Something must be done immediately! Where else could corporate America hide it's money?

Here we have a typical scare headline by Msnbc.com with unfounded conclusions to get people to run wildly about.

Duh.....could the islands be sinking? Could the inhabitants be taking out so much fresh water from the underground aquafers that the land is slowly sinking to fill the empty spaces caused by the removed water? Everyone has heard of the volcanoes that have been building all over the world. If volcanoes can grow, why can't land in other places sink? What part of the recurrent ice ages is the earth in, the warming stage or the cooling stage? Increased CO2 causes plant growth. There are enormous parts of the earth being farmed up to three times a year and the plants need tremendous amounts of CO2 to produce food. What part are the solar storms playing on our atmosphere? The amount of buildings and highways are growing wildly and all that cement and glass are storing heat.

No one has heard of the sink holes in Florida that fall 30-50 feet and entire blocks of land fall into them? No one has heard of water being taken out of underground reservoirs and land just falls down into the reservoirs to take up the empty spaces?

In fact there are hundreds of factors that can cool and heat the earth. As to the islands, the scientists don't know if the pressures in the earth under the water is causing the water to rise or the land under the oceans is collapsing inward causing the isles to sink.

I am glad that msnbc.com and its liberal no nothings have been able to explain what the hundreds of scientists have not yet been able to agree upon.

This is the case of Griffin and Comcast telling us what to think.

correction no=know

I am glad that msnbc.com and its liberal no nothings have been able to explain what the hundreds of scientists have not yet been able to agree upon.

I think you meant "know nothing." Fortunately there are still the majority of scientists (who research climate) who are in agreement. I'm a biologist, I don't have any authority to speak on climate research. When scientists disagree, ask their credentials. I think you'll be surprised by the large number of them that aren't doing climate research.

woodlawn1 - You should listen to yourself. You would go down with a sinking ship telling everyone that the hull is just sweating due to condensation. If you haven't been reading about the ice caps that are melting away "FACT" read a bit and you will see. Several Islands have already gone underwater and others are close to it. Are you saying all the islands are suddenly filling up empty wells and sinking because of the people on the islands? How about the Islands that have no populous but are gone or almost gone? What happened to their water? Need to get a grip and realize your speaking foolishness.

"everybody gets different numbers and nobody can agree" NOT TRUE. The majority of CLIMATE scientists do agree.

Woodlawn, Well said and I agree 100%.

"I spent six years learning to be a biologist and 40 learning how little I know."

It's like I've told my teenagers, when you stop believing you know everything, you'll actually start to learn something.

Scientist findings are like many of the flawed polls. They can always make it look one way or the other. Unfortunately, there is big money in grants to scientist who can explain "Global Warming". Blame it on emissions. Weren't we once in an ice age? Didn't the earth warm a little to get us out of it and aren't the plates in the earth always shifting? Google Paseo Del Mar in CA. where recently a large part fell into the ocean. Global warming? I think not.

AncientGeek - It's no use, the force is not strong in that one ( aka woodlawn1)

brenda1964 Are you a scientist or a lay person who reads what the media wants you to believe. All I see is you writing some trivia. No references, no details take from scientific reports, no foot notes, no information that can be verified. I have over 100 references and reports on global warming over the last 5 million years. How glaciers have covered most of the American Continent and retreated.

So ice melts. You will not be around when the ice returns. You will be dead. Unless you have been blessed with super human intelligence that you can convince hundreds of thousands of biologists, scientists, researchers, that you have super human information, you opinion and views are not worth anything.

You have never lived in Florida and other states that have suddenly developed huge sink holes because the water was pumped out have you?

How do you explain the fact that Florida was pushed out of the ocean?

How do you explain the new land and volcanoes that have appeared? San Benedicto Island, off the west coast of Mexico?

Uturuncu is a nearly 20,000-foot-high (6,000 meters) volcano in southwest Bolivia. Scientists recently discovered the volcano is inflating with astonishing speed.

Only four days old, this fan-shaped lava delta (center of image) extends about 200 m into the ocean on the southeast coast of Kilauea Volcano, Hawai`i. The diffuse plume of white steam at the leading edge of the delta indicates that several small lava flows are pouring into the ocean. Countless deltas have formed along this coastline during Kilauea's eruptive history.

The volcano is unique in the fact that its formation was witnessed from its very inception. It appears on many versions of the Seven Natural Wonders of the World. Parícutin is part of the Michoacán-Guanajuato volcanic field, which covers much of west central Mexico.

Eventually, erosion and subsidence break the volcano down to sea level. At this point, the volcano becomes an atoll, with a ring of coral and sand islands surrounding a lagoon. All the Hawaiian islands west of the Gardner Pinnacles in theNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands are in this stage.

New images were released from NASA, showing the rapid growth of a new island in the Zubair archipelago in the Red Sea.
This new satellite image, acquired January 7, 2012, suggests that the eruption has risen nearly completely above water.

Atomically resolved scanning tunneling microscopy on Cu/Pb(111) reveals a new growth mode, contrary to the Volmer-Weber mode expected from the significantly lower surface energy of Pb. (111)-oriented Cu islands with a thickness of 3–11 layers are immersed in the Pb substrate and covered by a single close-packed Pb layer. This subsurface growth mode occurring at room temperature can be explained by simple thermodynamic considerations.

New evidence about the structure and growth of ocean island volcanoes from aeromagnetic data: The case of Tenerife, Canary Islands

A New Island in the Hawaiian Chain?If the hot-spot theory is correct, the next volcano in the Hawaiian chain should form east or south of the Island of Hawai'i. Abundant evidence indicates that such a new volcano exists at Lö'ihi, a seamount (or submarine peak) located about 20 miles off the south coast. Lö'ihi rises 10,100 feet above the ocean floor to within 3,100 feet of the water surface.

Surtsey, a new volcanic island, had formed off the southern coast of Iceland. By 1965, plant life had colonized the relatively flat southern portion of the island, which is also visited by migratory birds and seals. The eruption lasted until 1967, forming an island with an area of 2.7 square kilometers (1.04 square miles).

Literally there are hundreds of new islands formed and increased in land mass every year.

Now you can't be that unintelligent to tell me that the oceans are receding to allow these islands to reappear? Therefore as islands are appearing all over the world by the land being pushed up, then of course there have to be islands that are sinking due to nature's forces.

Before flapping the gums, do the reading and research to get the knowledge to defend your position.

woodlawn1....Scare Headline ? I did not see anything in the article that suggested a cause for the global warming. Are you saying that you deny that the oceans are rising ? I do not know of any scientists that suggest that the oceans are not rising although some do argue whether human activity is the main cause of the warming that is causing the oceans to rise. You are the first I have heard that denies that they are rising. Guess you could take a boat out there and investigate, just be careful that you do not fall off the edge of the flat earth when you get out there.

AncientGeek, we didn't get numbers. We got terms like 'some' and 'many'. That's a little vague for science. And what is a 'majority' for you, AG? No wonder people get different 'numbers'. You've redefined the word.

woodlawn1

Here we have a typical scare headline by Msnbc.com with unfounded conclusions to get people to run wildly about.

Well, well, well. First of all. it's an AP (Associated Press) article... NOT generated by MSNBC. But you're right, FOX wouldn't carry such an article.

Second, your post is what's "typical" here. Your "Duh" applies to your whole scientific analysis. I guess you have some slight probability of being correct, but given your credentials, I'll go with the ones that actually know what they're talking about.

woodlawn1. At the start of the 1800's the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was around 280ppm. Currently it is 390ppm. That is 37.9% increase in CO2 concentrations. Not .11% Of which humans are pretty much entirly resonsible. CO2 levels do not magially increase and decrease without a process, natural or otherwise, that drives it and no natural process accounts for the increase of observed concentrations. By 2100 they are expected to be around 750ppm due to the accelration of emissions that has occured over time.

We know by direct measurements of CO2 absorption spectra and confirmed by experimental observations of air samples enhanced with CO2 that such a rise in CO2 concentrations would cause around 1.4 or so degree rise in global temperatures IF NO OTHER VARIABLES are present.

However we live in the real world where there are many variables where a change in one causes a change in others. This is called feedback. From highly detailed analysis it is estimated for every degree rise in temperature from increased CO2 there would be 2-4 times as much increase due to feedback effects before equilibrium is reached.

That is called CO2 temperature sensitivity.

All entirely due to human emissions as confirmed by multiple independent lines of evidence by many scientist world-wide all working independently.

I would suggest you educate youself about the actual science behind the issue before commenting in future. Oh, and blog sites full of conspiricy theories on the internet are not scientific or educational, try some peer reviewed research journals.

sbarnden Show me scientific data and not some words. I have the scientific data and reports. You have no idea what you are talking about or how CO2 affects climate change nor how it has increased. I have the raw data. Today's average C02 concentration from world wide averages is .039% of the gases that make up the earth's atmosphere. That is a proven fact presented in many scientific journals.

Well, it took only 3 posts to get the moron out to say the island is sinking and the ocean is not rising. Congratulations woodlawn1, you win a cookie.

And why should I be responsible for your lack of education and research? I know the raw data, from the Mauna Loa measurements, to the various salt dome and ice core historical records, to the world wide sea level measurements taken by research vessels.

I have downloaded the raw data and plotted it myself along with the raw data from the various temperature studies such as the HAD-CRU, RSS, GISS-TEMP, BEST and UAH to confirm the science myself.

do the reading and research to get the knowledge to defend your position.

Done.

• Global warming exceeding random noise levels normally seen in weather
• Shifting of climate zones (hit the 'Play' button in the lower right-hand corner)
• Creation of drought zones
• Erosion of ice sheets
• Rising sea levels
• Opening of the fabled Northwest Passage
• Species migrating away from the warming equator, and toward the cooler poles
• Melting permafrost releasing billions of tons of another greenhouse gas - methane

I could go on, but you get the point. Maybe when your own home is under water, you'll understand. But personally, I doubt it. Must just be that all the land on Earth is sinking.

Mary Jones:

You wrote:

"David Walker kiss my butt. I hate people like you. Did I spell everything right Peckerhead?"

Wait, don't tell me. Let me guess. You're a god-loving christian, right?

And your source for this information? I really am up to date with the most recent peer reviewed research.

So far you claims have reeked of ignorance backed up with "I'm not stupid you are!" childishness.

In the next 100 years they are looking at 1.4-4 degree increase in temperature depending on various emission scenarios and the confidence ranges and some feedback effects.

And yes, there has been an all over warming trend since the 1950's. Its actually been from the 1880's. Its called global warming. So far 0.6-0.8 degrees of it. And from observations of the natural processes that can drive global temperatures (the sun, albedo, orbital positioning, heat transfers between deep ocean and surface, heat transfers from internal, greenhouse gas levels, aerosols) they have found the only mechanism that explains it is human emissions of greenhouse gasses, human emissions of aerosols and human land use changes which affect albedo which have averaged out to the rise in global temperatures observed.

woodlawn1:

While I actually agree with your general position, you are crossing over into not listening yourself here. sbarden stated that current CO2 levels are 390PPM. That is the same as your .039% number. And, from the 1800s and earlier, the PPM of CO2 levels hovered around 280PPM (.028%). sbarnden's "words" are absolutely consistent with yours in that regard, yet you attacked those words. You are undermining your own message.

woodlawn-

Does somebody really need to let you know the why volcanoes come up and how that has nothing to do with this or any other island being completely submerged by rising sea tides?

Volcanoes rise up because they erupt then the magma cools and it keeps repeating that cycle over and over building upon itself. By the way Florida didn't pop up out of the ocean. In fact the coastlines of Florida have had to truck in more sand year after year because the tides are getting higher and washing away more beach. So your whole little "Global Warming is a hoax" stance is getting more obsurd by the minute. Then we can talk about the CO2 and how concentrated CO2 levels actually keep more heat in the Earth's atmosphere (aka Global Warming) the more CO2 the more heat that it will trap in.

Then you can look at the animals and species of the planet if you don't like numbers. Plant species are being found further and further North over the last few years and they are spreading because the increase in average temperatures has made those Northern most places inhabitable for those species. Also look around where you live. We have geese almost year round in VA now because the weather has been noticably warming over the past years. We used to get slammed by snow every winter and now we'll be lucky to get it once. It really is a total gift you have to be able to close your eyes always and never think for one second that the climate is changing. Good thing we don't have to rely on you or your silly theories as to why you think it's not changing.

And they know it is rising sea levels and not subsidence because those are separate things that can be independently measured.

Satellites do a pretty good job at measuring sea levels globally independently of where any land is and how rapidly it is rising or sinking.

Scientists also have calculated how much of the sea level rise is due to thermal expansions and how much is due to melting ice sources and correlated that to temperature.

Its worth noting that sea levels were rising from the year 1AD to 1900AD at a rate of 1mm. Total. For those 1900 years.

Currently they have been calculated to be rising globally on average at 2-3mm PER YEAR and accelerating. Entirely due to thermal expansion and the increase of water volume due to landlocked ice sources melting.

So the US banks did not know of this move. They could have advised and gotten the church a better rate for a hefty fee of course. Appreciate the foresight and the church to sell at $1600 an acre may be doing a favor( guessing without knowing the mkt rate over there).

Climate change deniers will go on forever denying it. They have a lot in common with holocaust deniers. They will argue the minutiae of obscure theories that they make up to deflect the argument, ignoring the overall picture. The fact is that sea levels are rising, and ocean water is becoming less saline. The cause is being argued ad nuaseum, but nobody can deny that it is happening. I have lived in both Alaska, and Alberta, and have watched huge glaciers shrink and disappear over the last 50 years. As late as 1995, I stood on the shore in Barrow, AK in July, and the sea ice came almost to the shore. Today, if you stand there in the summer, you will see a vast clear ocean for as far as the eye can see, no ice. This vast climate change is going to have a huge impact on humanity. How serious, or the exact nature of it remains to be seen, but it will be huge. Climate change deniers just rant about"liberals", that favorite epithet of theirs, and deny everything. The only reason that I can see is that they are afraid somebody will make them stop driving their gas guzzling SUV. Jeez!

Think about this for a minute, put ice in a glass and add liguid, wait when the ice melts will the glass overflow? no because it was at the same capacity when it was solid and liquid as it is when it is all liquid. melt every iceberg and the ocean levels will probaly not change much. Of course i would expect some what of a rise due to land bound ice but nothing drastic. I dont claim to be a scientist and my spelling is horrible and I know just about enough about co2 levels to know that humans exhale co2. Could the fact that the population of the earth has increased exponentionaly[know the word but cant spell] has brought about the increase in co2

Hey woodlawn - let's say you're right, and global warming does not exist. But, let's say just for the hell of it, we cleaned up the environment anyway, just in case. What is the downside, aside from some rich people who own major corporations, not getting richer?

You are pretty adamant on this post, spending a lot of time replying to individual people, defending your denial of global warming. You're spending so much time on here that it makes me think you must have an agenda, like perhaps you own a major corporation that's being held back by the EPA. But then I realized, if that were the case, you would not have all this free time to spend arguing with people on a news website. So what gives? How do you personally benefit from a destroyed environment? Please help me understand. I really want to know what makes you tick, why you think your children, and future generations, should live in a polluted world.

A low flat island with no volcanic activity, will most likely disappear over time due to erosion. The minute rise in ocean level are not the biggest problem. The temperature of climate has risen and fell since time began. If anyone thinks throwing money at trying to stop a natural occurrencewill do anything, they are kidding themselves.

I would love to buy Kiribati for a dollar after they move out. Would not mind living there for the rest of my life. And btw: the sea levels have been rising since the end of the Ice Age.

woodlawn1, yes, yes I do. I have done my homework and studied it. Perhaps you should also?

Oh, and the sea ice mass of Antarctica has been increasing annually (it forms in winter and melts in summer) and there is known and studied reasons for this. (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009, Zhang 2007). The land ice mass (long term ice mass) is losing volume at 100Gt to over 300Gt a year.

Precipitation globally has been increasing (by about 6% on average I believe). This is due to the atmosphere holding more water vapour, which is expected with increased global temperatures resulting in increased evaporation. And what goes up must come down.

capncaveman, yes, melting sea ice does not have really any effect on sea levels (a tiny one due to differences in salt concentrations but not much).

The worry is the LAND ice that is melting. For instance as I pointed out to woodlawn1, sea ice in Antarctica has been growing. This is sea level neutral. But land ice (Antarctica has a solid continent under it supporting the ice, not water) is being lost at an increasing rate annually.

And there is enough land-based ice to put all the oceans up by quite a few meters.

sbarnden the amount of antarctic ice is increasing. The shelves are calving. Read for god's sake. You know nothing. The amount of ice in growing. The temperature is so far below 0 degrees celsius that the snow just piles up and makes the ice shelf increase tremendously. I abhor people who persist in spouting nonsense they heard someplace and can't produce anything to back up their wild claims.

Woodlawn,

Did you even bother to read the links I supplied?

I suspect not. Human caused climate change is something I've been researching since I first did atmospheric research at Ball Aerospace in the 1980s. You seem to be focused on plate tectonics, so I assume that you may be a geologist - the second-last scientific community to admit that humans emissions are changing our climate.

Now the pieces fit.

woodlawn1 in your very first post to sbarden you say "The CO2 concentration is 0.039%".

Isn't that what exactly what sbarden said that it is 390 ppm i.e. 0.039% !!!! Now the question is - do you agree it was 280 ppm or 0.028% in the 1800s.

Well I am not a scientist but its so funny when a point is made against global warming using science instead of God. Makes me dizzy.

Check

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L19503, 4 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009GL040222

Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE

and:

Nature Geoscience 2, 859 - 862 (2009)

Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements
J. L. Chen, C. R. Wilson, D. Blankenship & B. D. Tapley

Anybody who thinks that scientists can measure the sea level change - in just one given location, let alone worldwide - accurately down to a fraction of an inch, has absolutely no clue how such measurements are made, how hard it is to do, and how many variables are involved.

The scientific data overwhelmingly support the fact that human activity is warming the planet.

However, for the sake of argument, let's say that the climate change deniers were right. What if we really DIDN'T know whether or not our air pollution is causing a problem? Even in that case -- how could anyone defend the idea that we should continue to pollute the planet without knowing what the consequences will be?

