"And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..” "

Ahhhhhhhhhh....correct me if I'm wrong,but is not the polar icecap ALL on the Arctic Ocean? So when did tundra start growing hydroponically? Maybe the Goracle/Fruitfly can explain that Gaia miracle to me!?

I think he's referring to the frozen deep soil, the permafrost zone, of the Arctic. When/if it unfreezes, it will release its stored carbon. As gas.

What Gore ignores, because he seems ignorant of the nature of a biological system, is that this unfreezing of the deep soil and the release of carbon will unleash - not global warming - but a massive increase in the plant and animal life that makes use of this carbon.

At the moment, because of the low carbon availability in these areas, the number of plant and animal species is very low. Release that vital carbon requirement and the tundra, which is now akin to a desert, will explose with new life and will make extensive use of carbon.

I believe Waxman is being mis-quoted: what he is actually saying is that his head is over-heating and as a result, his hair is evaporating away (even more) and leaving behind a barren tundra landscape.

And that is just on the outside, on the inside it has been barren for quite some time. What exactly is causing this overheating in Waxman's head is unknown, but some surmise that it is directly attributable to being in such perpetual close proximity to a large heat source. Two possibilities for this heat source are:
1) Al Gore's mouth
2) Waxman's own azz

but being that the two are so close in shape, size, smell, etc it is hard to be sure.

Meanwhile as bylined in the National Post, "Cold weather freezes out Edmonton Earth Day organizers" (for the second year in a row).

Any bets on when some media ninny is going to link swine flu, global warming, and the oilsands?

I'll bet the first two have already been linked.

I can't imagine the level of ignorance of those topics you'd have to have to make that sentence.

The thing about Al Gore and people like him, is that they are working from a mechanical model.

A mechanical model, which pertains only to machines, i.e., man-made things, is a 'steady-state model'. Things are made and are supposed to be kept and maintained by a Higher Power in that steady-state. If they change from that steady-state, they are becoming weak and require repairs. Or flinging on the trash.

But life, which is made up of physical, chemical and biological processes, is not mechanical. It doesn't operate in a steady-state but in an interactive, organic, adaptive and evolving network. There's no such thing as a steady-state outside of a machine. In nature, a release of one chemical will rapidly get taken up by another system. This may be beneficial or harmful in the short term but in the long run, the WHOLE system adapts constructively. It will develop immunities to the parts that are harmful..etc.

We see how, when a patch of forest is laid bare, almost immediately, from 'nowhere', new forms of life appear in that bare area. We call them weeds; whatever...they make use of that new area. The same with a water flow...new plants and animals will move in to make use of that water. The same with a chemical..which plants require. The new plant life in the Arctic will be impressive - and the birds and mammals that feed on these plants - will be equally expanded and impressive.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste", an allegedly wise man once said, so here goes:

I believe the about-to-become-pandemic of swine flu is man-made, by laboratories in the hire of the "New World Order", funded by George Soros et al, and shilled by Barack Obama, et al(Gore).

So far, the msm has kept it quiet, but I have it on good authority that the flu has only affected Republicans and other Conservatives.

The influenza virus, modified in the underground labs at Roswell, New Mexico, have been genetically altered to kill Right Wingers, while making Left Wingers only mildly ill.

The NWO, which includes the powerful "Earth Firsters", has long planned an epidemic to reduce the world's population by 75%, and they've finally hit the jackpot, with the swine flu.

The proof, I believe, is in the oft repeated LW epithet, "Republican Swine", and now they've named their masterpiece "swine flu"! It does display a sense of humour many of us thought the Left incapable of, but evil genius sometimes surprises.

There have been reports of "chemtrails" seen over every single area where the SF has struck! It's NO COINCIDENCE.

Remember, the Air Fleet is now in the hands of Obama and Soros!

Let's see if this will spread around the internet as quickly as the "9-11 Truth". ;-)

That's why they call him the "Senator from Circus-Circus" you know. Because he's a freakin' clown.

ET...you and I know what the tundra is.Myself,lived 6 years in and around it.BUT...the eco-cultists will play on the ignorance of the sheeple,who will believe that melting ice in/on the Arctic Ocean,will melt/vapourize tundra.Ummmmmm....maybe they can shift all that melting permafrost south to Death Valley to turn it into a garden of Eden???

