UN says greenhouse gas concentrations hit record levels

[Scott]

Enough on Al Gore, his political alliances and his financial situation. The OP is a press release from the UN, Geneva, and cites the World Meteorological Organization. The topic is about greenhouse gas concentrations.

Let's stick to the topic. Feel free to express your opinions and ideas in the context of the OP.

[luckizuchinni]

How can anyone say that man alone is responsible for global warming ? They can't !

The earth goes through cycles which are linked to the sun, this science is 100% fact, unlike the man made global warming theory.

The Vikings did grow grapes on Greenland 1000+ years ago

Who contends that man alone is responsible?

Yes, things are cyclic, but it is pretty clear that man is at least contributing to the effect.

Many people holler and gnash their teeth and claim that global warming is a natural occurrence, so everything is OK. This attitude puzzles me. So we accept natural disasters and hardships without attempting to alleviate the effects? We don't dam the Hwang Ho? We don't put up levies on the Mississippi? We don't bring in irrigation for dry lands so we can grow our crops?

Even if mankind is contributing, say 10% to global warming, doesn't it make sense to mitigate that 10% somewhat? Especially as what we do to combat global warming also makes the air healthier to breath, our water cleaner, our dependency on fossil fuels less.

Lowering greenhouse gasses is good for us, regardless if you think global warming is irrelevant or simply a natural occurrence.

Edited November 23, 2011 by luckizuchinni

[luckizuchinni]

"The atmospheric burden of nitrous oxide in 2010 was 323.2 parts per billion - 20 percent higher than in the pre-industrial era. It has grown at an average of about 0.75 parts per billion"

Since these readings were probably done using a modern day "mass spectrometer" how the h*ll do they know it is now 20% higher than it was in 1750 ? It is all pure and utter conjecture.

Does any one know what 0.75 parts per Billion looks like on a graph or a pie chart ? I know. you need a bleeding electron microscope to see the blip on a very flat line...assuming it is higher than in 1750 !!!!

All <deleted>...plain and simple.

You can check it by pulling samples of ice cores in Greenland or Antarctica. There are air bubbles trapped in the ice, and you can count the layers of ice to arrive at the age of that particular bubble of air.

[teatree]

Climategate 2.0 is here! 5000 new emails leaked.

Perfect timing, just before the next global warming meeting.

Exposes the secretive data manipulators for what they are.

Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

Telegraph

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/

[Jingthing]

Climategate. Clever word play. Meaningless to scientists.

[Payboy]

Does anyone remember the hole in the ozone layer that was going to bring about the end of the world. Whats happened to that then?

[Scott]

It's probably been plugged with carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and hot air being blown around on this thread!

[teatree]

Climategate. Clever word play. Meaningless to scientists.

I think you'll find that even the warmist scientists are shaking their heads at the antics of those exposed in the emails.

But if you want to cover your ears, close your eyes and stick your head in a bucket of sand then be my guest.

[koheesti]

Lowering greenhouse gasses is good for us, regardless if you think global warming is irrelevant or simply a natural occurrence.

Is anything really being lowered when the big polluters can simply pay someone (who?) for carbon credits?

[Jingthing]

Climategate. Clever word play. Meaningless to scientists.

I think you'll find that even the warmist scientists are shaking their heads at the antics of those exposed in the emails.

But if you want to cover your ears, close your eyes and stick your head in a bucket of sand then be my guest.

Warmist scientists? You mean scientists.

[luckizuchinni]

Lowering greenhouse gasses is good for us, regardless if you think global warming is irrelevant or simply a natural occurrence.

Is anything really being lowered when the big polluters can simply pay someone (who?) for carbon credits?

Carbon credits are just one method being used to attempt to get a grasp on the issue, and I am not saying that they are the best method, or even one that effective. But other methods being touted do have an impact.

Some other poster mentioned Scotland here. The Scottish are making great strides in tidal energy generation. Each and every watt generated from this means one less watt created by burning fossil fuels. Is this the answer? Well, no. Not many areas have the tidal flows which are conducive to this. But this, when joined by other means available now and means still under development, can make an impact in fewer greenhouse gases, less pollution, and less dependency on fossil fuels. All of that seems pretty good to me.

[Jingthing]

Who are we kidding? We aren't as a species going to have the will to prevent this. America is owned by the corporatist right wing who won't change. The emerging big players China, India, etc. justifiably balk at development brakes being put on their hyper-industrialization when they feel they are just catching up. Adaptation mode is the next obvious, and more realistic path. Countries like Bangladesh are screwed. So, probably, is Bangkok.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Jingthing

[luckizuchinni]

Who are we kidding? We aren't as a species going to have the will to prevent this. America is owned by the corporatist right wing who won't change. The emerging big players China, India, etc. justifiably balk at development brakes being put on their hyper-industrialization when they feel they are just catching up. Adaptation mode is the next obvious, and more realistic path. Countries like Bangladesh are screwed. So, probably, is Bangkok.

