Comments on: Heat Wave Blisters Southern California

Triple Digit Temps Setting Records; Energy Demand At Peak Levels

[ubrew12]

t_barr said: "Is a ONE degree change more important? I suppose it would be if you are in the business of selling CO2 credits."
Global warming was never about warming, its about heating. There are two ways something can heat, it can warm, and it can change phase. Phase change is the actual concern with global warming as it affects rainfall patterns and the sizes and frequencies of storms. It affects whether that precipitation falls as snow or rain, and how long it sticks. It affects whether ocean water is retained as water or ice. The northward expansion of tropical and sub-tropical critters, like the one killing Alaskan salmon, is a consequence of lack of killing frosts in areas once subject to them.

I''m a GMO fan, although I don''t think enough has been done to make sure engineered genes don''t migrate to the natural ecosystems around them. They have the potential to vastly increase crop yields, allow safer production without chemicals, etc.

GW Deniers are quick to point out that we don''t know all the consequences yet, but I don''t see that as cause for celebration. One unintended consequence could be the melting of Arctic permafrost (phase change again), causing release of huge quantities of potent greenhouse gas, methane, into the atmosphere, accelerating the effects of GW.

[nycprof]

TO t_barr:
BTW, a theory has been tested over and over by the acquisition of new data.

The data clearly shows a link between CO2 and climate throughout history. Go to the best science journals in the world and read (Nature or Science).

Second, when it suits your whims, you move to inaccurate data or out right lies. The IPCC report indicates at least a 5 F (or 3 C) global temperature change. Also, the high end of the report, which indicates a global temp increase of nearly 10 F, is becoming more realistic. This is the case as the IPCC underestimated the rate of change , because all of the countries including the US (and the Bushies) had to approve it. There have been over a half of dozen peer reviewed papers that have come out since the report that have shown that the IPCC grossly UNDERestimated the change. And BTW, this will be felt more at the high latitudes where all of ice sheets reside. It is a shame that your close mindedness has blinded you to finding data that fits your world view.

[nycprof]

TO:
The Earth is not even a blip in the Universe and man is not even a blip when it comes to the weather. People keep yelling about CO2, man would not even exist without it. A ton is 2000 pounds why aren''''t we being crushed by these trillions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere or why hasn''''t the atmospheric pressure changed?

Posted by dmw1167

Yipes, what sort of rambling idiotic nonsense is this? With a discourse like this, either go back to grade school and take some basic science classes or just stay quiet. It is extremely embarrassing to think that you live in the same country as the rest of us.

[ubrew12]

dmw1167 said: "These perdictions are all based on computer models they developed and you just said they can change them to read what ever they like. Why should anyone believe any thing they say. "

If a similar model tells you a Katrina Hurricane is heading your way, my guess is you''ll believe it and leave, just to be on the safe side. That''s what''s going on here. Because of the uncertainties surrounding how the oceans will ultimately react to this heat-forcing, we should take prudent action NOW. If we wait until the oceans make their changes, we''ll be pushing to reverse course for 50 years before the ocean even realizes we''ve changed our minds.

[ubrew12]

NYCPROF said: "The ignorant blustering climate change deniers (e.g., Rush and Fox TV) typically have so called experts that may have PhD but never are writing peer reviewed papers in high level journals on climate change. "

One of the saddest aspects of the whole Global Warming debate is the number of Scientists with perfectly good degrees, just NOT in climatology, who are willing to opine on climatology. Their PhD makes them a darling candidate for the right. Their lack of climatological training means they can actually deny later having known what they were saying. I just direct people to www.RealClimate.org, with its useful (almost disheartening) byline: ''Climate Science by Climate Scientists''.

Climate Science by Climate Scientists! Who woulda thunk it?

[ubrew12]

t_barr said: "Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it''s been in decades, perhaps in centuries." A planet overgrown with kudzu and algae is not my idea of Paradise. Among those plant growths are fungi that are already killing salmon in the northwest. I prefer salmon to fungi, but maybe thats just me.

[nycprof]

TO t_barr:

Once again you have demonstrated that a little knowledge used by someone who holds a closed minded view can sound so arrogantly dumb. The high CO2 levels of the past were fine for Mother Nature, but they would be disastrous for humanity. When the climate got warmer and sea levels rose, what happened? The dinosaurs in the Mesozoic and the mammals in the Cenozoic migrated inland or they moved to higher latitudes. We can not move our cities inland and it would be extremely difficult move our farms to higher latitudes (unless you want to give Nebraskan farmers Canadian citizen). Also, deserts will expand into once was farmable land, rainfall and storms will change dramatically as we return for the first time into a greenhouse world.

BTW, the entries in wikipedia are NOT peer reviewed, although your quote is partially accurate. I have written about 45 peer reviewed papers on past climate change. The ignorant blustering climate change deniers (e.g., Rush and Fox TV) typically have so called experts that may have PhD but never are writing peer reviewed papers in high level journals on climate change.

[ubrew12]

t_barr said: "Earths'' Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause"

Someone should tell these folks:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/10/5466
Its titled ''The current biodiversity extinction event: Scenarios for mitigation and recovery'' PNAS= proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Since you like ScienceDaily, here''s what they think CO2 is doing to coral reefs around the world:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060515232529.htm

It takes more than CO2 to green the planet. To suggest that limiting CO2 to 350ppm is a disservice to our biosphere is taking huge license.

[lorinkundert]

Greenland had lush forests and ample farmland when the vikings first settled there, they would probably consider this as global cooling comparatively.

You global warming people really need to do your own research and stop letting the media and the Al Gore types tell you how to think.

[ubrew12]

t_barr said: "Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today"

I find it a little disconcerting that your idea of ''normal'' is an age when mosquito''s the size of birds roamed the land.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ichfish15-2008jun15,0,587682.story