If you plan to do something that CHANGES THE COMPOSITION OF OUR PLANET'S ATMOSPHERE, shouldn't the burden of proof be upon you to show that you know what the consequences will be?

You know what? Maybe we humans aren't smart enough to go around changing something as basic as the atmosphere of the planet that we all depend on for our survival. Maybe it's not a good idea to make changes to a highly complex system that we all depend on for our survival.

Sbaranden Go argue with the scientists, you are not intelligence enough to understand English.

The Antarctic contribution to sea-level rise has long been uncertain. While regional variability in ice dynamics has been revealed, a picture of mass changes throughout the continental ice sheet is lacking. Here, we use satellite radar altimetry to measure the elevation change of 72% of the grounded ice sheet Depending on the density of the snow giving rise to the observed elevation fluctuations, the ice sheet mass trend falls in the range −5–+85 Gt yr⁻¹. We find that data from climate model reanalyses are not able to characterise the contemporary snowfall fluctuation with useful accuracy and our best estimate of the overall mass trend—growth of 27±29 Gt yr⁻¹—is based on an assessment of the expected snowfall variability. Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica. The result exacerbates the difficulty of explaining twentieth century sea-level rise.

New calculations were performed to investigate the combined response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to a range of climatic warming scenarios over the next millennium. Use was made of fully dynamic 3D thermomechanic ice sheet models, which were coupled to a two-dimensional climate model. The experiments were initialized with simulations over the last two glacial cycles to estimate the present evolution and were subsequently forced with temperature scenarios resulting from greenhouse emission scenarios which assume equivalent CO₂ increases of two, four, and eight times the present (1990 a.d.) value by the year 2130 a.d. and a stabilization after that.
Fast-flowing ice streams transport ice from the interior of WestAntarctica to the ocean, and fluctuations in their activity controlthe mass balance of the ice sheet. The mass balance of the Ross Seasector of the West Antarctic ice sheet is now positive—that is, it isgrowing—mainly because one of the

Mary Jones, your spelling is fine, but you might want to work on your punctuation.

woodlawn1 ....It's simple. I don't believe a word you said about what you are or what you think is happening.

Physicist-retired YOU have to understand the links and YOU have to be up to date in fields you have not studied nor can understand as it is not your field.

There are literally thousands of reports and journals. You have to get up to date and have the background to understand them.

A physicist does not have that education.

woodlawn1. And where did you get that information from hmm? Can you cite the Journal/Article and Author please? I've cited 2 independent recent studies that contradict that.

Junicon Don't be a parrot, show the reports, their content, publication dates, and authors. All reports are influenced by who paid for them. If an environmental organization paid for a scientific report expect the report to reflect what the environmentalist want it to say or the researcher will never get funded again by any environmental organization.

sbarnden you claim to be the big shot, go look them up.

But woodlawn, if you agree that there is a pollution problem, why not get behind the effort of supporting climate change? The research being put into global warming is not happening because we think the root of global warming is Mitt Romney's tax rate or homosexuality...the entire reason the majority of the scientific community is behind this, is the theory that man is causing climate change and we need to reverse that process.

Hey, I agree with you in some form, we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, although I think if we are going to fund alternative energy it should be solar, geothermal, wind, and sure, Hydrogen. I can even get behind nuclear energy if we can develop safer ways to eliminate the waste.

But taking the position that man cannot be responsible for affecting climate just seems uninformed. To think that 7 billion humans, driving cars, cooking meals, flying in airplanes, gushing out mass quantities of energy, expended fuel, chemicals into the atmosphere; to say that we cannot impact the climate of the planet we inhabit, whether you do the research to back it up or if you just go by common sense, makes no sense to me.

So what you are saying is you are not prepared to defend your argument by citing the original source for review?

And you expect people to believe you when you do nothing but make claims, fail to back them up with re-viewable evidence, and then abuse people who call you out and contradict you?

You are showing that you really don't have any credibility when it comes to a debate.

sbarnden, I am saying get off our ass and do your homework. I have the studies that say there is global warming and that ice is melting and I have the studies that say the reverse. You are saying you only have the studies that the ice is melting. That is ingenuous. Nor real scientific information. If a theory cannot take into account all information and come out with a whole explanation then it is a theory and not an explanation. You have no idea from the few studies you mentioned and cherry picked what the truth is. Thus you are just playing stupid mind games and not able to commit yourself to any real end result.

The Antarctic contribution to sea-level rise has long been uncertain.

Nice.

Cherry-pick a 14-year-old study, based on 20-year old data, and leave out both the citation and the punchline.

I'll fill in the blanks:

The Dynamic Response of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets to Multiple-Century Climatic Warming

The latter is related to an increased outflow of ice into the ice shelves and to the grounding-line retreat of the west Antarctic ice sheet, which are both found to be sensitive to basal melting below ice shelves and the effective viscosity of the ice shelves. Stretching parameters to their limits yielded a combined maximum rate of sea level rise of 85 cm/century, of which 60 cm would originate from the Greenland ice sheet alone.

Twenty years later, we have some more current information on the subject:

Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2) range from losing 100 Gt/year to over 300 Gt/year.

and:

Global Glaciers, Ice Caps, Shedding Billions of Tons of Mass Annually

And that last one doesn't even include Greenland (losing 57 cubic miles of ice per year, and accelerating) or Antarctica (100 - 300 gigatons per year).

Well, it has been asked many times in these comments, Woodlawn, but what are your sources? Not numbers, sources. For each and every argument and/or piece of evidence.

To Ken, I say things can be more complex than "it's eroding anyway." As it says in the article,

"He said changing rainfall, tidal and storm patterns pose as least as much threat as ocean levels, which so far have risen only slightly.

Some scientists have estimated the current level of sea rise in the Pacific at about 2 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year. Many scientists expect that rate to accelerate due to climate change."

I'd like to point out to Max that the second sentence also applies to your comment that the seas are rising "anyway."

I ask the same to Ken and Max. What are your sources that argue and/or support your exact arguments? If you don't/can't list them, to me your goals are suspect.

Woodlawn1, there is lots of proof and 97-98% agreement among researchers (confirmed by 2 independent studies and surveys of active climate researchers)

You just seem to ignore it and rant at people about the tiny bits you are either:
a) Flat out getting wrong and demonstrably so.

b) Clearly don't understand.

And when contradicted or given facts which contradict your claims you are resorting to petty insults, conspiracy theories and misdirection.

As I posted below in reply to someone else: The earth doesn't "heat up and cool down by itself". That is the argument of "god does it" and has no place in science.

The planet heats up and cools down by a simple equation - energy in to energy out. These things are observable. The temperatures have been observed to be rising.The only things that affect the global temperature which have been changing during that period have been:
Increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (warms the planet)
Increased aerosols in the atmosphere (cools the planet)
SLIGHTLY increased albedo from land changes (cutting down forests, building nice shiny cities) (cools the planet)
All of which are due to human activities. The other natural mechanisms have been stable or changing far to slowly to make up the observed temperature rises.

atheist-5221728 There is no consensus of opinion what may be causing climate change. NO ONE KNOWS! Is this an anomaly that will change in five years? Is this the year that is in the middle of the 4000 year ice age and from now on, the world will get colder? Why with all the planting being done to feed 7 billion people and the CO2 uptake by the plants is CO2 increasing? Does C02 actually cause global warming or is it the reflection of the light from the planet off the atmosphere warming the lower atmosphere. Hundreds of theories have been proposed. Why was there mass global warming during the start of the industrial revolution and mass decrease in temperatures?

So many things that scientists can't explain and you want to jump off a bridge! Are you jumping off the right bridge?

Physicist is in here Woodlawn, you're outclassed.

You spend more time telling others that they are not qualified than proving your points. Which is funny because by your standards YOU aren't qualified either, and do you know what's even funnier, those who ARE qualified disagree with you!

You don't provide counterpoints. You dismiss evidence as 'not up to date' when it is, and then you don't even bother to provide your sources. You're just being silly and combative because you know you're on poor footing.



There is no consensus of opinion what may be causing climate change

Lol really? What's your definition of consensus?

So many things that scientists can't explain and you want to jump off a bridge!

Ah yes, this good ol' argument. "Scientists can't explain everything so they must be wrong on everything that they can explain."

There is a theory that due to the enormous increase in cattle and the resulting increase in methane, that is a cause of global warming. Who is right?

Get the fraud, fake and fool Obama to start producing hydrogen in massive quantities and stop the burning of coal, oil and natural gas and reduce CO2. And wait five years and see if the world cools.

What you can do about cows and methane, who knows? What you can do about reflective heat off the upper atmosphere who knows.

Woodlawn, Let me guess... you're a Republican. Who would of figured.

And thus you return to misdirection. You no longer seem to have anything to be able to support and back up your original argument so instead of trying you change to a different argument!

Standard denial tactics common among people who hold a deep belief regarding something when contradicted with evidence.

You also don't have any clue about the problem. CO2 has a long atmospheric lifespan, in thousands of years. WE CANNOT GO BACK AND COOL THE PLANET BY REDUCING EMISSIONS. We can only avoid FUTURE ADDITIONAL warming. The CO2 is out of the bottle, it will take thousands of years to go back. The reason people are trying to reduce CO2 emissions is not to cool the planet back down, but to limit how warm it will get in future. Since its really easy to put CO2 in the atmosphere and really hard to remove it. If we stopped all CO2 emissions today the temperature would even keep rising for the next decade or so due to lag effects. But at least it will stop at only 1 or so degrees warmer than today rather than the 3-4 in the next 100 years they are predicting under business-as-usual emissions.

Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas and is part of the problem, but of less concern as its not growing exponentially and only sticks around in the atmosphere for a decade or so before it is destroyed by natural processes. Thus concentrations are not endlessly growing and if we reduce the emissions it will go back down very quickly so its not considered to be as dangerous long term.

I don't have to prove my points

.

You don't? Isn't that sort of the point of ... points?

You want to introduce childish comments,

Pot meet kettle.

that are patently false and demonstrate your ignorance be my guest.

How are they patently false, how do they demonstrate ignorance? You can make whatever assertions you want, but without substantiation - they mean nothing and they only serve to make you seem less credible.

Nothing you said makes any sense.

Explain. I could say the same about you, but if I don't back it up with why that is the case... again.. it means nothing.



Shuklack physicist studies physics not the environment.

There are all sorts of different kinds of physicists... for one. Two: Didn't you say yourself that you are a biologist? So again, who are you to tell someone that they are not qualified?

woodlaw1: 1500 to 1800 CO2 concentrations as per Law Ice Dome records (regarded as quite accurate and far more accurate than "tree rings")

1500 - 282.2

1800 - 282.9

30% increase????

bigfinn-4815102 No I am a libertarian and unlike you, I use my common sense and free will and don't let bleeding heart, uneducated, liberals tell me what to think.

If you read the article AGAIN carefully, you will find a clue. They pumped out all the fresh water from the islands and salt water has invaded the aquifers.

DuHHHHHHH if all the fresh water has been removed........doesn't that mean that those spaces where that water was located were emptied and that salt water invaded them? And if salt water invaded them now and why not before? Has the salt water found ways to enter the spaces where the fresh water was? Doesn't that mean question time?

Everyone can argue all day about facts and science and what is true or not true. BUT, the ones who are living at Sea level and having to move can NOT deny they fact that the oceans are rising. This is not the only natives that have had to move.

Ever heard of Shishmaref? It's in Alaska and the entire tribe had to move inland because of rising Sea Levels. They did a documentary about it, it is call "The Last Days of Shishmaref". These natives were having to look at the reality of giving up their history of life at the Sea, and how devastating it was for them to move so far inland, and far away from what they had known for hundreds of years.

Deny the global warming if you will, but even the Native people of Shishmaref know the cost of those rising tides on them. They don't argue about the global warming, they KNOW IT IS HERE and only get frustrated with the PEOPLE WHO DENY it when it is staring them in the face.

Here we have a typical scare headline by Msnbc.com with unfounded conclusions to get people to run wildly about.

Duh.....could the islands be sinking? Could the inhabitants be taking out so much fresh water from the underground aquafers that the land is slowly sinking to fill the empty spaces caused by the removed water? Everyone has heard of the volcanoes that have been building all over the world. If volcanoes can grow, why can't land in other places sink? What part of the recurrent ice ages is the earth in, the warming stage or the cooling stage? Increased CO2 causes plant growth. There are enormous parts of the earth being farmed up to three times a year and the plants need tremendous amounts of CO2 to produce food. What part are the solar storms playing on our atmosphere? The amount of buildings and highways are growing wildly and all that cement and glass are storing heat.

No one has heard of the sink holes in Florida that fall 30-50 feet and entire blocks of land fall into them? No one has heard of water being taken out of underground reservoirs and land just falls down into the reservoirs to take up the empty spaces?

In fact there are hundreds of factors that can cool and heat the earth. As to the islands, the scientists don't know if the pressures in the earth under the water is causing the water to rise or the land under the oceans is collapsing inward causing the isles to sink.

I am glad that msnbc.com and its liberal no nothings have been able to explain what the hundreds of scientists have not yet been able to agree upon.

This is the case of Griffin and Comcast telling us what to think.

woodlawn1: Tropical Islands don't have 'aquifers'. They have a fresh water lens under the sand. Bit of a difference. That fresh water lens has been contaminated by salt due to salt water being washed and blown over the land and seeping down into it during king tides.

Also I very much doubt you are a libertarian. There are very few real libertarian's in the US (and the world) and you have not been sounding like one at all. I believe the more correct term for you is 'corporate socialist' as that is what pretty much everyone I've met claiming to be a libertarian in the US espouses.

DuHHHHHHH if all the fresh water has been removed......

Didn't you just criticize someone for 'childish comments'.....

And if salt water invaded them now and why not before? Has the salt water found ways to enter the spaces where the fresh water was?

Deflection, again. You have not been able to support your earlier comments so you resort to changing the subject.



In fact there are hundreds of factors that can cool and heat the earth.

Thousands, one of which would be burning millions of years worth of ancient carbon in the matter of a couple centuries.

"We're trying to secure the future of our people," he said. "The international community needs to be addressing this problem more."

Ahhh, now we have it.

Good thing these people live in modern times. Back in ancient times when the oceans inundated coastlines and islands sunk the people just laid down and died. Oh, wait a minute. That's right they didn't. They MOVED!!!!

woodlawn -

I happen to agree that the science is far from settled. I don't know all the answers, but I do know that at one point in earth's history, the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat. But when you spend as much time attacking the intelligence and qualifications of others as you do defending your position, you lose credibility.

Slinger-958418 There is no proof that the ocean around their homeland is rising and not that their islands are sinking.

This has been addressed already above. Regardless, it's a false dichotomy. The possibility of one does not negate the other. Both can occur at the same time.

I don't have to prove my points

You don't? Isn't that sort of the point of ... points?

Excellent point, Shuklack.

Woodlawn, if you want to participate in a discussion based on science, you need to use sources--primary, secondary, tertiary, whatever--regardless of your political persuasion.

I am willing to bet that all the knuckleheads arguing here don't have a serious position in any university or elsewhere that truly gives them access to the reams of research that are necessary to truly understand the so called phenomenom of global climate change. I have read (somewhere, I can't properly cite to it) that the current apparent trend toward warming may not take us even to the warmest levels the earth has been at in the ancient past. To me, I appears, from a layman's point of view, that there is still a great deal of uncertainty in the research, and we obvious have, from the posts here, fanatics at both ends of the spectrum.

Here is my point of view - I am too uninformed to truly understand what is really happening, however, I believe it is my duty, as a conservative Christian, to husband the resources God has provided us, to use them wisely and not wastefully. I have an obligation to use what I need, not waste what I do not need, and preserve what I can for future generations. I believe God gave us this earth and its resources for our use and enjoyment, but we, in our imperfection, the result of sin against God, have become wasteful.

Now, I am sure some atheistic person will try to use and twist that statement, but I think it stands pretty clearly.

If you are a true libertarian then you must know the following founding principles:

According the first principle of the Libertarian Party 2010 platform, "No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government." This is extended to personal property in the second principle, "Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights."

Thus is the global temperature is rising (which it has been observed to be doing so), and the sea level is rising (which again, observation shows), and human greenhouse gas emissions have been identified as the cause (which has been demonstrated beyond all 'reasonable' doubt and statistically confirmed.) then these islanders would be entitled to compensation from the emitters of such CO2 due to the unacceptable infringement on their property rights.

In fact all pollution emitters are under the tenants of libertarianism guilty of breaching the principles of libertarianism by infringing on other property rights forcefully without compensation.

There is no consensus of opinion what may be causing climate change. NO ONE KNOWS!

Umm, yes. We do know.

Professional Societies and Major Relevant Research Institutions claiming that humanity is driving climate change:

National Academies of Science (US)
Royal Society (UK)
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Academy of Science of South Africa
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany
Académie des Sciences, France
Royal Society of Canada
Indian National Science Academy
Science Council of Japan
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Woods Hole Research Center
American Astronomical Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian
Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary
Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
American Association of State Climatologists
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 (the study authorized and then censored by Bush)
American Chemical Society - (world’s largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - (The world’s oldest and the United Kingdom’s
largest geoscience organization)
Union of Concerned Scientists
The Institution of Engineers Australia
National Research Council
International Council on Science
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
ETC ……

Professional Societies and Major Relevant Research Institutions claiming that humanity MAY NOT BE driving climate change:

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)

And even the AAPG admits that humans might be doing it.

There's absolutely no controversy about this in the science community. Our own National Academy of Sciences calls human-caused climate change 'settled fact'.

physicist studies physics not the environment.

You've got to be kidding. Who do you think designs, operates and analyses the data from NASA satellites? Who do you think creates climate models?

And who do you think calculates the Earth's energy budget, which clearly shows that our planet now absorbs much, much more heat from the sun than it remits back our to space - energy that is absorbed exactly at the frequencies corresponding to CO2 spectral lines?

Sheesh.

