Deep oceans warming at an alarming rate

Originally posted by minor007
BTW heres a hint no planets path around the sun is a true circle....

If you're suggesting elliptical orbit is the cause of other planet's climate change, aren't you implying that this may also be the cause of our own planet's climate change? Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not?

reply to post by TheRedneck


Actually, I did mean to say Arctic, not Antarctic, but the Antarctic is also losing massive amounts of ice.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The ocean surface across the planet is in fact warming. The heat is getting pulled down into the deep waters. the deep waters are not all heating up at the same rate, just like there is variability in the surface waters, there is variability in deep water temperatures as well.

www.climatesciencewatch.org...

This is from a quick search, if my memory serves me correctly, the record has been broke again since this report.

Your whole argument seems to be that there is not enough data. Ships sailed across the Arctic Ocean last year, and it is expected that Arctic shipping will continue to open up. It seems to me that you are clutching at straws, and what I wonder is why?

CO2 levels were higher, but not significantly, millions of years ago, when the planet was considerably warmer.

The science behind global warming caused by CO2 is very well established. You can find the history online if you would like. The theory is over a century old, and has been thoroughly vetted.

I don't see CO2 as a demon, I see humanities foolishness and greed as being no different than that of a crack addict.

We could all live much better lives with far less consumption. The rewards of technology should be that we work less, and have more time to live creative lives, spend more time with our families, build a better world.

Instead, we have trapped ourselves into a prison of bureaucracy, and the only purpose this serves is to allow a bunch of power mad elites to rule the planet, driving us into self destruction.

Originally posted by swanne

Originally posted by minor007
BTW heres a hint no planets path around the sun is a true circle....

If you're suggesting elliptical orbit is the cause of other planet's climate change, aren't you implying that this may also be the cause of our own planet's climate change? Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not?

Science is fully aware of our planets orbit. ITs called the Milankovitch cycle. So are you saying that science has not taken this Milankovitch cycle into account?

reply to post by poet1b

Actually, I did mean to say Arctic

I thought so. The whole Arctic ice loss thing is extremely interesting to me, although I don't necessarily believe every gloom and doom prediction that comes down the pike.

And I have probably made that typo myself a few times.

The ocean surface across the planet is in fact warming.

That disagrees with the OP.

Despite mixed signals from warming ocean surface waters, a new re-analysis of data from the depths suggests dramatic warming of the deep sea is under way because of anthropogenic climate change.

Source: www.nbcnews.com...

And that is why my skepticism remains so strong. I keep hearing mixed reports. According to some earlier reports, I would own oceanfront property by now; I see no beach outside my window. According to your link, the ocean surface is warming; according to this it is not warming overall.

Such a contradiction indicates more research is needed because the facts are not completely ascertained.

The heat is getting pulled down into the deep waters.

I presume by "pulled down" you meant "moving into." There is no mechanism we know of that will pull heat from one oceanic layer into another, but heat energy will conduct and convect from warmer into cooler areas.

I don't mean to nit-pick... just to clarify.

the deep waters are not all heating up at the same rate

I would be surprised and incredulous if someone said they were. The ocean is immense and is heated unevenly, not to mention the currents resulting from a combination of the heating and the planet's rotation. When I talk about heating and energy levels, I usually mean average temperature or average energy levels across a wide enough area to cancel out any local anomalies.

Your whole argument seems to be that there is not enough data.

Not really. I do wish there were more data, but even the data we have seems to contradict itself depending on which article one reads or which scientist one quotes. They may all agree on the global warming theory, but the mechanisms that drive that theory and the significance of observed data tend to vary widely.

My major objection is two-fold: firstly, the importance of minimizing CO2 levels has reached such a fever pitch that I feel other, more critical ecological issues are being ignored (a plastic island in the Pacific, overflowing landfills, absolutely idiotic (IMO) social pressure to recycle instead of reasonable efforts to achieve the same goal, the destruction of the rain forest, ad infinitum). Secondly, all the "solutions" to the "problem" of excessive CO2 culminate with an increase in political power and taxation; other potential solutions (such as scrubbers) are marginalized.

