Climate Change Already Impacting ‘All Continents’ According To New International Report

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I only ask questions in order to find things out.

And in every case you mentioned, a balance had been achieved. It may have not been the original set-point, but a new balance is achieved. Kind of like ice ages, that periodically come and go.

Now you can blame lawn mowers and another can blame solar flares, but in each and every case, balance is achieved.

reply to post by network dude


That graph has already been debunked, why show it.

reply to post by Necrym


Because some people do not understand the science nor do they research it. There is actually a thread on here where one person tried to say that geological forces (such as the land was pushed out of the sea) was evidence against climate change.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by beezzer


No, actually, a new balance was not achieved in many of these instances. Some we could go ahead and (or begin to) correct, which is why controlled burn practices are in place, some areas have banned the building of hard structures jutting out into coast lines, and a few other changes. However, the destruction that each one of these things created is not "balance". They basically laid waste to the ecosystem surrounding them and there was no "balance". Just waste.

I don't blame lawn mowers though I'm not impressed with grass. Absorbs a huge water amount and does very little for the ecosystem that still exists. Then again, you're the one arguing that the status quo is just fine without really educating yourself as to what it all is. Your opinion is better than scientific opinion in your book. That is so fallacious that I don't even know what to say.

Watch this video look at the tactic used remind you all of anything?


At 7:40ish he claims building coal fired power plants world wide will lower infant mortality rates...I wonder if he is aware that the US ranks 177th in infant mortality rates....

WhiteAlice
reply to post by beezzer

 

No, actually, a new balance was not achieved in many of these instances. Some we could go ahead and (or begin to) correct, which is why controlled burn practices are in place, some areas have banned the building of hard structures jutting out into coast lines, and a few other changes. However, the destruction that each one of these things created is not "balance". They basically laid waste to the ecosystem surrounding them and there was no "balance". Just waste.

I don't blame lawn mowers though I'm not impressed with grass. Absorbs a huge water amount and does very little for the ecosystem that still exists. Then again, you're the one arguing that the status quo is just fine without really educating yourself as to what it all is. Your opinion is better than scientific opinion in your book. That is so fallacious that I don't even know what to say.

You're being dishonest. Which is something I'm getting used to with the pro-human-ruining-the-planet crowd.

I've always agreed with the assertion that there is climate change.

Just not blaming man like so many others do.

Rosinitiate
I have had that damn 'polar vortex' swinging down into Pennsylvania wreaking havoc on my vertebrae on three separate occasions this year. We just got 3 inches of snow and ice, tomorrow will be 58 degrees. It's not normal.

Many of the natural disasters taking place are on a scale I've personally never witnessed or rarely read about. You can see the changes. I won't sit and argue that industrialization isn't playing a role in it, I see what's happening to the oceans, our land and our forests but I'd wager this change is more cyclic and less man made driven.

Either way, something's got to give.

So because things are changing one direction within the span of your life (under 100years I'll assume) it means there is some PROBLEM?

Th earth changes. In 1816, there was NO SUMMER in the northern hemisphere. Trees literally are missing a growth ring for that year.

The earth changes, and we always seem to convince ourselves it shouldn't. Like trying to tame rivers and shorelines. Or like just recently I read an article talking about the danger of invasive species coming to the northwest via tsunami debris. Well tsunami's have been happening for millenia upon millenia and I'm sure for thousands of years the debris has carried creatures to corners of the oceans they hadn't been to before.

The earth changes. It's a living creature.

Don't miss the documentary "Chasing Ice"
www.imdb.com...

Here is a short clip


I wonder how the AGW'ers are gonna debunk that?

the2ofusr1
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

In your explanation with the water samples and the more powerful telescope you have made me think that that is what the problem is here .In your water sample there is things we don't see and can drink and be fine ...

This right here really sums a whole lot up to me about the way you think. First of all, it's called a microscope--not a telescope. A telescope is for seeing things in the far off distance (ie your neighbor or stars). A microscope, on the other hand, is for seeing things that the naked eye cannot normally see or in greater detail, depending on the type (specimen microscopes are for seeing small details on larger things like an insect).

