Clear
62°
Clear
Hi 66° | Lo 45°

Monitor Board of Contributors: Climate change for dummies

  • FILE - This Sunday, Aug. 28, 2005 file photo shows a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration infrared satellite image of Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico. There are six lists used in rotation for storms in the Atlantic. The 2013 list will be used again in 2019. Names are taken off the list and replaced to avoid confusion if a hurricane causes a lot of damage or deaths. For example, the name of Hurricane Katrina was retired after it devastated New Orleans in 2005. (AP Photo/NOAA)

    FILE - This Sunday, Aug. 28, 2005 file photo shows a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration infrared satellite image of Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico. There are six lists used in rotation for storms in the Atlantic. The 2013 list will be used again in 2019. Names are taken off the list and replaced to avoid confusion if a hurricane causes a lot of damage or deaths. For example, the name of Hurricane Katrina was retired after it devastated New Orleans in 2005. (AP Photo/NOAA)

  • Boats sit on the dry, cracked bottom in a dry cove at Morse Reservoir in Noblesville, Ind., Monday, July 16, 2012. The reservoir is down nearly 6 feet from normal levels and being lowered 1 foot every five days to provide water for Indianapolis. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)

    Boats sit on the dry, cracked bottom in a dry cove at Morse Reservoir in Noblesville, Ind., Monday, July 16, 2012. The reservoir is down nearly 6 feet from normal levels and being lowered 1 foot every five days to provide water for Indianapolis. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)

  • Jeff Gerst, right, joins his neighbors in clearing snow from around their homes Monday, Feb. 11, 2013, in Fargo, N.D. Schools, public offices, medical centers and businesses throughout the eastern Dakotas opened late or not at all Monday as the region began digging out from a blizzard that broke several longstanding weather records. (AP Photo/The Forum, Michael Vosburg)

    Jeff Gerst, right, joins his neighbors in clearing snow from around their homes Monday, Feb. 11, 2013, in Fargo, N.D. Schools, public offices, medical centers and businesses throughout the eastern Dakotas opened late or not at all Monday as the region began digging out from a blizzard that broke several longstanding weather records. (AP Photo/The Forum, Michael Vosburg)

  • FILE - This Sunday, Aug. 28, 2005 file photo shows a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration infrared satellite image of Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico. There are six lists used in rotation for storms in the Atlantic. The 2013 list will be used again in 2019. Names are taken off the list and replaced to avoid confusion if a hurricane causes a lot of damage or deaths. For example, the name of Hurricane Katrina was retired after it devastated New Orleans in 2005. (AP Photo/NOAA)
  • Boats sit on the dry, cracked bottom in a dry cove at Morse Reservoir in Noblesville, Ind., Monday, July 16, 2012. The reservoir is down nearly 6 feet from normal levels and being lowered 1 foot every five days to provide water for Indianapolis. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)
  • Jeff Gerst, right, joins his neighbors in clearing snow from around their homes Monday, Feb. 11, 2013, in Fargo, N.D. Schools, public offices, medical centers and businesses throughout the eastern Dakotas opened late or not at all Monday as the region began digging out from a blizzard that broke several longstanding weather records. (AP Photo/The Forum, Michael Vosburg)

Pet peeve of mine: Hearing someone mention “global warming” every time we experience warmer than average weather.

Climate is the overall measure of how the earth’s systems interact and can include cooling. By the way, an unusually cold week does not invalidate our steady march upward in the temperature range. If you don’t know how your air conditioner exacerbates the problem, keep reading. If you slept through science class, keep reading. And you should especially keep reading if you make your living voicing your opinions through a microphone.

First of all, the term “climate change” was not coined by the far left.

In the 1980s, scientists were just discovering that the air pollution we have been creating since the Industrial Revolution might affect more than just our lungs and lakes. Since any long-term problems were eclipsed by the idea that we would all be blown to glowing bits by a nuclear war between the United States and the USSR, it made sense that the first prediction of global climate change came from our understanding of nuclear fallout.

