Apocalypse in the Oceans

[HAL 9000 96]

Scuba divers say the same thing. Corals are dying off pretty rapidly. I wonder what the ocean heat sinkers would like to add to this in terms of their 10 year hoopla business about the globe cooling off as a consequence to rising atmospheric temps.

Back with the junk science? I wonder how the oceans survived the last warming period? I wonder how it survived the age when the north pole was populated with dinosaurs? The earth warms and cools all by itself and we can't change it. Enough of your stupid scare tactics just to advance your inaccurate theories.

Gee Gary...

I wonder if humans were contributing artificial factors to oceanic warming last time it was observed via ice core sampling

I wonder how much of my stupid scare tactics are in line with your continued lack of regard for cause and effect.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Scuba divers say the same thing. Corals are dying off pretty rapidly. I wonder what the ocean heat sinkers would like to add to this in terms of their 10 year hoopla business about the globe cooling off as a consequence to rising atmospheric temps.

Back with the junk science? I wonder how the oceans survived the last warming period? I wonder how it survived the age when the north pole was populated with dinosaurs? The earth warms and cools all by itself and we can't change it. Enough of your stupid scare tactics just to advance your inaccurate theories.

But now that liberal humans are here they want everything to stay the same. It won't. Get over it.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Mavi, please tell us what the IDEAL temperature of the planet should be Pick a number any number!

[HAL 9000 96]

Data doesn't support global warming theory

As a scientist who has studied the global warming issue extensively, I can say with high certainty that man's influence on global climate is at best minimal. The temperature data of the recent past does not support the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

While carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase at a steady rate, global temperatures as measured by both satellites and land/sea stations have remained flat since 1998. That is over nine years with no measurable increase in the temperature. More recent trends of are showing a significant cooling is beginning. As reported by NOAA, April was the 29th coldest in the lower 48 states out of the last 115 years.

One problem with carbon dioxide is that it is a poor absorber of radiation and accounts for between 4 percent and 8 percent of the ``greenhouse'' effect. Water vapor, on the other hand, accounts for over 90 percent of the ``greenhouse'' effect.

Another issue with carbon dioxide is that its ability to absorb radiation is highly logarithmic. The first 100 ppm of this gas produces a net warming of 2.25 degrees Celsius. The next 100 ppm adds only another 0.3 degrees of additional warming.

The amount of warming added from manmade emissions of since 1940 can produce no more than 0.1 degrees of warming. Thus, as more carbon dioxide is added, it has an ever smaller and smaller effect. Those in the pro-AGW crowd believe that carbon dioxide has a positive feedback - that increasing this gas creates a cascading effect. This is the so-called ``tipping point'' that you will hear them describe.

Recently, climate scientist Roy Spencer using data from NASA's Aqua satellite has disproved this positive feedback exists. Unlike Al Gore, I would welcome an open debate on this subject.

R. John Muench

Normal

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/05...ters/131731.txt

Then as a scientist that has extensively studied global warming and climatological sciences, Dr. Muench should be able to tell that a 10 year weather observation pales in comparison to climate patterns that exist over thousands of years.

Plus a search for RJ Muench, R.J. Muench, R. John Muench. R. John Muench, R John Muench reveals no published data on the topic...

But on the chemistry of CO2 and its absorbtion of ONE factor behind warming trends we can consult with several reviewers like Ming-Dah Chou at NASA/Goddard and Martyn Caldwell and Stephan Flint at Utah State.

Furthermore we can also look at other parameters that are undoubtedly linked to CO2 activity, like the reducing Ozone levels in the atmosphere that cause very particular radiation absorption phenomena with regards to having the ability to dissect one thing from another.

So, as RJ Muench and others see one little aspect of scientific findings, they negate the contribution to the entire equation by modeling based on conjecture and hence, fail to convince those scientists that maintain a "bigger picture" approach to the whole thing.

[HAL 9000 96]

Scuba divers say the same thing. Corals are dying off pretty rapidly. I wonder what the ocean heat sinkers would like to add to this in terms of their 10 year hoopla business about the globe cooling off as a consequence to rising atmospheric temps.

Back with the junk science? I wonder how the oceans survived the last warming period? I wonder how it survived the age when the north pole was populated with dinosaurs? The earth warms and cools all by itself and we can't change it. Enough of your stupid scare tactics just to advance your inaccurate theories.

But now that liberal humans are here they want everything to stay the same. It won't. Get over it.

FYI... homeostasis tends to balance things out. Too much of one thing? No problem... nature tends to balance things out if you know what I mean. Even if it means weeding life out by default.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Greenland really was green once

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

Globe and Mail Update

July 5, 2007 at 2:00 PM EDT

The surface of most of Greenland is now entombed by a thick ice cap, but some time during the past 800,000 years the southern part of the island actually lived up to its name. It was covered by a thick, verdant boreal forest that would have been similar to what is currently found in many regions of Canada.

