13 Common Misconceptions About Global Warming

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Thak you so much for posting your reply to this nonsense. Your post illustrates why this global warming 'science' is total BUNK. AGW totally discounts the cyclical changes of this Earth and the solar system it resides in.

I will remember to bump this thread next year, after all, we have Bardabunga getting ready to blow, and most geologists expect it to be a big one, some scientists are stating this is a certainty, and it WILL affect our climate somewhere between the level of the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 (one colder winter) and a Tambora eruption in 1812 (which lead to the 'year without a summer')...and that ONE volcano has sisters...if they get involved, it may be a world-changing event (many years of colder climate - and famine). Just imagine what is gonna happen when 6 miles of ice 1/2 mile thick (a trillion gallons of water) is blown into our stratosphere - and is joined by tons of sun-shielding dust and sulfur dioxide....('Bardabunga' is translated as 'Norse's erection'...The God of Thunder is gonna screw us all!!! DOOM DOOM!!!)

At that point, all the global-warming hysteria will long be forgotten. And the proponents of the AGW 'theory' will have to bow to the great Mother Nature for showing them who really controls climate here, on our grand ole' Earth.

Worry about next year and what parka you will wear to work, not how you are gonna cool your house 100 years from now.

That's my two bits, and its worth all of it.

why does the global warming/climate change temperature data NEVER include weather data from US military bases.

The base i live out side of in the calif desert(NAWS china lake) has been recording the same data NASA and other agency and groups record at there sites around the country. and have the data dating back to WW@ when the base was opened

The only difference is weather data collected by the military personal can not be altered once its recorded under penalty of court martial.
Every military base has a military Meteorologists that record weather data and its for the most part taken at a number of sights around the bases away from heavy use or built up areas.
Many of these sites have no building parking lots or other changes that would change the reading over the years unlike the areas where NASA or other agencies have to adjust there data every couple years for new or resurfaced parking lots or have there recorders mounted right on or next to buildings the effect the readings

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So are you trying to say that "all" the stations monitoring ocean PH are being effected by the volcanic co2 emissions even though it has been shown that co2 emissions from volcanoes are miniscule compared to that of man. Even those stations nowhere near volcanos are reporting changes in ocean PH.

Let me ask are you coming to "your" conclusions?

As far as the volcanic activity in the arctics that is documented so how do you account for the rest of the arctic that is experiencing melt where there are no volcanoes Here take a look at where those volcanos are.

You know we have already had a convo about Thwaites Glacier before. Did you just decide the info didn't conform to your beliefs and throw it out? What about the rest of the arctics? Are you saying volcano there as well?

I have already shown several times that the Earth's magnetic field is now 10 times weaker than it has been since the 1990s.

How did you come up with 10 times weaker?

Previously, researchers estimated the field was weakening about 5 percent per century, but the new data revealed the field is actually weakening at 5 percent per decade, or 10 times faster than thought.

Did you mean 10 times faster than expected in 1990s or were you trying to there has been 10% weakening from 1990? It is right in the title "Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now" how did you extrapolate 10 times weaker?

Let me ask do you think they are not factoring in that as a variable. Since you are keen on it here is an article from the 26th. Earth's magnetic field is important for climate change at high altitudes

You probably will not like it because it says co2 affects the climate as well. In fact every article on the subject says that which I have come across.

BTW I wanted to ask since you previously stated that co2 has no effect on Ocean acidification but you're keen on saying volcanos do then how do you reconcile acidification from volcanic activity if the co2 from the volcano as you seem to think will have no effect?

a reply to: ANNED

AGW proponents can't risk attributing their data to the 'heat island' effect of the development of cities....it has to be assumed nothing local changed except the temperature...and BAM you have a dramatic warming effect that graphs very well!

And with a pretty graph, you get gubmint funds. The gubmint in exchange gets to suck more money out of the populations, that they will use to heat their bunkers during the upcoming Ice Age. While the rest of the world freezes, only after the survivors have strangled every AGW pusher they can find to cut into steaks and ribs to throw on the barbie (just kidding they are better used as heat than food).

a reply to: Grimpachi

lol ICE in Antartica expanded 2x.