The Chinese are now the biggest polluters with regards to many different pollutants. But they are also investing heavily in green energy and some people say will take the lead in this area before too long.

At some point, it becomes economically feasible to make the move in that direction. It is already getting that way for wind power for certain areas, and even mirror-generated solar can be economically feasible. Blue diesel, while not economically feasible now, certainly has the potential to replace oil in large amounts. As energy gets more and more expensive, the corporate world is not going to ignore these and other various sources of profits.

[Jingthing]

Climategate, huh? Sounds like a well organized conspiracy to deny proven science. What is their agenda? It's surely not the truth.

Less than a week before U.N. negotiators convene in South Africa for a new round of talks aimed at forging a global climate pact, a hacker has released an apparent second round of e-mails from the University of East Anglia in Britain, seeking to portray climate scientists in a negative light.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-gate-resurfaces-with-a-new-round-of-e-mails/2011/11/22/gIQAGBcAmN_story.html

[koheesti]

America is owned by the corporatist right wing who won't change.

Right wing? Sorry to wake you up but greed isn't limited to one political orientation, religion, race, nationality, whatever.

btw - whatever happened to geothermal energy? There's an inehaustable source for that.

[RickBradford]

Gross pollution build-up is plain to see, and (maybe less evident to some) is its affect on global weather patterns.

But we're not talking about weather patterns, we're talking about climate, which involves trends over long periods of time.

And the first-hand observations from people on the ground include:

* No increase in tropical storm activity (such as that predicted by the activists)

* No change in long-term rainfall (such as that predicted by the activists)

* No temperature rise for the past 15 years (such as that predicted by the activists)

* No increase in rate of sea-level rise (such as that predicted by the activists)

I won't go on -- you happen to believe that our polluting ways are part of the problem, and that is your right and privilege. Just don't call it science, though.

[Scott]

A series of off-topic posts concerning Al Gore and responses to those posts have been removed. Posts such as these, seriously start taking the thread off-topic. Again, it's a UN press release from Geneva, that's a city in Switzerland, and it is about greenhouse gas concentrations. The issue is global in perspective. Please keep that in mind when posting.

[Jingthing]

America is owned by the corporatist right wing who won't change.

Right wing? Sorry to wake you up but greed isn't limited to one political orientation, religion, race, nationality, whatever.

Agreed, but the political bent of the ownership of the USA, the one percent, is decidedly right wing. Did you miss the word America?

[Jingthing]

Who are we kidding? We aren't as a species going to have the will to prevent this. America is owned by the corporatist right wing who won't change. The emerging big players China, India, etc. justifiably balk at development brakes being put on their hyper-industrialization when they feel they are just catching up. Adaptation mode is the next obvious, and more realistic path. Countries like Bangladesh are screwed. So, probably, is Bangkok.

I thought you had unilaterally opted out of the 'survival of the species', one can't participate, if one doesn't procreate.

That is a very idiotic statement, but still deserves a response. I suppose there are lots of dim folks who think homosexuals (some who do have ways to have children of course), childless heterosexuals, and those who make a free will choice not to have children by definition don't care about the future of the human species or our home -- earth. Thoughtful people, people who know any history, understand how absurd that assumption is. Speaking as a seeding activist of the first Earth Day.

[Ulysses G.]

Agreed, but the political bent of the ownership of the USA, the one percent, is decidedly right wing.

Huh? You seem to have forgotten all the rock stars, writers, movie stars, union officials, business owners and many others who are filthy rich and vote for democrats.

[Jingthing]

Agreed, but the political bent of the ownership of the USA, the one percent, is decidedly right wing.

Huh? You seem to have forgotten all the rock stars, writers, movie stars, union officials, business owners and many others who are filthy rich and vote for democrats.

There are always exceptions but seriously, the democratic party is corporatist as well.

[bonobo]

Once again, let's stay off US politics and keep on topic.

[Steely Dan]

Climategate. Clever word play. Meaningless to scientists.

I think you'll find that even the warmist scientists are shaking their heads at the antics of those exposed in the emails.

But if you want to cover your ears, close your eyes and stick your head in a bucket of sand then be my guest.

Warmist scientists? You mean scientists.

You should really look up what a Venn diagram is, not all scientists believe mankind is a significant contributor to climate change, however many are silenced by being denied media coverage or threatened to have funding removed by those who control it for political ends. Many of the great scientific advances of the last century have been due to religion and politics being prevented from interfering in science, in the field of climate change this is sadly no longer so, but the warmist agenda is beginning to unravel.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8901365/The-BBCs-hidden-warmist-agenda-is-rapidly-unravelling.html

Last week, even Richard Black, another BBC proselytiser for man-made warming, was gloomily having to reveal the conclusion of a new IPCC report: that, over the next few decades, “climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variabilty”. In plain English, that means the great scare story is over. What a shame. But at what a price.