The earth doesn't "heat up and cool down by itself". That is the argument of "god does it" and has no place in science. The planet heats up and cools down by a simple equation - energy in to energy out. There are many natural things that can cause this. Volcanic eruptions can cool the planet quickly from aerosols they produce or, if there is enough of them (and I mean a LOT), freeze the planet short term with aerosols that are short lived in the atmosphere and then heat it long term with CO2 which is not. Orbital cycles can heat and cool the planet and do so on a regular and predictable basis. The suns intensity can and does change over time that can lead to more or less energy being provided. Atmospheric composition can change which leads to cooling (with less greenhouse gasses or more aerosols) or warming (with more greenhouse gasses and less aerosols). Land use also can change the temperature. In ice ages there is lots of white ice that reflects energy and cools the planet. If there is lots of ocean and forests they absorb more light and warm the planet.

Changes to any and all of these things are observable. The temperatures have been observed to be rising. The only things that affect the global temperature which have been changing during that period have been:

Increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (warms the planet)

Increased aerosols in the atmosphere (cools the planet)

SLIGHTLY increased albedo from land changes (cutting down forests, building nice shiny cities) (cools the planet)

All of which are due to human activities. The other natural mechanisms have been stable or changing far to slowly to make up the observed temperature rises. And its only a net rise, those human emitted aerosols are currently shielding up from the full warming effect that we would be having if we had not emitted them.

If you think it is another natural mechanism causing the observed temperature rise, name it and cite your evidence. But cease prattling about 'natural climate change' unless you can back it up with a specific mechanism and evidence.

Hummmmmmmmmmmmmm ... did no one notice how the island earned all its money?

Tong said the country has plenty of foreign reserves to draw from for the land purchase. The money, he said, comes from phosphate mining on the archipelago in the 1970s.

It took a lot of material (Phosphate) to bring in those kind of bucks ... if you dig up your 40 million yards of material what do you expect ... its a island ? .... sell the material and its gone ... What do you expect to happen?

I'm fairly sure that there were no sophisticated satellite reassuring system in the seventies that could have given a accurate measurement of the islands height, as there are today ... so perhaps it is "sinking" due to the mining ..

Bye the bye ... I live within a few miles (10) of the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia .. and when driving in Matheews county I often find myself, according to my GPS below sea level ..

Also look up this:

THE world could be facing a series of mini ice-ages because of a natural cycle in the sun's activity that could reduce the impact of carbon emissions on global climate, according to some scientists.

I looked it up. As usual, you left out both the citation AND the punchline. From your own article:

The Met Office said any weakening of the sun would cause a reduction in temperatures of about 0.08C up to 2100, while greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would see rises of 2.5C by 2100.

Good lord.

@Woodlawn1,

A physicist does not have that education.

Obvious Troll is Trolling obviously....

Rants about how others are showing no proof, when he himself has no citations.

Rants about how others are not qualified to read data, when he himself has not shown any credentials to prove that he is qualified.

Rants about others not making sense, when he himself has not put together a single well thought out logical argument for his case.

I think we should just ignore this ignorant fool, if he was actually studying climate data and science, he would probably not have the time to comment this much on a MSNBC message board...

FAKE CONSERVATIVE = Being mad at Msnbc for reporting news. Also being mad at Al Gore for attatching his name to science.

Its sort of like a fake liberal gets mad at Warren Buffet, even when he happens to say something that angers conservatives.

Fake conservative? How so? Let's see, because all the 'rich liberal people who caused the financial crisis' somehow don't lose money if they have to do things like pay more in taxes, or fund alternative energy sources...yes, its a fantasy land. No need to go on from there. The Fake liberals live in their own fantasy land where somehow we just stop using oil magically and its all the rich consrvatives who make us use it.

I love articles like this because all the Bulls**t spewed from the radicals on either side and nobody in their 'GOLDEN AND RIGHTEOUS CAUSE' really gives two cr*ps about anybody but themselves. I don't see fake liberals driving less. I don't see fake conservatives coming up with good business solutions. So everybody hot bagging it, and up in arms, over this article, can either move to Fiji or stay here and let me keep laughing at you.

Again, misdirection. Rather than argue your point you try to switch arguments. Now you are saying we should just 'pray that the sun doesn't shine as hot?'

Oh, and while Europe temperatures fell by up to 2 degrees, globally they only went down by about .2 degrees. The little ice age was less of a global mini ice age and more of a Europe mini ice age.

Oh and Australian climate sceptic Professor Ian Plimer knows next to nothing about climate science so he is hardly a authority on the subject. He is a mineral ore geologist who's primary occupation is lecturing on sedimentary geology and sitting on the boards of prominent coal mining companies (no conflict of interest there!). He also wrote a book denying climate change that was described as an affront to science and would have required much of physics, chemistry, biology and even his own field of geology to be invalid. Despite writing a whole book on the issue which he received quite a royalty from he hasn't actually written any peer-reviewed papers or research to support his claims.

And recent research has shown a strong correlation between severe Europe winters and ice free Arctic sea's, indicating that global warming is in fact responsible for cold European winters (as weather events anyway. Europe is still on average getting warmer along with the rest of the world)

Now go home and get out of your robe and look up mini ice ages over the last five years.

Haha! Oh my, and I thought you might be somewhat informed.

Shuklack And you have not proved that any factor has caused climate change

I haven't made that assertion, actually. I'm just pointing out that you are failing at supporting yours.

woodlawn1 is 0.039% same as 390 ppm of carbon? That's where it all went down the rathole.

I often find myself, according to my GPS below sea level ..

It's very much possible to be below sea level and not underwater. Just fyi

Shuklack You inability to read and understand what I am writing only supports my claim, that you are incredibly out of your depth, and can not understand the English language and are no more a physicist than the dog trainer that Obama hired that died.

Insult insult insult. Every argument you made has been adressed, your ignorance exposed, and you provide no counterpoints to support any of your assertions.

Your arguments have failed, so now you are resorting to the good ol' declaration of victory (all the while leaving nothing but destroyed arguments behind) and telling ME to "gtfo"... lol... you're too funny.

Woodlawn1.

I'm trying to decide if you're an "internet troll". That is, one who's intended purpose is merely to evoke strong emotional reactions, usually via hyperbole, insult, or gross exaggeration. Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't posted a Rickroll link yet.

See, the problem is you're calling out everyone in this article. Including all the folks who posted direct citations of peer-reviewed articles. Yet when you are directly asked to provide sources, all you do is provide quotes without citation and then just resort to petty insults.

However objective you may think yourself, you've started with the premise that climate change is a hoax and then you refuse to actually look at the supporting data. And like all folks who don't have any foundation to stand on, you just resort to ad hominem attacks as your 'proof'. I mean seriously. You DEMAND that people provide sources for their support. And when they do, you ignore it and resort to insults. Then folks ask you to provide sources and you don't.

And that's just sad.

Signed,

A consulting ecologist with an environmental science (hydrology) degree.

I find it thoroughly amusing that we have one individual above who says he is educated and has so many reports on world climate, but manages to claim that everybody so far who has disagreed with him is wrong and ignorant and possibly uneducated. Woodlawn1, you bring new credence to the old saying of who is more ignorant, the many being called ignorant by the one, or the one calling the many ignorant. I think #2 wins out here hands down!

The democrats and liberals do not want a free and open primary and allow people to criticize Obama as he could not stand up to the withering fire.

Ummm, he's the incumbant. It would be downright stupid to give up that advantage.

Woodlawn,

I see you are a very strong proponent of Global Warming being a hoax. I would like you to disprove my logic if you will. Please do not provide other information (such as sink holes and so on) that back up your claim. (FYI - it is scientifically impossible, by the laws of the scientific theory to prove something does not exist. You can either prove something exists by the facts around you or conclude that the evidence available does not support the claim - but I digress).

The point I would like you to enlighten me on is the theory behind global warming.
Here is the data I am presented with and believe to be facts.

1.. Greenhouses work with a very simple concept. Short Wave Radiation rays are emitted by the sun (FACT) and pass through the atmosphere and through the glass shell of the greenhouse. Some of this sunlight is absorbed and consumed by plants. Most of it is absorbed and turned to heat and released again as Long Wave Radiation (FACT).

2.. Short wave radiation hits the inner surface of the glass and is reflected back inside, meaning it does not pass through the glass. This is done by the properties of glass and most man made materials that do not allow Long Wave Radiation to pass through (FACT).

3. The extra radiation heats up the greenhouse, which is why it could be 0C (32F) outside and you can walk into a greenhouse with shorts on.

4. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (FACT), meaning it will not allow Long Wave Radiation to pass through it.

5. CO2 emissions DRAMATICALLY increased during the industrial age and will continue to rise as developing countries (China, India, Brazil, Russia) increase their demands on man made products such as steel and concrete, which produce CO2 emissions.

6. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas (FACT). The list is long and many are much more potent than CO2 however because their concentrations are much smaller, they are often mistakenly ignored.

7. Vegetation levels are likely to be at lower levels compared to pre-industrial age. I am willing to concede that they may even be at the same level due to tree farming and so on. So we can call tree-farming and deforestation a wash.

8. Pre-industrial time, the vegetation was able to handle the CO2 levels and yes Earth went through cycles, no reasonable scientist will argue that. Post-industrial age, levels of CO2 levels have dramatically increased while per item 7 vegetation decreased. In addition, the human population has increased as well as the number of overall animals (which produce CO2) due in large part to the our desire to eat meat, resulting in heavy farming. Fun fact, cows release more methane in the atmosphere (through passing gas) than any other source (not counting underwater methane reserves that are contained there naturally by the water pressure and other variables, if these are all released into the atmosphere it is safe to say we are all screwed). Fun fact 2, methane one of those other greenhouse gases I mentioned. I digress again.

9. If all these new sources of greenhouses gases are released into the atmosphere (and they cannot escape the atmosphere - FACT) they will create greenhouse like pockets in the atmosphere keeping released radiation inside when it is meant to escape the atmosphere.

10. While you can argue that this does not necessarily result in an instant greenhouse, you cannot logically argue that it does not prevent radiation from escaping the atmosphere as it did prior to humans and especially prior to industrialized age.

11. Extra radiation left within our atmosphere = extra heat (FACT).

12. Therefore, even if Earth is in a warming stage, how do you argue that the additional greenhouse gas emissions we release into the atmosphere are not speeding up the warming process?

By the way I am not a victim of the liberal media. I am a victim of the liberal universities that tried to shove knowledge and science into me. But that is a discussion for another time.

I look forward to your counterargument on MY hypothesis. Again please do not respond with sink holes and sucking up of aquifers.

Sincerely, well educated individual.

Shuklack Check the last 17 elections and see how many incumbents had opposition. You really are showing your ignorance. You mean that an incumbent should not have opponents so his stupidities, blunders, asinine behavior and incompetent acts should not be discussed by his party in order to find a more worthy candidate?

Political affiliation first, thinking second. Is that the new order of priorities here?

Really, it is like the gift that kees on giving laughter. The people who only vote for one party and think the other has actually worse people in it than the one they slobber over.

Keep trolling and changing the subject woodlawn. I will be here if you ever come up with something worth responding to.

You mean that an incumbent should not have opponents so his stupidities, blunders, asinine behavior and incompetent acts should not be discussed by his party in order to find a more worthy candidate?

Ummm, no... I mean that incumbants already have an advantage when it comes to being re-elected. For any party to give up that advantage would be silly.

Woodlawn1 - Here is a link to a chart showing the correlation between CO2 levels, Global Temperature and Sea Levels. () - It answers two of your objections at the same time...whether or not sea levels are rising (they obviously are) and whether or not it's linked to human activity.

It is correct that the Earth has gone through normal cycles of warming/cooling in the past, which are directly linked to CO2 increase in the atmosphere and produce sea level rise. Notice in the chart how in the past, though, the CO2 level increase always topped out at about the same point and then went down again. Now look at the current levels in the atmosphere, which have shot past all previous levels and are headed almost straight up? Those increases correspond to the time frame when humans started burning fossil fuels in large quantities – and increase directly as the amount being burned increases.

As for your claim that it's the scientists that are being paid to produce false results supporting Climate Change, the truth is that it's the Climate Change Deniers that are being paid…as much as $1 Million, which
climate skeptic Willie Soon has admitted receiving.
()
()

Please explain where the money is coming from to pay thousands of scientists to lie about Climate Change? It's clear, though, that the industries that are profiting from activities that are causing Climate Change (Big Oil, particularly) have both the funds and the motive to fund the few scientists who disagree with it - exactly as the Tobacco Companies did in fighting the fact that tobacco causes cancer - or do you disagree with that fact, also?

Here's a link to a good program that examines the whole issue by drilling through Antarctic ice to look at the geological records of warming and cooling – and how it affected the Antarctic ice levels and sea
levels – which I'm sure you won't watch, since you display the perfect attitude of "My mind is made up, don't bother me with the facts". ()

The question is, are you one of the paid deniers – or just a deliberately obtuse ideologue?

ath25889 And I see that you can not read English. I said that there are hundreds/thousands of reasons and that increased Carbon Dioxide levels of should not be considered the one and only reason as there is no proof. And as you are so enamored with writing and not reading and not comprehending, there is no reason to repeat something you are again not going to read.

woodlawn1-

Your rigor as a scientist is sadly suspect.

Perhaps you mean you teach biology in elementary school.

No scientist worth their salt would ever come in and make the flat claims you have made. Science by it's nature is ever evolving. Had you said there is evidence, one might have respect for your opinion. You have not. You have stated something as a flat out fact. And as you well know if you are in fact a scientist there are never flat out facts in science, only hypotheses. There is always room for more data more evidence to move closer to or further away from the theory.

For an example of how that works, read Physicists posts.

Talking about political affiliation. You must be in heaven tied to Obama like a dog tied to a tree. I enjoy seeing that liberals still enjoy being brainwashed and having their common sense and free will destroyed by the DNC.

Then how about conservatives?

I am for the most part a political conservative that believes in the sound science behind man-made climate change. Two large weather and astronomy organizations (NASA and NOAA) have made countless measurements of the sun, the atmosphere, the oceans, etc. They cannot find a model to reproduce the warming trend without the man-made levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Got a nice political insult for me as well?

Woodlawn,

"ath25889 And I see that you can not read English. I said that there are hundreds/thousands of reasons and that increased Carbon Dioxide levels of should not be considered the one and only reason as there is no proof. And as you are so enamored with writing and not reading and not comprehending, there is no reason to repeat something you are again not going to read."

See I read what you write (and laugh and cry a little maybe at your ignorance, but mostly laugh).

I just gave you proof through FACTS that CO2 and other greenhouses gases directly contribute to a faster warming period. How do you reject my theory as proof without a counter argument?

Prove to me that greenhouses do not work, and I can point you to millions that do. Same concept applies to the greenhouse gases.

So in summary you did exactly what I expected. Ignore the argument and provide a little insult of me not being able to read English.

I said that there are hundreds/thousands of reasons and that increased Carbon Dioxide levels of should not be considered the one and only reason as there is no proof

Strawman argument (how many of these can you possibly make?), human impact is not considered the one and only reason.

After natural factors are taken into account, there is still an extra variable apparent in climate models which cannot be explained by any known natural factor. This x-factor has been determined to be the human impact. The science backs this up.

"You need to look at the research! You need to look at the data! I've seen the research! I've seen the data!"

Who do I sound like?

woodlawn - you come across as a raving lunatic. All you've done here is attack others for lack of qualifications, and stressed the importance of providing sources to back up claims... yet you've not once shown that you're qualified to make the assessments you've made, and everytime you're asked to rise to the standard you're trying to enforce (i.e. source material references) the best you can do is "Get off your a$$ and find it yourself"?

No where in this long thread have you mad one single, cohesive argument. You've flopped between geologic, atmospheric, and even cow fart arguments, with no argument to show for it. And all along you've been shown up by Shuklack and Physicist-Retired without even realizing it. It's actually quite comical.

By the way - my qualifications for weighing in on the validity of what you've been saying (since I know this is the first thing you'll ask for): Graduated in 3 years with a dual degree in Physics and Environmental Studies, and 2 years with a degree in Civil Engineering. Currently working on one of the largest superfund cleanup projects in the US.

• Now let's hear all the TEATARDS and SANTORUM say there is no such thing as climate change.
• They don't care that towns are under water as long as they is foriners.....

You are no scientist, you have spent no time in the field and you have never gotten your hands dirty or gotten wet.

Obviously neither have you. You have not only never spent time in the field, you cannot even find scientific sources to back up your ignorant claims.

Woodlawn... Your hypocrisy is astounding... you state:

I don't have to prove my points. You want to introduce childish comments, that are patently false and demonstrate your ignorance be my guest. (Comment # 1.70)

Kryss No I don't have to prove my points. You get off your ass and look them up. (Comment #1.89)

Yet earlier you demand:

Junicon First show me the data, who wrote it, where did they get it, how did they get it, who worked with them, their qualifications and who commissioned the study and how many times the data has been examined by who and what the conclusions from these other scientists were. (Comment 1.61)

If you yourself refuse to provide any documentation for your assertions, how can you simultaneously demand that anyone else provide theirs? You're a hypocrite. Pure and simple. This is what you sound like:

You: Here's point A and I can prove that point A is correct. I am the master of all science.

Someone else: Well, I believe that point B better explains the subject.

You: You can't possibly understand point B, much less point A. I have evidence. Where's yours?

Someone else: Here's my evidence: (URL link to scholarly article)

You: Point A! Point A! Point A!

Someone else: Where's your evidence?

You: I don't need to provide it.

Someone else: What? Why not?

You: I am the master of all science.

Someone else: Prove it.

You: Point A! Point A! Point A!

See? You sound like a fool. You demand others document their evidence, yet your "evidence" can be stated without proof or merit and is to be taken at face value without any independent analysis and then you criticize people for not buying into your unsubstantiated opinion. That's not only bad debate skills, it's poor science. (As a supposed scientist, maybe you remember that whole peer-review process?)

Derek-381097 Talking about political affiliation. You must be in heaven tied to Obama like a dog tied to a tree. I enjoy seeing that liberals still enjoy being brainwashed and having their common sense and free will destroyed by the DNC.

Did you just self identify to my post? Yes, yes, I think you just did!

The best part is if you knew anything about my posts, you'd realize how funny what you just said is.

