give up learning, like it or not they are making mistakes which are proven and you haven't read the official reprimand they received for it from the congressional oversight group. Oh well I tried ,good fortune to you and yours, peace be with you.
Yes they do include them in all of the major sciences including astronomy and physics so , there then and I have earned them the hard way paying my way and attending all classes at ISU and other campuses.
morwens, the "hockey stick" graph was 15 years ago and only one paper among thousands. It was never "debunked." There was some question about the exact methods, as there often is in science, but the overall message has been repeated many times. A "reprimand" from a politician means exactly nothing. Besides, the prediction of athropogenic global warming is not based on any observed temperature record anyway.
Tobacco is good for you too, and arguing with idiots on the internet proves only that you share the same qualification.
DUMFLICKISTAN FOREVER
the science is settled. co2 is bad. We must stop global warming.
the science is settled. co2 is bad. We must stop global warming.
the science is settled. co2 is bad. We must stop global warming.
the science is settled. co2 is bad. We must stop global warming.
the science is settled. co2 is bad. We must stop global warming.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. ”
― Adolf Hitler
You seem hopeless, but let me try to show you the flaw in your argument:
the sky is blue.
the sky is blue.
the sky is blue.
the sky is blue.
or how about:
insulation traps heat.
insulation traps heat.
insulation traps heat.
insulation traps heat.
what about:
we dump insulation into the air.
we dump insulation into the air.
we dump insulation into the air.
we dump insulation into the air.
and the insulation is multiplied 10 fold by water.
and the insulation is multiplied 10 fold by water.
and the insulation is multiplied 10 fold by water.
and the insulation is multiplied 10 fold by water.
no...
it's blue
by your reasoning I should assume that your comment (#21.4) is a lie (since it is simple and repetitive);
but I trust you on that point;
get a clue
Among the greenhouse gasses emitted by volcanoes, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide are the two major offenders. Nobody ever mentions that volcanoes can produce hundreds of tons of greenhouse gasses in a single day, and there are also a record number of active volcanoes on the planet at present. What is also interesting is that it is proven that dust from volcanoes actually reflects sunlight, causing the atmosphere to cool. The earth will take care of itself. Humans just need to stop believing they can change the climate and start moving uphill from the oceans of the world.
we have the power to destroy the earth (many times over) within hours;
the concept that we can drastically change it over a couple of centuries should not be so hard to understand;
Volcanoes emit less than 1% of the greenhouse gasses that human industrial emissions do.
yes jock and my suv is so evil, if i open it up on the highway full throttle it could all by itself darken the whole earth for months. I am glad to know one volcano could not be powerful enough to ever do that.
Yep, volcanoes = nothing
suv = total annihilation
“The earth will take care of itself. Humans just need to stop believing they can change the climate and start moving uphill from the oceans of the world.”
Unfortunately, that was the natural order of things before the Industrial Revolution. Before then, the earth did not have to adjust to “unnatural” emissions into the atmosphere and artificial introductions of manmade contaminants into its oceans, rivers and land masses.
Humans, like it or not, now have the role of being stewards of the earth. Our ancestors were acutely aware of their role in this regard. Most modern humans never received, or ignored, the memo about that fact. Result? Continually denying personal and communal responsibility for their catastrophic failure to do, or not to do, the job correctly. The earth and humans currently share the price. The arrangement was not mutual. As it appears now, earth will resume its former role of self-cleansing after humans cease occupying its surface.
Good post Charles;
isn't it supreme irony that the ones who claim "personal responsibility" are also the ones who say: "go ahead! dump as much insulation into the air as you WANT!"
Chicken, since nobody has ever claimed anything of the sort, your attempt at mockery looks a bit silly.
unless of course they learned the insulation's negative effects were incredibly exaggerated by scientists that lied and refused to show their data. and they found out that the beneficial effects were downplayed by zealots claiming we must not create any more plant air because they hate to see people prosper.
conservatives love to conserve. wouldn't it be great if we were working on real pollution issues of which there are many instead of wasting time arguing about plant air.
so,
scientists lie;
teachers and firefighters have exorbitant salaries;
and,
single moms are taking too much aid;
but,
rich oil companies need tax breaks and subsidy; and should be trusted with our environment (so we must defend them with all of our energy);
And Repubs think they are on the right side of the the argument; and that those arguments will win in upcoming elections
By the way:
The ENTIRE POINT is that we are dumping more "plant air" than all of the plants on earth can absorb.
Therefore, the extra "plant air" is trapping more heat; year after year.
By the way: heat warms things.
the pseudoscientists lie. teachers & firefighters exorbitant salaries? single moms? no what are you talking about, the sequestration Obama put in place?
my point is:
look at who Repubs vilify (the scientific community is not lying);
look at who Repubs defend (oil companies are lying);
and then Repubs wonder why they lose elections (get - a - clue)