So you say there's no GW, how do you splurge energy?

 

Perhaps you love to go SUVing, or go out in your cigarette boat, or
you have more lights around your house than a top security prison, or
perhaps you go around bullying cyclists or simply you vote for the
candidate that says GW is anti-American propaganda.

I don't say that you give a shit about GW because then it may
fertilize a beautiful flower; you are actually doing all you can to
fuck up the planet. Please say your humble contribution to GW.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The money jungle is as different from the monkey jungle as night and
day"

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

 



"TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle"

You are a retard, and not a single one of your POASTS makes sense.

Retard!

 

"Is GW real or are the Polar Bears disappearing into thin air?"

Most of you can't ignore that Global Warming and endangered species
are related, but not so clearly laid bear.

I'm pretty sure we can have good signs of things to come with this...

(I quote)

Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat
that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last
summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of
Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined—a shrinkage that
was not predicted to happen until 2040.

...

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
decision.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/

***

HOW MUCH LONGER CAN YOU IGNORE THE SIGNS?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

 

TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:


1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
the above.

  And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
stretch, if at all).
  Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).

  Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
by most proponents of AGW's existence.

  I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.

 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

Don Klipstein wrote:

<snip>

   Of course, the problem is just where those populations are declining
and advancing.

The trouble here is that all evidence is for acceleration,  not a
decline. Last year was tied for the warmest in recent history and in the
southern hemisphere, dramatically the warmest ever.


   Of the above, only methane is significant. The trouble with CO2 is
the persistence, in the order of centuries. Although it seems almost
counter intuitive, methane is reabsorbed much much faster. It also is a
much smaller fraction and the levels are relatively stable. Most of the
CO2 we are pumping in ever increasing quantities will be there for a
very very long time.

   The CO2 levels due to anthropogenic causes is 1/3 more than what it
would have been. It is impossible for that not to cause climate change,
the root physics are simple although climate interactions are complex.

   The leading scientific deniers only argue that the interaction is
complex (which it is) and there must be some counter balancing actions.
Although they have little to no evidence of that.

   The leading non scientific deniers argue that mother nature on her
own, such as volcanoes, can wrack much more severe climate change. The
trouble there is that all those changes are cyclic. In the meantime
there is an inexorable rise in CO2 which is not only not declining but
not going away.

   The leading political deniers argue that we've been having very cold
weather and a little warming would be good. The problem here is they
make no distinction between climate and weather.

   What happens elsewhere in the globe has a profound effect here. Look
at how Pacific Ocean interactions (el Nino) have such a profound effect
throughout the US.

   Now, clearly what is happening at the poles due to global warming is
more dramatic than elsewhere. How can that not affect virtually every
other climate component? Ocean currents flow through wide circles and
what happens near the poles certainly is a major component.

  It would be better if we didn't have some global warming proponents
making easy targets of themselves. It detracts from the reality and
gives the lunatic fringe faith that everything will just be alright. It
feeds into their dominant argument which is that of personal attack.

   What man does has a lasting effect on climate. The growing evidence
is that this will be much more bad, than good. Whatever that increase
will be.

   Jeff