But go on with that heat, man. You just go crazy like a PETA member all up spray paintin someone's fur!

NewtISaPIG What town in underwater and why? Careful, now, you have to prove what you say, or you will saying you have no proof and are an ignorant person just passing on gossip.

Ruken Stay chained to that tree of ignorance and offensive behavior and to your liberal candidate Obama. Make things easy for you.

If you had actually read my posts you'd have seen the part where I said I was a conservative.

Try again?

I'm going to stir the pot here and demand you all start talking about solar flux.

I'm need some reading while waiting for my class to start.

I'm going to stir the pot here and demand you all start talking about solar flux.

And how the warmest year (globally) on record came during a solar minimum?

It seems really simple, just drive a stick, and measure how far up it the water comes? Nope, don't work that way, the earth's surface bobs up and down like a cork in the water, not quite as quick usually.

So how do you measure it? Satellites, maybe. Their height varies in orbit, depending on the composition of the earth below it.

So, global warming? I am seventy three years old and in my opinion, the winters are not as bad as they were in my youth, summers, hard to say, the hottest one seemed to me to be 1956.

The earth's climate has been cycling since the beginning, is this one unusual? History will judge. Hindsight is much sharper.

Oh hey rukin, I read that the heliosphere blocks radiation from the rest of the universe. During solar minimum it is smaller and weaker, blocking less of the external radiation. Nothing is as simple as it seems.

the winters are not as bad as they were in my youth

I'm only in my mid 20s and noticed this.

@ woodlawn1, obvious troll is OBVIOUS. Stop feeding the trolls people!!

And I still can't believe people haven't pointed this one out yet (in post #1.40):

capncaveman There is a saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. When ice melts the volume taken up by the melting ice INCREASES!

/facepalm.

Sheesh, the guy can't even get basic scientific arguments correct (http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae389.cfm) , so why would you try to argue nuanced, advanced science with him.

Again, obvious troll is obvious!! Can't we get a ban on him yet? He's adding nothing, absolutely NOTHING to this conversation aside from snark, personal attacks, and ignorance...

I expect him on here any minute arguing that:

Volume = mass / density

is not a valid expression for this discussion and Archimedes wasn't up to date on the relevant scientific literature of his time...

Edited to add: Oh yeah, signed someone with a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering.

I'm going to stir the pot here and demand you all start talking about solar flux.

I'm need some reading while waiting for my class to start

LOL! Well, okay, but I'm going to talk about it in a Newsvine way. In other words, I'm not going to consult any silly science or come up with any helpful solutions. Nope, I'm going to consult my political parties inferred line and see what it says, than argue heatedly for it. Here we go:

1) Cult of Democrats: Solar Flux is going to bake the Earth, but I'm still not going to do anything about it than get really mad

2) Cult of Republicans: Solar Flux doesn't exist because Al Gore said it does

How's that?

I don't know much but I know Woodlawn is total ass.

i think many of you are missing the bigger point - these folks simply have to move, and probably sooner rather than later.

squabling over WHY, is kinda a moot point?

and while it may not be GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY MAN

as somone else pointed out, all that phosphate mining done (most likely) by white americans and europeans, has likely DESTROYED THAT PIECE OF LAND.

end of story, man still ruined this habitat for these people...

and now, they are forced with moving before it's too late.

And in other news, woodlawn1 believes that the earth is 6000 years old, that it is a flat disc, and that the sun and other planets revolve around it. All evidence to the contrary is merely speculation, unsupported by the evidence, and the work of rogue scientists (not to mention heresy).

Oh, and woodlawn1's beliefs also include his unquestionable opinion that insulting and condescending posts stating how smart you are and how dumb everyone is are "engaging in discussion" rather than trolling a forum.

When ice melts the volume taken up by the melting ice INCREASES!

Woodlawn: Your statement which I quote above, is wrong, which makes me doubt your scientific credentials as a physicist. If you are wrong on such a basic fact, why should we believe all your other statements?

If ice was not less dense than liquid water, it would sink. The fact that ice floats is very basic to physics and biology. If ice didn't float, bodies of water would freeze solid from the bottom upward, making aquatic life in lakes impossible in temperate zones. The fact that ice floats means that the surface freezes first, insulating the water below and limiting the amount of freezing.

Everyone accepts that melting sea ice does not contribute directly to sea level rise, as the volume decreases slightly as the ice melts. However, the melting of land-based ice is of concern as this does add to the volume of water in the oceans.

Ah come on folks, lighten up, collapsing a post, not allowing free speech, is the same as burning a book.

One thing I noticed was that the article said that highest part was over 200 hundred feet, how high is the land they are comtemplating buying?

Ruken, "I am for the most part a political conservative that believes in the sound science behind man-made climate change. Two large weather and astronomy organizations (NASA and NOAA) have made countless measurements of the sun, the atmosphere, the oceans, etc. They cannot find a model to reproduce the warming trend without the man-made levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Got a nice political insult for me as well?"

Sure as you are in your 20's and I am almost 70, I know that the older one gets, the more one knows how little he knows. When you decide to insult someone, that means you don't have the knowledge and ability to answer and pose reasonable questions. The common sense and free will and lack of knowledge of a subject comes in. I am a libertarian. I behold to no political party or schmuck that claims he is the high and mighty political know it all. I have lived through more than 17 elections and I can only say two have been some what decent. The rest were all mistakes either by the people who elected them or themselves.

So yes if you want straight Data to think about don't depend on organizations to tell you want to think, go out and get the facts and raw data for yourself. Almost everyone has an agenda.

The whole shi*pile started when msnbc.com said that the islands were being destroyed by sea level increases. No facts or data was given. Someone told you what to think.

Of course it could not be that the islands are sinking right? It could not be that the pumping out of millions of gallons of fresh water from under the islands had anything to do with it. It could not be the erosion of the coral base of the island right? It could not be tiny sink holes opening up right?

You were told what to think by msnbc.com.

Sure as you are in your 20's and I am almost 70, I know that the older one gets, the more one knows how little he knows. When you decide to insult someone, that means you don't have the knowledge and ability to answer and pose reasonable questions.

I didn't know our society was that primitive.

So yes if you want straight Data to think about don't depend on organizations to tell you want to think, go out and get the facts and raw data for yourself.

Sure, just let me launch a few satellites. Can I borrow a few billion dollars?

Oh wait. This is why scientific agencies pride themselves on political and personal neutrality.

MUGger you want to think that the earth is 6000 years old and you don't want people to talk back to you when they insult you, go right ahead and join the flat earth society.

We all need a laugh in our day.

woodlawn1 wrote:

"When you decide to insult someone, that means you don't have the knowledge and ability to answer and pose reasonable questions."

Good point. After reading all the crap you wrote, I'm glad you're finally acknowledging that you have neither the knowledge or ability to understand and pose reasonable questions. Quite frankly, your incessant barrage of insults made that point obvious but it's good that you admit it.

We've received .7 inches of rain in central Texas, unusual for March. :) Do you suppose it will raise the ocean level?

Texas needs all the rain it can get :)

Ruken Learn to use the research capabilities on the computer and if you really want to learn buy the on line subscriptions to the scientific magazines you are interested in. You are the perfect example. You are intimidated by my answers so you facetiously attack me.

Now if you were paying $40,000 for a college tuition and a professor was standing up giving you a lecture, I guarantee you, you would shut your mouth, read the lesson before the lecture and be taking notes. And you we be asking questions starting with the word SIR:

But as you are sitting in front of a computer probably playing at the same time some stupid game, you want to have some fun. Actually, I am the one laughing at all the numb numbs and their time wasting antics.

All I find on here are time wasters who have nothing intelligent to say but what they heard or read on some media outlet. You are all like chicken little. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! I know it because someone told me!!!!

I can always get a good laugh at the numb numbs.

Woodlawn.... part of doing your research is to back up claims that you make with reputable studies/sources. You have repeatedly asked other people to produce data to back up their claims. If you are not willing to do the same, then your argument carries no merit. So, you need to produce a scientific study from a current reputable source stating the opposite of what is claimed by sbarnden or physicist-retired. This should have been covered in the very basics of a science education. When trying to disagree with the results of a study, it's not enough to simply question motivations of the individuals doing the research. You need to produce evidence of the opposite or you need to find a methodological flaw in the research that when corrected, results in a different conclusion.

Also, you need to understand the definition of scientific theory and scientific explanation before you start using such terms. The statements you are making regarding theory when it comes to the sciences are false. You are making the common misconception regarding scientific theory and the lay person's definition of theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is both an explanation and prediction of future events.

Finally, a scientific theory does not always take into account all of the information present nor does it always accurately predict everything. However, it still has scientific theory status because it's the best explanation/predictor currently available. Here's an example. Theory of relativity. Very good at explaining celestial motion, gravity and making prediction regarding such events. Does not do so well in the quantum mechanical world nor does it take into account many quantum mechanic principles. Similarly, quantum mechanics has problems in the realm of relativity, particularly when it comes to gravity. However, they both still have scientific theory status and will until another theory comes along that explains things better.

Woodlawn1 wrote:

"All I find on here are time wasters who have nothing intelligent to say but what they heard or read on some media outlet. You are all like chicken little. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! I know it because someone told me!!!!"

How is this better than someone crying "the sky isn't falling. I know it because someone told me"? Are you saying you've personally conducted your own experiments?

Now if you were paying $40,000 for a college tuition and a professor was standing up giving you a lecture, I guarantee you, you would shut your mouth, read the lesson before the lecture and be taking notes. And you we be asking questions starting with the word SIR:

You are nowhere near the league of my college professors.

Ok, historical rehash. Climate studies by scientists show that there is global warming. "ClimateGate" becomes a huge scandal when it is shown that scientists altered data to come to wanted conclusions, completely destroying any legitimacy that the studies had and any scientific value as well; all conclusions are voided by the deviation from accepted scientific method. The media quickly loses interest in "ClimateGate" and continues to report on global warming as if it were a valid scientific fact. Al Gore jumps on the band wagon with a scare piece "documentary" called "An Inconvenient Truth", ultimately winning a Nobel prize and destroying any credibility that the Nobel Committee had. Numbers and "facts" fly back and forth in the media, clouding the issue and increasing the controversy, increasing revenues in the process and making The National Enquirer look like a legitimate news agency. A group of scientists quietly comes out and confirms that global warming exists, but it isn't nearly as bad as the first studies made it out to be. They also release a statement saying that they are unwilling to say why it is happening until they conduct further studies. The media, of course, largely ignore the new study and continue with business as usual.

Fact: global warming is real

Fact: no one knows exactly how much we are contributing to the causes

Fact: global warming is also a natural process on this planet

Fact: while the southern ice caps are shrinking, the northern caps are actually growing, no one knows why

Fact: we are in the active portion of the 11 year solar cycle, just sayin'

Fact: we are cleaning up our industrial emissions and as a whole, we pollute less every year. At least, the US does.

Fact: we don't know enough to say anything for sure, but you can rely on the media to continue to stir the pot with more popscience "studies" and make the population of this planet dance on our strings like the good puppets we are

Fact: WE DON'T KNOW! If you say that you do, you are simply arrogant and closed minded and have already made up your mind. Dance puppet, dance!

Thanks woodlawn. You make me smile.

Thanks Shuklack for pointing out all the insanity in his increasingly comical posts.

"ClimateGate" becomes a huge scandal when it is shown that scientists altered data to come to wanted conclusions, completely destroying any legitimacy that the studies had and any scientific value as well; all conclusions are voided by the deviation from accepted scientific method."

Sorry, that's been debunked. Nice story though.

"Fact: no one knows exactly how much we are contributing to the causes"

That's true. They just know we're making a significant contribution, but not the exact amount. So?

brian-3288500 If you are too lazy to read previous comments and can't use your common sense and free will, then you are worth withering insults.

I had professors in college and they would berate anyone who made stupid comments and questions.

They would repeatedly say, this is not high school, we are not here to spoon feed you, god gave you a brain use it dipshi*!

Or one would say, IDIOT! It is in the book, didn't you read it?????

Or I just answered that question, you are too stupid to understand the simple facts?

Or OH MY GOD I GOT ANOTHER CLASS OF BRAIN DEAD STUDENTS, WHAT DID I DO TO DESERVE THESE MORONS?

And you know what in most cases they were right. Just like here. Common sense, searching for facts, debating real knowledge, having free will is all lost. I believe I saw only two people who actually knew what I was talking about. On yes the one who said an aquifer is not an aquifer but a fresh water lens, The Smithsonian marine station at Fort Piece in Florida begs to differ with you as does Pacific Risa, as does Unesco, and about 20 more research institutions.

Woodlawn "You just want to see your name and trash on a comment site."

thou doth protest too much, methinks

Fact: while the southern ice caps are shrinking, the northern caps are actually growing, no one knows why

Debunked: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html

Fact: we are in the active portion of the 11 year solar cycle, just sayin'

We are, but why did the highest record year occur during the solar minimum?

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

Fact: WE DON'T KNOW! If you say that you do, you are simply arrogant and closed minded and have already made up your mind. Dance puppet, dance!

Fact:

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

• Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

• If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

• Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Anybody got any more brain busters?

Woodlawn,

I did you a favor and read EVERY comment you made on this thread (to others, I know it was a waste of time), and you have not said anything to disprove the greenhouse theory.

So if I may, I will ask again, please point me to where you or others scientifically prove one of two things, the concept of a greenhouse does not work, or CO2 as well as other gases are not greenhouses gases.

Thank you

CO2 as well as other gases are not greenhouses gases.

Oh this will be rich, considering that CO2 has been proven since the 19th century to be a greenhouse gas.

Like I said; dance, puppets, dance. I don't think you actually understood what I was getting at. My main point is: WE DON'T KNOW! Woodlawn1 and anyone else who has questioned the facts: way to go and keep it up. The rest of you: keep worshiping at the altar of the media and tithing to the god of cap and trade; they'll tell you what to think so you don't have to. Personally, I'll just keep living as clean a life as possible and not worry about it; I'm sure y'all will worry enough for me.

brian-3288500 You are a good mimic. I said that many many comments ago. In fact scientists disagree on what if any effect CO2 has on climate warming.

A small town in upstate New York has the same CO2 concentration as New York City. Yet New York City is on average 8 degrees warmer than the smaller city. Same CO2 but 8 degrees colder why.

Since you know it all and you like to insult. Suck it up and figure it out.

army-3854635 If you have ever been to a V.A. hospital you have seen the patients walking around with a smile. They know no better. So I understand you better. You know no better.

A small town in upstate New York has the same CO2 concentration as New York City. Yet New York City is on average 8 degrees warmer than the smaller city. Same CO2 but 8 degrees colder why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

Got any more brain busters?

Mike,

With the exception of this:

Fact: global warming is real

and this:

Fact: global warming is also a natural process on this planet

Every single one of your 'facts' is demonstrably wrong.

And given that the 'natural process' which has driven every warming period since our planet developed an atmosphere - prior to this warming period - is solar insolation (which is definitely not changing fast enough to drive our current warming), that second point is completely irrelevant here.

woodlawn1 wrote:

"If you are too lazy to read previous comments and can't use your common sense and free will, then you are worth withering insults."

In other words, when other people insult you it proves they are ignorant, but when you insult them it proves your superior understanding and knowledge. Got it. Your assertion here exactly illustrates why nobody takes you seriously. You apply one set of standards to yourself and your data, and another standard to everyone else. While you clearly know nothing (NOTHING!) about rigorous scientific thinking or even basic logic, you're definitely a genius when it comes to rationalizing and excuse-making. Maybe you'd be better qualified to write a book on effective self-deception than discussing climate change?

@Physicist-retired

That's a pretty long list. Where do you think they get their money? I'll give you a hint: They don't get money from telling everyone everything is fine.

If man-made global warming was real, they wouldn't need to fake data (Climate-gate) and cover up stories that oppose their view (the CERN study for example).

Anyway, enjoy all the austerity and solylent green that's coming to you because you're all asking for it.

It is not CO2 that is causing the man-made temperature increase, but the physical change to the SURFACE of our planet. Every time you pave and acre of land or cover it with shingles, bricks, bare stone, etc. you are warming the planet. That is why cities have such higher average temperature as compared to countryside/forested areas. But it is a lot easier to tax energy consumption - yo are not making a difference to the climate, but you are MAKING MONEY.

The media quickly loses interest in "ClimateGate" and continues to report on global warming as if it were a valid scientific fact.

You really need to factcheck climategate.

Dammit Shuklack beat me to it.

It is not CO2 that is causing the man-made temperature increase,

Actually it is. All the temperature models NASA and NOAA come up with need the greenhouse gases to replicate the warming trend.

That's a pretty long list. Where do you think they get their money? I'll give you a hint: They don't get money from telling everyone everything is fine.

Where's your proof on that? I doubt you have any.

Wouldn't you all feel more foolish than Obama if the U.S. Government spent trillions of dollars on reducing CO2 and later found out that it was the warmest part of the new ice age causing the temperatures to rise? It would be your tax money that was spent!

Or perhaps it was the methane that came from all the cattle, pigs, chickens, goats and sheep that had been forced fed to make them grow faster to feed the 7 billion people on the earth.

Wouldn't you look stupid!!!!!!!!

Or maybe it was the reflected sun during the solar flares in the special orbit that was heating up the earth?

OH MY GOD WE JUST FLUSHED 5 TRILLION DOLLARS DOWN THE SHI*HOLE!

ENJOY THE MENTAL RUMINATIONS.

Or maybe it was the reflected sun during the solar flares in the special orbit that was heating up the earth?

You need to get back to shooing people off your lawn. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

Hey everyone, we should all just relax, listen to Physicist-retired and do what the authorities say. They would never lie and say everything is okay, like in Fukushima which has been melting down for over a year. Governments, scientists and doctors are always right, like when they said smoking was healthy and recommended smoking for pregnant women.

Woodlawn,

"A small town in upstate New York has the same CO2 concentration as New York City. Yet New York City is on average 8 degrees warmer than the smaller city. Same CO2 but 8 degrees colder why."