CO2 levels were higher, but not significantly, millions of years ago, when the planet was considerably warmer.

That's true, but where were the SUVs and factories? Also, life flourished during that time. Evidence for both cyclic as opposed to anthropogenic causes and evidence against the predictions of gloom and doom.

The science behind global warming caused by CO2 is very well established.

While the theory is that old, the sensationalism started much later. Accurate widespread measurements also started much later. And those measurements have thus far showed nothing that cannot be explained by alternate means.

Consider for one moment if there were another chemical responsible for the oceanic warming. By focusing all of our resources on trying to connect the warming observed to CO2 levels, we could effectively be allowing the warming to continue by ignoring the real problem. That's what bothers me whenever I hear someone exclaiming that "we have to do something!" We have to do what is needed to fix the problem. If you have a dead battery on the car, you don't start trying to replace brand-new tires to fix it.

I don't see CO2 as a demon, I see humanities foolishness and greed as being no different than that of a crack addict.

No argument there.

We could all live much better lives with far less consumption. The rewards of technology should be that we work less, and have more time to live creative lives, spend more time with our families, build a better world.

Instead, we have trapped ourselves into a prison of bureaucracy, and the only purpose this serves is to allow a bunch of power mad elites to rule the planet, driving us into self destruction.

No argument there either. But a comment...

We cannot live better under technology and toss off the shackles of bureaucracy by giving that bureaucracy more power over the technology we depend on. We can do so by education and adherence to time-tested principles that once did not emphasize wealth above morality.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Kali74

God, I hate when this happens... I really do. I went to the article you quoted from expecting (I guess based on the name) to read some serious information. But the first line is:

We know that average sea levels have risen over the past century, and that global warming is to blame.

In the first place, I have yet to see a global map that shows land disappearing across the globe under a rising sea level. Forget calculations, assertions, suppositions, and scientific reports.... land is not disappearing across the planet. Seafront dwellers from America to Australia are not being forced to retreat as water covers their homes. Ergo, the sea is not rising.

Sea levels have risen 14-26 cm I'm not sure why you expect all coastal peoples to have to retreat from their homes for that. However that doesn't mean some peoples aren't, sorry that they don't fit your rules for everywhere. Coastal Alaskans are on the move, peoples that live on atoll islands are on the move... Pacific Asia, some coastal Australians, East Coast Islanders.

(Incidentally, before anyone jumps, single-location reports of disappearing land are not evidence of a sea level rise... a sea level rise will occur planet-wide. It cannot occur any other way unless someone has figured out a way to alter gravity itself.]

The planet agrees that seal level rise is occurring worldwide, but it rejects your rule that it will affect all coasts exactly the same way. Not all coasts are at the same elevation.

Secondly, the cause of this non-existent phenomenon is not proven beyond any doubt to be carbon dioxide levels. This is a theory.

This existing phenomenon is a result of warmer oceans, melting ice etc... aka global warming, this current period of global warming is, whether you agree or don't, by consensus attributed to humans. Therefor the article is neither pompous nor delusional.

Once I get beyond all that, the article does mention increasing salinity levels and this does concern me. But even if the atmosphere is warming at the rate claimed, the increased evaporation rate would cause immeasurably small salinity changes. Ergo, the data may be accurate, but that does not mean the speculation in the article is accurate.

If I have a 10 oz. glass of water and add 1/16 teaspoon of salt to it, is the water denser or unchanged? Even if it's practically immeasurable it is different and behaves differently.

Actual scientific articles do not make such assertions, especially at the outset. They explain a theory and expound on evidence to support it. Unfounded and obviously biased assumptions indicate propaganda, not information.

They do when it's accepted theory. If I write a paper about the effects on my muscles while climbing Mt. Everest I can open with what we know about gravity even though it's just a theory.

You mention connecting dots, but that doesn't always give meaningful conclusions. I can connect the dots in the night sky and see Orion, the mighty hunter... that doesn't mean he is going to shoot a literal arrow into the moon.

You're right, I should have said something more to the effect of 1+1+1+1+1 = 5 and the ones aren't wrong no matter how people say they are.

Let's see Death Valley was set to break a 100 year old record of 134°F from when?