I'd ask you a question but I'm afraid that would be against the T&C. Do you even know what E. Coli is? The form of E. Coli that I found was actually of the type where infection causes nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and can be fatal for young children and the elderly if left untreated. That's why they closed access to the pond down. They actually had a closed off the perimeter around the pond about 40 yards out. It was dangerous.

Not all forms of E. Coli are dangerous but that one was, which is why they closed the area down. Drinking, fishing and swimming are still restricted to this day. If you'd like to put your premise to a test though, I can send you a jar in the name of science. Just be sure to go see your doctor promptly should you grow ill.

As far as surface warming goes, it is actually present in many areas of concern. Basically, at those points of the oceanic conveyor belt that are most important in regards to climate generation such as the Kuroshio Current in the Pacific. I do recall reading some postulation that the deep ocean would eventually start warming because of changes in both salinity and temperature so that's unsurprising and could explain why there have been some typically deeper ocean residents washing ashore.

The deep ocean is not static. It actually does have a zone of mixing with the surface ocean. It was going to warm.

www.soest.hawaii.edu...
climatekids.nasa.gov...

reply to post by kloejen


They will not debunk it they will ignore it. BTW that was a great video I think I will watch the show now.

Anyway they will ignore it just as they ignore this.

For those who do not know the lighter colours being the oldest ice is also the thickest the 1 year dark blue ice is very think and does nothing to displace water it can also be very thin. When deniers claim there is more ice they are talking about thin seasonal ice that disappears in warmer months.

beezzer

WhiteAlice
reply to post by beezzer

 

No, actually, a new balance was not achieved in many of these instances. Some we could go ahead and (or begin to) correct, which is why controlled burn practices are in place, some areas have banned the building of hard structures jutting out into coast lines, and a few other changes. However, the destruction that each one of these things created is not "balance". They basically laid waste to the ecosystem surrounding them and there was no "balance". Just waste.

I don't blame lawn mowers though I'm not impressed with grass. Absorbs a huge water amount and does very little for the ecosystem that still exists. Then again, you're the one arguing that the status quo is just fine without really educating yourself as to what it all is. Your opinion is better than scientific opinion in your book. That is so fallacious that I don't even know what to say.

You're being dishonest. Which is something I'm getting used to with the pro-human-ruining-the-planet crowd.

I've always agreed with the assertion that there is climate change.

Just not blaming man like so many others do.

Dishonest? Dude, I've gone out to many sites as a part of field training and seen the effects that we have had on various ecosystems firsthand. You haven't lived til you're in boots in 2 feet of smelly water with a bunch of scientific equipment and you haven't felt despair til you watched a forest slowly die, year after year.

WhiteAlice

beezzer

WhiteAlice
reply to post by beezzer

 

No, actually, a new balance was not achieved in many of these instances. Some we could go ahead and (or begin to) correct, which is why controlled burn practices are in place, some areas have banned the building of hard structures jutting out into coast lines, and a few other changes. However, the destruction that each one of these things created is not "balance". They basically laid waste to the ecosystem surrounding them and there was no "balance". Just waste.

I don't blame lawn mowers though I'm not impressed with grass. Absorbs a huge water amount and does very little for the ecosystem that still exists. Then again, you're the one arguing that the status quo is just fine without really educating yourself as to what it all is. Your opinion is better than scientific opinion in your book. That is so fallacious that I don't even know what to say.

You're being dishonest. Which is something I'm getting used to with the pro-human-ruining-the-planet crowd.

I've always agreed with the assertion that there is climate change.

Just not blaming man like so many others do.

Dishonest? Dude, I've gone out to many sites as a part of field training and seen the effects that we have had on various ecosystems firsthand. You haven't lived til you're in boots in 2 feet of smelly water with a bunch of scientific equipment and you haven't felt despair til you watched a forest slowly die, year after year.

Okay. You've experienced pollution.

But unless you've been around for a few billion years, you haven't experienced global climate change.

Again, kudos for a degree in biology. Mine is in biology with a masters in developmental neurobiology.

Now that we've traded CV's, can we get back on topic?