FYI, this in the scientific world (the one that does research and proves theories with facts) is known as the HEAT ISLAND EFFECT. Because large cities are mostly paved and more importantly densely constructed, they absorb more heat. A standard black asphalt roof is ~160F on a warm sunny day (although it may only be 80F air temp). Many of the NYC buildings have these traditional roofs. So in theory the NYC "surface" is much much hotter than that of the upstate NY town you mentioned. This heat will be released during the night when air temp is lower (scientific fun fact, heat, or rather energy, travels from objects of higher temperatures to lower ones). So this released heat will warm the surrounding NYC air and the overall average temp. The HEAT ISLAND EFFECT is known to add 10F-15F to a densely populated and constructed metropolis.

Thus another magical mystery is proven to be just a natural occurrence due to man made products.

P.S., I am still waiting on the proof that greenhouses do not work or CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

Thank you, come again!

Hey everyone, we should all just relax, listen to Physicist-retired and do what the authorities say. They would never lie and say everything is okay, like in Fukushima which has been melting down for over a year. Governments, scientists and doctors are always right, like when they said smoking was healthy and recommended smoking for pregnant women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You really don't have a logical argument do you?

@wood(yawn)lawn:

WMG-21 You don't have the comprehension to understand. It is like trying to talk adult language to a two year old. They just cant understand. And that is your problem too. You are too lazy to go back and connect the dots. If I were to spend an hour explaining the currents of the pacific tied to the other variables that affect the sea level like the tides, the moon, winds, undersea volcanoes and shifting plates, you would get bored and say huhhhhhh?

Try me. The fact of the matter is you're still a hypocrite, no matter how much you belittle everyone else around you. And you keep telling everyone else they're being childish, when clearly the only child in the room is you. You have failed at every turn to justify your position--and I should alert you to the fact that I am entirely neutral on the subject. As it stands, you have not swayed opinion to your favor, mostly due to hypocrisy and childishness (refusing to provide data for your opinions, but demanding it from others in the first case; and inferring stupidity, laziness and ignorance on the part of other posters here while attempting to assume some illusory superiority over them in the second). These are hallmarks of one of two things:

1. an substantiated fool.

2. a troll trying to make the opposition (to man-created climate change) look like blundering idiots in order to further the cause of (man-created climate change) proponents.

Which are you?

Again woodlawn1 is not a scientist but a major distributor of misinformation about AGW. His posts are not following the Newvine COH rules. I'm hoping a monitor will see this and ban him.

Hey everyone, we should all just relax, listen to Physicist-retired and do what the authorities say. They would never lie and say everything is okay, like in Fukushima which has been melting down for over a year. Governments, scientists and doctors are always right, like when they said smoking was healthy and recommended smoking for pregnant women.

You want to know something funny about that? Do you know where most of your information comes from? The Heartland Institute. Do you know that the Heartland Institute, one of the primary climate-change denialism groups, was the top group supporting tobacco companies during their push against the majority of the medical community who said it was unhealthy? Did you know that the top lawyer who argued the "science" of healthy smoking for the tobacco industry is now the leader of this Institute?

They couldn't have made a better choice, when you're peddling in lies and misinformation for corporate interests - it's good to have someone with experience.

All Anthro-climate change deniers should be forced to live along the coastline of southern Florida so that they experience the rise in sea levels that will eventually flood their homes. On top of that, no federal dollars should be given to them in the form of disaster relief.

I find it interesting that these self same deniers ALL work for or represent oil companies and that they state that it is conspiracy by climate scientists to push/develop green technology and their studies/science is wrong. Whereas the studies used by folks like Koch bros, Heritage foundation, Heartland institute and their ilk are comprised of REAL science that is not in any way skewed.

Deniers... wait and see. History will make you the fools and ALL of us, including our children and grandchildren and grandchildren's children will pay the price for your insurmountable stupidity.

AMF deniers

That's a pretty long list. Where do you think they get their money? I'll give you a hint: They don't get money from telling everyone everything is fine

Never thought of it that way - you must be right. Every single scientist in every single professional organization in the world is involved in a major hoax. And absolutely no one can prove that they're wrong.

Just one question - why did the U.S. produce so much research supporting human-caused climate change during the Bush Era? Because Bush certainly didn't believe in humans causing climate change. He even tried to censor NASA and NOAA scientists.

But they still perpetuated that big old hoax anyway.

Scientists are in this for the money? Really? Do you even know what a research scientist at NOAA makes? About $46,000 per year, if they have a PhD. You do understand that scientists don't get to keep research grant money for themselves, right?

No, I am not a scientist, just an engineer who has to THINK for a living. I also know that my opinion is not always correct. However, I do have a statement and a question. Islands all over the world go thru the stages of birth to death. There used to be more Hawaiian Islands to the west of Kauai. Where did they go? Did they sink into the ocean, or get consumed with rising sea levels? Actually, neither. They were eroded into the ocean thru the natural action of waves. Any of you out there ever seen the north shore of Kauai? Sheer cliffs hundreds of feet high. How did they get that way? Actually, Kauai used to be a much larger island. Erosion thru wave activity has been eating away at that island for thousands of years. In a few thousand more, Kauai will disappear into the ocean like it's sister islands to the west have already done.

Could that be what has been happening to these other islands also? I am not doubting that global warming has been ocurring. I do think that people try to use every excuse they can to "prove" its existence when there is no actual proof.

One last comment. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas also; should we stop boiling water? We exhale CO2; should we stop breathing? Cities are heat islands; should we stop living in buildings? Green energy is still an infant science, yet we try to force people to use it and waste billions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to force it to develop. What I see mostly are vegans wearing leather Birkenstocks and driving Escalades trying to tell me how to live; I waste less than anyone I know and do my best to live cleanly. What more do you want? Maybe we should mandate methane emission systems be installed on all the vegans. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Rather than argue about who is right and who is wrong and one up each other, maybe y'all should turn those finely honed intellects to solving the problems. And by solving the problems, I mean keeping human beings in the equation as well.

I do think that people try to use every excuse they can to "prove" its existence when there is no actual proof.

*facepalm*

One last comment. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas also; should we stop boiling water? We exhale CO2; should we stop breathing? Cities are heat islands; should we stop living in buildings? Green energy is still an infant science, yet we try to force people to use it and waste billions of dollars of taxpayer money trying to force it to develop. What I see mostly are vegans wearing leather Birkenstocks and driving Escalades trying to tell me how to live; I waste less than anyone I know and do my best to live cleanly. What more do you want? Maybe we should mandate methane emission systems be installed on all the vegans. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Rather than argue about who is right and who is wrong and one up each other, maybe y'all should turn those finely honed intellects to solving the problems. And by solving the problems, I mean keeping human beings in the equation as well.

One last strawman before you go? It wouldn't be another post by Mike C. if it weren't for more logical fallacies.

Woodlawn, yep, I am smiling and happy. I HIGHLY doubt you know where I'm coming from. I will say I am in the Global Warming is no doubt real, humans are no doubt affecting it, nature is playing a part, but we are speeding it up camp.

To ignor it and continue to do nothing is pretty silly. Finding cheaper, more environment friendly, more sustainable energy options should be a goal for everyone. No one is saying cut off all oil, coal, and other fossile fuels consumption today (okay, some are, but no one really listens to them either), but work towards a more sustainable solution for tomorrow.

Wow, the divisiveness of the world just keeps getting worse. Woodlawn sits here and talks about facts, then when people dispute him, he says those are just words and they should give scientific data and cites and footnotes, despite the fact that he did NOT. Then when people do provide such data and factual citations, he still disputes them, again with "just words" as he put it.

He likes to say that the studies done that support climate change are just propaganda and biased research paid for by someone with an interest in promoting "scare tactics." Yet he forgets that the research denying climate change is paid for by corporations and industries that DEFINITELY have an interest in refuting those findings. There will always be something you can point at, from either side, to try and argue the point.

The FACT is, the world is changing, and we don't necessarily know exactly why, but we can't act as though it's just "nature" doing what it's done in the past either. The global environment and climate is an incredibly complex system that is almost impossible to predict or understand with any certainty. But what is certain is that humans have changed the natural makeup of the planet. With mile and miles of concrete and asphalt, buildings, electricity, the burning of fossil fuels, the hacking down of forests and in particular rain forests that are a huge source of oxygen, all of that has disrupted what might normally occur in "nature." That doesn't mean nature doesn't still also affect the climate's makeup, but between nature and all of our interference, it's a different beast.

Between rising CO2 levels, melting glaciers (and sure, some are growing, but more are melting than growing), the urban heat island effect (which means that some rising temperatures are due to man without doubt - due to population density, concrete/asphalt, the high use of electricity and other energy sources that all combine to increase temperatures in cities and large towns), pollution, overpopulation, the massive use of resources, and on and on, there are many factors that contribute to our changing planet.

Sure, the global temperatures aren't rising at a dramatically "scary" pace, but consider this. We have tracked global temperatures for a couple hundred years. During most of that time, the planet wasn't industrialized, the population hadn't exploded, the technological boom hadn't existed. So to compare and average all of the data over that long a period, and compare it with 2 million years of history, doesn't quite shake out. Only for the last 50 years, really, can you see humanity's contribution, and when you are examining such a complex issue as global climate, that's really not quite long enough to say with any certainty what our impact really might be. We are only just starting to see it.

The FACT is, we can't necessarily know what our impact will be, but I think it's safe to say that it won't be positive, if we continue on the path we have been on for the past 50 years. We have made incredible strides, but we have also become so enamored with our own imagined infallibility and intelligence that we have stopped looking at the big picture. I'm reminded of a line from Jurassic Park of all things: "they were so preoccupied about whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." The thing is, if we have made such an enormous impact on the earth in such a short time, what will happen if we keep going, without thinking about what it might mean?

Oh and for some of you above that keep comparing Kiribati to the Hawaiian islands and others? There is a huge difference between atolls and volcanic islands. And don't you think some of those obvious factors, like erosion, have occurred to the scientists studying these issues?

Don that's my favorite island. Only thing that looked funny about your post is:

In a few thousand more, Kauai will disappear into the ocean like it's sister islands to the west have already done.

It's going to take more than just a few thousand for that to happen.

Thanks Sally!

I find it funny that Woodlawn won't provide his links and says he doesn't have to (that you need to do your own research), but later, he tells others to provide THEIR links. Hey, Woodlawn, go find them yourself....do your research, which is EXACTLY what you told others who have responded to you. What a hypocrite!

"That's a pretty long list. Where do you think they get their money? I'll give you a hint: They don't get money from telling everyone everything is fine"

Funny stuff. Especially since every "climatologist" hired by big-oil DOES get money for telling everyone that everything is fine. Here's a clue: just because a scientist is getting paid a salary, doesn't mean they have a conflict of interest. Clearly, you don't understand the distinction, but what's puzzling is that you would actually believe that a scientist willing to sell out to the highest bidder, would choose to side AGAINST Exxon, BP, etc.., instead of working for them. Sounds like you actually do believe that the majority of scientists are stupid...

Mike, those who acknowledge global warming and want to work to find sustainable energy options for the future are no more at the alter of the leftist media than those of you who deny it are at the alter of oil profiteers.

So you don't like or believe Al Gore, frankly, neither do I. But that does not mean nearly every climatologist on the planet not being employed by a fossil fuel corporation is wrong. Most of us who acknowledge global warming are not for carbon credits, derailing our economy for a quick unsustainable fix, spending outlandish amounts on unproven technology, or any other quick argument your side likes to make. We are about research and discovery of how to move forward in a sustainable way.

One last strawman before you go? It wouldn't be another post by Mike C. if it weren't for more logical fallacies.

Lol really, he doesn't even address the responses to his nonsense - instead he has "one last comment" which is just full of more nonsense.

Usually if you're arguments fail, it means you're wrong. But I guess some people have trouble coming to that realization.

First, they have a huge population for those islands. They are removing groundwater at a rate that exceeds replacement - hence the saltwater incursion.

That has nothing to do with a 1/2 inch rise in sea level during the last century.

Woodlawn mentioned this, but woodlawn was talking about SUBSIDENCE, where the ground sinks. Around Galveston, TX. the land has subsided about 2.5 FEET in the last 100 years. So trying to blame the 1/2" that MIGHT be related to warming for the 32" of sinking is silly.

As for msn/msncb - just last year they ran an article about land in India that was under "2 FEET OF WATER DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING".

Again, 1/2" to maybe 1" over the last century is the scientific consensus of sea level rise. That's inches, not feet. So clearly they have an agenda here, or they would have easily deduced that you can't have a 2 foot rise in one part of the world while the rest has not risen more than 1 inch over the last century.

Do I have to go into how water finds it's own level, or are we all understanding that?

As another commenter mentioned, they mined out millions of tons of phosphorus for fertilizer. (Deposits are actually rare in the world). That represents a huge volume of land, and clearly that is a factor.

Let me put it this way: if all the people left the islands today, the islands would stop "sinking".

You simply cannot underestimate what over population does. I've seen footage of these islands - they are loosing vegetation due to salt water incursion caused by over pumping of groundwater. That vegetation loss starts on the shore. Those plants hold the sand. Without the plants, they get erosion. So the islands are shrinking in area much more so than the water is rising up.

The critical thing on this is that it occurs whether Man Made Global Warming is real or not.

Funny stuff. Especially since every "climatologist" hired by big-oil DOES get money for telling everyone that everything is fine. Here's a clue: just because a scientist is getting paid a salary, doesn't mean they have a conflict of interest. Clearly, you don't understand the distinction, but what's puzzling is that you would actually believe that a scientist willing to sell out to the highest bidder, would choose to side AGAINST Exxon, BP, etc.., instead of working for them. Sounds like you actually do believe that the majority of scientists are stupid...

My favorite is the study funded by the Koch Brothers (oil execs) that concluded global warming is real.

As the world is becoming more and more urbanized and the heat island effect keeps growing, the focus is only on taxing energy consumption to combat the CO2 increase. That is quite transparently simply a new way for the governments to steal money from regular people, without having to spend a dime on the real problem, which is the heat island effect. No change to the building codes (like reflective roofing and walls), no change to the way roads are paved, no REAL change. Look at the satellite photos of earth at night and tell me that the urban areas are not a problem, that paving more and more land is not a problem, and that you simply want to tax my carbon footprint - and I will call you a crook and a total moron.

The fact is, this issue doesn't need to be so black and white. Whether you think global climate change is an imminent threat or not, doesn't mean that there aren't really good reasons to try and be more environmentally friendly.

What I don't understand is this: the "deniers" of climate change all act as though it's all or nothing. They want to change nothing because they think there's no problem, and they think the rest of us want to change EVERYTHING, because we're all scared out of our wits and panicking. I find that hilarious. The people who believe there's a problem, whether they think it's climate change, or CO2 levels, or just plain pollution and disregard for the planet we need to survive, only want us to limit our impact, by making SOME changes. They just want us to TRY. It's not all or nothing, it's not black and white.

And while there definitely and most probably will be harm to ourselves and our environment if we make no changes, there is NO HARM in making some changes, trying to reduce pollution, trying to reduce CO2 emissions, trying to recycle more, etc. How do people think that is a bad thing? Who cares if you believe in climate change, do you really think respecting your environment is stupid?

The critical thing on this is that it occurs whether Man Made Global Warming is real or not.

I don't think any rational person would argue that a variety of factors contribute to such things, but the argument I keep seeing from people is this lovely false dichotomy that it's either No human impact on climate or ALL human impact on climate.

It's easy to create a strawman based off a false dichotomy and then argue against it.

What's funny though, is that the destruction of this island is still being attributed to man's activites on both sides of the fence... and isn't that sort of the point?

Woodlawn1 - why are you angry? I only asked a simple question. I think you made a very astute observation i.e. 0.039% is NOT same as 390 PPM. While all mathematicians will agree that they are the same doesn't make it so, does it? And those want to refute it should get off their (respective) ass and do some research why it aint the same.

I am with you my man. I would like to play checkers with you NOT with some person who other people may consider intelligent. BTW Dick Cheney just called and asked if he could join.

Ruken, do you really think that the oil industry will suffer because of carbon tax? Dude, they will pass it on to you and me, laughing all the way to the bank, just like they are happy each time when unrest in the Middle East drives the cost of the crude up. The CO2 tax will make them even richer.

Ruken, do you really think that the oil industry will suffer because of carbon tax? Dude, they will pass it on to you and me, laughing all the way to the bank, just like they are happy each time when unrest in the Middle East drives the cost of the crude up. The CO2 tax will make them even richer.

Which is why having non-government corporations and speculators control the very substance our entire way of life is based on is ludicrous.

The fact is, this issue doesn't need to be so black and white. Whether you think global climate change is an imminent threat or not, doesn't mean that there aren't really good reasons to try and be more environmentally friendly.

Knowing human nature, you have to make it out to be an imminent threat. Because 99.9999% of the time, people will only react after it is too late.

And while there definitely and most probably will be harm to ourselves and our environment if we make no changes, there is NO HARM in making some changes

There is economic harm if you replace an efficient and cheap technology with an inefficient and expensive technology. As the cost of gasoline goes up and the efficiency of alternative energies goes up, the alternatives begin to make more economical sense. Simultaneously, more exotic reserves of oil also become more economical to drill. Eventually there will come a day when it makes more economical sense to switch over to alternatives. Oil is a finite resource. But that day may be in the distant future.

How do people think that is a bad thing? Who cares if you believe in climate change, do you really think respecting your environment is stupid?

I personally think we should be approaching it from a different standpoint. It's in our national security interest to not be beholden to an unstable region full of despots. Domestic oil production only goes so far, because oil is a global commodity. Electricity is not a global commodity. What we need is nuclear research the likes of which haven't been seen since the Manhattan project and then a lot of nuclear reactor building. These things require big government or a lot of risky private capital. It's not going to happen in the "screw you, I got mine" political climate we find ourselves in.

I know just about enough about co2 levels to know that humans exhale co2. Could the fact that the population of the earth has increased exponentionaly[know the word but cant spell] has brought about the increase in co2

No. The carbon dioxide you exhale is equal to the carbon dioxide you inhale. There are no chemical reactions involved. Humans are increasing CO2 levels only by burning things. Fire and combustion are side effects of oxidation, which with organic materials (such as gasoline) means carbon bonds with oxygen - resulting in CO2.

woodlawn1 and MaryJones-1616541, you are both suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.