Carl Sagan (more philosopher than scientist) predicted that all this pollution would cause a global cooling effect by blocking out the sun. This rudimentary, and completely wrong, interpretation was followed by real scientists’ proposal that some components of air pollution over-emphasized earth’s natural “greenhouse effect,” in which the atmosphere acts like the clear glass of a greenhouse, allowing the visible spectrum of the sun’s rays through but trapping in the heat that it is converted to after it hits an object.

Therefore “global warming” was used to connote the harmful effect of air pollution on our planet.

Enter Ronald Reagan, for whom we can thank for making all environmental issues partisan. Worried that the term global warming was too alarming, his team instead used “global climate change” to try to defuse the issue.

Grumbled about by scientists, the language was eventually adopted, especially as researchers found that it was closer to the truth. Back then, if you claimed you knew what was going to happen in 20 years because of pollution, then you were either lying or dumb.

All the best scientists knew how complicated the feedback loop among the atmosphere/earth/oceans/ice caps were, and they knew there was no easy answer.

I distinctly remember my professor Richard Bopp, researcher at Goddard Institute for Space Studies, telling us that the only thing he knew was that you could not overload such a delicately balanced system like our atmosphere and not have something change. The idea that everything in the world would gradually and evenly rise in temperature was unlikely, but he and his colleagues could not offer an alternative at that time.

Well, 25 years later, we have a better idea. Thanks to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a voluntary 2,000-member group of scientists committed to understanding climate change, we can verify that we are experiencing more severe weather and increases of ocean levels, glacial melting and average temperature.

It is a common practice for those who are ignorant of the science to bash the IPCC’s findings as just another catastrophic prediction from a liberal think tank, but could they please name any other issue where there are that many researchers donating their time for a cause? This is not a politically funded organization. Think of it more like a coalition of doctors who want to eradicate a type of cancer by banding together and sharing research.

Doomsday clock

The strongest argument for how unnatural our current situation is involves time. From all the data we have collected – ice cores from the poles, ancient pollen from lake bottoms, tree rings, rock samples and the like – there is no other time in documented history where the temperature has risen so quickly.

The number of species dying off as a result of human interference is equally alarming and unprecedented.

The analogy I give my students is this: You would expect to lose muscle mass between the ages of 20 and 40, but wouldn’t you believe something was horribly wrong if the same weakness set in over the course of 6 weeks rather than two decades? Again, the time frame matters and is largely ignored by climate change skeptics.

Thanks to the mercury thermometer, we have been able to reliably track temperature since the 1860s and have seen with our own eyes how temperature is related to CO2 concentrations. Keep in mind that CO2, and other assorted greenhouse gases, accept the sun’s energy and trap it in the atmosphere in the form of heat. So more CO2 means more heat.

Magic number

In 1860, the amount of CO2 was 288 parts per million, or 2.88 percent of the atmosphere. The latest figure from the Mauna Loa Scripps Observatory is 401.88 ppm. This is an air lab set on top of a tall mountain in the middle of the ocean (aka Hawaii), which has been measuring atmospheric trends since 1958.

Because of its remote location and constant exposure to ocean winds and currents, it is considered one of the purest data collection centers in the world. Lacking any crystal balls, scientists use this and other data to predict with computer models what future trends will bring, and the results are not pretty.

They suggest a tipping point of 450 ppm CO2, in which the ice caps and glaciers melt and stay that way because it takes much colder temperatures to form ice than to keep it solid.

If you have seen people with signs that read “350” on Earth Day, then you know what our goal is to avoid this catastrophe. This level of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1986 was declared by noted environmentalist Bill McKibben and remains an attainable goal.

So how do we accomplish a reduction in CO2?

There is talk of instituting a “carbon tax” that would tax utilities on how much carbon they release into the atmosphere. As New Hampshire is a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which uses a cap and trade approach within the Northeast, we have already seen the light. Something about being downwind of less-regulated Midwestern power plants has motivated us to clean up our own house first.