Porcine "flu" link to AGW as provided by Goreacle, aka manbearpig.
...-

"Is the Recent Outbreak of Swine Flu Caused by Global Warming?

This outbreak is predicted to become a pandemic. Did this happen because of global warming?

Could we have stopped this if we just cared about our planet just a little more?

* 2 days ago"
urlm.in/ceji

Forget about the tundra - just keep those pictures of the polar bears floating on the lone piece of ice coming - they are great for business!

Signed, the environmental movement

Th North Pole, March 1959, twenty years before they started satellite measurements that are used to "prove" the ice is now melting and we are gonna die.

http://tinyurl.com/cxgxrk

Ice so thick you can pour it.

He's referring to a theory called "post-glacial rebound" that says the earth will expand as the polar ice caps melt away. It remains a theory because no one is sure what the effects will be, but rebound is an understood principle in physics, geology and engineering.

Essentially it says that if you remove a weight from a mass of earth, the ground beneath will rise up. It's well understood in mining (especially the open-pit variety) and cave-ins are often associated with rebound.

I suspect that Mr. Waxman's understanding of the phenomenon isn't that deep, as he's a lawyer by training rather than a practitioner of the physical sciences. However, one of the overlooked effects of the theory (if it proved correct) would be an overall rise in land elevation, which would probably mitigate any rise in sea elevations.

dmorris wrote: believe the about-to-become-pandemic of swine flu is man-made, by laboratories in the hire of the "New World Order", funded by George Soros et al, and shilled by Barack Obama, et al(Gore).

Clearly the beginning of a cover-up by the Communist Jewish Islamist Fascist Vatican Big-Pharma Talk-Radio Conspiracy!

Good analogy of the tundra 'ET' but I like 'Frenchie77' analogy better.

Show you the math? I'll bet you think the moon landing was filmed at an Arizona back lot.

"He's referring to a theory called "post-glacial rebound"

It is actually called "Isostatic Rebound / Eustatic Adjustment".

It is quite well understood in Geomorphology. No surprises, old news. For example it explains why the Ottawa Valley has numerous small earthquakes and there is solid evidence of old salt water beaches in the Gatineau Hills north of Parliament Hill - it is not difficult to find sea shell pieces around Pink's Lake.

Anyone who can't see the truth of AGW is willfully ignorant. It is obvious that the entire agenda is to tax citizens to increase the government’s spending power and influence. As I said last week, we can take a bit of solace knowing that our own politicians are hip to the scam, and are intent on harvesting the fruits of AGW for themselves; instead of sending the money abroad as the envioro-tards and the UN would wish.

The down side is this money will be used to promote a socialist agenda. This could be the end of the free-market as we've known it in the US. We are embarking on a future where the government pays the corporation to manufacture the products the government dictates. Unfortunately, the business environment will be so oppressive that smaller private companies will not be able to produce products that people demand or that compete with the government backed mega-corporations.

The irony IMO, is all the leftards that seem determined to give more power, and their own money to "BIG CORPERATIONS" and their elites.

BTW, what Phantom said also.

Countdown. How long until one of the doom meisters comes up with the melting icecaps will upset the balance of earth? Yep when that ice melts the rotation of the earth will be skewed and we will wobble off into deep space and die.

oops

I meant what Phantom said on the other thread.

It is obvious that the entire agenda is to tax citizens to increase the government’s spending power and influence.


I think it's much more than that, Indiana. CO2 is a harmless byproduct of fossil fuel, and it's fossil fuel that seems to be the target of this scam. The war on fossil fuel has been raging for a long time, and the technology behind the burning of fossil fuel has continued to advance and make it cleaner and cleaner. So now they've found a way to claim that the cleanest byproduct of burning fossil fuels is actually a serious pollutant. The tax is simply a means for them to make fossil fuels so unaffordable that nobody will use it any more.

If Al Gore can claim that Love Story was written about him and Tipper, I wonder if Waxman thinks that the movie Penelope is a gender bending story of his life?

And with this level of intellect shall the US replace the carbon-based electrical generation with wind and solar.

Waxman has done the math, and believes he can make water flow uphill, by Democratic Fiat.

