Comments on: Global warming facts

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:54:12 +0000

"New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere" HERE ********** Well ................ if this is true, will they now PAY us to breathe instead of levying a tax on CO2 emissions?

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:43:02 +0000

"Claim: Germany Spends $110 Billion to Delay Global Warming by 37 Hours" - HERE ********** At a cost of $29.73 BILLION per hour, just THINK what it would cost to "delay global warming" by a whole year.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:38:46 +0000

UK: "Government's climate watchdog launches astonishing attack on the Mail on Sunday... for revealing global warming science is wrong" - HERE

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:20:37 +0000

The bison in North America in the early 1800s were once numbering in the hundreds of millions, it is a wonder that we still have any life left on earth with all that dung and methane they deposited; Anyone that thinks that cattle are the main cause of global warming are nuts.

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:13:10 +0000

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:04 +0000

"Auditor Generals long awaited report on Pacific Carbon Trust finally released and surprise surprise….there are big problems all around." HERE

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:47:52 +0000

"State Ban on UN Agenda 21 Clears Arizona Senate" HERE

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:25:22 +0000

Are we led by mad men, psychopaths, idiots, or simply predatory kleptomaniacs?

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:22:26 +0000

RED ALERT: Earthworms blamed for "global warming". Stamp them out. Anyway, who needs them. HERE ********** Also here: “A United Nations report has identified the world’s rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife." ********** Also: "A dozen academics, described by Yale’s environmental magazine as “the world’s leading polar bear scientists”, published an article in an environmental conservation paper in which they stress that the time is nigh to euthanize polar bear populations in Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Norway, and Russia."

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 02:02:24 +0000

Kirk, ;^)

By: Kirk MacKenzie

Kirk MacKenzie — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:51:12 +0000

Phil — Still obsessing on that “breathless” descriptor? Get over it — I lost a point with that insult. Yes, my data coughed up another, stronger sell signal 1/18. I don’t know about a “major” correction…I let the data be my guide.

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:29:49 +0000

. . . climbed . . .

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:28:33 +0000

Kirk, as you browsed the materials behind the link that I posted please report my respiration rate. – 1) breathless/extremely high – 2) elevated/panting – 3) nominal/no sweat – 4) depressed/call 911 – 5) unrelated to the material at link. – - – an unrelated BTW – stocks climped today preceeding what I believe will be a major correction. Last week I moved sideways while maintaining stable respiration. We shall see.

By: Kirk MacKenzie

Kirk MacKenzie — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:58:23 +0000

Phil — “Like”? It is more credible than most, especially coming from Forbes, research done by Berkeley, and funding (partially) from Koch. So I find it more credible than likable. It is consistent with what I think is happening, and there’s nothing to like or dislike about that…it is what it is and we should focus on dealing with the consequences. I don’t think we’ll stop it and the data I’ve seen suggests it’s a done deal…it’s all over but the sweating and swimming. While browsing through Forbes climate related articles it looks like they have changed their tune. I also came across one article that directly refutes the claim of your previous link about a 17 year pause: http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/2/

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 23:08:55 +0000

Kirk, do you like this one any better? - LINK - New Study Shows Independent Evidence Of Global Warming

By: James E.

James E. — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:29:00 +0000

Evelyn, if you cannot find one I can tell you about cold fronts, warm fronts, and wind sheer.
I used to be able to name all the cloud formations, and how they predict weather but that’s pretty much gone from my memory. Oh, also, don’t fly into thunderstorms. That’s it.

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:20:34 +0000

Let me know if you find ANYONE on the UN’s IPCC who is a qualified climatologist.

By: Kirk MacKenzie

Kirk MacKenzie — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:11:46 +0000

Evelyn — I’m not sure what your point is…Rajendra Pachauri’s alleged statement about a 17 year pause is not to be trusted? Regardless, chiefs don’t do the scientific research.

By: Kirk MacKenzie

Kirk MacKenzie — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:09:02 +0000

Phil — good job missing the point and creating a strawman argument. Did I listen to the audio stream? No. The president is a politician. Politicians lie. As for that survey, you stopped quoting just prior to “This is fun to note, but this poll is as worthless in determining the climate of the Earth as every previous poll that said the opposite.” For every opinion there is a spinhead willing to leverage it into a paycheck.