Don’t believe those who tell you how it makes electricity more expensive; at last count it added under $1 to the average user’s electric bill. Heck, I’d even pay $2 if it helped solve climate change! However, a better controlled utility does not absolve us.

Taking carbon out of storage in the earth and burning it pairs it with oxygen, which creates our culprit, CO2.

That is how stepping on the accelerator contributes to climate change, and that is why the smart girls go for men who drive Teslas instead of Hummers.

In addition, the natural gas industry has a lot to answer for. It is true that using natural gas for fuel instead of coal or oil releases less CO2 per ton, but natural gas is also a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

Every time there is a natural gas leak or oil drillers bleed off the natural gas that sits on top of crude fields, the situation worsens. The fact that Dick Cheney crafted our current energy legislation and made sure to exempt natural gas drilling from EPA regulation has put us in the situation where if we take one step forward (using more natural gas) we end up taking two steps back (the inevitable release of more greenhouse gases). The term for any activity that converts carbon into a gas form is a “carbon source,” as in source of the problem.

Carbon sinks

The opposite of being a carbon source is being a carbon sink.

Some engineers have come up with some pretty imaginative ways to do this, including sucking CO2 out of the air and injecting it back into the underground reservoirs we took it from in the first place or shooting it out into space. Anybody who understands the complexity of our biological systems gets nervous about this, especially since it throws out the baby with the bathwater in the form of oxygen.

A better way to convert carbon back from its gaseous state is to allow and encourage nature to do it for us. This is where planting a tree comes in, but also where letting your grass clippings compost back into the ground and integrating your fall leaves into your garden are very helpful. In fact, anything carbon-based is better being left as a solid than being burned. Can you say recycling? That is how it all ties in.

Since the oceans appear to be maxed out in the amount of CO2 they can absorb, the next frontier of “carbon sequestration” lies with the soil (and has nothing to do with political budget cycles).

I have come to take the words of industrial agriculture and timber barons with a grain of salt on this matter, since it is their job to turn over as much carbon as fast as possible, no matter what the environmental cost.

Leaving a forest or prairie intact is much better than harvesting when it comes to keeping carbon in a solid state. Even when accounting for long-term wood use (house-building, for instance), the amount of material returned to the atmosphere in the short term and the fuel expended to harvest the crop outweighs the future storage of the new crop.

So consider yourself educated on the basics of climate change. Still think the conservative talking heads have a point?

Consider the benefits of increased efficiency and emission reduction we have experienced over the last few decades, and I fail to see the downside.

After all, if government hadn’t put in place incentives and regulations to switch fuels, we might still be using coal-fired steam engines in trains and eating cancer-causing fish.

The Bible says the earth will end with fire and brimstone. I’d hate for that to be the case.

(Ayn Whytemare of Concord teaches environmental science at NHTI and owns a certified organic plant business, Found Well Farm, in Pembroke.)

Legacy Comments49

"Thanks to the mercury thermometer, we have been able to reliably track temperature since the 1860s".....true statement. So why dont we use actual readings instead of adjusted readings, or, like we see now, estimated data from stations that dont actually produce thermometer data??

"In 1860, the amount of CO2 was 288 parts per million, or 2.88 percent of the atmosphere." You're off by a factor of 1000. 288 ppm is 0.0288% of the atmosphere. Teaches environmental science, but makes basic math flub? It's this kind of nonsense that draws continual criticism.

^Correction: factor of 100.

Look at the comments to this article so far...do you think the "dummies" actually care about or would even notice what you pointed out?

As a charter Carp per Diem member, why don't you go ahead and answer for all of them--the "dummies".

Had a conservative written a letter with such a glaring error, the world would have ended. But given the reading comprehension skills of those on the left, it probably would have gone unnoticed. I have great reading skills, as you well know, by the amount of corrections the Monitor has made by reading my comments.