Not convinced that pollution is causing global climate change.

Label me a skeptic.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Sorry for my brain fart on the microscope . I am aware of the differences . I am also aware of some differences in getting sick from water as I have traveled and what might make a stranger sick ,the locals don't have a problem with .Much like climate where if you put a African in the far north he might not do so well and vice versa . These oceans and there col-oms of water are not a new thing and I would imagine they have been around sense we have had oceans .We have had co2 as long as oceans as well I would think . We have had higher levels of co2 and higher temps as well .... Through all the history of time we have had warm and cold periods over the whole globe as well as pockets .that have avoided the extremes of their day ...We still have pockets that don't fit the and have varying degrees ....All of a sudden in mans history he becomes the main driver for climate ...Nope not buying it and there are not enough guys in white lab coats that will convince me ...I think that science is in a very fragile place . Well the people that call themselves scientist are .Especially the ones that refuse to release their data and codes to their work so that trust-able scholars can check their work .None of this pal review and fudging the numbers ...Figures don't lie but liers figure . As far as some of the data we have . well we have been measuring and creating different ways to measure for a short time . There seems to be not enough data to get a real good handle on things despite our arrogance to claim so . .....peace

Grimpachi
reply to post by Necrym

 

Because some people do not understand the science nor do they research it. There is actually a thread on here where one person tried to say that geological forces (such as the land was pushed out of the sea) was evidence against climate change.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Actually, to understand that thread, you have to think. I see why it boggled your mind.

It was about how Forests used to be deserts, and deserts used to be forests, and how the Big Blue Marble isn't static.

Movement of Crustal Plates
Digital Earth Crust
Digital Techtonic Activity Map of the EarthSource: NASA
As tectonic plates move over geological timescales, landmasses are carried along to different positions and latitudes. These changes affect global circulation patterns of air and ocean water and the climate of the continents. One form of evidence for plate tectonics and an example of how plate tectonics affects climate is the location of coal mines. Coal mines were formed over millions of years ago in tropical areas, yet are found at higher latitudes today. You also learned in the Temperature Over Time module that, since the industrial revolution, the Northern Hemisphere has warmed more than the Southern Hemisphere. This is because the Northern Hemisphere has a larger percentage of Earth’s landmass compared to ocean than the Southern Hemisphere. Remember that landmasses warm faster than oceans due to the high heat capacity of the oceans.

And junk.

"Humanity does not have any impact on the environment"




Like the good old saying "Think globally, act locally!" This is where we all can make a difference. It might not help much, but it is a start, and hopefully the beginning to a more educated and responsible human way of life?
Even if you smoke. Kill the glow by nudging it off on the ground, and then throw the butt in the bin. Not being fanatical here, i'm a smoker myself :/
Just trying to say that its the little things...

reply to post by network dude


HAHA sure. Anyone who reads that thread can see the OP had no clue what he was talking about.

He was going on and on about how they found whale fossils on land saying whales live in water now it is a desert OMG it must be climate change. And I told him no plate tectonics is not climate change.

The OP had no clue what the term geological forces meant, but he should now after I gave him some explanations and videos to watch on the subject.


Serriously the only confused one in that thread was the OP.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Since you want to discuss another thread in this one, here:

Movement of Crustal Plates
Digital Earth Crust
Digital Techtonic Activity Map of the EarthSource: NASA
As tectonic plates move over geological timescales, landmasses are carried along to different positions and latitudes. These changes affect global circulation patterns of air and ocean water and the climate of the continents. One form of evidence for plate tectonics and an example of how plate tectonics affects climate is the location of coal mines. Coal mines were formed over millions of years ago in tropical areas, yet are found at higher latitudes today. You also learned in the Temperature Over Time module that, since the industrial revolution, the Northern Hemisphere has warmed more than the Southern Hemisphere. This is because the Northern Hemisphere has a larger percentage of Earth’s landmass compared to ocean than the Southern Hemisphere. Remember that landmasses warm faster than oceans due to the high heat capacity of the oceans.

Can you believe there was a poster on that thread that didn't think plate movement had anything to do with climate change?