All he has to do is pass a law, and new efficiencies will be found that will make solar viable.

Nevermind that anybody who managed to do this already would be a zillionaire many times over.

Our 'professional' journalists let them get away with this snake oil sales.

Guess what is not needed when the economy really tanks? Newspapers and television. Really smart move there...

Look, cut Waxman some slack. He had just come out of an extensive briefing on climate change from algore.

I'm surprised he wasn't walking around with a terror-moistened gusset, and speaking in tongues about the Rising Of The Waters and the impending carbon-fuelled extinction of the South Rhode Island Black-Eyed Bandersnatch. Now that, you know, global warming has already cost us the Loch Ness Monster and is fixing to have Ted Turner show up on your doorstep with a knife and fork and a hungry gleam in his eye.

>> Meanwhile as bylined in the National Post, "Cold weather freezes out Edmonton Earth Day organizers" (for the second year in a row).

According to the Edmonton Sun, it's been postponed for a couple of months. I guess Lenin's birthday is an inauspicious date to schedule such an event.

Pete

I respectfully disagree. It is my opinion that the fossil fuel haters /envioro-tards are only "useful idiots" in the equation. The idiots have had their agenda hijacked by what is too many entities to count. Fossil fuels, CO2, AGW ect. are the guise being used to institute socialism by stealth, and by another name. There is no alternative to fossil fuels, and there isn't one on the horizon(this is know by all except for the useful idiots). What is on the horizon is a constant demand for a product which will become much more expensive, but still remains a necessity. Originally Kyoto was a mechanism to transfer wealth from wealthy countries that have high energy demands because of climate and other factors, to countries that don't have the same demands or wealth. As I stated earlier, the transfer will remain, but it will be within our borders. It will be a transfer from west to east in Canada, from Red state to Blue state in the US, and from private companies/citizens to public companies.

To paraphrase, I agree that the goal is to make fossil fuels extremely expensive, but where you steer wrong is it has never been the intent for people to stop using these fuels. Our Carbon taxing friends are depending on the revenues from Carbon taxes.

Need proof? Ask yourself why those that are adamant about combating AGW are also adamant about bailing out the Carbon spewing auto sector? JMO

OK, so Waxman is misinformed on the actual mechanics of global warming and thus should keep his trap shut. No doubt about that. However you denialist lot jump on his ignorance to expound your own global warming debunking nonsense such as the following 'bring it on' take on global warming by ET

"..., is that this unfreezing of the deep soil and the release of carbon will unleash - not global warming - but a massive increase in the plant and animal life that makes use of this carbon."--ET So ET implies all will be well because the tundra will turn into another carbon sink like the Amazon. Good grief. Stupidity reigns here. ET, what planet are you from? Phone home and have somebody take you away.

As for the ill informed comments about the upward expanding of the surface when the ice caps melts, that only pertains to the land under the massively thick icecaps in Greenland and Antartica and any of the islands in the Artic that have a very thick ice cap.

Herringchoker(must be a fellow New Brunswicker) made this equally stunning stupid comment:
" However, one of the overlooked effects of the theory - post-glacial rebound - (if it proved correct) would be an overall rise in land elevation, which would probably mitigate any rise in sea elevations.

Well herringchoker, That land under the ice caps may rise but your beach front property(if you have one) will not. Please give your head a shake.

It is also a sad state of affairs that you SDA'ers and others have reduced the global warming discussions to a Right vs The Left bashing.

It's not a leftist plot, It's a real scientific issue and I predict that within 5 years, you will all have to eat crow for being so wrong.

It appears that incompetence and profound ignorance are requirements to be in the Obama administration.

Canuckguy says "It's not a leftist plot, It's a real scientific issue and I predict that within 5 years, you will all have to eat crow for being so wrong."

A scientific issue? Well not anymore. The stench of politics has overpowered the science by a huge margin. Actually, it IS a leftist plot. As for your prediction, I predict that it is about as valid as those made by Hansen a number of years ago.

Waxman: keep an eye on him, he's not done yet.

...this ought to be good!

At least he's not a crook....

Canukguy...simple test for you...put 6 ounces of H20 into a 8 oz glass.Now add 4 ice cubes.Let the ice cubes melt.Does the cup overflow??? Try it,and get back to us.

