quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
The ocean isn't the atmosphere.

Anyways-- so your theory is that after millions of years of atmospheric CO2 being below 300ppm, starting at the dawn of industrialization, underwater volcanoes have coincidentally and for reasons unknown begun to drive the CO2 level up to 400ppm and beyond? And fossil fuel burning, agriculture, deforestation, etc... which we already know causes CO2 to be released... is basically a non-factor?

quote:

Why do we have to throw out a really good explanation for why CO2 levels/temperatures are rising and use a really sketchy one instead?

quote:

quote:

There is nothing to say that if we do anything that it will reduce or reverse the current trend simply because we do not know all of the mechanisms at play. We could very well reduce our emissions to 0, or through the creation of Scrubbers, reverse our emissions - taking CO2 out of the atmosphere... and there is absolutely no promise that it will do anything. If ocean acidity and the release of underwater methane deposits are ultimately to blame - then CO2 emissions where just a symptom not a cause.

Well, this would be more likely if your theory of 'it isn't human activity' made sense.

And there is no Scrubber that can take CO2 out of the entire troposphere, out of the stratosphere, out of a large enough area of the troposphere to make it useful, or even out of a non-enclosed space. You were talking about submarines and really small, enclosed spaces. I mean, how big is a submarine? And how long before they can reduce the CO2 levels over 10 square kilometers? How many kilometers are on the planet? Don't you think it seems a little impractical?

quote:

quote:

I'm not opposed to wind farms or solar energy... although i find it ironic that these 'environmentally friendly' alternatives are actually devastatingly destructive to the environments they are in. It is something people seem to forget - Power production has a price... always. Hydroelectric dams flood hundreds of square miles of land, solar farms push area birds to near extinction, and wind turbines have been shown to actually influence the flow of winds through an area, effecting the environment down range of it.

Until we develop a perpetual motion engine - there will always be an impact for producing power.

The solutions don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better.

quote:

quote:

Likewise - you must also understand that there are just as many people that want to create fear in order to induce actions which produces them money.... allowing big companies to take huge cutbacks in carbon subsidies, get massive grants and government aid in start up of ill conceived 'green energy' ventures (remember the Obama solar energy debacle?), and validate their claims giving them political clout and influence.

cautioning against doom-saying and advising that we don't do anything until we have more information is not as bad a thing as you think... but jumping into a 'solution' with out fully knowing the causes is a bad thing, may actually be as bad a thing as i think.

As long as oil companies are being given the massive subsidies they are being given, the majority of green energy startups will struggle and/or fail. And while people like you are being prohibitively 'cautious' about alternatives, the oil companies are doing more irreversible damage to the planet, which is exactly the point.

quote:

quote:

There was a movie called 'Snowpiercer' and while the movie was kinda stupid the synopsis for the world of story was that to 'save ourselves' from global warming we pumped an experimental compound into the upper atmosphere which then subsequently flash froze the planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGW944czgzc

which is supposed to be a cautionary tale about jumping to a solution in order to stop 'the tyranny of global warming'...

Am I supposed to take this seriously?

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
The ocean also produces the largest amount of atmospheric CO2 on the planet, You could burn all of the Petrol and Natural Gas in the US Reserves and still come no where near the amount of CO2 the ocean pumps into the atmosphere annually... and 'millions of years ago' atmospheric CO2 was some 4-5 times higher then it was today. In fact, the Neogene Era is a little strange for the extremely low co2 concentrations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
And while you may say it is just coincidental - More tidal waves have occurred in the past 25 years then in the previous 50...
But you'd be forgiven in not knowing... because even though Scientists have said the largest influential factor on the climate has been the very planet, climate change enthusists don't allow discussion of it because it isn't apparently apart of the argument.

As your first line implies...
The dirt is not the atmosphere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

Why do we have to throw out a really good explanation for why CO2 levels/temperatures are rising and use a really sketchy one instead?

Why should we throw out the really good explanation of the world being flat and instead use the really sketchy one that it is round?

quote:

I present that as a comperative jab at your statement... because it follows the same logical conclusion - By limiting what information is accepted and not allowing for other theories to take root because it is less defined, you end up with exactly the same conclusion.

But as an answer - As the evidence changes - so too must your hypotheses.

quote:


better in what context?
Green Energy is just as destructive, it's destruction is just much more acute.

quote:

Those 'green energy startups' lost 2.2 Billion dollars of US Tax Payers money... that's not being skeptical.

There is a point when you can't just blame Big Oil for everything....
and usually that point happens well before the dollar amount is measured in Billions.

quote:

Yes... Because the most earnest solution Climate Change Enthusiasts propagate is 'Global Dimming' in which high concentrations of Stratospheric Aerosols are pumped into the upper atmosphere increasing the amount of sun light that is reflected off the upper atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

The ocean doesn't 'produce' CO2, it is part of a cycle in which CO2 leaves the ocean and enters the atmosphere before returning to the ocean. The same CO2 has been cycling in this fashion over millions of years.