Oh good god, thank you thank you thank you!! Sanity prevails!

Well, maybe not quite full sanity, I see that Mike C. is still at it...

Wny not create a homeland for them somewhere in the middle east .. like the british did for the jewish people ..then we would have two allies in the middle east that we can support and get nothing in return

Hey Woodlawn1: Sink holes in NW FL. are often caused by Too Much Water. Not too little.

Why? because too much water erodes the limestone strata underneath the surface. Thats why NW FL has a waterfall (really just a deep sinkhole with water running into it):-).

Recommend the Marianna FL caves if anyone wants to see the limestone erosion effect.

Bob D.: "The carbon dioxide you exhale is equal to the carbon dioxide you inhale. There are no chemical reactions involved. Humans are increasing CO2 levels only by burning things."

Dude... you are SO clueless! The reaction is called: METABOLISM and yes, you too burn off carbon in your cells converting it to CO2. Let me lock you up in an air tight tank and see how long you will last on the oxygen there... lol!

Such total ignorance of the most basic scientific facts in your camp...

I'm not a scientist, but common sense tells me that you can't keep pushing a bunch of crap into the air without it having some consequence eventually. Anyway, the headline didn't scare me, but it did pique my interest. I also find it interesting that there is a leader with the foresight to develop a strategy for dealing with a potential emergency BEFORE it actually occurs. Imagine that!

lol Derek, very funny. And nice posts, all (Derek, Shuk, Physicist, et al).

One thing, though, Ruken...

And how the warmest year (globally) on record came during a solar minimum?

Don't you dare spoil my fun!

However, though, on a more serious note: I wouldn't be so quick as to dismiss solar flux and cosmic-ray flux hypotheses just yet. While they certainly are not affecting the last half century's warming trend, I would imagine will go hand-in-hand with anthropological climate change to a pretty dismal event when they pick back up.

If you look at the overall theorized history of the earth's temperatures (the whole 4.5 billion of it), even keeping in mind that we can not be very accurate past obvious recorded times, there is still a pretty strong correlation between solar/cosmic-ray flux and global temps. In fact, on a macro-level analysis, 50 years is very miniscule and there are plenty of occasions where there are micro dips and rises that earth's temperature doesn't match quickly with.

A humbling thought is to think about what is going to happen when the solar variation cycle picks back up and smacks right into our CO2 increases. That is going to be interesting, and not in a good way, me thinks.

Woodlawn1, thank you for proving my point!

Some things you notice, if you pay any attention, in a long life are trends.

When I was a lad, the medical doctors told us that 20 years before, most of what the doctors had told us, was wrong! Well they have kept right on doing that for 60 years! Following that trend, in 20 years, the doctors of that time will tell us that what the doctors of today are telling us, is mostly wrong!

Physical science is the same way, just the time span is different.

I reckon that what we think of, as wisdom, is really just a half decent memory.

Yep, ryan from texas, many years ago, I read that long beach california had subsided by as much as 20 feet in places, due to them pumping crude oil.

I doubt being suspended or even banned will slow "woodlawn1" down much. His current name is new this month and I suspect he has a long history of being banned and creating new names for himself.

I made comment 1 and it did not pertain to global warming. I suspect he piggybacked onto my comment knowing that his rambling, nonsensical rants would receive top billing.

I applaud Woodlawn1 for his efforts. I have been in this exact situation, where you are the only person making since in the discussion but are on the contrast of what is accepted by mainstream. You end up getting every Tom, Dick and Jane calling you names, insulting your intelligence and character and spouting off their meaningless nonsense and ignorant repetitions of things they heard on CNN or MSNBC. The FACTS that everyone is so interested in knowing yet few seem to devote the time to find is simply this: Thousands of leaked emails and other communications from hacked servers of Climate Study Organizations around the world PROVE that "Climate Change" is a politically and financially motivated exageration of psuedo-scientific data. Even the scientists themselves have changed the mainstream monacher from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" because it is an easier title to defend, psuedo-scientifically.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2064826/New-leak-hacked-global-warming-scientist-emails-A-smoking-gun-proving-conspiracy--just-hot-air.html

There are BILLIONS of dollars now invested on this wild goose chase and it would be devistating to MANY countries, corporations and individuals if the scientific community decided to be honest with the public and declare "Global Warming" a hoax. "Climate Change" on the other hand, Is a real phenomina that currently exists and has existed for billions of years. Ultimately, When the Earth wants us off her surface, she will make it happen at her pace and nothing we do, short of colonizing another planet, can save the human race.

Even the Founder of the WEATHER CHANNEL is a Global Warming skeptic. In the middle ages, The assumption that the Earth was flat and at the center of the Universe was common accepted knowledge. The brightest minds and most influential people of the time stated the flat Earth as fact and to question it was ridiculous and, in some cases, herecy. People were ridiculed, jailed, beaten and killed because they dared to question the findings of middle aged science. Eventually, mankind entered the age of enlightenment, where anything was possible and new ideas or opposing ideas where encouraged and valued. That brought us true scientific advancement using the scientific method and expirimentation. We are entering an era where Science and Government are the new Catholic Church. To question them leads to ridicule and harrasment. For decades things like Chocolate, Eggs, Milk, Flouride and silver have been labeled Poisonous one year and then "recommended" the next, only to be labled poisonous again after another "conclusive" study. The desperate truth is that science is as corrupt as anything else and can and has been minipulated for ideology, financial and political gain. Whatever you do, don't question the validity of that ridiculous document the Obama Administration distributed as a COLB. Don't pay attention to the sworn testimonies of employees and heads of department at 2 different Hawiian hospitals that affirm no such document ever existed in their records. Especially, don't pay attention to the fact that Obama's Social Security number is that of a Connecticut resident though He, nor either of his parents, EVER resided in that state. Also, the fact that the chronological order is horribly out of sequence with other children born at the same time. But, Most of all, DO NOT look at the actual Kenyan Birth Certificate that has been tested and confirmed as genuine by independant researches currently on file in Kenya. To question Science or Government is assinine these days, and that is exactly how they want it. I am now a "Crazy Republican" or an "ignorant Birther" in the minds of about a dozen or more people that read this comment. Simply because they have been VERY well programmed by their media and Government agencies to react that way. Fact is, I was a Liberal just a few short years ago. The Democratic ideology just seemed more "caring" in my mind. Bush seemed like an un-articulate moron on TV and I am relatively young and had other things to care about. But, I started to notice things that didn't seem fair or proper and started to pay more attention. I watched the news channels and read article after article, both liberal and conservative in nature. What I found was that, While both sides distort the truth to better serve their agenda, the liberals ARE FAR MORE guilty of this than conservatives. I found myself in agreeance with the right side of the political spectrum more often than the left. I read the Consitution, the bill of rights, all articles and admendments, 6 times! and discovered that I am a Constitutionalist. I simply believe that the Constitution is as near perfect a document as man could produce and should be followed to the letter by our Government. I Googled Constitutionalist and went to every website for a couple hours. Time after time I was greeted by Conservative websites and, eventually, the understanding that nearly ALL Conservatives are Constitutionalists. Conservatives are what make up the vast majority of the Republican base. Libertarians are extreme Conservatives. "Am I really a nut job right winger?", I asked myself. And I have no choice but to answer, "Yes." at least economically. My Social beliefs are not always inline with what most Conservatives believe, but then again, neither are my Gay Republican neighbor's. They have a Romney banner waving in their lawn right now. They believe that Obama is an Evil Marxist dead set on destroying America and that they both have good jobs and shouldn't have to pay for perpetual welfare programs for Crack addicts and dealers. They told me, "To debate Conservatism is to debate the Constitution. The Constitution, and the men that conceived it, are the reason this Country was so great."

Oh and my final note, I grew up in Florida. Neptune Beach and all the houses in the Neighborhood are in exactly the same spot they were in 30 years ago. The beach is still there. The waves crash in the same spot on the rocks as they always have.

I don't know about the Presidents social security number but if posters here were banned based on their own social security number I suspect we would have far fewer crazy posts.

Alien, the Constitution is perfect? Is that why we have so many Amendments to it?

Keep in mind the framers of the Constitution were slave holders who did not let women vote.

Too bad on Woodlawn1, he can't find out how wrong he is about most FL sinkholes now.

Oh and AlienMartian: I grew up in S. Florida and currently live there. The climate has changed somewhat in that we realize much less in the way of winters.

That is why, tropic varieties of wildlife now abound. Examples, of this are Parrots, iguanas , Cuban tree lizards, boa's and other constrictors, various tropical fish varieties, and most recently monitor lizards.

AlienMartian wrote:

"There are BILLIONS of dollars now invested on this wild goose chase and it would be devistating to MANY countries, corporations and individuals if the scientific community decided to be honest with the public and declare "Global Warming" a hoax."

Please give us a concrete example of how a country would be devastated by declaring global warming a hoax.

Alien, You do realize it was those nasty liberals that pushed for all those pain in the butt Amendments like you know setting slaves free and letting women vote. Does that make liberals Constitutionalists? There is more to the Constitution than the 2nd Amendment and running around crying about gun rights.

Army-3854635 Unfortunatley, you are incorrect. It was the Republican President Abraham Lincoln's Administration that is responsible for the 13,14 and 15th amendments. The DNC actually started the KKK in an effort to oppose these amendments. When the KKK was unsuccessful in their tactics of lynching and terror, the DNC turned to social programs in an effort to control the black and low income (peasant) population. Probably the most outspoken Republican aware of this FACT was Martin Luther King Jr. If you do your own research and stop believing everything that the liberal media tells you, you would know these things already. I challenge you to research these facts for yourself using multiple sources, not just Wikipedia. Wikipedia is actually comical in how they confuse and rewrite history in an effort to hide the true history of the Democratic Party. According to Wiki, the NAZI Party (which stands for the German Socialist Workers Party) is a "fundamentally far right ideology" when, even in the name alone, the Ideas of Socialism and Unions are both addressed. Both of these ideas are undisputed known leftist ideals.

Brian-328850 How about America? If the scientific community decided to assemble together and hold a press conference to explain that they were politically and financially motivated to exaggerate data and that the problem of Human's influencing the Climate has been GREATLY exaggerated, Would it not cause an even further economic collapse? "Green Energy Investments" would plummit and the campaigns of Politicians would fizzle, not to mention the over all "I told you so" feeling the vast majority of the GOP would be experiencing. Technology Companies and engineering firms designated to reduce "climate harming gases" would fail, costing BILLIONS in lost revenue and worthless equipment and science. Next would come investigations and criminal charges for hundreds if not thousands in the scientific and political spectrums. Regulatory Committees would be disbanded and regulations controlling the refinery and production of fuels would disappear. The push for wind energy would cease. The push for Solar energy would cease, but gas prices would probably drop initially because of this, causing a chain reaction that would eventually sky rocket oil prices to level unimaginable due to the sharp increase in demand.

Scar-414733, Welcome to a fellow Floridian. The influx of un-native species is the result of abandoned pets and the transportation industry. Scientists admit that the Florida climate and environment was Ideal for certain species WELL before "Global Warming" was a coined term. As far as the Winters are concerned here is an excerpt from the Liberal Fav "Wikipedia" regarding Florida's Climate:

The hottest temperature ever recorded in Florida was 109 °F(43 °C), which was set on June 29, 1931 in Monticello. The coldest temperature was −2 °F(−19 °C), on February 13, 1899, just 25 miles (40 km) away, in Tallahassee.

Wow, 1931! Wonder if that was a substantially high CO2 emission year?

and Army...one last thing...If you Re-read my initial post you'll see I stated "as close to perfect as man can get..." Not "perfect" as you stated. AND keep in mind that slavery was a way of life at the time. There is no way to excuse it and I am not trying to do that. Slavery was and still is a horrible thing, but that was the accepted way of life. Additionally, I would like you to read this article.

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html

in 1776, 50% of slaves were WHITE! Irish mostly. Slaves were born to slaves and were sold and separated from their families, just as you learned about the Africans. In fact, the word "Kidnap" derives from the term "kid knabbing" which was the theft of European Children to be used in the slave trade. The African slaves did not enter into the picture until hundreds of years of white slavery had already been under the belts of the rich and priveledged. The Africans, by the way, were not kidnapped. They were sold by chieftons of African Tribes to the Europeans. Another interesting fact, is that the Africans sold to the Europeans where already in servitude or Children of those in servitude in their own lands.

As far as Women voting, Well yeah...they were chauvinists. So was every other country, ethnicity and regionality at the time. The beauty of the Constitution is that it CAN be amended. They wrote it purposefully to be a fluid document that will forever remain relevant.

And Lastly, Moderator Sally. I respectfully request that you read every comment in this section and ban ALL the individuals who attacked Woodlawn1's character, intelligence and good name. The fact that you banned solely him, reflects poorly on your own character. I understand that MSNBC and NEWSVINE are prodominantly Liberal organizations, but what you have done is a gross attempt at silencing individuals with opposing views of your own and I am insulted by it. I feel unwelcome here as a conservative individual and it is largely because of your actions as a moderator. Is it possible to ban yourself for violating the COH? I recommend that as well.

AlienMartian, Sorry, but your theory makes no sense to me at all. Let's pretend for a second that, yeah, 98% of the world's climatologists are involved in an elaborate hoax relating to global warming ( to be honest, I'd be embarrassed to believe such a thing) and they come out and admit that it was all a joke. You actually believe that that would put an end to a push for green energy? Your premise assumes that global warming is the only reason anyone cares about green energy which is a completely nonsensical assumption. How about the fact that green energy is sustainable whereas oil will eventually run out? How about the fact that it's non-polluting which means a cleaner planet and a healthier environment? In any case, the reality is that people will continue to work on developing green energy as long as they think they can sell it at a profit regardless of whether global warming is real or not.

AlienMartian : your absolutely right, they are mostly abandoned pets. They kill off native species.

But, in earlier years we had winters that would kill them off. In the early 1970's Boca Raton had snow:-). I was there:-)

I'm not trying to argue with you. But one thing I do know is the Everglades and Wildlife areas of Florida. I hope the global warming people are wrong and you are right.

So, then we could have a prolonged cold snap to eliminate the non-native species in FL.

Global Glaciers, Ice Caps, Shedding Billions of Tons of Mass Annually

And that last one doesn't even include Greenland (losing 57 cubic miles of ice per year, and accelerating) or Antarctica (100 - 300 gigatons per year).

Last week the SCIENTEST were reporting that Greenland & Antarctica were losing 100 cubic miles of ice peryear for the last DECADE. This was according to the latest GRACE data and another multiyear study..

Which is less than 1/8400 of a percent of the TOTAL ice volume which is over 8.4+Millions cubic miles...

During 2007 Antarctica obtained the largest sea ice coverage and largest ice volume ever recorded by man's satellites. According to NASA & NOAA...

Greenland had a multi-year survey conducted that concluded that its ice volume was 703,424 cubic miles or 2,931,000 cubic kilometers during 1999. This was verified by previous surveys that indicated Greenland's ice volume had INCREASED by 10% over a 50+year period... see http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0092_greenland_ice_thickness/parca_paper1.pdf

Three years ago a decade long study in Greenland indicated a TOTAL 0.05% DECREASE in ice volume. Here is the direct quote from the 13Nov2009 Science Daily article on Greenland ice loss. "Since 2000, the ice sheet has lost about 1500 Gt in total, representing on average a global sea level rise of about half a millimetre per year, or 5 mm since 2000."...

The questions to ask:

1. What the accuracy of these studies???

2. What is the seasonal variance???

3. When did less that 1/1,000 of a percent become statically significant???

But I'm sure your exaggerations without any references are significant...

This was verified by previous surveys that indicated Greenland's ice volume had INCREASED by 10% over a 50+year period

You must be kidding. A new study, using an updated method of measuring Greenland's total ice, comes up with a new estimate, and you claim that proves Greenland's ice volume is increasing? Good lord.

From your own paper:

The existing ice thickness dataset available for such applications was generated about a decade ago from data collected during the 1970s [Letreguilly et al., 1991]...

With recent improvements in the quality of other boundary conditions (such as ice surface elevation and accumulation), the accuracy of this dataset now poses a serious limitation to reliable simulations of the ice sheet’s dynamics and future behaviour. In this paper, we present a new ice thickness and bed elevation dataset that addresses this limitation.

The Greenland ice sheet is the second largest ice mass on the planet and previous estimates of its
volume have been based on earlier IPR measurements of thickness and area.

The satellite image atlas of glaciers of the world [Weidick, 1995] quotes a value of 2.6 x 106 km3 based on an estimate obtained in the 1950s, suggesting that this value would be refined with the acquisition of improved datasets.

The Letreguilly grid (after correcting for the non-area conserving properties of the polar stereographic projection), when combined with a high resolution land/ice mask [Weng, 1995] gives a total volume of 2.809 x 106 km3.

The value obtained for the new grid is 2.931 x 106 km3, which represents about a 4% increase in volume compared to the Letreguilly grid and a 10% increase on the previously published value.

This is equivalent to an additional 70 cm of global sea level rise.

No one in the scientific community claims that Greenland's ice is increasing. Not even 'skeptics' or deniers.

Here's what NASA says, based on new measurements by GRACE (2012):

The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That's enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.

and:

NASA's Grace Sees Rapid Spread in Greenland Ice Loss

A new international study finds that ice losses from Greenland's ice sheet, which have been increasing over the past decade in its southern region, are now spreading rapidly up its northwest coast.

"These changes on the Greenland ice sheet are happening fast, and we are definitely losing more mass than we had anticipated," says Velicogna. "We also are seeing this trend in Antarctica, a sign that warming temperatures really are having an effect on ice in Earth's cold regions."

Research from Ohio State added this:

An unusually hot melting season in 2010 accelerated ice loss in southern Greenland by 100 billion tons – and large portions of the island’s bedrock rose an additional quarter of an inch in response.

That's right - Greenland lost so much ice in one season that it's southern land mass actually rose a quarter of an inch. Think about that.