"It's a real scientific issue and I predict that within 5 years, you will all have to eat crow for being so wrong."

I remember people saying that 5 years ago. Some form of AGW theory has been around since at least 1988.

A guy who doesn't know the difference between evaporation and melting has his name on the climate change bill. I find it hard to believe he can objectively look at climate change science and make a decision when it looks like he had trouble passing grade 6 science.

Canuckguy

"It's not a leftist plot, It's a real scientific issue and I predict that within 5 years, you will all have to eat crow for being so wrong."

Dude, that's what Al Gore said in the 2000 Presidential election.

Are you a leftist?

This discussion goes straight down political lines, and when you get to the nuts and bolts of it, it's about TAXING people.

As for your statement, it borders on idiocy! Seriously dude; typically I don't call people names but c'mon. Ask yourself a question. What do you think is going to actually happen in five years(besides you warning us about what’s going to happen in five years)? And, if what you think IS going to happen in five years really happens, is "cap'trade" going to prevent what's going to happen in five years? Are we really going to look back in five years and regret not voting for Stephan Dion? Better yet, if we elected Stephan Dion and let him govern would we have been in the clear?

It is you buddy who has said: "It's not a leftist plot, It's a real scientific issue and I predict that within 5 years, you will all have to eat crow for being so wrong." And it is you who's posted it for prosperities sake. One day you'll be able to show this to your kids as an example of the stupid things people say when they are uninformed.

What Waxman needs is a "wax job" for his brain ... a la Buddy Hackett!

i can't wait until it's 80f all over the planet. mn, more food no more burning of fossil fuels no more worry about co2. life will be wonderful. no more meaningless discussions no more wasted words. f--king wonderful.

Old white guy, that's when the forecast will be "mild, with the possibility of scattered tundra showers".

Canuckguy, your 'real scientific issue' falls into the following categories. There are two main bases of evidence used to substantiate AGW. The first is the global temperature record and CO2 concentrations as measured by various instruments, and the second is computer climate modeling and paleo-reconstruction.

The direct temperature measurements show either little significant trend (satellite and radiosonde) or are contaminated by heat island effects (ground based). You find nothing unduly suspicious of Phil Jones refusing for nearly two decades to divulge his climate station data base. The ice core data shows CO2 following, not preceding, temperature change, and in any case the ice core data is in conflict with direct chemical atmospheric measurement over the past two centuries.

With respect to the second, the paleo-reconstructions have been shown to be artifacts of their methodology, and hence evidence of nothing. They are only as valid as their inputs, and since The Team usually refuses to divulge their methodology and frequently the raw data used, no weight can be placed on any of Their findings. Tell me, Canuckguy, does the phrase 'bristlecone pine' mean anything to you?

There is indeed a scientific issue; namely, how the promoters of AGW can violate fundamental scientific principles and practice and still be accepted as science.

If it bleeds it leads

has been replaced by

if it melts it leads.

[ ICE AT THE NORTH POLE IN 1958 and 1959 - NOT SO Thick

What would NSIDC and our media make of a photo like this if released by the NAVY today? Would we see headlines like “NORTH POLE NOW OPEN WATER”? Or maybe “Global warming melts North Pole”? Perhaps we would. sensationalism is all the rage these days. If it melts it makes headlines. ] WUWT

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

One more time, this time in English please.

It appears that, with the addition of Canuckguy's prediction, the number of predictions on climate change actually outnumber the crow population.

http://tinyurl.com/cnhzpc

Listen to George Carlin

This should drive the liberals into a suicidal rage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIW...

maybe it's time for the liberals to go the way of the dodo bird?

The next time you're in a mischievous mood, say the following to a Gore-Suzuki Disciple:

"You believe in Global Warming, right? Do you realize that Carbon Dioxide is essentially plant food? Without it, all plants on the earth will die. Why are you for killing plants?"

Warning: You may see a brain explode right in front of you!

Stories about ecotards makes me want to drive this:

http://www.unicat.net/en/info/MXXL24AH.html

Check out the details page. The drop down beer fridge is classic. I bet the owner is the head dude in Dubai.

I happened to catch a few moments of Lou Dobbs on CNN over the weekend and he read off a few global warming and other environmental disaster headlines about what was going to happen in 5, 10 or 20 years. Horrible things!