All-time records are likely to be threatened in normally hot places — including Death Valley, Calif., which holds the record for the highest reliably recorded air temperature on Earth at 134°F. That mark was set on July 10, 1913, and with forecast highs between 125°F to 130°F this weekend, that record could be threatened. The last time Death Valley recorded a temperature at or above 130°F was in 1913.
Climate Central

What influence did we have on a heat record in 1913?

Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have significantly increased since 1900. Emissions increased by over 16 times between 1900 and 2008 and by about 1.5 times between 1990 and 2008.

Global Emissions
I don't know about anyone else, but all i am hearing lately is 100 yr flood, 200 year storm. So if our part was so small back in the 1900's why are we seeing these once in a century or more changes in temps, storms and floods? Because weather patterns change.

Even the meteors are getting in on the once in a century action, like the one that exploded over Russia on February 15, 2013

Russian Meteor
A meteor that exploded over Russia this morning was the largest recorded object to strike the Earth in more than a century, scientists say. Infrasound data collected by a network designed to watch for nuclear weapons testing suggests that today's blast released hundreds of kilotonnes of energy. That would make it far more powerful than the nuclear weapon tested by North Korea just days ago and the largest rock crashing onto the planet since a meteor broke up over Siberia's Tunguska river in 1908.

Here is a reason for ya to consider more meteors, more meteor dust to load up the atmosphere and create clouds.
The Cloud Mystery
Bring up the link below to see how many particles are coming in.
G7IZU Radio Reflection.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Excellent response.

The link in the op stating "Despite mixed signals from warming ocean surface waters" is IMO a misstatement, and considering the source, and the ownership of the source, this disinfo was inserted on purpose. I have not read of this mixed signal claim. Big media actively engages in muddying the waters on GW, and that is intentional.

Heat moves towards cold, but the physics of how this works isn't understood. Another topic for another time. Basically we mean the same thing.

I am not seeing the data contradictions. I see a lot of nit picking by those who want to deny what is happening, a lack of data in many areas, but overall, the information is as consistent as it could be on such a large and complex subject.

What we are seeing happening is what has been predicted to happen. Sure, there are other groups who have made different claims, but the people behind greenhouse warming have been consistent.

Yes, there are numerous other problems. The fevered pitch I hear over CO2 is coming from the global warming deniers, pushed by those who have a lot to lose by the actions we will need to reduce CO2.

Giant dinosaurs eating up all the vegetation and producing massive amounts of CO2 and methane might have been the SUVs of their day. Those other times when CO2 levels were so high were times of mass extinction events. We don't have enough information, but this current period seems to be one in which CO2 levels have risen faster then any other time.

I am not seeing any alternative probable causes to global warming. All the alternative solutions I have read have been quickly and easily debunked. The solar system is not heating up, and there is no evidence of increased underwater volcanoes that explains current global warming.

(a plastic island in the Pacific, overflowing landfills, absolutely idiotic (IMO) social pressure to recycle instead of reasonable efforts to achieve the same goal, the destruction of the rain forest, ad infinitum)

I see all of these problems as related.

Secondly, all the "solutions" to the "problem" of excessive CO2 culminate with an increase in political power and taxation; other potential solutions (such as scrubbers) are marginalized.

YEP, what a surprise that the only solution offered by the PTB is that we surrender more of our liberty, and more of our wealth, and give them more control.

We cannot live better under technology and toss off the shackles of bureaucracy by giving that bureaucracy more power over the technology we depend on. We can do so by education and adherence to time-tested principles that once did not emphasize wealth above morality.

I completely agree. I think a lot of people are waking up to this reality. Where I differ from many, is that I see big corporate bureaucracy as a worse problem than government. De-regulation was and is a very bad idea, and has increased the shackles of bureaucracy, by allowing corporations to usurp representative government. We are moving towards rule by corporation, and that will probably be the worst form of government ever.

I am getting off topic.

I think it is too late to do anything about global warming. Maybe if there was a united global effort to start harvesting Arctic Methane, we might have a chance, but a very slim one at that. If we are lucky, and survive, chances are good that Global Warming will be the end of global corporate rule.

reply to post by Kali74

Sea levels have risen 14-26 cm I'm not sure why you expect all coastal peoples to have to retreat from their homes for that.

