That Can't Be!!!

Under the category of: OOPS! Never mind.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.ht

Permalink
tags: + add tags
savecancel
posted on Thu, Dec 31, 2009 09:22 AM
CommentsRSS Feed
Want to leave a comment? Log In to your account
Can that be? byRightof Left7 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090128104533.ht

Under that category of hide the children in the cellar we are hosed.
Not sure I am following you. byChicken Dena7 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
Did you not mean to post this? Or are you trying to "prove" that global warming is a myth? Knowing how you, Ed, seem to often post that it's all a big hoax to make Al Gore rich... I am thinking it's the latter of the two.

Perhaps I read it wrong but other sources from the same site seem to be saying that the ocean's acidification (which this article seems to suggest is being increased by man's activity)is a pretty big deal. This article says that the atmospheric contributions are not what they were thought because the ocean has basically been soaking it up for us but that it's threshold is reaching capacity.

two of many articles relating the negative impacts of ocean acidification:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090813163158.ht
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090915101359.ht

Not sure how this supports your whole Al Gore hater theory.

Important Caveat-
I am not exactly an Al Gore supporter but it is naïve and ignorant think that man's impact on the environment is not negative.
RE: Not sure I am following you. byLiberal Doses7 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse)
Chicken,

To disagree with a premise is not hate.

Peace
Be that can? byRightof Left7 months ago (1 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060412204831.ht

We will all starve or eat a lot of meat
The Point is . . . byAlphaBeagle7 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The jury is still out. Chicken Dena, the only "facts" to date are that Al Gore and others ARE getting rich off "climate change", and as they do so, they tell YOU that you must live more poorly, through buying less, using less, and basically, living less. If you want to "buy" this crap, go ahead. Until I see Al Gore backing up what he's saying with something besides a perverse scheme to "buy the right to pollute" through carbon points, I have to conclude that the only "green" he's really concerned with is money.
P.S. - Having looked at this site, I can only conclude that there are a plethora of articles pro and con. For one side of the argument concerning a particular issue regarding climate change, there is another article on that same issue arguing the opposite side. Like I said, THE JURY IS STILL OUT.
RE: The Point is . . . byChicken Dena7 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse)
I'm guessing you did not read the caveat. Or is it that you just don't understand it?
Chicken Dena byAlphaBeagle7 months ago (4 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
I did read and understand it, and disagree with the last part of it. I noticed you posted before I went back and added my "P.S." - Please read it to see WHY I disagree with your last part.
RE: Chicken Dena byChicken Dena7 months ago (5 votes) (report abuse)
I guess believe what you want. Maybe it will be nice to harvest precooked/cured fish from the oceans!
OOPS, Never mind. byEd.7 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse) (reply)
The articles on this site cover a plethora of scientific reports that seem to promote global warming. The latest, the one I cited, appears to negate them. It reminded me of a Gilda Radner SNL skit.

Interesting that this report says that, no matter how much industrial or human activity, the amount of residual CO2 in the atmosphere has remained constant. All the acidification studies say it should rise, but it hasn't. The 2006 study says plant life will not be able to absorb it, but it has. It's almost as if the earth was created to maintain that balance, no matter what activity is taking place. I wonder how that could be.

If there has been no GW since 1998, and what we did up until then was able to stop it, wouldn't we have to say that continued efforts would reverse it and then we would be fighting global cooling?

At what point would we have to say it's time to start GW again?

What is the big advantage to keeping the climate from changing?

If we stop it from changing in the US, will that cause it to change more in India?



HAPPY NEW YEAR!
RE: OOPS, Never mind. byAlphaBeagle6 months ago (0 votes) (report abuse)
All good questions, Ed - worthy of further scientific investigation as well.
RE: OOPS, Never mind. by6guns6 months ago (3 votes) (report abuse)
Went to a seminar so I could get smart, well I keep trying. So, one thing got my attention - the desert is now absorbing CO2. Well now, I thought that was a pretty cool thing on such a hot topic.

I eat beef, drink beer and I eat shellfish and cook lobsters from the Great Georges Bank. I drive an SUV and I emit greenhouse gasses because if I don't I might cramp up and die. So, I concluded long ago that gas emissions save lives.

You all may want to pay attention to the City Commission because the Mayors Proclamation for Climate Change will be proposing new ordinances that will further limit your freedom.