CO2 levels were 4-5 times higher about 200 million years ago, and that is totally meaningless because humans didn't exist 200 million years ago. Was the Earth even in the same position in relation to the sun?

quote:

What do tidal waves have to do with CO2 in the atmosphere? What does dirt have to do with CO2 in the atmosphere? I'm so confused. You're just throwing these things out there and not really explaining what you mean or why you're bringing them up.

Are you sure it's that the 'enthusiasts' 'don't allow' discussion? Maybe they just don't think it's relevant? Or maybe they just don't agree?

quote:

But the evidence hasn't changed.
The real problem here is that you think your 'evidence' disproves AGW when it actually doesn't.

What you're saying here is essentially that we should 'teach the controversy'. It's the same tactic creationists use to try to get their religious dogma into science classes-- 'you have your theory and we have ours... by not teaching our bullshit along with your valid science, you are promoting ignorance'.

No, sorry, it's not happening.

quote:

It's more destructive than ruining the global climate?
I don't think so.

quote:

How much money is climate change going to cost?

quote:

I can't really take all of this sci-fi technophobia and Hollywood science seriously, but apparently you can.
Then again, it seems that you can take anything seriously except the idea that humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere causes atmospheric CO2 levels to rise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Are you aware that Miami streets are flooded at high tide, and that polar bears are indeed threatened?

Or does only the exact wording matter?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What the hell? You haven't proven anything, stupid moron. Just posted a bunch of pretend science news. You don't suppose, that perhaps, banning polar bear hunting after the 70s had anything to do with an increase of their numbers since then?

Has it occurred to you, oh Almighty thinking one, that factors other than that might impact polar Bear population's? That melting sea ice will have an impact?

Or are you one of these priceless princesses who says oh no the sea ice isn't really melting!

quote:

North American Hunting
Canadian Arctic Polar Bear Hunt

Ameri-Cana Expeditions Inc. has been offering Polar bear hunts across the Arctic for well over 30 years

quote:

thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
These refer to the absorption of nitrogen, which reduces protein content. But, plants are not our primary sources of protein.

So what are our primary sources of protein?
Is it the animals that get their protein by eating the plants that are losing their protein?

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Al Gore has a photo of a polar bear floating on some ice, but it's kind of an old photo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
Underwater volcanic hot spots release CO2 and carbon into the water which bind and produce carbonic acid. This acid then releases the CO2, into the atmosphere - see Lake Nyos, where a volcanic fed body of water is effectively producing CO2 rather then having a natural cycle of absorption and release, which has become highly saturated with CO2 that stays suspended at it's bottom.

geological events in the past which disturbed water balance and allowed the carbonic acid to bubble to the surface release massive amount of CO2 to release which has suffocated thousands in the surrounding area.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
And what, humans existed a few million years ago? the 300-400 ppm is just a number based on an observation, not a symbol of impending catastrophe, nor a sign of our influence.

quote:

Tidal Waves are symbolic of increased geological activity that occurs under water... meaning that it could potentially be a sign that volcanic activity might be ramping up of underwater thermal hot spots. While you have focused almost entirely on human based CO2 emissions in the argument of global warming - you have ignored the one thing which has proven to directly influence the climate time and time again - the planet.

quote:

Baker of NOAA cautioned that this does not mean that present-day climate change is not driven by human activity, because humans far outstrip the fractional contribution of prehistorical volcanoes to global warming.

"It's important to keep in mind that, even on a 1,000-year time scale, human emissions of CO2 will continue to dominate climate change," he said. "That is, we cannot blame seafloor eruptions for the ongoing increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations."

quote:

Increased volcanic activity could easily dwarf what humans contribute to the atmosphere, and considering that a majority of volcanoes on the planet are found under water... their activity could be ramping up significantly and very few would know it. The 2 things which we tend to use as a litmus test to identify increased underwater volcanic activity is an Increase in the acidity of ocean water, and the increase of ocean based disasters like Tidal Waves.

Both of which have been on the rise, but are brushed off by climate change advocates because it isn't apparently apart of the 'atmosphere'... They don't think it is relevant and simply ignore it. As you just admitted.

quote:

The evidence has changed, it is constantly change. The problem you're having is that you've come to a conclusion and are now twisting the facts and evidence to fit that conclusion rather then the conclusion to fit the facts and evidence.

quote:

Increase in Ocean temp, increase in ocean acidity, increase in ocean based disasters, increase in ocean based weather events...

So could the cause be the ocean or ocean based activity?

Nope - according to you and other Climate Change enthusiasts none of that has anything to do with the ocean or what happens beneath it - it is Human CO2 production which has caused all those things, in spite of the fact that in the bigger picture of things our CO2 production is rather insignificant in comparison to the vast size of the ocean...

And if you really press the issue
"The ocean is not the atmosphere" is the most common go to reply... which you've actually used.

quote:

Solar and wind based energy plants require the displacement or some times result in the destruction of keystone species which, when removed, cause a catastrophic ripple through out the ecosystem - reducing the livability of surrounding ecosystems to near zero.