400ppm CO2 on Earth today is actually below avg. from Earth's History.

a reply to: lakesidepark

thank you, and btw, the seismic activity increase can be followed for example on this site.
www.iris.edu...

Although in that link you can only see seismic events that are 4+

But just look at what is happening from the Alaskan earthquakes, the Queen Charlotte island earthquake, the central cali earthquake, the central and south American earthquakes, and the sandwich island earthquakes. Normally you don't see earthquakes occurring in all these regions at the same time. then there are the Icelandic earthquakes, including the Jan Mayen island earthquake that occurred today being a 4.8. We are seeing a lot of areas with increased seismic activity, and it is no coincidence.

a reply to: ANNED

why does the global warming/climate change temperature data NEVER include weather data from US military bases.

The base i live out side of in the calif desert(NAWS china lake) has been recording the same data NASA and other agency and groups record at there sites around the country.

What information do you want from there?www.navair.navy.mil...

Also what makes you think it isn't collected and used?

a reply to: amfirst1

400ppm CO2 on Earth today is actually below avg. from Earth's History.

Since when? Were humans on earth at that point?

High-res. CO2 concentration record 650,000–800,000 years ago
NatureDieter Lüthi et al | Published in Nature, Vol. 453, pp. 379-382, 15 May 2008.
ABSTRACT Changes in past atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations can be determined by measuring the composition of air trapped in ice cores from Antarctica. So far, the Antarctic Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores have provided a composite record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past 650,000 years. Here we present results of the lowest 200m of the Dome C ice core, extending the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by two complete glacial cycles to 800,000 yr before present. From previously published data and the present work, we find thatatmospheric carbon dioxide is strongly correlated with Antarctic temperature throughout eight glacial cycles but with significantly lower concentrations between 650,000 and 750,000 yr before present. Carbon dioxide levels are below 180 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) for a period of 3,000 yr during Marine Isotope Stage 16, possibly reflecting more pronounced oceanic carbon storage. We report the lowest carbon dioxide concentration measured in an ice core, which extends the pre-industrial range of carbon dioxide concentrations during the late Quaternary by about 10 p.p.m.v. to 172–300 p.p.m.v.www.nature.com...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



So are you trying to say that "all" the stations monitoring ocean PH are being effected by the volcanic co2 emissions even though it has been shown that co2 emissions from volcanoes are miniscule compared to that of man. Even those stations nowhere near volcanos are reporting changes in ocean PH.

Sulfur Dioxide....emitted also from volcanoes, a gas that will block sunlight and cause global cooling...did you know that Bardabunga has already emitted 4 times more sulfur dioxide into Europe in the span of a week, than Europe generates in a year?

Have you noted that a plume of sulfur dioxide settled onto France this week and detected in significant amounts (as it skipped OVER Ireland and Britain) and therefore detected NOWHERE NEAR VOLCANOES???

Its Very plausible (actually its a fact) that volcanic emissions and the effect will be detected over great spans of the Earth. And it is a FACT and has been shown that the effects of volcanic emissions can be significant if not DRAMATIC, and therefore NOT 'miniscule'.

AGW is an empty science. And there are no climate change 'debunkers' only those that do not choose to fall in line with the progressive agenda. All of this may soon fade, but my bets are on the Earth proving it controls the climate rahter than Man real soon. I would say it is already proving it and only the AGW 'blinders' keep some from seeing it.

Oh really, so did he take into account the underwater volcanoes in the Hawaii area as well?

For example.

This is just showing an eruption underwater on the West Mata volcano, Lau basin.

Yes I believe they know what is around them. Did you even bother to look where the measurements are taken from?

n July 2007, the MAPCO2 system was moved from the MOSEAN H-A mooring to the WHOI Hawaii Ocean Timeseries Station (WHOTS) Mooring near the Hawaii Ocean Time-series (HOT) site. The mooring was located ~100 km north of Oahu, Hawaii.

a reply to: lakesidepark

Sulfur Dioxide....emitted also from volcanoes, a gas that will block sunlight and cause global cooling...did you know that Bardabunga has already emitted 4 times more sulfur dioxide into Europe in the span of a week, than Europe generates in a year?

