Robbie, you are missing what I said..

The plankton that is eating the CO2 is not the beneficial type. The extra C02 is causing this bad plankton to thrive and not only does this bad plankton like the CO2 but it also like the other resources that the good plankton like. Meaning the bad plankton is winning the war of survival of the fittest and throwing this out of balance.

This has a lot of drastic effects down the food chain considering plankton is among the lowest level of that chain..

Also the allege you speak of.. Just as.i mentioned before the allege is blooming at a drastic rate due to the extra CO2 In the ocean.. The allege is not a good thing Robbie, because it's killing everything else. From sea grass to coral reefs, they are all dying due to the excess allege.

Perhaps you should go for a dive sometime and see how badly the allege blooms are affecting the oceans.. Hell you can even go to a local river or lake and see a very similar effect. Allege is taking over lakes and rivers all over this country much the same as it's happening in the oceans and I've seen it first hand. The biggest difference, is that the allege in the lakes and rivers is coming from man made pollution, mostly fertilizers while in the oceans it's due to the acidification from the co2.

This is the problem, is you are latching on to one little pice of the puzzle and trying to fit that little piece and failing to look at the entire picture. You don't look past the single issue you talk about. This is what I've tried showing you each time. This ocean and CO2 thing are a very small part of a very big picture and you are ignoring the cause and effect of what happens due to the co2 the ocean is sucking up.

How much has the temperature risen over the past 100 years. And what was it 500 years ago?

That's an interesting question if you ask me. As was brought up by someone else...the Vikings went to Vinland ("Wine Land") and they called it "Wine Land" because it was so nice and warm that grapes grew everywhere by themselves and made terrific wine.
That was around the year 1000 AD
And keep in mind they sailed there from Greenland.

All that was frozen within a couple of hundred years.

Didn't take thousands of years to do it. The Earth abruptly changed during that period as it was coming out of a "hot" period" and going into a "mini Ice Age".

So anyway...the statement you made about the past 100 years: What temperature are you starting with and from what YEAR.

The Earth isn't warmer than it was when Leif Ericson sailed from Greenland to Vinland for damn sure. It's COLDER.

So when does this temperature "rise" start? And how did the Earth get so warm back then without any "help" from mankind? And how did it cool back down to where we are today?

And don't start insulting people. Just look at my questions. I think they are very reasonable to ask.

Earth will find a solution to to his problems but we won`t like it. "Better be safe than sorry"

Robbie, I don't know anything about wine land, but Greenland was named Greenland by Eric the Great to make it sound more appealing..

It's kind of like those bills congress loves to pass.. "jobs bill", "child safety act"," patriot act" ect..ect.. They choose appealing names but the reality of the bills is usually nothing close to the names.

As for insults.. I started dishing them back to you when you got so big on calling everything Crockett science.

careful, you're confusing weather with climate.

Blown out and out of focus.

Sure the magazine wasn't called "blind editors"?

What are you talking about? I've NEVER typed the words "Crockett Science" :mad:





~giggle~ :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Please explain all-knowing and almighty great one. FFS!

What exactly is it you think we see today "caused by the CO2 created by man"? A 0.6 degree rise in temperature in 100 years? Oh the heavens, please save us from near certain an imminent incineration.

0.6 degrees is barely outside of the margin of error for most data collection methods. Over 50% of the surface temperature stations in the US are sited improperly causing temperature readings up to 5 degrees warmer than a properly sited station. On top of that the alarmists have been adjusting the data to make current temperatures look warmer and older temperatures look colder.

Anyways, go back and read the article I posted about a paleoclimatologist who sees conditions now similar to those before the start of the last glaciation and the timeframe:

There is no scientific proof that humans are to blame for all of the rise in CO2.

There is no scientific proof that we are anywhere near having "excess" CO2.

There is no scientific proof that the little bit of warming we have supposedly had is having any adverse effects.

There is no scientific proof that the earth is going to warm uncontrollably and catastrophically.

There is no scientific proof that the warming would stop if mankind vanished from the earth today.

There is no scientific proof to any of this bullshit. Scientific proof requires an experiment that can be duplicated and we can't experiment on the atmosphere. Computer models and simulations do not count as valid experiments and they sure as hell don't prove anything.



.

pretty sure this can be disproved just be the changes taken place while 'men' have keep records.... in the last 1000 years there have been drastic changes.. people didn't cause any of this

'During a period from about 750 BC to 200 BC, before the founding of Rome, temperatures dropped and European glaciers advanced. Then the climate warmed again, and by 150 BC grapes and olives were first recorded to be cultivated in northern Italy. As recently as 1,000 years ago (during the “Medieval Warm Period”), Icelandic Vikings were raising cattle, sheep and goats in grasslands on Greenland’s southwestern coast. Then, around 1200, temperatures began to drop, and Norse settlements were abandoned by about 1350. Atlantic pack ice began to grow around 1250, and shortened growing seasons and unreliable weather patterns, including torrential rains in Northern Europe led to the “Great Famine” of 1315-1317.'