Turns out, they were from the first Earth Day "celebration" in the 1970's...AND NONE OF THEM HAVE COME TO PASS EVEN REMOTELY.

So, Canuckguy, add your prediction to that pile of dung and come talk to us in 5 years.

Dummy waxman, the ships will run aground on the floating tundra. Drink more Brando

Robert W

Could these be the same people that advocate renewable resources? If your logic doesn’t make their heads explode, I’m sure explaining to them that fur is a renewable resource will do the trick.

Here’s an oldie but a goodie showing the power of logic:

Capt Kirk: But you have murdered.
Scan the starship Excalibur,
which you destroyed.
Is there life aboard?
M5:No life.
Cap Kirk: Because you murdered it.
What is the penalty for murder?
M5:Death.
Capt Kirk: And how will you pay for your acts of murder?
M5:This ...
unit ...
must ...
die.
M-5.
Sir,

canuck guy - what a very strange comment you've made about my outline of the natural processing of carbon dioxide by plants. The natural use of carbon dioxide is both within its storage and within its use in photosynthesis. So, to say that the tundra would ONLY operate as a carbon sink (i.e., storage of carbon dioxide) is incorrect.

Don't you know that plants require carbon dioxide? They 'breathe' it, so to speak, and expel oxygen. It's a natural process of energy entrapment (into mass, i.e., the plant, the animal). The process that uses carbon dioxide to form mass is called photosynthesis. Check it out.

So, if/when the tundra warms up and the deep soil unfreezes, releasing carbon dioxide, this will enable a massive influx of new life into the area. Plants - of all kinds will develop; this will enrich the soil; will bring insects into the area, which will further enrich the soil and plants. Small animals and birds that feed off both the plants and the insects will develop. Trees will be able to grow..and large mammals that feed off these leaves, birds and small mammals will move in.

canuckguy - you need a basic course in biology. If/when the tundra warms up, the number of species and their diversity will explode to make use of the carbon dioxide.

its "Canuck guy" not "Science guy"

Explains a lot.

A field of corn in full sunshine will deplete the available trace CO2 within a zone three feet above ground in under five minutes.

FIVE MINUTES !!

OUR FOOD PLANTS HAVE ONLY FIVE MINUTES TO LIVE !! CARBON DIOXIDE STARVATION COMING !! CALL BIG AL.

[ CO2 is the accepted limiting resource for the biosphere. At 350 ppm, the concentration of carbon dioxide is only a faint .03 percent -- a mere trace gas. A field of corn in full sunshine will deplete the available trace CO2 within a zone three feet above ground in under five minutes. Even small increases in CO2 levels can boost biomass production significantly. Accordingly, says this hypothesis, wherever we aren't cutting down forests, trees are putting on extra weight due to the 15 percent of additional CO2 "fertilizer" in the air, perhaps even at a rate greater than they are being destroyed elsewhere. ]

"It's not a leftist plot, It's a real scientific issue"

Taking the second part first - if it's a scientific issue, why is Al Gore the face of AGW? Last I heard, he didn't have any scientific background. What he did have was a leftist politician background, which brings me to the first part of the quote.

If it's not a leftist plot, why is the D party in the US already planning on spending a good chunk of the $3900 per family that will be raised under cap and trade on health care? Why did Christine Stewart, Enviro Minister under Chretien, announce that Kyoto was "our best chance to spread wealth and justice around the world"? Continuing on with Stewart, why did she add "even if the science is wrong"?

Maybe the reason that so many think it's a leftist plot is because so many leftists are plotting.

Waxman has long been a renaissance man - he's omni-incompetent.

I can't recall a single issue I've heard Waxman opine about where he hasn't been either bone-headedly stupid or wearing such partisan blinders that he can't even see straight ahead.

-20C at BHP's Ekati Diamond mine last night, 200 miles north east of Yellowknife in the NWT.

"Please show your math ? "

Warmongers don't have to. (Even if there was some)

Most Journalists never ask for the math because they would never understand it anyways. Same for the Editors. They probably dropped math electives way back in high school - social engineering majors, ya see :)

This is what Waxman works on in Congress:

Committee on Energy and Commerce (Chairman)

* Subcommittee on Health
* Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
* Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

So, since he knows so much about the polar cap melt, I wonder what he has in store for the above committees he working on.

ahh

ihh

ehhh

Nah, I got nothin' for a statement THAT stupid.