As to your first statement: I seriously doubt it. As for your second claim, you're a legend, in your own mind, at least. Why not quadruple your work load by becoming unofficial fact-checker for the Mis-Leader site as well?

to make it simple for the LIDV. Lets say since the beginning of the industrial revolution that CO2 increased 100 PPM. That is parts per million. That means that since the 1800's CO2 has increased 1/10,000. Now take a minute or two for the LIDV's to digest that that. 1 itty bitty little extra 1 part per 10,000 has been accused of world calamity the. This news come from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which used data from 114 U.S. weather stations considered to produce the most accurate temperature readings. The data say the country has cooled 0.7 degree Fahrenheit in the past decade. With satellite data showing no global warming for 17 years and 10 months, and even the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledging a “pause” in rising temperatures, it’s time to stop talking about a climate change problem,

The post above distorts the facts on CO2 and the greenhouse effect. First, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. H2O and CH4 (methane) are both also important GH gases. H2O is the most important GH gas, contained mostly in the lower atmosphere, and its abundance is temperature-dependent. Methane is many times more effective at trapping heat than CO2, but is shorter-lived in the air, and much less abundant. CO2, unlike H2O, is mixed throughout our atmosphere, and is most effective at trapping heat in the stratosphere- where there is very little water vapor. Adding extra CO2 here-as we are doing, has the effect of adding an extra blanket to our atmosphere. Theory predicted that adding more CO2 should make the stratosphere cooler, as more heat energy was trapped and re-radiated downward. This is exactly what scientists found, and is a crucial fact proving the theory of GW. As an aside, if our atmosphere were as dense as water, it would about 30 feet "deep"--which conveys better how sensitive the atmosphere is to changes in key components of its mixture. From the geologic record, scientists have learned just how sensitive: for a doubling of CO2, the planet warms about 3 degrees C. Climate computer models arrived at the same value independently. Even though CO2 is only a tiny fraction--less than 4/100s of the atmosphere, it is most effective at trapping heat where most other GH gases are less abundant-the stratosphere. So those who attempt to snow the reader with numbers devoid of context are intentionally trying to mislead.

when Brucies spreads the manure he does it thick.. A Reader might ask themselves what percentage of CO2 is Man Made - then you will know Brucie is spreading it thick

Your response betrays your lack of understanding of the carbon cycle. 60% of CO2 we're adding each year to the carbon cycle can't be absorbed by the oceans and land,so it remains in the atmosphere. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at their highest level in more than 15 million years. We've added more than 100 ppm in less than 150 years--a change that would require at least 5 to 10 thousand years to occur naturally. We are tampering with nature's thermostat that controls climate.

1 in 10,000 parts of CO2 over 150 years and man contributed 0.03% of that ? --- THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING - you are sooooooo funny - welcome back oh wizard one

You still seem to be confused by the difference between atmospheric CO2, where about 60% of our annual fossil-fueled production resides, and the rest of the carbon cycle, involving annual uptake by land and sea, and where most of the planet’s CO2 resides. In effect you’re including CO2 locked up in seashells, in limestone, and even our fossil fuel reserves. BTW, as the oceans warm, they become less able to absorb additional CO2, while the CO2 they do absorb makes them slightly more acidic. But it's the airborne CO2 that contributes directly to the greenhouse effect, which fact seems to escape the notice or care of deniers like yourself.

1 per 10,000 increase of CO2 over 150 years - RUN for the HILLS

when you cant answer the question spew more baloney - good one Brucie

Seems like "shill" is the new word used by progs who are simply "shills" for Socialists.

All the Republicans in Congress are shills for the Koch brothers fossil fuel companies. You only need to read the "Roll Call" to see how they voted to spend more money on fossil fuels and cut money for investment in efficient energy. How stupid and back ward is that? When the rest of the world is way ahead of us in green energy it will take decades for the us the catch up. America used to be the leader in new ideas and now because of the dumbing down of the populace we are going to be last.