Maybe now we can get back on topic?

LDragonFire
Watch this video look at the tactic used remind you all of anything?

At 7:40ish he claims building coal fired power plants world wide will lower infant mortality rates...I wonder if he is aware that the US ranks 177th in infant mortality rates....

Great Video. It really shows how those opposed to Man Made Global Warming don't want to look at the facts. That guy must be getting paid big bucks from an oil or coal company.

beezzer

WhiteAlice

beezzer

WhiteAlice
reply to post by beezzer

 

No, actually, a new balance was not achieved in many of these instances. Some we could go ahead and (or begin to) correct, which is why controlled burn practices are in place, some areas have banned the building of hard structures jutting out into coast lines, and a few other changes. However, the destruction that each one of these things created is not "balance". They basically laid waste to the ecosystem surrounding them and there was no "balance". Just waste.

I don't blame lawn mowers though I'm not impressed with grass. Absorbs a huge water amount and does very little for the ecosystem that still exists. Then again, you're the one arguing that the status quo is just fine without really educating yourself as to what it all is. Your opinion is better than scientific opinion in your book. That is so fallacious that I don't even know what to say.

You're being dishonest. Which is something I'm getting used to with the pro-human-ruining-the-planet crowd.

I've always agreed with the assertion that there is climate change.

Just not blaming man like so many others do.

Dishonest? Dude, I've gone out to many sites as a part of field training and seen the effects that we have had on various ecosystems firsthand. You haven't lived til you're in boots in 2 feet of smelly water with a bunch of scientific equipment and you haven't felt despair til you watched a forest slowly die, year after year.

Okay. You've experienced pollution.

But unless you've been around for a few billion years, you haven't experienced global climate change.

Again, kudos for a degree in biology. Mine is in biology with a masters in developmental neurobiology.

Now that we've traded CV's, can we get back on topic?

Not convinced that pollution is causing global climate change.

Label me a skeptic.

What do you think was killing those forests? First year I went out, there were a few dead trees. Second year, it looked to be about 1 in 3 trees standing dead. Third year, it was 2 out of 3. These days, whole stands are dead. Where once beautiful green forests stood, it's now all a bunch of gray dead trees just waiting to ignite. It wasn't pollution. The forest that I was looking at was in the Blue Mountains, well away from any city or factor. Very rural. It was bark beetles and I remember they were trying to figure out why there was such a problem with these tree killers. One of the suggestions was not enough burns but that didn't pan out. The population just kept growing and growing. Turns out that that little bit of extra warming in the winter was enough to allow the populations of bark beetle to proliferate. What do you think pollution is? Air pollution is the introduction of chemicals, particles or materials into the air. That includes non-biologic CO2.

Difference between your and my degrees? Mine also included geology, climatology, botany and ecology. All very applicable to the conversation at hand. Neurobiology? Not so much but hey, it's good to know should we ever discuss the human brain.

network dude
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Since you want to discuss another thread in this one, here:

Movement of Crustal Plates
Digital Earth Crust
Digital Techtonic Activity Map of the EarthSource: NASA
As tectonic plates move over geological timescales, landmasses are carried along to different positions and latitudes. These changes affect global circulation patterns of air and ocean water and the climate of the continents. One form of evidence for plate tectonics and an example of how plate tectonics affects climate is the location of coal mines. Coal mines were formed over millions of years ago in tropical areas, yet are found at higher latitudes today. You also learned in the Temperature Over Time module that, since the industrial revolution, the Northern Hemisphere has warmed more than the Southern Hemisphere. This is because the Northern Hemisphere has a larger percentage of Earth’s landmass compared to ocean than the Southern Hemisphere. Remember that landmasses warm faster than oceans due to the high heat capacity of the oceans.

Can you believe there was a poster on that thread that didn't think plate movement had anything to do with climate change?


Maybe now we can get back on topic?

edit on 2-4-2014 by network dude because: bad spelr

Just a fyi but plate movement has been correlated with possible large scale climate change only in the event where the movement interrupts the existing oceanic conveyor belt (ie Panama in the geological past).