The Greenland forest contained pine trees, yews, and aspens, where a profusion of insect life, including beetles, flies, months, and butterflies flitted among the plants.

The surprising discovery, made by an international team of scientists, including some from Canada, was based on an analysis of tiny fragments of DNA preserved in ice drawn from cores drilled nearly to the bottom of Greenland's ice sheet.

The finding suggests that at some point in the recent geological past, Greenland had to be far warmer than it is today, and a substantial part of the island was forested, unlike today, when about 85 per cent of its surface is ice-covered and the rest is inhospitable Arctic tundra.

Enlarge Image

Internet Links

Science

”We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland, which is currently hidden under more than two kilometres of ice, was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said Prof. Eske Willerslev, a bio-archaeology fellow at the University of Copenhagen who headed the research team. ”Back then, it was inhabited by a diverse array of conifer trees and insects.”

Although it is not known exactly when the ancient forest died out, the researchers said it most likely existed between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, although they could not rule out the possibility that it might have been around as recently as 130,000 years ago.

A paper outlining the discovery is appearing in the current issue of the journal Science.

To support the type of trees found at the site, which is now entirely ice-bound, average temperatures in summer would have been warmer than 10 degrees, while winters would not have fallen below –17 degrees. It would have been a time when Greenland would have really matched the name Erik the Red gave it more than a 1,000 years ago, when it is believed the Norse explorer gave the bucolic appellation to lure more settlers to his colony.

Although the climate that gave rise to the ancient forest would not be described as balmy, it was probably not too far different than the middle latitudes of Canada, where the boreal forest is the predominant ecosystem.

”Parts of the boreal forest in summer can be a pleasant environment, so there is no reason to think it wouldn't have been similar in Greenland,” said Dr. Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, who worked on the project.

Dr. Sharp said the ice at the bottom of the cores acted like a natural freezer, preserving many of the living things that existed at the time the forest was buried in snow. The ice, drawn from a thin layer just before bedrock begins, contained a mix of silt, small pebbles and bits of organic matter.

Because this area is buried deep under ice, there is no fossil record for scientists to assemble that would indicate the type of environments that once existed in the area. Sampling in non-glaciated areas of Greenland has found fossils indicating forests, but those date from around 2.4 million years ago.

The scientists were confident that the DNA they found accurately portrayed forest conditions existing in the area and did not arrive on wind or precipitation from more southerly parts of the world.

As a test, they analyzed ice from the bottom of a glacier that formed in the past few thousand years on Ellesmere Island, and found that the DNA it contained closely matched plant species growing nearby. In addition, ice layers from parts of the core drawn in Greenland just above the bottom – representing more recent snow deposits – did not contain DNA.

The findings have mixed implications for the current concern over global warming and the stability of Greenland's vast ice sheet, which, if it melted in its entirety, would raise global sea levels by about six metres.

The ice sheet covering the ancient forest existed during the warm, interglacial period that existed 116,000 to 130,000 years ago, when temperatures were about five degrees warmer than today.

”If our data is correct, then this means that the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought,” Prof. Willerslev said.

But if this part of the ice sheet does melt, it would have major implications for current sea coasts. Water levels would likely rise one to two metres.

”That's not a big deal 400,000 years ago when the human population was essentially non-existent,” said Dr. Sharp, but today ”you've got 104 million people living within a metre of sea level.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ry/Science/home

[HAL 9000 96]

"The ice sheet covering the ancient forest existed during the warm, interglacial period that existed 116,000 to 130,000 years ago, when temperatures were about five degrees warmer than today. "

Bingo

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Dude do you use your head to take your temperature? So the world was warmer then, that it is now? Back then there was virtually no carbon output from humans but yet it was warmer hmmmmm. Back to my first statement.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[HAL 9000 96]

No kidding.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

No kidding.

[Marilyn. 340]

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Marilyn I will take the red ones any day!

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Scuba divers say the same thing. Corals are dying off pretty rapidly. I wonder what the ocean heat sinkers would like to add to this in terms of their 10 year hoopla business about the globe cooling off as a consequence to rising atmospheric temps.

Back with the junk science? I wonder how the oceans survived the last warming period? I wonder how it survived the age when the north pole was populated with dinosaurs? The earth warms and cools all by itself and we can't change it. Enough of your stupid scare tactics just to advance your inaccurate theories.

But now that liberal humans are here they want everything to stay the same. It won't. Get over it.

FYI... homeostasis tends to balance things out. Too much of one thing? No problem... nature tends to balance things out if you know what I mean. Even if it means weeding life out by default.

That's my point.

[dalegg 143]

2020 is going to be exciting.