Only a LIDV reads and believes that letter. HEADLINE 1: This news come from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which used data from 114 U.S. weather stations considered to produce the most accurate temperature readings. The data say the country has cooled 0.7 degree Fahrenheit in the past decade. HEADLINE 2: With satellite data showing no global warming for 17 years and 10 months, and even the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledging a “pause” in rising temperatures, it’s time to stop talking about a climate change problem. HEADLINE #3 (just for Brucie who promised immediate increase in temperatures due to EL Nino) The 2014 El Niño is looking more and more like a bust. Headline #4 (also for Brucie who often quoted Zurich ) Zurich Insurance Group is closing its U.S. climate change office six years after opening it. Readers can ask themselves this question - when and where was the first University to offer a so called" Doctoral Diploma " in this so-called infant science? - Please note that the author does not offer such a diploma in her resume.

Your claims are inaccurate, leaving out crucial pieces of information. Zurich's decision, for instance--contrary to your implication, had nothing to do with the fact the planet continues to warm, and that our use of fossil fuels is the main cause. As for any alleged pause in the warming: May 2014 saw combined average global land and ocean surface temps of 1.33 degrees F above the 20th century average--the highest combined average ever recorded. Global land surface temp was 2.03 degrees F above the 20th century ave--4th highest on record. May global ocean temp was 1.06 degrees F above the 20th century ave, tied with 4 other months for the highest departure from the 20th century average on record. So much for any claims there's been a 'pause' in the warming.

it is cute when you just make up stuff like a child does

Readers should note the poster provided no numbers to support his claim. Because he can't. For deniers, it's all about smoke and mirrors.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration IS THE SOURCE - DAB SMACK IN THE 1ST SENTENCE - CHECKMATE !!!!!!

You are seriously confused, to say the least. You wrote: "It is cute when you just make up stuff...." in response to MY reporting on the continued recording setting month by month temperature records being set that give the lie to claims of no warming. Your post directly challenged the veracity of my numbers. I pointed out that you provided no numbers to support your claim that I made up these numbers. You then decided to stick your foot in it when you referred to a previous post of yours, which features your usual distorted take on the facts, and happens to contain a reference to NOAA, and used that as "proof" of your claim that my numbers were false. In effect, you've tried to change the subject. But that doesn't mean that your headline containing its reference to NOAA is accurately representative of the science, because it isn't. Your posts continue to play statistical games with the numbers, in an on-going effort to mislead. As for May 2014, here are the facts, and a link to science: It "was the third warmest May in the 35-year satellite-measured global temperature record, and the warmest May that wasn't during an El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. The global average temperature for May was 0.33 C (about 0.59 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms for the month. The warmest May was in 1998, during the 'El Niño of the century.' Temperatures in May 1998 were 0.56 C (about 1.0 degrees F) warmer than normal. May 2010—also an El Niño month—was second warmest at 0.45 C (0.81 degrees F)." Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-warmest-satellite-portend-record-setting-el.html#jCp

Poor Brucie - still stuck trying to make a losing argument stick using old poor data. Liberals and their statistics are like a drunken sailor and a lamp post. Never to illuminate always to stabilize the shaky knee argument. CURRENT HEADLINES: " Faulty and False Global Temperature Readings" global warming alarmists claim that the Earth is warming or that this was the hottest (year, month) ever, they are totaling up readings from rather simplistic, low-budget, small, automated weather stations scattered around the nation and the world. But about 90% of those weather stations violate the officially-published standards required for accurate measurements. THIS NEW DATA : data from 114 U.S. weather stations considered to produce the most accurate temperature readings. The data say the country has cooled 0.7 degree Fahrenheit in the past decade.

If you think about it, shouldn't we be THANKING President Reagan for the phrase "global climate change?" After all, isn't that name more appropriate than "global warming" given the climate over the past few years?