Yes so2 causes cooling. It also doesn't dissolve well in water that all depends on the temp and how much so2 is outside the water. Did you know that human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year - Volcanoes emit less than cars and trucks, and less, even, than cement production. So if you're worried about volcanos then.....

BTW that info can be found at the youtube page under the "show more" tab. Links have been provided.

Anway, break time.

Hmmmm... it's amazing this debate is still going on.

1. Global warming wasn't happening so had to call it "climate change".

Even in the video, this was admitted to. Something about the term "Global Warming" being confusing so it was changed to "Climate Change." Well, if the globe was actually warming up, why would the term "Global Warming" be confusing?

2. The globe is not warming.

Quite a statement either way. Maybe it is, maybe it's cooling. I honestly don't know about at the moment, but I do know it isn't warming significantly. Here in the temperate regions of the planet, the temperature can vary from an occasional low near 0 to a nice sunny summer day of 110. In the space of one day, it is quite normal for the temperature to swing a good 20-25 degrees, and not unheard of to see a 40-50 degree shift. So we're looking at a system with noise in the range of 10-50 degrees per day and over 100 degrees per year, and using often-neglected and rarely calibrated instruments we are able to detect a temperature increase of a couple of degrees against all that noise.

Yeah, right.

3. In the past, scientist warned of global cooling. (I had seen that post on ats twice yesterday)

They did. I was there. End of conversation.

Any time someone tries to excuse their way around this one, I just start losing any respect for their opinions. Sorry.

4. The earth is cooling.

I haven't seen any evidence of this.

5. Arctic sea ice is increasing.

False. Arctic ice is indeed melting. The heat seems to be coming through the Bering Straits. Now as to why the Bering Strait current has warmed... I'm open to debate.

I do have to say that it is not possible for CO2 to be the cause of Arctic ice melt. There are records of much higher CO2 concentrations in the past than we have today taken from air samples in the ice cores. If CO2 caused the ice to melt, how did those cores remain frozen to inform us that the CO2 levels were once higher?

Answer: they stayed frozen because CO2 levels were not melting the ice.

6. The sun is responsible for any warming.

Nah, that theory was quite effectively debunked some time ago.

7. Humans only emit a tiny fraction of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year.

True enough, but then again the question is not just one of amount but one of is that amount enough to tip the scales? I don't think so, because I believe the plant life on the planet will react to an increase in CO2 the same way it reacts to such in a greenhouse. It grows faster and absorbs more CO2. That's a negative feedback mechanism.

8. Volcanoes admit way more CO2 than humans.

Nah, but they do emit quite a bit locally (and that includes any CO2 scattered by prevailing winds). I wouldn't mount CO2 sensors around or downwind from a volcano, but I wouldn't go nuts worrying about them either.

9. Water is by far the most potent greenhouse gas.

Yep. But the amount of water that is added to the atmosphere by a few degrees of warming is negligible compared to how much is already there.

10. All predictions have failed.

Most have. So far, coastal cities are still not underwater, storms have not increased in either frequency or average magnitude, there is still ice in the Arctic (some anyway), and the polar bears have not gone extinct.

11. The Earth has warmed and cooled in the past.

Yes it has. Is there some argument about this? The same data that is being used to promote Global Warming taxation shows this too.

12. CO2 lags behind the temperature rise.

Yes it does. That was an intriguing hypothesis in the video. Too bad it can't be proven.

Also too bad I don't quite swallow it either. Not yet anyway... I'll think on it...

13. Global warming is not bad.

That depends on one's definition of "bad." There are good and bad aspects to everything. For example, increased temperature means a longer growing season and therefore more food, especially since higher CO2 levels mean faster plant growth. There are more health risks form exposure to cold than from exposure to heat, so it would be a benefit to health. On the other hand, how far will the sea level rise? A few centimeters is no biggie (tides range several feet typically), but if there were an overall rise of several feet things could get soggy around coastal areas.