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:34:38 +0000

Kirk, thank you for your kind suggestion that I watch my respiration rate while I sit in my recliner and comment with this forum. I was not aware that you were concerned with the danger of overexertion as I tap the keys of my laptop while reclining. I’ll slow down. So . . . with my respiration rate now under control I ask, were you able to allocate any time to listen to the radio stream link I offered? (February 20, 2013 - 2:12 pm) The entire 40 minutes is interesting, but the relevant discussion begins at 36 min. and 20 sec. into the program – “The President lied.” [when the stream is finished loading it is possible to advance to 36:20]

By: Evelyn

Evelyn — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:25:12 +0000

Rajendra Pachauri, the UN's climate change chief, is unqualified in climate science. "He was educated at La Martiniere College in Lucknow and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. He belongs to the Special Class Railway Apprentices, 1958 Batch, an elite scheme which heralded the beginning of mechanical engineering education in India." - HERE

By: Kirk MacKenzie

Kirk MacKenzie — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:42:02 +0000

I should add that I was wrong about the axis wobble clue explains the deviance between glacier melt in the northern and southern hemispheres. DOH!

By: Kirk MacKenzie

Kirk MacKenzie — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:39:27 +0000

Phil — no quotes? Just a blog referencing a right wing Australian publication. What I see in the data is a 10 year flattening. These climate patterns occur over long time frames and don’t move in straight lines. What Rajendra Pachauri was likely talking about is the 17 years worth of data needed to separate signal from noise. At least your breathless stock market updates were accurate…and you stopped because that, too, was a “pause” in an uptrend.

By: Martin

Martin — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:36:59 +0000

Phil that is so hard to do LOL your right “almost” is correct, just to bad that something like that can happen. They need an oversight committee that is made up verified non bias individuals.

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 03:25:54 +0000

Martin, insert “almost” in front of “everything” and your statement stands (at least with me).

By: Martin

Martin — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 03:15:34 +0000

If EPA lies about global warming, I wonder if they lie about everything else that puts money in the pockets of our environmental maniacs. Just a guess but I bet they do.

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 02:36:38 +0000

LINK - THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office

By: Kirk MacKenzie

Kirk MacKenzie — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:23:51 +0000

Rod — Thanks for the clue about the axis wobble — that explains the divergence between glacier melt in the northern and southern hemispheres. However, I don’t think the Woods Hole folk agree with you. Check out their article (below). For one thing, they don’t consider CO2 a red herring. Another is the ability of the global carbon cycle to deal with increased CO2 and warmer temperatures. There are multiple, complex, interacting systems involved in climate change. Humanity is one variable and we are adding what we add. Regardless of *why* climate change is occurring, I think we can agree that it *is* occurring. Instead of the endless debate over why, I am convinced we should be working on how to deal with the changes that threaten much of our population and capital centers, here in the US and around the world.

http://www.whoi.edu/page/live.do?pid=97656&cid=119889&tid=3622.

By: Darrin

Darrin — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:29:56 +0000

I do think the earth temperatures are cyclical and do not think that the warming trend(there is a warming trend around Pollock and Camino, I am sure) is totally due to human influence. But the amount of humans on the planet, the amount of green house gases emitted, and the infrastructure that we have built will have an impact to some degree. That is not disputable. The air in LA is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. If man can build dams that influence the rotation of the earth, we can dam (sorry) sure throw it off balance in other ways too. I can believe there is some naturally caused rise in CO2, but I also believe there is quite a bit that is being released by human activity, and that is what concerns me.

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:12:24 +0000

bottom of page - Audio player of last night's Batchelor discussion LINK - A new poll of Earth scientists has found that a majority are skeptical of human-caused global warming. - "Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."

By: Kirk MacKenzie

Kirk MacKenzie — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:03:22 +0000

Rod — I can’t find anything on the “Scripts Institute”. Did you mean the Scripps Research Institute (TSRI)?

By: rod

rod — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:58:49 +0000

If you want reasonably good numbers, check into Scripts Institute and/or Woods Hole. You have sand Darrin, an asset, but recognise that CO2 is a RED HERRING in the argument for GW, and you may see what I’m saying.

By: rod

rod — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:45:50 +0000

Open mind Darrin, open mind. NOAA well known and reliable untill 1998. Truth is rarely synonymous with government inculcation through ideological filters. Universities, like Boulder get their grants as long as they use the same filters. Auto emissions are not a natural form of CO2 contribution, I said breathing was. “Carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere mainly by fossil fuel combustion” The preposity of that statement warrants no further comment.

By: Darrin

Darrin — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:31:59 +0000

Rod, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and seem that you are well qualified to form one. The problem is, even with all that book learnin, you still think that internal combustion engines are a natural function. I disagree with that and also the fact that the impact 6 billion people on the earth have compared to 1 billion. Then add the advancement of tools to include petroleum driven engines and you increase the release of carbon into the atmosphere. There will be a tipping point. Do you know the exact amount of CO2 the atmosphere can tolerate? Here is some proof from the government for you…

Carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere mainly by fossil fuel combustion

“Globally, these carbon dioxide ‘sinks’ have roughly kept pace with emissions from human activities, continuing to draw about half of the emitted CO2 back out of the atmosphere. However, we do not expect this to continue indefinitely,” said NOAA’s Pieter Tans, a climate researcher with NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., and co-author of the study. The University of Colorado’s Ashley Ballantyne is lead author.