I expect any rise to affect all areas equally. If sea level rises 5", I expect all land everywhere on the globe that was 5" or less above sea level to be covered.

That means the map of the world will change worldwide. How much it changes will depend on how much the sea level changes, but it will not affect one continent and not another, nor will it affect one city and not another. Such is physically impossible by known physical laws.

If the change is negligible enough to not move the coastlines enough to notice, then there is no issue.

The planet agrees...

Incorrect and irrelevant. I am disputing the theory despite the fact I live on this planet, and in any case physical laws do not respond to belief. That argument would be better suited to the religious forums.

If I have a 10 oz. glass of water and add 1/16 teaspoon of salt to it, is the water denser or unchanged? Even if it's practically immeasurable it is different and behaves differently.

True. However, if you have a ten ounce glass of water and add 1/16 of a teaspoon of salt to it, then measure it and find it has 1/2 teaspoon salt dissolved in it, that salt was not primarily from your action.

They do when it's accepted theory. If I write a paper about the effects on my muscles while climbing Mt. Everest I can open with what we know about gravity even though it's just a theory.

Gravity has been studied since Isaac Newton, and accepted as an observed phenomenon since before historical records. Are you really comparing it to global warming theory?

If so, I'd like to point out that the theory on gravity was accepted for millenia before Albert Einstein discovered our understanding was flawed under certain circumstances.

You're right, I should have said something more to the effect of 1+1+1+1+1 = 5 and the ones aren't wrong no matter how people say they are.

That would not have been a better metaphor IMO. Maybe more like a+b+c+d+e=5, assuming that a=b=c=d=e=1. I do not challenge the equation, but the assumption.

TheRedneck

reply to post by poet1b

Big media actively engages in muddying the waters on GW, and that is intentional.

Agreed. But that then begs the question, why would big media obscure an issue they apparently love to report on as factual? Would that be a logical approach to denying the theory with bias or promoting the theory with bias?

I am not seeing the data contradictions. I see a lot of nit picking by those who want to deny what is happening, a lack of data in many areas, but overall, the information is as consistent as it could be on such a large and complex subject.

We may have to agree to disagree on that aspect. I have seen many many reports of temperature measurement stations improperly placed and improperly maintained (i.e. allowed to remain and be relied upon even after the surrounding area was paved or when climate control machinery was placed nearby), measurements from questionable locations (a CO2 monitoring station next to an active volcanic vent - Mauna Loa - really?), failed predictions (I already mentioned my lack of oceanfront property), irresponsible adjustments by the IPCC, refusal to release the modelling programs used by the IPCC (now released finally, and full of potential problems), and personal financial considerations with many of the more outspoken proponents of AGW theory (remember Al Gore?).

The fevered pitch I hear over CO2 is coming from the global warming deniers, pushed by those who have a lot to lose by the actions we will need to reduce CO2.

That sword is double-edged. Those promoting CO2 regulations have as much to gain by their implementation.

I am not seeing any alternative probable causes to global warming.

Tectonic/volcanic activity; change in the conditions of the space around us; varying solar output; cyclic phenomenon.

None of these are proven, but they are alternatives.

I see all of these problems as related.

Not related via CO2, however. CO2 has no effect on how much plastic is in the Pacific, nor on how many acres of rain forest are being cut down.

YEP, what a surprise that the only solution offered by the PTB is that we surrender more of our liberty, and more of our wealth, and give them more control.

No surprise to me. I am surprised that so many are willing to hand over that power to combat something as innocuous as CO2.

If we are lucky, and survive, chances are good that Global Warming will be the end of global corporate rule.

I personally doubt it. All theis present fiasco will do is increase the power of the corporations who can absorb and even profit by the use of carbon credits and skirt regulations using high-priced attorneys. The losers will be the people and those who might otherwise be able to compete with the corporate giants.

TheRedneck

I expect any rise to affect all areas equally. If sea level rises 5", I expect all land everywhere on the globe that was 5" or less above sea level to be covered.