Physicist-Retired

Kudos on an excellent and comprehensive listing above. There was one however that I did not see, although I might have missed it. I did not see the U.S. National Science Foundation's and/or their Division of Polar Programs. This government organization currently funds a great deal of grantee organizations working on Climatology and other related scientific studies regarding planetary conditions at both North and South Poles. I spent four years assigned to the U.S. Navy's "Operation Deep Freeze" with four consecutive deployments to the Ice. My first trip there, they had the warmest temperature on record there at 58 degrees Fahrenheit! This is in contrast to years before that when the temp for the same time of year (December/January) was in the low 20's. Eloquent proof of some climate change I would say. At the time a lot of stdies were going on the Amundsen-Scott South pole Station regarding cosmic ray studies and the hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole.

I spent four years assigned to the U.S. Navy's "Operation Deep Freeze" with four consecutive deployments to the Ice.

That must have been quite the experience, Ed. I'm deeply jealous.

I've only known one other person to spend time in Antarctica (not counting tourists, of course). That was a college friend who was accepted into NASA's astronaut training. Apparently, they had a base in Antarctica, too.

I wonder if it was co-located with your facility?

If you have any pics (or even if you don't) you should consider writing a NewsVine article about your experiences. Not everyone gets to spend time in Antarctica.

Where are YOUR references???

You even included a quote from the one I referenced...

"The satellite image atlas of glaciers of the world [Weidick, 1995] quotes a value of 2.6 x 106 km3 based on an estimate obtained in the 1950s, suggesting that this value would be refined with the acquisition of improved datasets.

The Letreguilly grid (after correcting for the non-area conserving properties of the polar stereographic projection), when combined with a high resolution land/ice mask [Weng, 1995] gives a total volume of 2.809 x 106 km3.

The value obtained for the new grid is 2.931 x 106 km3, which represents about a 4% increase in volume compared to the Letreguilly grid and a 10% increase on the previously published value..."

But you then stated that known one was indicating that GREENLAND ice was 'NOT INCREASING'... Ha! Ha!

I will state AGAIN, when you are talking about volumns that are OVER 8+MILLION cubic miles...

Even a 1,000+cubic miles from your UNSTATED reference. IS not within satistical significance...

BTY - Antarctica reached the highest levels of ice coverage and volume ever recorded in 2007. According to; NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, SMMR, & SSMI...

And the average Antarctrica temperature DECREASED...

But keep beleiving in GRACE, just like you did NOAA-16... Ha! Ha!

I think there are not only a lot of insults flying around on this site, but there seem to be more than a few misunderstandings. By way of background - a geodesist is concerned with the physics of the entire Earth. We need to be concerned with the actual science of what happens to the Earth or we cannot be successful in our work.

The Earth does not have its mass equally distributed globally. That means that gravity is not the same everywhere. It also means that gravity is seldom pointing "down" to the Earth's center of mass at any one spot. Surveyors sought to address this problem with the concept of "mean sea level". They would take a series of measurements at various locations around a continent, and assume that could serve as a basis for long term measurements. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There is no "sea level" to serve as an absolute basis of measurement. That is due to a variety of reasons, but much of it has to do with the complexity of the Earth as a system - and that includes its atmosphere. The use of the term "sea level" causes all kinds of problems with having a discussion about what is happening in this situation. I will try to review some of the concepts briefly, because there is one important fact that needs to be understood.

The Earth rotates about its average axis and has "angular momentum" as a consequence. In a gross sense that means that any "spare water" tends to distribute itself preferentially towards the equator over time. (It does NOT mean that ALL the water will move towards the equator!!!) At the same time there are currents that have evolved over time that move the water around. The water is also impacted by "hills and valleys" in the ocean itself due to the unequal distribution of mass within the Earth. This begins to be complicated by long term "wobbles" in the Earth's axis caused by the unequal distribution of mass, and even by the "precession of the equinoxes" (the Earth currently has about 6 more days of summer and spring in the northern hemisphere than fall and winter have - that is slowly changing over time). The speed of the rotation is slowly changing as the Moon slowly pulls away, but it can speed up or slow down due to other effects as well. A large earthquake can cause the Earth to speed up if denser oceanic rock is subducted below lighter continental rock. (This is much like a skater pulling her arms in as she is spinning.) This is further complicated as water melts from existing glaciers. The mass of the glacier pushes down on the underlying rock, and as it melts the underlying rock is slowly relieved of its burden. The rock slowly bounces back up, and like the skater extending her arms, it slightly slows the rotation of the Earth. At the same time, there are atmospheric conditions, such as when the North Atlantic Oscillation is pronounced (the Icelendic low is particularly lower than usual and the Azores high is higher than normal), that can lead to the water sloshing towards the Icelendic low (the atmosphere is not as heavy over that area) and away from the Azores high. This is complicated further by the behavior of the excess carbon dioxide that has been put into the atmosphere. The excess carbon dioxide causes the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, which means that more water is held in the atmosphere rather than going into the oceans. All of these impact what someone might see as "sea level" at any one spot, as well as how one might see any changes.

The various astronomical observatories around the planet can and do observe the small changes in the rotation - both in the alignment of the poles and in the changes of speed. However, because of the complexities of the system they cannot be predicted. There are further complications because the continents are slowly drifting around and the Earth's internal dynamo slowly changes over time.

Some of the ways that these complexities manifest themselves are in things such as the Global Positioning System. The orbits of the system cannot be entirely predicted because the Earth is moving around below the satellites. (By the way, the GPS system does not know - and cannot know - what "sea level" is. It can recognize an idealized ellipsoid, but there are a lot of caveats to using a GPS for determining "elevation".)

Scientists need to gain an understanding of how the mass of the Earth is not only distributed today, but also how it evolves over time. Because there is no "mean sea level", we can only completely measure change in the distribution of water (whether solid, liquid or vapor) by using gravity as a measuring stick. The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) was designed to measure the Earth's gravity field. It consists of two satellites about 220 km apart in the same orbital path. Because Kepler's Laws state that a satellite must speed up or slow down due to changes in the distribution of mass below it, the trailing satellite can measure those slight changes in the path of the lead satellite. Because they are well above the Earth's atmosphere, a Doppler shift can be measured between the two satellites that allow changes to be measured in a very small range (about the width of a human hair). That means that GRACE is probably the most important experiment ever launched to allow us to understand our planet better. This has long term implications for travel (increasing the predictability of GPS) as well as for understanding how the climate changes. For example, the GRACE experiment has successfully measured the effects of large rain events in Australia. (The mass of the rain caused a spike in the measured mass of Australia.) It also allows us to measure the effects of melting glaciers much more precisely than by any other means.

I have not studied Kiribati myself, so I cannot answer for exactly what is causing their particular problem. However, I would suggest that is almost certainly NOT due to aquifer subsidence. (The nature of an aquifer on an atoll is much different than Houston.) Likewise, karst topography (limestone caves and their subsidence) is very, very unlikely. Comparing it to the Florida Keys or anywhere else is a misapplication of science as well. I would say that the elders are very prescient in their planning.

I am not an academic, but I have great respect for their work. I could not be successful in my job if I used politics or fancy as a basis for making decisions. I understand that there is a lot of misunderstanding in the "blogosphere" relating to how science is performed. I also know that there are insults about particular industries as well. We must all understand that if a scientist's work depends upon knowledge, it is NOT in their self-interest to ignore the truth. I will also say that the American Geophysical Union, of which I am a member and which is dedicated to studying the entire physics of the Earth (including the atmosphere and oceans), has stated that not only is the climate changing, but there are clear "anthropogenic forcings" on some aspects of that change.

Because my job requires me to understand the Earth system as an entirety, and I spend considerable time ensuring that I review the science with appropriate skepticism, I understand that change is occurring. I also understand the areas that are due to anthropogenic forcings, and those which are less certain or clearly not. However, I also understand that there will be those who wish to deny truth because of their politics. I fully expect those individuals to try to distort and selectively misinterpret what I might have said above. In the long run denying of truth and distortion of science does not serve us well as a species, but all I can try to do is at least a modicum of knowledge transfer on the subject.

Thanks for your time.

Geodeist,

Excellent explanation - thanks for taking the time to build the scientific foundation underlying this issue, especially in regards to GRACE.

I agree that GRACE is one of the most important tools we currently have to understand the changes our planet is undergoing. The technology is most impressive, and I've been following that project closely.

I hope to see more of your posts around the Vine.

Geodeist, Those who claim the climate is not changing are ignorant and/or misinformed. What I am debating is simply the exaggeration of data used by corporations, some scientists, and politicians to further their own agendas, whatever their respective agendas may be. I, nor the founder of The Weather Channel, Dr. Robert Austin, Eduardo Zarita, Dr. Don Easterbrook, Tom Tripp, Nobel Prize winning physicist Dr. Robert B Laughlin, OR ANY OTHER "TRUTHER", ever said climate change was not or does not occur. The nature of climate change and the exaggeration and media frenzy that is "Global Warming" is the only science being debated by anyone worthy of debating it. In 120 years we will have enough data collected to determine whether or not there is a trend of temperature change in one direction or the other, but until then EVERYTHING is speculation. All data currently collected shows that mankind's effect on the climate of this planet is grotesquely miniscule, at best. To say that the Earth's climate is radically changing as a direct result of something WE have done is pompus and ridiculous.

Physicist-retired I am indeed familiar with the NASA program you mentioned. Said tests were carried out inan area known as the Dry Valleys about 50 miles away from the main U.S. complex at McMurdo Station on Ross Island. They are referred to the Dry Valleys because it is an area that has received absolutely zero known precipitation for approximately the last 50,000 years. As it is so dry, it is used to simulate the geologic surface conditions found on the Moon and Mars. NASA maintains small temporary base camps in the area when testing, but actually stage out of McMurdo. I believe the Lunar and Mars rovers both were tested there but I could be wrong. Personal equipment and astronaut survival training was also conducted there at one time. Many other items of equipment have been tested there as well as far as I know.

Geodesist, thank you for an excellent post.

AC, I only have one question for you. I notice you also made no mention of the National Science Foundation's Division of Polar Program's/United States Antarctic Program contributions either. I'm curious as to why. Not trying to be argumentative, only curious.

Ex NavDoc,

Physicist-retired I am indeed familiar with the NASA program you mentioned.

Small world! And I'll say once again that I'm extremely envious of your opportunity to spend time there.

I've never been closer to Antarctica than Cape Horn, and I never will be. Tourists are having a very negative impact on that place. But research there must be fascinating.

Hello P.R.

Good Morning to all

I guess my first thought when reading this article was, The Environmental Refugee Crisis has begun.

When history looks back, this and other recent events will prove to be the starting point of what will become one of the biggest issues in the coming century.

I think we all agree that the climate changes.

the fact is the climate changes like these scientist change the words they use to describe it.

first hole in the ozone then global warming now climate change.

if you look just at the time the weather service has been keeping records you would be surprised by studying the highs and lows.

and if you don't think weather patterns are suppose to change you are a complete moron.

think about this

if the glaciers continued to grow were would all the water be.

answer that would be called a ice age with happened millions of years ago and then it warmed up and the ice melted. and as i recall scientist believe there has been more than one ice age.

Get real you crazy ass fools.

Sea level rise is self-explanatory:

has found itself at the leading edge of the debate on climate change because many of its atolls rise just a few feet above sea level.

A great many other islands are also "just a few feet" above sea level. The Florida Keys come to mind. Midway comes to mind.

Why aren't Keys residents moving to Fiji? Is the sea level not rising there?

That's the point Invisible Hand was making. It's a litmus test for republicans. Here's Rich Santorum:

“We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit.”

“[Climate change is] an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”

I wonder how they might explain what is going on in this story.

I love these liberals who flap their gums before they read and do research as to why the earth warms up and cools. Try spending a few years studying the problem before opening your mouth and typing nonsense. The earth goes throw clime change every 400,000 years. It cools and it heats up. Undersea volcanoes? One goes off every six minutes, you know when and where and what the consequences are? The scientists don't! The Pacific Ocean is anything but pacific. The plates on which the land rests is in constant movement and they are sliding always. Why? Where does the land go? Where does the land come up? How do the new volcanoes affect the currents and the ice at the north and south pole and the glaciers? Do we need a warming trend to feed the 6 billion new mouths that have appeared since 1800?

Don't let the facts and statistics disturb your preconceived ideas and of course let the great scientific geniuses who write for msnbc.com deliberately lead you to think these crazy ideas that the sea levels are rising and that the islands are not sinking.

Rick,

"A great many other islands are also "just a few feet" above sea level. The Florida Keys come to mind."

Exactly. I have a beachfront house in the Florida Keys and spend half my time there. The ocean has not risen one inch. And I talk to the old timers there and they say the same. They laugh at the hippie scientists who in the 1970's told them the Keys would be totally underwater before the year 2000. LMFAO!

Liberals! God love em! LOL!

I love these liberals who flap their gums before they read and do research...The earth goes throw clime change every 400,000 years

Thanks for the conservative explanation. It makes perfect sense now.

shawn-1949209....This article did not mention any possible causes for the climate change, they just pointed out that it is in fact changing and that oceans are in fact rising. Are you in denial of that also ?

Sounds like you are attempting to ague against a premise that the article never mentioned .

As a Florida resident I can also vouch for the fact that sea levels are just the same as theyve been in my lifetime. Notice the article is talking about an island that's in the Pacific ring of fire. However if, as mentioned above, you look at the Florida Keys (Stable region) the islands have experienced no "sea level rising." Also much of Jacksonville is just above sea level. We would notice if the sea levels were rising. Google St Johns River if you don't know why.

The seas are warming. Polar ice is melting. course the north pole ice doesn't change the sea level as it is already floating. But Greenland is losing ice rapidly from land and pouring water into the sea, Many glaciers in the lower 48 US, Argentina and Chile are disappearing, pouring water into the sea. Antarctica at the Ice shelves (again floating ice) has been calving ice chunks the size of small states. When the floaters are gone - guess what, land ice is next. Avg depth of Antarctic ice is a mile. All of it wil never melt but if it did it could raise sea level just inder 200 ft. The gulf of Mexico would reach Memphis, 100% of florida would be gone, NYC would be gone. Scientists say sea level my be up 4 ft by 2100. That's only 90 years. Small children today will live to see it. What to do ? I say pump more oil, fly to the Galapigos, see the turtles before they drown, fill the air with carbon skipping about to see all the cool places while they are there. It'll all be gone in 100 to 200 years and those people won't appreciate what they don't have, so yeah, fly, fly fly . Pump that oil, burn that carbon. You deserve it. And Fiji isn't high enough as a place to run to.

thatguydownsouth,

"In the past century, waters in the Keys gradually rose 9 inches, an amount that caught the attention of scientists but few others. But if a growing consensus of climate predictions for this century prove true, rising waters will become impossible to ignore...

Already, though, scientists say the Keys have seen the results of climate change, from coral reef bleaching to loss of land. Standing in about a foot of saltwater that now fills a 1950s mosquito-control ditch on Big Pine Key, Bergh showed how the sea already has saturated the once-dry spot. Pointing at a dead tree, he said: "The pines tell the story."

-Tampa Bay Times

I live in the Florida Keys. And no, I don't have any plans to move to the mountains any time soon. In fact I live on one of the lowest islands above sea level in the Keys. I'll be sure to come back and tell you when the global sea level rise puts any water on my doorstep.

Instead of dealing and confronting a real problem, somehow this has turned political. And that is what is so asinine.

Invisible Hand,

According to Republicans, there is no climate change. Tell that to the people of Kiribati.

My vote for dumbest post of the day. Congrats!

FYI sunshine. If it weren't for climate change mankind wouldn't exist. Kids these days.

Here's a question for you Einstein. What's the Earth's temperature supposed to be?

All that carbon we burn falls to the ground and seas and floats in the air. When carbon hits the sea the chemistry of the sea creates acid. At natural levels of say pre-1900 the seas simply absorbed it. But at post industrialization levels when the airborne carbon is measured at many hundreds of times natural levels and getting worse the sea can't deal with it. so the seas are becoming acidic. Corals from the Florida Keys to the Great Barrier reef and everywhere else are dying. The rise in levels is no help to coral either. They grow at a certain depth perfect for thier needs. Raise or lower the seas a foot or two in a short time (100 yrs or so) and they cannot adapt fast enough. So burn more carbon - fly and drive to your dream spots and see it before it disappears. Cause it is gonna disappear.

Here's a question for you Einstein. What's the Earth's temperature supposed to be?

About 1.2*C cooler than it is now.

hiap,

As the article states, obviously the seas are not rising in a manner that anyone would call swift:

"The charts displayed at the meeting, which depicted disappearing land, weren't intended as scare tactics. As Chris Bergh, the Nature Conservancy's director of coastal and marine resilience for Florida, said: 'Nobody is going to drown from sea-level rise.'...

'This presentation is not to make anybody panic and run out and sell their property; I live on Big Pine and am trying to add on to my home," Bergh said. "It's designed to make people think and get better information.'"

However, the article does state that water will eventually cover at least all of Big Pine:

"Under the international climate panel's best-case scenario, [by 2100] Big Pine Key would lose 16 percent of its land to the sea and an additional 11 percent of upland habitat for the endangered Key deer and other rare species and plants.

Under the worst-case prediction [by 2100], the sea would claim 51 percent of Big Pine Key, and leave only 4 percent of the island's pine forest and hardwood hammocks intact.

'Whatever we do, we are just buying time,' Bergh said. 'Ultimately, the sea will cover this whole place.'"

As a Florida resident I can also vouch for the fact that sea levels are just the same as they've been in my lifetime.

Not to mock you, but you can't possibly notice visually a 2.1 mm change per year in sea level. If you did, we might as well throw away all machinery and use you as the worlds master measuring machine.

Assuming you are in your 50's, that would amount to about 4 inches difference since you were born. That is hardly noticeable over such an extended amount of time.

Ruken,

About 1.2*C cooler than it is now.

Really? LOL!

Aw, Sven is mad that people know more than he does. How cute.

