By the oxidative action of sunlight, moisture, and atmospheric oxygen on gaseous sulfides emitted by land-based anaerobic bacteria and ocean micro-organisms.How did the sulfur oxides get into the stratosphere?
Or how are we to avoid losing a zero-sum game:Oxy said:Puts this in perspective a bit <snip> there are now an estimated 100,000 ships on the seas, and the fleet is growing fast.
The figure you copy/paste says:
That's a bold unsubstantiated claim.
It's still getting warmer though, just not quite as fast as they thought, at least right now.
I love Potholer's videos, I started subscribing to him a couple of years ago when he first invented the magnificent Golden Crocoduck award. It's the likes of him that make youtube worth visiting.
Internationally, thousands of underground coal fires are burning on every continent except Antarctica. Anupma Prakash, a University of Alaska at Fairbanks geologist who maps the fires, calls them "a worldwide catastrophe with no geographic territory, and if we don't take care of them they're going to take a toll on us." The problem is most acute in industrializing, coal-rich nations such as China, where underground fires are consuming at least 10 million tons of coal annually — and some estimates multiply that amount twentyfold. In India, 68 fires are burning beneath a 58-square-mile region of the Jhairia coalfield near Dhanbad, showering residents in airborne toxins. "Go there and within 24 hours you're spitting out mucous with coal particles," Prakash says. "It's bad, worse than any city, anywhere."
Internationally, thousands of underground coal fires are burning on every continent except Antarctica. Anupma Prakash, a University of Alaska at Fairbanks geologist who maps the fires, calls them "a worldwide catastrophe with no geographic territory, and if we don't take care of them they're going to take a toll on us." The problem is most acute in industrializing, coal-rich nations such as China, where underground fires are consuming at least 10 million tons of coal annually — and some estimates multiply that amount twentyfold. In India, 68 fires are burning beneath a 58-square-mile region of the Jhairia coalfield near Dhanbad, showering residents in airborne toxins. "Go there and within 24 hours you're spitting out mucous with coal particles," Prakash says. "It's bad, worse than any city, anywhere."
Please watch this video at 1:06:40 as it debunks the statement: '(even though scientific consensus is around 97%!!!)'. I didn't know science was ruled by consensus- interesting."The global warmists used to say humans were causing global warming. But they have re-engineered their wording. Now they say humans “contribute” to “climate change.”"
If I'm not mistaken, the fact that we've only recently begun to use the phrase 'global warming' until recently has been well and truly debunked, by Mick (I think), who linked to its use in the 1970s.
However, it's not a surprise that so many people are still in climate change denial (even though scientific consensus is around 97%!!!) when so much money has been pumped into it by the likes of Koch and Big Oil.
http://www.livescience.com/26618-climate-change-denial-koch-donors-trust.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc160213.htm
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545
Actually, Oxymoron, I'm surprised you're not bothered by all the secretive funding of climate denial by major industrial contributors to the problem. This IS a conspiracy!
I didn't know science was ruled by consensus- interesting.
Please watch this video at 1:06:40 as it debunks the statement: '(even though scientific consensus is around 97%!!!)'. I didn't know science was ruled by consensus- interesting.
I didn't know science was ruled by consensus- interesting.
Yes they do. It doesn't prevent decay - it limits it. It's a chemistry thing.Like 9 out of 10 dentists agree that 'fluoride' prevents tooth decay?
Yes. It was a having to discover first what the hell it is you're observing, and having to create a whole new set of concepts and vocabulary for it kind of thing.Like it took the medical profession 200 years to finally admit that scurvy was due to a simple vitamin deficiency?
I suggest you read these two bits discussing the hockey stick. The warming we have been experiencing is still unprecedented.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
'... the strongest warming trend in 500 years'. Was the previous one caused by human activity? Or were there other causes?I suggest you read these two bits discussing the hockey stick. The warming we have been experiencing is still unprecedented.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Like it took the medical profession 200 years to finally admit that scurvy was due to a simple vitamin deficiency?
'... the strongest warming trend in 500 years'. Was the previous one caused by human activity? Or were there other causes?
Human activity always has a heating effect on the planet. Especially when it puts back CO2 into the atmosphere a million times faster than it was taken out.Was the previous one caused by human activity?
As I have said - volcanic. There are earth orbital and axial variations called the Milankovitch Cycle which precipitate ice ages (and take us out again) but snowball events depend on plant and volcanic activity, and TIME.Or were there other causes?
It looks like, according to this pie chart, that we must destroy water vapour as soon as possible, neutralize the oceans (destroy them), plug all the volcanos, make sure there are no plants and animals left to live and then die and decay. And then we'll be fine with just HUMANS (horaay!) left. ( Human activity being the least harmful- in case you don't get it).The Gish had galloped before the stable door had been closed.
CO2 added to earth's atmosphere makes it warmer. It's a logarithmic function, in that each increment has slightly less warming effect, but the fact is that we're DOUBLING the CO2 added to our atmosphere every 32 years, simply due to the fact we are doubling our demand for energy at the same rate. The increase has been logged continuously since the mid-fifties. There hasn't been an equivalent increase in the Sun's energy, in fact clean air acts have actually allowed a greater insolation in the last decade, while there has been no apparent heating. But while there has been no apparent heating, icecap ice everywhere has accelerated its melting. If you haven't blinkered yourself you can see the earth is heating up.
Ice ages occur, in the absence of other influences, when the earth's leisurely Malenkovich orbital cycles reduce solar insolation to its minimum. But there are other influences, both continental drift and vulcanism having been profoundly powerful in the past, breaking the cycles.
Forty years ago there were 35 papers predicting global warming and six predicting an ice age. They were all correct. The global warming is happening right now, and the next Ice Age would have been going to arrive 17,800 years from now had we not lit the coal fires.
Carbon isotope studies confirm a rising proportion of burnt fossil fuel carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere.
Our ancestors had NO control over the earth's weather. We do. We aren't cleverer (what made you believe that? Do you think we're evolving more intelligence?), but some of us are clever enough to know what has to be done. We must
STOP BURNING FOSSIL CARBON.
Are we clever enough to do that, d'you think?
It looks like, according to this pie chart
Sorry, try this...
Dr. Paul Connett doesn't think so, check this at 38.00.Yes they do. It doesn't prevent decay - it limits it. It's a chemistry thing.
Yes. It was a having to discover first what the hell it is you're observing, and having to create a whole new set of concepts and vocabulary for it kind of thing.
Harder.
Dr. Paul Connett doesn't think so...
I don't know anything about 'Open Your Eyes News', it's just a chart that corresponded with literature I had read many years ago about 'greenhouse gasses'.