Your expectations are not based on the real world. Sea surfaces are not like a pond or lake. Sea "level" is not so very level. Sea level at any particular location is affected by a number of factors. Prevailing winds and currents, even variations in local gravity fields have an effect. Places with higher gravitational potential will attract more water. Latitude matters as well, the Earth's spin tends to move water toward the equator.

In some locations sea levels are rising faster than others. In some they are actually falling. Here is a compilation of tidal measurements. In some places land is subsiding rather that sea level rising (as well as the converse) but the overall trend is a rise.

Changes in Mean Sea Level (MSL), either a sea level rise or sea level fall, have been computed at 128 long-term water level stations using a minimum span of 30 years of observations at each location. These measurements have been averaged by month to remove the effect of higher frequency phenomena (e.g. storm surge) in order to compute an accurate linear sea level trend.

www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov...

Such is physically impossible by known physical laws.

Perhaps you should look to oceanography to find out a bit more about it.

dels.nas.edu...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

reply to post by TheRedneck


I would say that big media loves to pretend to report global warming, but they don't love presenting facts.

Anytime you collect large amounts of data, and we are talking about a massive amount of data, these types of problems are normal.

The Arctic Ocean opening up to shipping should be an eye opener that mistakes in the reporting of global temperature were not significant.

If there is some other cause than CO2, then it has somehow avoided being identified. The current alternatives are wishes made by people who prefer to deny what is happening. I respect your skepticism, but it is getting to the point where remaining skeptical is not plausible. I suspect you see this as well.

What ever the cause, I think we are in it for the long ride now. If there ever was a chance that humanity could make changes to stop Global Warming, that time has now passed. Soon, it may all be about survival. Over the next few months, and the next few years, the writing will be put up on the wall for those paying attention. Things could start happening very fast. Maybe we have more time, but I doubt it. I'm not normally a doom and gloom person, always laughed at the doom and gloom predictions, but this is different.

reply to post by TheRedneck

but it will not affect one continent and not another, nor will it affect one city and not another.

I didn't say it would affect one place and not another, I said it would affect different places, differently. For example the atoll islands I mentioned would be affected much more severely and much sooner than most coasts. In fact they're already being affected now.

Incorrect and irrelevant. I am disputing the theory despite the fact I live on this planet, and in any case physical laws do not respond to belief. That argument would be better suited to the religious forums.

I'm sure you didn't miss my tone there and what I meant, nice of you to inject the 'religious' bit though... can't miss a good cliche and all the feelings it invokes, can we?

True. However, if you have a ten ounce glass of water and add 1/16 of a teaspoon of salt to it, then measure it and find it has 1/2 teaspoon salt dissolved in it, that salt was not primarily from your action.

Action wasn't what I responded to there, effect was.

Gravity has been studied since Isaac Newton, and accepted as an observed phenomenon since before historical records. Are you really comparing it to global warming theory?

I am and have many times before and will again, it's just as silly, to me, to deny AGW as it is to deny gravity.

If so, I'd like to point out that the theory on gravity was accepted for millenia before Albert Einstein discovered our understanding was flawed under certain circumstances.

Understanding it better is great and something we should all strive for, however understanding it better doesn't change the simplicity of when you drop something it falls to the floor.

reply to post by TheRedneck

No surprise to me. I am surprised that so many are willing to hand over that power to combat something as innocuous as CO2.

And I'm surprised that so many are willing to be completely powerless in directing how we deal with this. You don't like taxing emissions or carbon trading, I agree with you... they are crappy, ineffective means of dealing with this problem. I don't like doing laundry but denying the growing pile isn't going to make it go away it's going to keep growing until I deal with it, or I can move out and make it someone elses problem.

You and everyone else that denies there's a problem are not lending your voice to the solution. All you are doing is ensuring that someday your kids or grandkids will have to deal with the consequences. Consequences that will probably come with a boot on their necks. The only way millions or billions are going to be on the move is utter chaos or utter authority, neither leaves much room for liberty... liberty will be only for the bastards who are in control or able to exploit the chaos.

reply to post by poet1b

I would say that big media loves to pretend to report global warming, but they don't love presenting facts.

