LJWorld.com

rtwngr (Anonymous) says…

Well I guess the sky isn't falling, eh, Henny Penny?

Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…

While the sky isn't falling, it is worth noting that this explanation is plausible for Greenland, but not the sea ice that covers the arctic as a whole. The rapid decrease of sea ice is most easily explained as a manifestation of climate change.

stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says…

yeah… so, let's just keep spewing billions of tons of crap into our air and burning fuels that we have to kill people to get…
yeah… the sky isn't falling so let's just keep the status quo because things are going so swimmingly…

indeed…

on the other hand… if these guys are right it's not good news at all… not much anyone can do about all that earth's weak crust… magma stuff…

but at least we can keep drivin' our Hummers!

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

Give that man a carbon credit!

MacHeath (Anonymous) says…

sounds like yet another “inconvenient truth”.
Seems like I remember hearing that if the
ocean currents are slowed and cooled, that
will ulitmately cause another ice age?

compmd (Anonymous) says…

Before you all start pointing fingers, you should remember how to perform a science experiment. This isn't the end of an experiment, no conclusion has been drawn. This is the beginning of an experiment, with only a hypothesis formulated. The researchers have found just *one* item of interest they have discovered in *one* location, and now they are looking to find more of that item of interest.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

And even if it turns out that there are geophysical factors involved in melting the Greenland glaciers, it would only mean that there is an additional factor to worry about. Global warming is still a problem, and one we have a chance to do something about, which becomes even more important as we identify problems about which we can do nothing.

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

Another “ice age” is not evidence against global warming. Global warming is a term used to describe the destabilization of the atmosphere caused the the injection of man made emissions.

It is not to be solely read as “getting hotter.” To do so is the equivilent of questioning the lack of feathers on people identified as Jayhawks.

scootterxlch (Anonymous) says…

global warming is a crock
air gets warm
warm air holds more moisture
moisture makes clouds
clouds shield gases
rinse repeat.
ugh
their are temp variations
the planet is not a constant
Kansas was under water at one time for petes sake.
We should be more enviornmentaly firneldy because being a good steward is smart. But we are not facing impending doom ugh I amtired of the bad science and fools logic

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

We're all gonna die….

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“I amtired of the bad science and fools logic”

You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the a**.

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

In newspeak, “global warming” refers to any condition that can be used to frighten people.

Mkh (Anonymous) says…

This is a fascinating scientific find. The evidence of natural causes to Global Warming are more common than the media and most Americans admit. Frankly I'm tired of the blatant propaganda put out there claiming that the debate is concluded and Co2 is going to end the world. It's just not that simple. We have to look at the increased solar activity that is causing the entire solar system to heat.

Also we have to take in to account the natural reactions of the Ocean. I watched a lecture with a well known ecologist who has studied Global Warming, and he explained that the computer model Gore and others use to show Co2 causes is flawed because it shows Co2 rising temperature instead of temperature rising Co2, which he belives is how nature actually operates. The Oceans have something like 40 times more Co2 than the air and as the Earth naturally heats itself through the organic process it causes massive amounts of Co2 to be released from the Oceans into the air. Therefore the hotter it gets, the more Co2 gets put into the air. This would explain why the Co2 levels were far higher thousands of years ago during the last great heating period.

I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me that the scientific debate is far from being over, despite what the media and politicians would have you believe. Does this mean that adding extensive man made pollutants to the air is good? NO! Of course not, but conservation and stewardship of the environment is important regardless of what is heating the Earth. Even the UN now admits that if greenhouses gases were “solved”, the Earth would continue to heat. So why should we give Hillary billions of tax dollars to “stop Global Warming” when we know that the Government can't and won't protect the Environment, let alone stop the Earth from heating?

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

Well said, Mkh.

Now, the calls to 'shun the unbeliever' will begin…

Jayhawker1 (Anonymous) says…

Gore needs to give the Prize back…he's a fraud!

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

Looks like Mkh is putting the horse before the cart: I think I'm getting a cold because of my runny nose. How much sense does that make? Yeah, there is CO2 in the oceans, that's how all of that flint in the Flint Hills was formed. But I would bet that if it is true that the oceans release more CO2 when it warms, then the earth, unaltered, had systems to balance that out (forests, grasslands, etc.). Now that we are belching CO2 into the atmosphere and destroying the earth's mechanisms for dealing with it, I wonder how much sense it makes to blame the ocean for rising CO2 levels as a result of this unexplained warming that is occurring.

And Scooterxlch a few posts back needs a science lesson. The coast of Peru and Chile are some of the driest places on the planet—and hottest, too. And right next to the ocean. I'm betting that air is pretty warm. By the way, cloud cover actually traps heat in. That's why it gets so cold there at night. And yes Kansas WAS once underwater, but that was long before the Rocky Mountains uplifted (and a host of other processes). Also, I'm not totally sure, but I don't seem to recall ever reading anything about polar ice at that point in the earth's history. That means that not only was the entire mid-continent at a lower elevation that at present, but sea levels were also much higher.

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

Better start making your preparations for teotwawki
Game over man.

Das_Ubermime (Anonymous) says…

RedwoodCoast,

You have been more correct than anyone else so far, but you missed the ball on chert (flint, same thing). Chert is made of silicon compounds while it is the limestone which is composed of calcium carbonate.

During the period of time when Kansas was under the sea, there was likely not any polar ice in the Triassic and Cretaceous, but extensive glaciation in the Permian and Carboniferous (though perhaps not as much as today). Basically, Kansas was underwater because it was less elevated.

As for the oceans as a carbon source, that a) assumes that the oceans have reached their limit for CO2 absorption and b) assumes that the relatively tiny change in the global surface water temperature has yielded more than humans account for… which is a big assumption.