http://1.usa.gov/XjFBoQ

By: rod

rod — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:42:06 +0000

Kirk, “Kilauea adds more than 4,000 gallons per minute in the form of water vapor to the Earth’s water supply. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second most abundant constituent in Kilauea emissions. Current CO2 emission rates are about 10,000 tonnes/day. We already have CO2 in concentrations of 0.04 percent and more in the air that we breathe, thanks to human-generated emissions. Fortunately, plants photosynthesize some of this to make oxygen”.Thats alot more than Mt. St Helens, and Kiluea is EVERY DAY. How many other active volcanoes are there? and ocean vents, the mid Atlantic ridge…. Fact is even if man produced more, the ‘pulse’ of additional CO2 is metabolized by plants (a big increase in global vegetation results). The BIG greenhouse gas problem is ,AGAIN, water vapor about 95% of the problem. SO, man’s contribution of CO2 is inconsequential in atmospheric warming. AND given that the oceans do not accumulate CO2 (just limestone)the oceans ‘clean the excess.Variations in Earth’s axial tilt can influence the seasons and is likely a factor in long-term climate change. The number I have seen for man’s contribution is about 1 billion tons per year… subject to every and any interpretation by who ever is trying to ‘sell’ you something. Your question is a good one, but as i have explained is not significant, just as Al Gores’ argument.

By: Kirk MacKenzie

Kirk MacKenzie — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:35:54 +0000

Rod — You say: “Man’s contribution is extremely small when considering the big picture.” I’ve seen estimates of man contributing 26 Billion Tons of CO2 every year. As a comparison, Mt St Helens added 10 Million Tons of CO2 when it erupted. That doesn’t seem “extremely small”… If you disagree with the 26B ton estimate, please provide one you consider more reasonable.

By: rod

rod — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:50:27 +0000

Darrin, It is wise to question what you hear and read, skepticism, especially when weighing gvmnt regulation is a freedom we still have, so use it. Watch for the minefield of agenda driven spoon-feeding often accompanied with new or follow-on regulation. Darrin, I have done my homework, you need to do yours. I have over thirty years employed by the oregon dept of environmental Quality (DEQ) in aggregate with the calif dept of food & agric. as an invasive species biologist and an air resouce engineer. I have studied PACE and ACE, the Pacific carbon Equilibrium and the Atlantic at Portland State Univ. There is always more to learn everyday, but I know of what I speak. CO2 has ups and downs in our atmoshere, always will but has ALWAYS been naturally modulated by our oceans (3/4 of the earths fluid volume). The carbon cyccle has well managed the full spectrum of temp extreems from glaciation to previous global warming. Man’s contribution is extreemly small when considering the big picture. CO2 is about the only ‘plausable’ greenhouse gas that can be regulated (taxed) by our nefarious EPA, so they scare everyone into compliance. The earth’s oceans have risen and temps have increased a little due to earth axis tilt and consequent glacial melt, NOT CO2 emissions (EPA got the chicken before the egg). do your homework, you will feel better, honest.

By: Darrin

Darrin — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:55:05 +0000

It is emitted as a natural function of …internal combustion engines. Wow, I want to find an internal combustion engine tree! I do understand your point but here is the thing. You know those little glass spheres you can buy filled with water , a small shrimp, plant, and a little air. That is the basis of our planet. That can exist for a while as long as everything is in balance. Add too much O2, CO2, or too many shrimp, you will not have the balance you need. That is where we are at currently. The earth has too many people making demands on it. Cars spewing exhaust are not releasing carbon naturally. The act of pumping oil out of the ground is not a natural act. It allows more carbon to enter the atmosphere and levels that nature can not deal with. We do not pump car exhaust back into the earth at the same rate we extract crude oil from it. Additionally, having millions of cows to feed millions of people puts more CO2 into the air. Where do we draw the line on naturally occurring CO2 versus man-made? In your theory it is all natural, but I can promise you, much like a water balloon, squeeze too much in one area and you lose the whole thing.

By: Martin

Martin — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:43:19 +0000

Rod facts mean nothing to brain washed individuals. If the EPA says its fact than it is fact to them, no matter what proof that earth takes care of itself which it has done over the millennium; no matter what we do other than stopping the next nuclear holocaust will have very little effect on its outcome. Follow the money to find out why the global warming theory has emerged.

By: rod

rod — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:09:44 +0000

Are you denying the CARBON CYCLE? basic oceanography my boy…well established fact better check it out…do you deny the holocaust to?

By: Phil Veerkamp

Phil Veerkamp — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:34:35 +0000

Science, schmience, Rod! Go ahead, prove a negative. I dare you.