Exactly my point.

If the media reported facts skewed to show AGW as a fact, the result would be that more people would believe AGW and the media could continue to milk the gloom and doom stories. If the media reported facts skewed to discourage AGW, the result would be that less people would believe the theory and there would be less interest in future stories.

It is in the interest of big media to skew the facts to support AGW theory.

If there is some other cause than CO2, then it has somehow avoided being identified.

Of course it has. Try to get grant money to study undersea volcanic events... rare as hen's teeth. Try to get money to study how CO2 affects the mating habits of the wood elf, and you'll find it easily. There is an agenda going on, and it doesn't concern making things any better for people or for the planet... it concerns making money for the very people you and others are supporting, the very people you and others believe you are opposing.

Research takes money... trust me, I know that too very well! Materials for experimentation, test equipment, travel in the case of climatology or geological research, and massive amounts of time put in to collect enough data to form a conclusion. I will say right here that I could make a huge difference in the world had I enough money to continue my research without interruption, but unfortunately that is simply not the case. I have to do as I can do with what I can do, and start all over when I have exhausted my resources. Few established scientists are willing to undergo that much discomfort, and I can't say I blame them.

Over the next few months, and the next few years, the writing will be put up on the wall for those paying attention. Things could start happening very fast. Maybe we have more time, but I doubt it. I'm not normally a doom and gloom person, always laughed at the doom and gloom predictions, but this is different.

That is a prediction, to use the scientific term. My prediction is that we will start to see evidence that cannot be spun to agree with AGW and cannot be covered up. One of our predictions may come to pass, and if it does, that will be evidence to support our theory.

I know that may sound cold, but really there's little else constructive that can be done right now at our present condition technologically. I do not, incidentally, consider carbon credits constructive... more along the line of destructive.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Big media makes their money from sponsors, not from ratings. If the corporations don't want AGW reported accurately, they aren't going to report it accurately. Most of the dark secrets are not reported. That is why most people don't know about methane boiling out of the Arctic ocean, most people don't know how fast global warming is accelerating, while everyone knows that there were some errors in the data, which was over exaggerated.

The big corporations are more than happy to throw money at any possible explanation that suggests something other than CO2 is causing AGW.

I agree, carbon credits are a terrible idea.

I think we will see how soon or if our predictions are accurate. I hope mine is wrong.

reply to post by Kali74

I didn't say it would affect one place and not another

Is Florida being affected? Venice? Hawaii?

Land masses can rise and fall under tectonic pressure, causing the relative sea level in that area to rise or fall. We are discussing the absolute sea level.

I'm sure you didn't miss my tone there and what I meant, nice of you to inject the 'religious' bit though

I may have missed your tone. I will be the first to admit that I am not the brightest bulb in the box when it comes to social interaction. I'm too mathematical.

But the reference to religion is, IMO, accurate. Religion is about belief, not about facts. Too many of the articles published today in the various news outlets and pseudo-scientific magazines use the phrase "scientists believe" to indicate "scientists know" through context. That attempt to turn a belief into reality in the minds of those listening or reading is the hallmark of organized religion.

Understanding it better is great and something we should all strive for, however understanding it better doesn't change the simplicity of when you drop something it falls to the floor.

But things don't always fall to the floor. Things fall to the floor only when the forces acting on them, of which gravity is one, sum to give a downward force. An airplane does not fall to the ground, despite gravity. Why? The force of gravity is offset by the force of pressure differentials on the wing surfaces.

If we just decided that we knew all there is to know about gravity, we would not have airplanes. We would also not know about dark matter or dark energy, black holes, or a myriad of other phenomena that resulted from understanding the gravitational forces involved.

And to keep things neater...

You and everyone else that denies there's a problem are not lending your voice to the solution

I am not saying we should just shrug our shoulders and ignore everything going on around us. I am saying that just because some scientists have proposed a theory that, when actual science is taken into account, has more holes than a Swiss cheese factory and that promises to "save" us from predicted future catastrophes (of which similar earlier ones have failed to come to fruition) at the expense of increasing the power and financial might of these boots you worry about, it is not the right solution.