All in all, a very uninformed video just trying to get promotional attention for audio books. Oh, and if you watch until the end, you will find out that the hole in the ozone layer was caused by CFC's (it has been proven to be natural and undergo regular growth/decay cycles for quite some time now... after DuPont managed to get their new patent on non-CFC refrigerant just before the patent on their CFC-based refrigerant ran out).

Sorry, still skeptical.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck



I really learned my lesson with this one about expecting people to know how an navigate youtube pages.

Go to youtube page where video is.

Look below at "show more" tab then click.

Those things you say can't be proven have links to to the evidence that backs up the video.


Rinse and repeat.

originally posted by: Grimpachi


So are you trying to say that "all" the stations monitoring ocean PH are being effected by the volcanic co2 emissions even though it has been shown that co2 emissions from volcanoes are miniscule compared to that of man. Even those stations nowhere near volcanos are reporting changes in ocean PH.

Volcanic activity effects on ocean PH miniscule?... First of all we don't even know how much CO2 underwater volcanoes are emitting, but you can be sure it is not "miniscule" more so because there are a lot more underwater volcanoes than on land and we normally only take into account the CO2 emitted by land volcanos.

As far as we know there could be well over 3.4 million underwater volcanoes and a large portion if not the majority of them are bigger than any land volcano. I find it incredibly ironic how you can stand there and claim that the overall contribution of all volcanic activity is miniscule, when first of all we are not taking into account underwater volcanic activity which for the most part we can't keep track of.

Then there is the fact that we actually know as a matter of fact that from year to year, at any given year changes in natural emissions of CO2 can exceed anthropogenic emissions, and that's just a change from natural emissions from one year to the next.

Now, if we take the figure of how many underwater volcanoes we think exist and divide it by 4% (or the amount of underwater volcanos that are active) 4% of 3,477,403 = 139,096.12 active volcanos

That's an average of 139,096.12 underwater volcanos right now that are active and emitting CO2, methane, sulfuric acid and other sulfate aerosols, etc. They emit a lot more CO2 than humans despite the false claims from the AGW crowd who never take into account these facts.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

...
As far as the volcanic activity in the arctics that is documented so how do you account for the rest of the arctic that is experiencing melt where there are no volcanoes Here take a look at where those volcanos are.

...

Do tell us, what "rest of the Antarctic you are talking about. Show me that place, because even NASA states that there is an increase in sea ice even with all the underwater volcanos melting parts of the Antarctic, and even with the claimed increase in temperatures.

Here is another example of what has been happening that the AGW proponents want to ignore, or dismiss.

Volcano discovered smoldering under a kilometer of ice in West Antarctica
Its heat may increase the rate of ice loss from one of the continent’s major ice streams

November 17, 2013
By Diana Lutz

Earth Observatory/NASA

Melt water from the new volcano will drain into the MacAyeal Ice Stream, labeled above as ice stream E, its original designation. This radar image of West Antarctica (see box on the inset at bottom right for location) has been color-coded to indicate the speed at which the ice is moving. Red marks the fast-moving centers of the ice streams and black lines outline each stream’s catchment area. By greasing the skids with water, the new volcano might increase the rate of ice loss from the MacAyeal Ice Stream.
...
What’s up down there?
The case for volcanic origin has been made. But what exactly is causing the seismic activity?

“Most mountains in Antarctica are not volcanic,” Wiens said, “but most in this area are. Is it because East and West Antarctica are slowly rifting apart? We don’t know exactly. But we think there is probably a hot spot in the mantle here producing magma far beneath the surface.”

“People aren’t really sure what causes DPLs,” Lough said. “It seems to vary by volcanic complex, but most people think it’s the movement of magma and other fluids that leads to pressure-induced vibrations in cracks within volcanic and hydrothermal systems.”

Will the new volcano erupt?
“Definitely,” Lough said. “In fact, because the radar shows a mountain beneath the ice, I think it has erupted in the past, before the rumblings we recorded.”

Will the eruptions punch through a kilometer or more of ice above it?