Posted by: Justthinkin at April 27, 2009 2:19 PM

I actually had to do that a couple weeks back. The concept was just completely beyond this dingbat at my sister's place that night.

Sad,isn't it, AtlanticJim.I guess Archimedes ain't taught in edchumacational skool anymore. Come to think of it...just WHAT do they supposedly teach nowadays???

I fear to ask.

I really wished he had a boat. I could tie it up to a floating dock and then tell him to make sure he adjusts the berthing lines as the tides go in and out.

Waxman ... being the bright light and big mouth that he is... is a natural go to guy for the media.

It's just like when Jack Laytoon opens up.... here in Canuckistan ... guaranteed to appear on 5 or six national bylines and all the networks.

I kind of suspect that the man thinks that the arctic circle begins somewhere around North Dakota..

Simple intelligence test:

Do you believe CO2 is a pollutant?

a) yes
b) no

Anyone who answers "a) yes" is too stupid to be allowed to vote or debate climate in any forum

Comments, canuckguy?

I think, no I know, I would be scared to see a real poll done on that question Tanker.

To quote Beck, I results would probably make blood shoot out of my eyes.

The thing about Al Gore and people like him, is that they are working from a mechanical model.

A mechanical model, which pertains only to machines, i.e., man-made things, is a 'steady-state model'. Things are made and are supposed to be kept and maintained by a Higher Power in that steady-state. If they change from that steady-state, they are becoming weak and require repairs. Or flinging on the trash.
Posted by: ET at April 27, 2009 10:46 AM

Indeed, ET, I experienced this first hand just yesterday. I had a friend of mine and her husband over for dinner. Now, my friend, is an AGW believer, so of course we got into a conversation about it.

But, it got to the point where we started discussed the models, and I posited that we cannot trust the models, since it's obvious we don't know enough about the variables that move climate to create a reliable model. My friend came back saying computer modeling is getting getting better, and asked if I trusted my car's seat belt, since seat belt safety is tested (in part) and predicated upon computer models.

I shut the discussion down at that point, since it was clear it was moving in a direction where, in my opinion, my good friend was embarrassing herself. I graciously exited the debate by suggesting we obviously were not going to convince one another.

I genuinely like this friend of mine, and have much respect for her.....but I must admit, I am deeply troubled today by her inability to see past the politics of AGW hysteria. I just don't get it. I don't get the implicit trust otherwise intelligent and educated people have in what is obviously corrupted, and politicized science.

I think, no I know, I would be scared to see a real poll done on that question Tanker.

To quote Beck, I results would probably make blood shoot out of my eyes.
Posted by: AtlanticJim at April 27, 2009 9:14 PM

Drives me absolutely crazy when I listen to the radio and hear CO2 referred to as a pollutant.

On this issue
I'll be back
In 5 years, serving crow.
You want fries with that?

It's late now, past my beddy time too tired to reply to the direct questions. I definitely noticed a lack of allies in my corner, now I know a bit what a lone bomber caught in the spot lights over Germany felt like.

Canuckguy,try a lone Heinkel over London. You and your fellow travellers are so wrong it's ridiculous. And like every believer, you sidestepped the question. Is CO2 a pollutant in your world?

How do you like your crow? BBQ'd or boiled?

canuckguy - no, your departing comments aren't an argument.

After all, all you are saying is: "I'm right, so there! But your statements have all been shown to be factually invalid. So, that's hardly an intelligent response.

And no, don't move into the 'I'm a poor victim'' mode, with your self-definition of yourself as a heroic Allied pilot over, gasp, enemy Germany in the war. You aren't heroic or 'in the right camp'. Your camp of AGW has been shown to be scientifically invalid and without evidence.

And threatening us - that if we don't believe you - we'll end up suffering apocalpytic results - is hardly an argument. And it's not heroic.

I suggest, by the way, that you read a few books on basic biology, in particular, on botany and photosynthesis - and check out the ecology of, for example, meadows and how they thrive, how different species move in and take up habitation. That's what will happen when/if the permafrost soil warms up and releases CO2 for the use of millions of plants.