Ireadyou you are correct that coral is a very sensative living creature, and that many colonies, including those here in the Florida Keys are facing many issues, including some that are very much man made, however I have not read anything indicating that the issues you list are what is causing the problems our Florida reefs have. Most of the problems up Key's reefs have stem from overly nutrient rich water from land water runoff and outdated septic systems entering the water table and making their way offshore. This paired with the extremely warm summer months causes excessive algae blooms, causing the coral a lot of problems. Also, we have many thousands of tourists who visit these reefs and many do not properly respect the environment they are visiting, even despite the education that professional dive boats attempt to instill in their customers. I personally enjoy visiting the reefs, and have been sad to see some suffer in the past decades, but whenever I bring any visitor to the reef, I give them an orientation on the sensativity of the reef, to help prevent future damage. The reef is of course a complicated ecosystem, and essntial habitiat and nusery for many fish species. We have recently had a large problem, as with most of the caribean, with an invasion of non-native lionfish, who have no natural atlantic predator, and are voracious eaters themselves. This coupled with an unseasonably cold winter two years ago, which killed off many fish around the keys, has caused more stress on this extremely codependant and delicate ecosystem.

And we Keys residents are not by any means content to just let our reefs die with a whisper. We are in the process of constucting a Key's wide sewer system, that will eliminate most of the runoff from these outdated septic systems, there are several coral farms growing new colonies in both controlled environments and in the open ocean to "seed" the reefs to replace dead and dieing colonies, and we have turned our lionfish epedemic into recreation in the form of capture and kill "derbies" and into a good source for local commerical fishing for our restaurants; among many other efforts. I don't claim to be a scientist, only an interested local who wants to see the best for the natural resources in my community. I agree with conversation, and that humans as a whole have been poor stewards of our environment. I also think that using religion as a cop-out to do nothing about conservation is in poor taste. In fact I think that if you believe in God, and that this is your temporary home, you should be even more respecting of it as it does not belong to you. I however disagree with the strategy of implying eath ending consequenses on the basis of human action, and think that these kind of scare tactics turn just as many people totally away from consevation as they do any good.

Kryss,

I never said it is impossible that the Keys will one day be surrendered back to the ocean. We are after all living on a coral reef that was at once time a flourishing underwater ecosystem! I simply that we as humanity seem to view any change in our natural systems as something evil that needs to be stopped. I feel that it is only natural that given enough time nature will revert and the Keys will one day in the far future be largely back under water. I don't think there is anything we can do to stop it if that is what the cycles of nature have in mind.

You tell the average working person making ends meet that there is a chance that cars burning fossil fuel are adding tiny amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere that might cause tiny amounts of climate change over hundreds of years that could just be part of a natural climate change cycle, what is he supposed to do? Sell his car and buy a next to non existant renewable energy car? buy an expensive hybird or electric car just to prove a point? Ride a bicycle to work? The average person can only use the best and most widely available resources that are available to them today to provide for themseleves and their family. Taxing them or fining them for using those resources helps no one, and places and additonal burden on someone already in a tough situation. And ultimately alternative energy will hopefully be found, and in the end excell because it will save a lot of people money and make those who find it very wealthy (and rightfully slow). That is how a free market works.

What we CAN do, is educate people on ways that they adversely impact the environment TODAY, right now, in real terms. For instance by purchasing eventually unwanted exotic pets and releasing them into the wild when they become to large, expensive, or unmanageable to take care of. This has caused many issues for us in Florida from iguanas, pythons, monitor lizards, and more. These are real things that people are doing today without meaning to, and probably in total ignorance to the consequences of their decision, that cause UNnatural harm to our environments in the times that we live in. As such law enforcement has started no questions asked exotic pet disposal drop off days, when people can bring in exotic pets, even illegal pets, and let them be safely take away from our natural environments with total legal amnesty. It is not a perfect scenario, but hopefully these programs will keep non-native species from further damaging our ecosystems. That to me is a much more important way to encourage conservation than talking about the fanciful world-ending consequences of driving your kids to soccer practice in an SUV.

Woodlawn1 - why are you angry? I only asked a simple question. I think you made a very astute observation i.e. 0.039% is NOT same as 390 PPM. While all mathematicians will agree that they are the same doesn't make it so, does it? And those want to refute it should get off their (respective) ass and do some research why it aint the same.

I am with you my man. I would like to play checkers with you NOT with some person who other people may consider intelligent. BTW Dick Cheney just called and asked if he could join.

All of Florida has already been under water.

It's limestone. Limestone is calcium carbonate. Sea shells, and corral.

And something else to mention: the carbonate in calcium carbonate comes from CO2 in the water. So CO2 levels tend to self correct, as calcium carbonate is stable for billions of years. In fact, without new CO2 coming up from volcanic gases over millions of years, life as we know it would cease as all the CO2 gets locked into calcium carbonate. There isn't much CO2 in the air as it is.

Ruken,

Aw, Sven is mad that people know more than he does. How cute.

You're hilarious. Your age is also showing. How can you, or anyone else for that matter, know what the appropriate temperature of the Earth should be? Stop knee jerking to support the religion of anthropomorphic climate change for a moment and think about what you are suggesting.

Yep, climate change is real. No argument there.

The climate has changed from ice-age to greenhouse several times in the Earth's history, and all of it occurred without fossil fuel burning engines, plastic bags or styrofoam.

Solar cycles, volcanoes, and other complex factors create climate change, but the ULTIMATE ISSUE IS THIS: If you want cleaner burning engines...great. If you want more economically feasible solar and wind power...great.

BUT...If you want to have our money confiscated and distributed to the super-rich politico's to start selling "carbon credits" that we MUST BUY in order to drive, heat our homes, or make a camp fire, you ARE AN ENEMY OF FREEDOM!

THIS IS THE GREATEST SCAM EVER DEVISED AND MUST BE STOPPED!!

You're hilarious. Your age is also showing. How can you, or anyone else for that matter, know what the appropriate temperature of the Earth should be?

Because that's what the trend was before the Industrial Revolution, and science is concluding that no more than 10% of the current warming trend is caused by the sun?

Yes, I'm definitely hilarious.

The climate has changed from ice-age to greenhouse several times in the Earth's history, and all of it occurred without fossil fuel burning engines, plastic bags or styrofoam.

Is that why astronomers and climatologists have concluded the sun was responsible for previous climate shifts, but their models are unable to reproduce the current warming trend without greenhouse gasses?

I suppose that all the major accredited scientific agencies are just in on the scam, right? Don't knock it simply because you're unable to grasp the science. You're no different than the Catholic Church wanting to excommunicate/execute Galileo for suggesting a heliocentric solar system.

Great post machinehead.

Renewable energy is worth pursuing for many of its own reasons, but until it exists it makes no sense to punish people for using the only forms of energy that are realistically available to them.

BUT...If you want to have our money confiscated and distributed to the super-rich politico's to start selling "carbon credits" that we MUST BUY in order to drive, heat our homes, or make a camp fire, you ARE AN ENEMY OF FREEDOM!

How is this different than the current oil subsidies?

hiap,

I agree that invasive species are a huge problem. Regarding pollution control and/or climate change control, I agree with you to a point. Asking people who have the least to spend to pay large amounts is not fair, especially in this economy. I do my best by having bought a (used) car (not SUV) that is the safest I can afford but also has the best gas mileage I could afford. I walk and bike whenever I can. But I hardly agree that the unfettered free market will solve everything. The free market can’t do the work of the EPA, for instance. It won’t stop itself from dumping toxic waste; the same can be said up to a point with pumping particulates, CO2, and other things into the air. So where do you draw the line?

During the late 1970's in coastal NC on the ICW, we built a concrete retaining wall in a Marina...

While the wall does become submerged during North Easters and a few hurricane storm surges. The average water levels still do not top the wall and the sea level has not shown any appreciable INCREASE, during the last 40+years...

Hazel during the 1950's had a storm surge of OVER 18+FEET. Nothing has approached this sense then, but EVERYONE talks about the INCREASING water levels and increased severity of the storms... Ha! Ha!

BTY - I still own water-front property in the area about 1,500+feet of it...

It is every humans responsibility to try to DECREASE their energy usage and ensure they have a minimal environmental impact...

The Earth CHANGES - either adapt or become extinct...

Tad-401841.......Please point out where in the article is suggested that the climate change was man made, I must have missed that. You are trying to argue a point that the article never attempted to make, why ?

Why would anyone need to "bring it on". What you've said is very reasonable and accurate. It does not mean man is not speeding up this process, however.

I think the thing so many of you miss is that this climate change--this natural one-- happens slowly over millions of years unless there is a volcano or asteroid involved. What science is trying to tell you is that in the brief time they've been measuring they can see it and measure it on real levels--no asteroid or volcano needed. And if we don't wake up and smell the coffee flooding is going to be just one of the problems. The next will be failing crops and after that potable water.

But go ahead. Stick your head in the sand. Climate change has lowered my heating bills, but it's also created some incredibly hot summers and one day the crops won't grow any longer. Probably not in my life time but it won't be as long as you think if we keep up the way we are going. Next year Europe will probably look like something Kiev in December and Kiev will be like the Arctic Circle.

Oh, please! 100,000? Give us a reliable source for that information!

100,000 scientists only 36 of which actually research climate. As a scientist of a different field, I can tell you I have no ability to speak with authority on climate research.

Who needs authority when we have fox news???

It's futile to try to explain a blue sky to someone who only sees the color red.

Whether you believe or don't, folks need to do what is necessary to protect themselves.

All the "nay sayers" have a right to their opinion, and I certainly hope they're right. However, I get the feeling that if they are wrong...they will be the first ones to start hollering "Why didn't you warn us?!"

Take care of your own business, believe what you want......and allow others to do the same.

To me, it would be like telling someone who lives in tornado alley that they shouldn't move, because you can "pray" away a tornado. VERY scientific...(wish I thought of that!)

To me, it would be like telling someone who lives in tornado alley that they shouldn't move, because you can "pray" away a tornado. VERY scientific...(wish I thought of that!)

Because apparently they can now strike in winter.

Better get prayin'.

Howdy tumbleweed. Nice to see a sane oppinion. Thanks

this is not a problem

there is a alternative

if you don't want your house to flood don't live next to a river.

you don't like snow move somewhere it doesn't snow.

shawn,

I suppose instead of letting my federal tax dollars go to people in the mid-west who've had their homes destroyed by tornadoes, I should have probably just told them to move somewhere without tornadoes. I won't do that next time but I will ask that you do. See how well it goes over.

shawn-1949209

"this is not a problem

there is a alternative

if you don't want your house to flood don't live next to a river.

you don't like snow move somewhere it doesn't snow."

Are you serious? Really? That simple? When I was in high school, I saw an older man burning tires and trash in a field, and I went up to him and spoke about air pollution. He told me that I was worried about nothing, because the smoke was just "blowing away". All gone. No problem. Your logic equals his. You see no big picture. When the populations of entire cities or towns have to relocate because of rising sea levels or encroaching deserts, I hope they all move to yours. If you don't want to live with them, you can of course "just move".

All you have to do is look at the Native Village of Shishmaref in Alaska. They had to move their entire village inland because their village was washing away by rising tides and severe storms. These are Natives whose people have been in Shishmaref for hundreds of years, and they are moving permanently inland, which is a major trauma for them. It is not a temporary problem when you have to move entire cities, or populations to higher ground. This can effect entire populations.

Well, isn't that nice of you to be willing to accept that 2 entire states will be gone just so you can be a tad warmer. You sir are a moron.

I think that fatcat was just joking around. That is the way I took it. If you don't or have never lived up in Wisconsin then you don't know how bitterly cold it can get up there. At this time of the year if I was not in SC right now and still living up in WI, then I would probably be saying the same thing as Fatcat. Go Badgers!!!! ;-)

If and when that happens I'm moving my trailer, yard full of junk and 37 dogs to WI. Put some coonass redneck stuff right next door just to help your property value and do it just for you

This being WI, for the sake of ambiance, I would suggest you have an old Rambler up on blocks in the front yard.

There are things we can do. We can study the Bible, obey it, declare its message to others and sound the warning of Armageddon's impending destruction. By having the truth declared Christ is separating people as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats. When that is done Armageddon will strike. Satan will be abyssed. The earth will not be burned up. Just as we would not burn down a barn to kill the rats, Jehovah will not burn up the earth to kill the goats, or Satan. He will destroy this present wicked system and replace it with a righteous system, his new world. Obedient men, at unity with Jehovah, his King, his Word and purposes, will live therein forever. Disunity started when disobedience to God started. It will end when disobedience to God ends. We can end our disobedience now; Jehovah will end Satan's at the close of Christ's thousand-year reign. We should do what we can; Jehovah will do what we cannot. Only in this way can men escape the present nightmare of disunity and attain a new world of unity and everlasting life.
Then, in that new world of Jehovah's building, our unity will match that of the heavens, that of the locusts who do not break rank, that of the many varied colors of nature, that of the countless sounds of different pitch and volume that fill stream and field, woodland and mountain. Our unity will match theirs because it will come from the same source, from Jehovah the God of unity,the Creator of the righteous new world of unity, the Inviter of unity lovers to enter it and live eternally. Will you accept his invitation? Will you live in this new world of unity, which men can only dream about, but which only Jehovah can accomplish?
This is the only guarantee for those who want a sure thing . Or you can stick with what we know is true , struggle , suffer and then die.

Ron, do you live on Kiribati? That would be reason for a possible exodus of the population too.

Ron,

If you found yourself in a burning building would you flee or pray to Jehovah to extinguish the flames? You know it's completely rational to hold a belief in God yet still live in reality.

Why Bachmann? I would rather see Condoleeza Rice as VP then president. :-) Now that lady is smart.

Plus I think that if Santorum had Bachmann then he would definitely lose the election. He needs someone who is smart and get the votes, I don't think she can. She is just a tad bit smarter than Palin IMHO.

We'll be too busy with the Inquisitions under Santorum to notice climate change anyway.

I would rather see Condoleeza Rice as VP then president. :-) Now that lady is smart

Compared to what? A turnip?

RICE??? Are you joking? She was nothing more than a Bush puppet, doing as she was told, and when to do it. She never had a news conference without FIRST getting the approval of GWB. I vote with mj-1451595. Good bye

mother nature has proven it can adapt. look at the oil eating bacteria that has helped clean up the gulf. and if climate change is ever to take hold the rich elite liberal windbags touting it will need to first reduce their own natural resource dependency. until they stop flying their personal jets from house, to winter house, to summer house and back it's all just a joke to most of us. granted a very expensive joke with all the billions in tax payer dollars they are burning in the process.

look at the oil eating bacteria that has helped clean up the gulf.

Oh yeah, look at that. You might want to canvas a few of the folks that live on the gulf about that one... or the fisherman... or the people who have gone down to look at the huge gobs of petrochemicals sitting on the bottom of the gulf.

silly al gore and his family have a carbon footprint of a small town. guess i'm waiting for him to lower his footprint to one similar to my family's. until then they're just rich elite liberal hypocrites requesting tax payer money.

sam adams, yea, and he invented the internet too right? LOL. Drink your coffee before it gets too globally hot

Actually real scientist say that it is a sham. The demonrats pray at the altar of man made global warming which has been shown to be a total sham!

onotoa,

"It is encouraging that the President is looking towards the future to protect the people and the culture."

Yea, they actually have a leader who knows what he's doing. I bet he doesn't spend all their money on vacations either.

Shhhhhhhh..... the truth and logic doesn't fit well with the fear mongers and the continual "the sky is falling climate warming" crowd.

Steven100.....you said:

Quote..... It does have to do with the shifting of the earth beneath the sea......EndQuote

That is a fascinating theory. Please provide a link so we can all learn more about it.

Here's another theory for sea level rise: Extraterrestrials are surreptitiously stopping by on their intergalactic travels and relieving themselves in our oceans.

We all know there are some (perhaps many) on the global warming denial side that are fully aware their position is fraudulent. Additionally, there is a contingent (among the deniers) that, having bought the propaganda of the first group and on account of their deep distrust of all things scientific and/or intellectual, (actually) believe our climate is not changing or that any changes are unrelated to human activities. This latter group is fairly easy to recognize. Many of them are smokers.

BTW Steven100----Who do you think deserves blame for the recent increases in gasoline prices?

Here's another theory for sea level rise: Extraterrestrials are surreptitiously stopping by on their intergalactic travels and relieving themselves in our oceans.

OMG, it fits! It also explains the warming up of the ocean! ;-)

Ummm, what the hell does this have to do with smokers? LOL are smokers to blame for all this now? Sheesh. Grow up, the crap you breath walking through a city is like smoking a pack a day. You're breathing rubber, carbon, CO, lead, methane, to just mention a few. Any construction going on around the area, add in a lot more.

You should be a politician, you like to add irrelevant matters to serious discussions.

DG12......

The same sorts of personalities denied a relationship between smoking tobacco and health consequences that now deny a relationship between C02 emissions and global warming.

Perhaps you did not live through that period. There are many parallels (within the denial communities).

The earth doesn't "heat up and cool down by itself". That is the argument of "god does it" and has no place in science. The planet heats up and cools down by a simple equation - energy in to energy out. There are many natural things that can cause this. Volcanic eruptions can cool the planet quickly from aerosols they produce or, if there is enough of them (and I mean a LOT), freeze the planet short term with aerosols that are short lived in the atmosphere and then heat it long term with CO2 which is not. Orbital cycles can heat and cool the planet and do so on a regular and predictable basis. The suns intensity can and does change over time that can lead to more or less energy being provided. Atmospheric composition can change which leads to cooling (with less greenhouse gasses or more aerosols) or warming (with more greenhouse gasses and less aerosols). Land use also can change the temperature. In ice ages there is lots of white ice that reflects energy and cools the planet. If there is lots of ocean and forests they absorb more light and warm the planet.

Changes to any and all of these things are observable. The temperatures have been observed to be rising. The only things that affect the global temperature which have been changing during that period have been:

Increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (warms the planet)

Increased aerosols in the atmosphere (cools the planet)

SLIGHTLY increased albedo from land changes (cutting down forests, building nice shiny cities) (cools the planet)

All of which are due to human activities. The other natural mechanisms have been stable or changing far to slowly to make up the observed temperature rises.

It kills me when a liberal's comment to someone they don't agree with is to just call them names. Very effective.