-ended the crusades, precipitated the 100 years war

'Temperatures dropped dramatically in the middle of the 16th century, and although there were notable year year-to-year fluctuations, the coldest regime since the last Ice Age (a period termed the “Little Ice Age”) dominated the next hundred and fifty years or more. Food shortages killed millions in Europe between 1690 and 1700, followed by more famines in 1725 and 1816.

-brought on the French Revolution - the famous phrase 'let them eat cake' refers to a shortage of flour, except for the higher grade 'cake flour'

The end of this time witnessed brutal winter temperatures suffered by Washington’s troops at Valley Forge in 1777, and Napoleon’s bitterly cold retreat from Russia in 1812.'

'Although temperatures have been generally mild over the past 500 years, we should remember that significant fluctuations are normal. The past century has witnessed two distinct periods of warming. The first occurred between 1900 and 1945, and the second, following a slight cool-down began quite abruptly in 1975. That second period rose at quite a constant rate until 1998, and then stopped and began falling again after reaching a high of 1.16 degrees above the average global mean.

About half of all estimated warming since 1900 occurred before the mid-1940s despite continuously rising CO2 levels. Even U.K. East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) Director Phil Jones has admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming for at least a decade. He has also admitted that temperatures during the Middle Ages may have been higher than today.

So perhaps you’ll wish to ponder this question; Given that over most of the Earth’s known climate history, the atmospheric CO2 levels have been between four and eighteen times higher than now – throughout many times when life not only survived but also flourished; times that preceded humans; times when CO2 levels and temperatures moved in different directions – how much difference will putting caps on emissions accomplish? Consider also that about 97% of all current atmospheric CO2 derives from natural sources.

--- so very many human events are tied to the climat changes if you would only look :2 cents:
'

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...ually-changes/

Some failed predictions and ridiculius observations by some of the "brilliant" people leading us down the "man-made global warming" rabbit hole:

Wow...look at that list of shit that has been forecast but turned out to be WRONG.

That is why I am incredulous at people who believe the whole "global warming caused by man" story.

For some reason they think that NOW the green energy funded scientists are suddenly going to be 100% right when they have been WRONG for 50 years.

But now? Suddenly they are the gospel. And anyone who says otherwise is a "denier"

Unreal...

in all fairness the media only selects these 'types 'to 'interview and quote' most scientist scoff at this crap

Hi Robby,

Your fallback argument against climate change is that the earth can adapt. As a basic concept, yes "the earth" can adapt, but you are missing the bigger picture.

"The Earth" is made up of various gasses in the air, plant life, animal life, ground, and radiation from the sun. All of these together in the past have done ok for themselves in the past. The very best example of this are places like the amazon and other forests, where animals co exist in harmony with plant life.

What Carl Sagan and climate scientists are saying, is that not only are we polluting the earth at an alarming rate, but we are also taking away "The Earth"'s ability to heal the damage.

First, We are dumping more crap into the air and water than ever before, and number 2, we are cutting down more and more rainforest, and 3, we are polluting the ocean more and more. You should consider the Air, land and water to be "The Earth".

By taking away the trees, you disrupt the exchange of gases such as carbon between the air and the earth. By polluting the oceans you disrupt the exchange of gasses between the water and air, and also disrupt the natural temperature difference between the two.

By polluting the air, you disrupt all kinds of things of course, but one of the "hidden" problems is the amount of soot in the air from cars, factories, oil disasters and forest fires which are now being deposited on Ice in the Arctic and Antarctic. The soot is black, and it is darkening the color of the ice. Darker ice absorbs more sunlight than lighter ice, which means it melt faster.

"The Earth" used to be able to heal itself as you put it, but we are taking that ability away from it.

No. Actually what just happened is you just proved you have no idea what you are talking about in this thread. The only diferrence between weather and climate is time sequence.

In fact, the definition of climate is what the weather does over an Extended length of time

Thus the relation and comparison i made makes perfect sense to those of us open to trying to understand the reality of what is actually happening and not closed-minded about it.

damian, where are you tearsheets? or are you gonna stick your head in the sand just like brian (grapesoda) did. he sure stopped talking shit here.

are you the same guy who points to snow in denver in may and says "see, global warming is a hoax".

No. But you are the same guy who points his finger at others and wants them to die simply because they disagree with him and his version of climate.

Pardon. I meant lynch much worse than just dying. Good job fostering the change you so desperately wish.

if there's no threat then people who don't believe in climate change should move to coastal cities. it just makes sense. :)

I am enjoying a wonderful sunset from Huntington beach at this very moment.

And feel free to look for any postsof mine where I've said I don't believe in global warming.

Also please let me know the time the big wave gets here sinking the city so I can grab my board and paddle out.

and all was well with the world. wacky lightning strike on venice today. did you see that? one of my buddy's g/f's was one of the victims, she's ok.

It may sound crazy, but Dynamo is right... mostly....

Click here for the full explanation of the difference between Weather and Climate:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/no...e_weather.html

yes mark, i get that. but many people point to a freak snow storm in May disputing global warming.

Some people don`t see the forest because of the trees. We have so many fuckin anomalies all over the world, but we NEED to "dispute". It`s getting ridiculous...