That's a bit rich ET.

Almost everything you've posted on this topic is pure nonsense. You obviously are not qualified to lecture anybody on the biological process.

Perhaps you should read some books on these subjects yourself and learn some facts instead of trying to "reason" your way through.

Unless, of course, you're auditioning to be a ghost writer for the likes of Gore, Suzuki, et al. Your "science" is every bit as wonky as theirs. And you're just providing fodder for the climate change morons to come here and generalize about everyone being just as clueless about science as they are...

Pd - no, that's not an argument. You see, you have to SUBSTANTIATE your opinions. It's useless just to assert something, especially a qualitative and subjective opinion.

So, you say that almost everything I've posted here is 'sheer nonsense'. So - prove it. Prove that 'everything' is 'sheer nonsense'.

Oh, and prove that I'm 'obiously not qualified 'with regard to 'the biological process'.

Try again.

Speaking of cold - these people really know cold and ice when they see it!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25347937-30417,00.html

Colin from Mission wrote:
I don't get the implicit trust otherwise intelligent and educated people have in what is obviously corrupted, and politicized science.

Try a moron on. Yesterday a rather mild retort of mine to the walmart greeter's warm praise of OBAMA.....elicited him throwing a yelling swinging hissy fit. Maniac----explain such an emotional investment in a foreign politician..

Oh, and prove that I'm 'obiously not qualified 'with regard to 'the biological process'

LOL You've already done that for me. Go back and read anything you've written on this thread.

You're the one making false assertions. Perhaps you would like to provide some "proof".

Pd, ET asked you to provide proof that what she said was not correct. Either provide it or admit that because you can't provide it that you have no response to a valid question which would lead me to conclude you are a lefty who relies solely on emotion and not facts. Therefore not worth reading your posts as they are not intelligent debate but just comments.

PD:
--Thanks for the support. Don't expect to be able to change their minds.

ET:
--CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen which is a necessary ingredient of the atmosphere and soil. But you can have too much of a good thing. That is what is happening with CO2.
--And I am certainly not comparing myself to a heroic pilot. I was just comparing the responses as so much flak you and your buddies were firing. I have too much respect for the WWII vets to compare myself to them.
--And BTW, there is no doubt the tundra area will change with global warming, for one thing, the tree line will move further north. But over all, if it comes to that, glabal warming will be a bad thing for human societies. There will be great localized disruptions and somehow we have to adapt. Our comfortable world that we currently enjoy will change for the worse.

Indiana Homez asked "What do you think is going to actually happen in five years"
Ans: I don't expect to have to relocate due to the rising sea yet but what I am sure is that within 5 years, the evidence will be much clearer and you deniers will be ordering crow.

canuck- first - who ever said that CO2 is a pollutant????

And you are thinking in a mechanical manner, i.e., a steady state manner where, eg, CO2 must remain static. But that's not how biological processes operate; they don't operate as machines. They have the capacity to adapt, and so, if more CO2 is released, the result will be more plants that use and store the CO2. And more animals, birds, insects, that live within this new plant ecology.

Your conclusions are without evidence...i.e. great localized disruptions and so on. They are just your imagination but you have no evidence; and again, your lack of knowledge about biomes and ecological processes...and your reliance on a steady-state mechanical model - means that you don't understand biological adaptation.

"Do you believe CO2 is a pollutant?
a) yes
b) no "
That was asked by Tanker, my mistake ET.

Now, back to you ET and your misinformation. Let's take one of you statements that made PD chuckle

"At the moment, because of the low carbon availability in these areas, the number of plant and animal species is very low. Release that vital carbon requirement and the tundra, which is now akin to a desert, will explose with new life and will make extensive use of carbon."

('because of the low carbon availability in these areas') - Good Grief!! The CO2 in the tundra is about the same as elsewhere in the world as various atmospheric gases will diffuse to equalize their concentrations at any particular elvation.. An exception is smog(a mixture of engine emmissions, moisture and suspended particulates) and in cities which do not disperse readily.

('because of the low carbon availability in these areas, the number of plant and animal species is very low') -Double Good Grief - The number of plant and animal is low because of the long frigging cold winters and lack of sun. You need warmer climes to get the tree line moving north.