So if you insist on using the word 'consensus' kindly remember to use quotation marks.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Steely Dan

[maidu]

People can convince themselves to believe or not believe whatever suits them. People also change opinions on things faster than a flag flipping in the wind. I've heard and seen plenty enough of on-the-scene reports by scientists and laymen - to convince me that the world is warming. The indications are most revealing near the poles and at higher elevations elsewhere, and mostly indicate ice which is melting/calving and not being replaced. I have yet to see or hear about any hard science or on-the-scene observations that refutes such data.

[RickBradford]

I have yet to see or hear about any hard science or on-the-scene observations that refutes such data.

and

People can convince themselves to believe or not believe whatever suits them.

I think you just answered your own question.

There is plenty of hard science and observations out there which do not support the notion of catastrophic man-made global warming -- you simply have to look. I'll spot you a starter one here

There is also plenty of evidence -- often written by the perps themselves, that the climate science 'community' were far less sure of their results than they claimed, and that they pulled every string in the book to ensure that their alarmist party line was the only one that made it as far as the mainstream media and government departments. They did this to protect their research funding and their egos.

The consummate fraud that is climate 'science' is bad for everyone, because it damages our faith in all science, most of which is carried out a lot more ethically than climate studies and is much more useful

------

EDIT: This is an interesting one. Michael 'Stick' Mann and some of his cronies don't like the skeptical attitude adopted by an NZ scientist called Chris de Freitas.

So they cook up an e-mail for all of them to send to the head of his university, trying to get him sacked for being biased and unprofessional. A hatchet job. Read it and vomit.

http://newzealandcli...nto-de-freitas/

Edited November 26, 2011 by RickBradford

[Ulysses G.]

I've heard and seen plenty enough of on-the-scene reports by scientists and laymen - to convince me that the world is warming.

Almost no one disputes this. The controversy is about whether it is a natural weather cycle or mostly caused by human activities. Personally, I am just not sure.

[Steely Dan]

This is an interesting one. Michael 'Stick' Mann and some of his cronies don't like the skeptical attitude adopted by an NZ scientist called Chris de Freitas.

So they cook up an e-mail for all of them to send to the head of his university, trying to get him sacked for being biased and unprofessional. A hatchet job. Read it and vomit.

http://newzealandcli...nto-de-freitas/

As I stated before a new climate change McCarthyism, just one of a few anti-free speech groups knocking around these days.

[koheesti]

------

EDIT: This is an interesting one. Michael 'Stick' Mann and some of his cronies don't like the skeptical attitude adopted by an NZ scientist called Chris de Freitas.

So they cook up an e-mail for all of them to send to the head of his university, trying to get him sacked for being biased and unprofessional. A hatchet job. Read it and vomit.

http://newzealandcli...nto-de-freitas/

Those guys are evil and sick. None deserve to keep their jobs. Regardless of your position on the issue, you have to agree that the way they plot to go after this guy and get him fired for publishing an opposing view is just plain wrong.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Scott
formatting

[koheesti]

I've heard and seen plenty enough of on-the-scene reports by scientists and laymen - to convince me that the world is warming.

Almost no one disputes this. The controversy is about whether it is a natural weather cycle or mostly caused by human activities. Personally, I am just not sure.

The people who have politicised the issue for monetary gain should be shot for crimes against humanity. Greenhouse gases? Climate Change? Global Warming? Carbon Credits? Polar bears floating away on a tiny piece of ice? Rising sea levels? Sensationalist distractions from the fact that we should simply do more to cut back on pollution just for the sake of having clean air. You go to many big cities and you don't need some scientist to tell you the air stinks.

I remember ten years ago when I moved to Washington DC (hardly an over-populated, industrialized 3rd world city) and I was watching the weather report on TV. They started talking about the next day being a "Code Red Day" and that children should be kept inside as much as possible. <deleted>? The next day, I walked the 12 minutes to work as usual, no problem. But walking home after work I learned what a Code Red Day was - horribly polluted air. Gag. Members of Congress should be forced to walk instead of riding around in their air-con limos on these days then something might actually be done about it.

http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2006/code-red-air-quality-days-in-washington-dc-reinforces-need-for-protections-against-harmful-air-pollution

[Jingthing]

The people who have politicised the issue for monetary gain should be shot for crimes against humanity.

OMG! The unmitigated GALL to suggest the politicization is only coming from one side.

A link I found off that excellent earthjustice site you so kindly provided:

http://earthjustice.org/blog/2011-august/friday-finds-spongebob-s-global-warming-conspiracy

Fox personality Gretchen Carlson and others chastise the cartoon for looking at only “one point of view”—that is, humans are the primary cause of global warming by releasing millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air. Though this view is held by 97 percent of climate scientists, the browbeating does make for a nice segue into FOX’s other favorite past time—criticizing publicly funded agencies like the Department of Education for pushing anti-American agendas like global warming.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Jingthing