The scientists calculated that an enormous eruption, one that released 1,000 times more energy than the typical eruption, would be necessary to breach the ice above the volcano.

On the other hand, a subglacial eruption and the accompanying heat flow will melt a lot of ice. “The volcano will create millions of gallons of water beneath the ice — many lakes full,” Wiens said.

This water will rush beneath the ice toward the sea and feed into the hydrological catchment of the MacAyeal Ice Stream, one of several major ice streams draining ice from Marie Byrd Land into the Ross Ice Shelf.

By lubricating the bedrock, it will speed the flow of the overlying ice, perhaps increasing the rate of ice-mass loss in West Antarctica.

“We weren’t expecting to find anything like this,” Wiens said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, Division of Polar Programs.

news.wustl.edu...

That is happening in other areas as well.

BTW, not too long ago another member showed a video from NASA which showed how underwater volcanos are heating Antarctica.

Here is the video.



You can see in the above video that there are areas in the north, the east, and south of Antarctica that are also melting from underwater volcanic activity. Most of the activity is happening in the western part of the Antarctic, but other areas are also melting due to underwater volcanic activity.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Volcanic activity effects on ocean PH miniscule?... First of all we don't even know how much CO2 underwater volcanoes are emitting, but you can be sure it is not "miniscule" more so because there are a lot more underwater volcanoes than on land and we normally only take into account the CO2 emitted by land volcanos.

As far as we know there could be well over 3.4 million underwater volcanoes and a large portion if not the majority of them are bigger than any land volcano. I find it incredibly ironic how you can stand there and claim that the overall contribution of all volcanic activity is miniscule, when first of all we are not taking into account underwater volcanic activity which for the most part we can't keep track of.

Volcanoes emit 2.5 to 3 gigatons of co2 annually we admit 30 gigatons. As far as those under water are figured into what co2 is emitted by the Ocean some figures put that 780 gigatons emitted and 780 gigatons absorbed for a ballance other figures put oceans being able to scrub more than it emits. As an example. Dont forget the isotope carbon 13 can tell researcher how much is man made and how much is natural.

This was covered in the video. So I am just explaining to you what has already been explained to you.

Then there is the fact that we actually know as a matter of fact that from year to year, at any given year changes in natural emissions of CO2 can exceed anthropogenic emissions, and that's just a change from natural emissions from one year to the next.

Now, if we take the figure of how many underwater volcanoes we think exist and divide it by 4% (or the amount of underwater volcanos that are active) 3,477,403 / 4 = 869350.75 active volcanos

That's an average of 869,350.75 underwater volcanos right now that are active and emitting CO2, methane, sulfuric acid and other sulfate aerosols, etc. They emit a lot more CO2 than humans despite the false claims from the AGW who never take into account these facts.

Again this has been covered. Manmade co2 and human co2 can be distinguished by carbon 13 and carbon 12. There is no need to guess where the additional co2 is coming from because it is being measured. If you want to argue the accuracy of how it is being measured that is fine. Find a paper/study that refutes it but don't just act like those measurements don't exist.

Do tell us, what "rest of the Antarctic you are talking about. Show me that place, because even NASA states that there is an increase in sea ice even with all the underwater volcanos melting parts of the Antarctic, and even with the claimed increase in temperatures.

Why just sea ice with you. Why don't you want to talk about accumulated land ice. A melting ice cube in water doesn't add much of anything to the water level does it. So tell me how has the arctic been doing as far as retaining ice year to year for the past few decades? Explain to me why it has experienced a net loss of ice.



The past two years have been great for sea ice there not so great for land ice. Do you know which one raises sea levels?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Now this is a fine kettle of fish. You want me to navigate YouTube for scientific research?

The things I point out in my post, such as signal to noise ratio, personal experience of history, logical reasoning... these are not things that one can "research," especially on YouTube. Anyone with a webcam can make a YouTube video and post it up; that's hardly an indication of scientific integrity or knowledge.