For instance the Ivanpah Solar Generating System cooked enough birds that passed through it's focusing ray and required the complete displacement of a desert tortoise that the ecosystem had been so damaged that the environmentalists believe that in a few years time, the surrounding area will be barren and completely devoid of life all together.

Climate Change which has a medium latency of 800 years before events produce a noticeably impact to the existing environment vs the complete obliteration of life in large tracts of land in less then 10....

Are you so sure?

quote:

A lot less then it is to try and stop it.
and considering that it could very well be a natural occurring event - trying to stop it may very well be a waste of money.

the afformentioned - You may as well be trying to glue the San Andreas Fault together to prevent an earth quake.

quote:

Hollywood science?

That is the literal science that Climate Change Advocates are basically promoting.
Hell when LBJ first blamed humans for global warming back in the mid 60's, his solution then was to seed the oceans with reflective material. So this sci-fi Hollywood science is 50 years in the making.

quote:

of course you did evade the important question:
What is the solution then?

Because if you don't have a solution - then all you're doing is fear mongering.

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Al Gore has a photo of a polar bear floating on some ice, but it's kind of an old photo.

quote:

“We see reason for concern, but find no reliable evidence to support the contention that polar bears are currently experiencing a climate crisis,” Canadian scientists wrote in their study, published in Ecology and Evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Polar bears, however, can't swim indefinitely.

They use the ice as a platform to hunt seals. Without it, it's a long way to dinner (not to mention feeding young).

quote:

wimming incredible distances, according to a new study published in Zoology, which recorded polar bears regularly swimming over 30 miles (48 kilometers) and, in one case, as far as 220 miles (354 kilometers). The researchers believe the ability of polar bears to tackle such long-distance swims may help them survive as seasonal sea ice vanishes due to climate change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I didn't realize indefinitely now had a finite limit.

Or math wasn't a part of your education.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

From Nwf.org

It's not about the polar bear olympics.

Global Warming and Polar Bears

The chief threat to the polar bear is the loss of its sea ice habitat due to global warming. As suggested by its specific scientific name (Ursus maritimus), the polar bear is actually a marine mammal that spends far more time at sea than it does on land. It is on the Arctic ice that the polar bear makes its living, which is why global warming is such a serious threat to its well-being.

How are polar bears being impacted by global warming?

-Population sizes decreasing
-Sea ice platforms moving farther apart and swimming conditions more dangerous
-Fewer hunting opportunities and increased scarcity of food

As climate change melts sea ice, the U.S. Geological Survey projects that two thirds of polar bears will disappear by 2050. This dramatic decline in the polar bear is occurring in our lifetime, which is but a miniscule fraction of the time polar bears have roamed the vast Arctic seas.

Rapid Arctic ice melt in 2011:

-Arctic sea ice extent for January 2011 was the lowest in the satellite record for that month.
-The winter's maximum Arctic sea ice extent tied for the lowest on record. The year saw the second lowest Arctic ice levels since 1979 when observation began.
-A female polar bear reportedly swam for nine days - nonstop-across the Beaufort Sea before reaching an ice floe, costing her 22 percent of her weight and her cub.

Population Size Declines

In southern portions of their range, like Hudson Bay, Canada, there is no sea ice during the summer, and the polar bears must live on land until the Bay freezes in the fall, whereupon they can again hunt on the ice. While on land during the summer, these bears eat little or nothing.

In just 20 years the ice-free period in Hudson Bay has increased by an average of 20 days, cutting short polar bears' seal hunting season by nearly three weeks. The ice is freezing later in the fall, but it is the earlier spring ice melt that is especially difficult for the bears. They have a narrower timeframe in which to hunt during the critical season when seal pups are born. As a result, average bear weight has dropped by 15 percent, causing reproduction rates to decline. The Hudson Bay population is down more than 20 percent.

Retreating Sea Ice Platforms

The retreat of ice has implications beyond the obvious habitat loss. Remaining ice is farther from shore, making it less accessible. The larger gap of open water between the ice and land also contributes to rougher wave conditions, making the bears’ swim from shore to sea ice more hazardous.

In 2004, biologists discovered four drowned polar bears in the Beaufort Sea, and suspect the actual number of drowned bears may have been considerably greater. Never before observed, biologists attributed the drowning to a combination of retreating ice and rougher seas.

Scarcity of Food

Exacerbating the problems of the loss of hunting areas, it is expected that the shrinking polar ice cap will also cause a decline in polar bears’ prey -- seals. The reduction in ice platforms near productive areas for the fish that the seals eat affects their nutritional status and reproduction rates.

Polar bears are going hungry for longer periods of time, resulting in cannibalistic behavior. Although it has long been known polar bears will kill for dominance or kill cubs so they can breed with the female, outright predation for food was previously unobserved by biologists.

Polar Bear Status

In 2008, the polar bear was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act primarily because of the decline of its primary habitat: sea ice. The Secretary of Interior listed the polar bear as threatened but restricted the Endangered Species Act's protections and thus the polar bear's future is still very much in jeopardy.

The polar bear is the proverbial "canary in the coal mine" of the serious threat global warming poses to wildlife species around the world, unless we take immediate and significant action to reduce global warming pollution.