If the planet is warming, and I believe that may well be the case, we need to first determine if it will continue or if it is a cyclic event, and if a cyclic event, where the limits of that cycle are. Then we need to understand what changes in our lifestyle, if any, this will bring about. If these changes are indeed hazardous or unwanted, we then need to examine all possible causes to determine which causes are at fault. Finally, we have to come up with a method to counter those causes or to at least minimize the impact of those causes.

In the case of AGW, scientists claim to have sufficient evidence to support a warming trend. Fair enough; although I question that to some extent, I do accept it as a possibility. When faced with the question of linear or cyclic trending, however, it seems clear that anyone who even proposes the cyclic possibility is shouted down. If we still accept that the trend is toward warming and is not cyclic, the next concern, the potential changes, are pure gloom and doom... for example, the common story is that famine will result, despite the fact that the growing season will actually increase globally and allow for more land to be farmed. We do not get the whole story, with both the pros and cons.

Finally, determining the causes involved is completely skewed to discredit anyone who even hints at the possibility that CO2 is not the devil's favorite demon. Nothing else can be at fault... everything, from warm summers to cold winters to thunderstorms in areas which have had thunderstorms throughout recorded history is attributed to CO2. And the only viable solution is.... carbon credits!

Sorry... not gonna buy that one. Too unscientific and too biased.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Kali74


When we start seeing clear changes to the shorelines, then people will start paying attention.

Sadly, it will be too late.

One hurricane or big tropical storm runs up the East Coast again, in this year, in the next couple of months, and public opinion might shift a great deal more in the very near future.

reply to post by poet1b

Big media makes their money from sponsors, not from ratings.

Technically from advertisers, but then again, that's getting into semantics and probably what you meant.

The thing is that the advertisers are paying those big bucks for one simple reason: to sell something. The money spent on advertising is supposed to be offset many times over by increases in sales. That's why so many commercials are irritating in some way; irritation means it is remembered, and the name recognition alone will increase sales.

In order for advertising to be effective, people have to see it. If the ratings are poor, fewer people will see the advertisements and the price of advertising drops. That means the media cannot afford to keep the show on air and it gets cancelled. There are enough people who watch the Super Bowl every year that the rating are enormous enough to demand millions of dollars for 30 seconds of air time, and companies spend many more millions of dollars just to produce the commercials.

So the ratings directly affect the ability of the media to make a profit. Without ratings, no one is paying them squat.

The big corporations are more than happy to throw money at any possible explanation that suggests something other than CO2 is causing AGW.

As someone who has tried to elicit funds for research, I can promise you that is NOT the case.

I agree, carbon credits are a terrible idea.

But carbon credits are the only method that can be used to stop AGW... at least according to the exact same people who are reporting how terrible the situation is.

I think we will see how soon or if our predictions are accurate. I hope mine is wrong.

As do I.

I also hope we can stop arguing over CO2 and start focusing on real problems... are you aware that extremely high sulfur content fuels, as high as 5% sulfur, are allowed to be used in international shipping? In contrast, diesel fuel used in transfer trucks in the US is capped at 0.0015% (15ppm) sulfur content.

Just one example.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Advertisers pay to see what they want broadcast. Some are looking to sell stuff, and some are simply looking to put out a certain message. Oil companies have a captive consumer group, they don't worry about sales. Our infrastructure has been set up to guarantee them customers.

Big oil companies don't have to pay anyone to look for undersea volcanoes, they spend vast amounts of money looking at the ocean floor, looking for oil. They know what is down there, and if they found evidence of undersea volcanoes creating global warming, they would be putting out that information.

There was probably a period of time, when corporate research grants were available to people with good ideas, but that ship has sailed.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Maybe you should ask ALEC, CATO or Heartland for research money. As for the MSM promoting AGW, that's the biggest climate myth of them all. I think since you're not one to take anyone's word for anything, you should look that up. The scientific consensus on global warming is that it is caused by burning fossil fuels, the media tells us there's still a debate.

Not to self promote but I did a thread on this exact thing, media politics and global warming... I hope you'll take a look.