Let's try one, just for kicks. Scientific research (at Universities and Research Institutes, not YouTube) has determined that the CO2 levels during the earth's history have fluctuated from far below the present levels to far above them, based on ice core samples. The tests are quantitative analysis on minuscule pockets of air trapped in the ice when it was formed. Now, if CO2 levels below those found in the ice cores are melting the ice at such an alarming rate, how is it that they did not melt the ice before we could core it out and study it, given that the CO2 concentration was several times higher than it is today?

Don't bother looking up links... some things are simply not something you can cut and paste in a browser window. This one requires thought and familiarity with scientific principles.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Now this is a fine kettle of fish. You want me to navigate YouTube for scientific research?

these are not things that one can "research," especially on YouTube.

No but if you had looked you would have seen the links to the studies and data. Here is a screen shot. Did you even try to look before dismissing them?

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Volcanoes emit 2.5 to 3 gigatons of co2 annually we admit 30 gigatons.
...
This was covered in the video. So I am just explaining to you what has already been explained to you.

Again wrong... the 2.5 - 3 gigaton figure is given to volcanos ON LAND, and not the volcanic activity under the oceans...

Again, there is an average of 139,0096 underwater volcanos, the majority which are much bigger than any land volcano.

Then there is also this fact.

Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed)

Robin Wylie, University College London | October 15, 2013 07:11pm ET

Until the end of the 20th century, the academic consensus was that this volcanic output was tiny — a fiery speck against the colossal anthropogenic footprint. Recently, though, volcanologists have begun to reveal a hidden side to our leaking planet.

Exactly how much CO2 passes through the magmatic vents in our crust might be one of the most important questions that Earth science can answer. Volcanoes may have been overtaken in the carbon stakes, but in order to properly assess the consequences of human pollution, we need the reference point of the natural background. And we're getting there; the last twenty years have seen huge steps in our understanding of how, and how much CO2 leaves the deep Earth. But at the same time, a disturbing pattern has been emerging.

In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.

These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don't mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2.
...
We think. Scientists' best estimates, however, are based on an assumption. It might surprise you to learn that, well into the new century, of the 150 smokers I mentioned, almost 80 percent are still as mysterious, in terms of the quantity of CO2 they emit, as they were a generation ago: We've only actually measured 33.
...

www.livescience.com...

Now the above research is only taking into consideration volcanos on land, and not underwater volcanos...

If we know now that the 150 volcanos on land they emit around 600,000 million tons of CO2, which could stand to reason that they emit even more than that since we have only measured 33 volcanos out of the 155 on land. How much CO2 do you think that the 139,096 underwater volcanos are emitting?... Underwater volcanos are much bigger...

Now if you would bother to continue reading the above research you would find this, which still deals with volcanic/magmatic activity on land and not on the oceans...

...You'd think that would be enough. That might be my fault — I tend to save the weird stuff until the end. Recently, an enigmatic source of volcanic carbon has come to light that isn't involved with lava — or even craters. It now seems that not only is there CO2 we can't get to, there's some we can't even see.[/c]

Carbon dioxide is always invisible, but its presence can be inferred in volcanic plumes — betrayed by the billowing clouds of water vapour released alongside it. Without the water, though, it's a different story. The new poster-child of planetary degassing is diffuse CO2 — invisible emanations which can occur across vast areas surrounding the main vents of a volcano, rising through the bulk of the mountains. This transparent haze is only just beginning to receive proper attention, and as such we have very little idea of how much it might contribute to the global output.

Even more incredibly, it even seems that some volcanoes which are considered inactive, in terms of their potential to ooze new land, can still make some serious additions to the atmosphere through diffuse CO2 release. Residual magma beneath dormant craters, though it might never reach the surface, can still 'erupt' gases from a distance. Amazingly, from what little scientists have measured, it looks like this process might give off as much as half the CO2 put out by fully active volcanoes.

If these additional 'carbon-active' volcanoes are included, the number of degassing peaks skyrockets to more than 500. Of which we've measured a grand total of nine percent. You can probably fill it in by now — we need to climb more mountains.

www.livescience.com...

And then we would also have to add to all of the above the 139,096+- underwater volcanos... Do you get it now, or you can't still understand what we are dealing with?