I have an idea...what we should all do, and I really mean this, is gather up 25 of your friends, rent a 747, fly to the opposite side of the country, take a 50 car motorcade to a hotel, give a speech, and then go play 18 holes of golf. We should all do this weekly for about 8 years..or until things get better.

Ayn, Why no mention of other countries like China and India, who continue to use coal and similar fuel sources in ever greater amounts? Are they not connected to the globe's atmosphere? I also believe prof Bopp was right about the delicately balanced atmosphere. Now we see millions of wind turbines - each one taking energy out of the atmospheric circulation. What happens when you stop blood circulation in the body - nothing good. I think the large scale use of wind turbines is messing with a circulatory system we do not know enough about.

Omigod! I'm never going swimming again. My efforts might disturb tidal patterns and lead to widespread coastal flooding.

I see ruining countryside by fracking or pumping oil or digging into the inner bowels of the earth for coal as messing around with the "delicately balanced atmosphere" Not wind, no. There will always be wind. We will never use up all our wind at least not while the likes of Hannity, Palin, etc are around.

Heck, we could build a wind farm in Epsom, on the mountain off of New Rye or up off or North Road or right on 28 South, lots of open areas and plenty of hot air coming out of Epsom.

TCB...you MUST be a shill for the coal industry!! Nothing in Ayn's article mentioned where sources of CO2 emissions were, or that the US should reduce coal power plants. Notice the title "climate change for dummies". No denigration of coal producers here. And, you didn't mention that the US has reduced its CO2 emissions to below 2005 levels.

Walt, Have a shill for the coal companies. I too would like pollution free endless energy. I have high hopes for fusion (not too distant) and anti-matter (farther off). Agreed the US has dropped CO2 and I salute us for it. However, the CO2 contribution of other countries are never mentioned - why?

TCB, the answer is simple, this is a ideological attempt, a hidden agenda to gain control over the behavior, freedom and prosperity of the populace. To limit mobility or make it unaffordable and therefore have control over citizens. They want to go cold turkey while China and India will not follow suit and become the worlds super powers while we fade away and become weak as we focus on our internal society and political correctness. Progressives know full well that we need to harvest oil, natural gas and coal to meet our energy needs but they want to cripple us instead of taking a logical route to alternative energy.

Facts? Facts? We don't need no stinking facts! It's a conspiracy! They're poisoning our minds with socialist progressive Marxist liberal weak-kneed namby-pamby Kumbaya one-world U.N. Agenda 21Obama/Alinsky Rules Lies. It all started with fluoride. And Ike and Earl Warren. Now its the climate scientists and the U.N. It's in the water! They're sapping our vital fluids. What's a poor mother to do! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2bSL5VQgM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

TCB...'endless free energy' is not compatible with a capitalistic society. I would suggest that none of the capitalistic solutions to global warming could be reasonable, because protecting our planet is inconsistent with greed, which is the driving force behind capitalism. However, working to assure that OUR planet is healthy for our great grandchildren SHOULD be what we strive for. Don't you agree? Nuclear fusion may be a reasonable energy source, when made productive and safe, but not for decades. Anti-matter-something our scientists should NOT study for at least a couple of centuries.

Walter, Greed and Great Grandchildren will be as compatible in their adult generation as the two are today.

How do the more predictive climate models control for any exothermic properties of our own planet? This was an idle curiosity at first, but it was aggravated when I came across this 2011 story in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/science/earths-core-the-enigma-1800-miles-below-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 A pair of passages in particular caught my notice. They were: The core’s thermal bounty is thought to be overwhelmingly primordial, left over from the planet’s gravitational formation and mostly trapped inside by the rocky muffler of the mantle. Yet as the hot Earth orbits relentlessly through frigid space, the core can’t help but obey the second law of thermodynamics and gradually shed some of its stored heat. And: Now it turns out that existing models of the core, for all their drama, may not be dramatic enough. Reporting recently in the journal Nature, Dario Alfè of University College London and his colleagues presented evidence that iron in the outer layers of the core is frittering away heat through the wasteful process called conduction at two to three times the rate of previous estimates. Please explain, Ayn.

While energy from inside the Earth is, obviously, conducted out-and we see this in volcanoes, etc, thermonuclear energy at the core continues to replace what is lost. If you research the physics of heat loss, you will see that 'exothermic' heat is miniscule compared to the sun's warming of the surface. But the statement that the 'core's thermal bounty is thought to be overwhelmingly primordial, left over...' ignores that volcanic action has built the Hawaiian Islands, among dozens of other islands and that volcanoes have been erupting for millions of years; how could this just be an artifact of 'primordial' bounty?? In short, Temp, you have either; a) poorly explained your concern, or b) misunderstood your sources.

Walter, thanks for your reply. Since my fonts, hyperlink, and line returns did not paste properly, I should have enclosed the passages in quotations. They are directly from the NYT piece (not mine). They are consistent with your point that geologic heat is regenerative and present, and with recent reporting that Antarctic shelf ice loss is more attributable to hydrothermal sea floor (i.e., sea temperature) factors than atmospheric causes. Geological heat phenomena are nowhere in the climate change discussion, and can't simply be dismissed as "miniscule" when they are still poorly understood and possibly quite significant. Climate science will gain credibility by explaining all possible factors that influenced climate variation prior to post-industrial CO2 increases, not just by clobbering us with a single correlation.

The news report about volcanic warming contributing to melting part of the Antarctic glacier refers to a very small part of Antarctica. Various drilling there has shown that the West Antarctica Ice Sheet is about two kilometers thick, but is melting at a rate not seen in hundreds of thousands of years. I would refer you to a book titled 'White Planet' by three french glaciologist that document the many boreholes drilled and analytical results therefrom. But, heat coming up from the Earth's core has been measured and is less than one-tenth of what comes from the Sun, therefore, it is considered 'miniscule'.

Walter, less than one-tenth (which I'll accept without examination) is not miniscule. Miniscule is 0.0117% (one-hundred seventeen millionths), which is the proportion of Industrial Age, fuel-remnant CO2 in our atmosphere.

Good science starts with good math: 288 ppm is .0288%, not 2.88%, of the atmosphere--a very trace amount. Post-industrial CO2 is a mere .0100% of the present atmosphere. Its introduction correlated with a slight increase in observed global temperatures over this century, but none in the last 17 years.

Not true--when one includes the oceans and the atmosphere--the warming is on-going--which accounts for much of the continued long-term decline in mass of the ice caps. See my post above on May's temperature records--we've been above the 20th century average each and every month since midway through the Reagan administration. There's been a slight slowing in the rate of warming of the atmosphere, likely due to long-term cyclical changes in ocean currents, but the overall warming continues.

For anyone to be taen by Brucies stuff you have to absolutely not understand science. Here is a primer on the ability of water to absorb heat. The Ocean Thermometer reveals Global Warming Lies.... Bottomless Pit: Even if ocean ate the warming, would only change ocean temperature by IMMEASURABLE hundredths-of-a-degree. http://junkscience.com/2013/10/11/bottomless-pit-even-if-ocean-ate-the-warming-would-only-change-ocean-temperature-by-immeasurable-hundredths-of-a-degree/

Can anyone name a simple problem that gov't interference and regulation has actually solved?

Brian...obviously, your question is rhetorical. Or, you are blind. Where did your auto roads come from? Air traffic safety? Clean Water? Clean(er) Air? I won't go on, you really don't want to see another's opinion.

How did they do on poverty , how have they done on schools, how have they done with the VA, how have they done etc etc etc . I am so happy that Walter thinks roads, air traffic and clean water and air are all fixed - now we dont have to fund those issues anymore

Does winning WW2 ring a bell?

YEA REGULATIONS DID A BUNCH TO WIN ww2 - YOU ARE SO FUNNY

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.