Anyway, that's enough humulation for your reasoning. Methinks your science training stopped in high school but continued on this site. If you did go to university, you must have taken arts and avoided all science and engineering courses because you cannot think logically when confronted by data and study results.

"The number of plant and animal is low because of the long frigging cold winters and lack of sun" - by me

Before somebody jumps all over me to explain the Sahara because there is lots of sun and warmth there but little life, well you need water as well. (I really should not have to say that but on this site, it is necessary)

canuckguy - well, I see you've finally looked up the definition of photosynthesis.

And no, you are quite incorrect, the carbon stored in the permafrost is not available to plant life; release it - and it will be taken up with an explosion of plant life making use of this, and also, enabling a massive increase of birds, insects and mammals that live in that plant-rich area.

Of course temperature is vital; that's understood in the term 'permafrost'. As for light - plants can deal with that.

But CO2 and water both flux over terrestrial ecosystems; they aren't the same in different ecosystems and they fluctuate according to the plant and animal life. So, you'll get sparse vegetation in areas where there is little CO2 stored (eg, in the mass of plants), where there is little expressed by a high number of animals in the ecosystem. An area rich in CO2 enables a rich biosystem.

As for your attempts to personally insult me, don't bother; that's juvenile. And I have no intention of informing you about my intellectual and scientific background.

ET, don't take all this seriously.
Blogging is all about rants, feints, jabs, sarcasm, put downs, wit, snarky remarks etc.
It's just a hi-tech soapbox.

But back to you. Your understanding of eco-systems is mucked up. I already explained how.

But here is another off course line from you:

"So, you'll get sparse vegetation in areas where there is little CO2 stored (eg, in the mass of plants) - ET,

Well duh. If you have sparse vegetation, naturally you have little Carbon stored in plants. That statement is meaningless. No plants, no stored Carbon. ie; the Sahara(except for any oil stored below the surface.)

You can have all the CO2 you want but if you don't have the proper soil conditions(nitrogen, moisture, whatever, you won't get much vegetation.

Or how about this one "release it - and it will be taken up with an explosion of plant life making use of this,' -

Again, how many times do you have to be told. You still need warmth and sunlight and moisture. CO2 popping out of the ground is not going to creat an Amazon out of the tundra. The CO2 will first go to atmosphere, play a role in heating up the planet and only then will the tree line will advance north into the vast tundra. That will take time, no explosion there.

You got any other zingers?

Asked by Justhinkin: "Canukguy...simple test for you...put 6 ounces of H20 into a 8 oz glass.Now add 4 ice cubes.Let the ice cubes melt.Does the cup overflow??? Try it,and get back to us."

I am puzzled by this question. Is it me or is the question just a meaningless stupidity?.
BTW, if you have concrete numbers in a question, it would make sense in this case to specify the size of the ice cubes. Even then the question does not have any bearing on this thread.

canuckguy - no, I don't agree with your definition of blogging. It doesn't include insults, rants, put-downs and rank ignorance asserted as knowledge.

Yes, you now have some understanding of photosynthesis - a movement away from your first assertion about 'carbon sinks'. That means that if/when the tundra loses that permafrost situation, the area will burst alive with a massive increase in plants, insects and animals. Remember, plants use CO2. No, the CO2 will NOT go 'free into the atmosphere'. It will be rapidly grabbed by these new plants.
The fact that you don't recognize this - well, that's your problem.

Canuckguy, as I expected, you didn't get what I was putting across with my question - not surprising with a true believer. The point I was making was that
a) all too many believers think CO2 is a pollutant - check the EPA's latest pronouncements
b) seeing that the CO2 levels were much, much higher in the past when the earth was a lush tropical paradise (without human intervention, might I add) that saying too much CO2 is a bad thing is disineguous - look up CO2 levels in the past and compare to today and finally
c) water vapour is a much more effective and wide-spread greenhouse gas than CO2 can and will ever be, yet no AGW believers even mention it

When your side starts talking facts instead of offering to serve crow in 5 years is when I'm willing to debate. Until then, have fun playing at intellectual discourse, son

It doesn't include insults, rants, put-downs and rank ignorance asserted as knowledge.

Wow. Too much ET. Seems to me that that pretty much describes you to a T. I don't believe I've ever seen anyone try so hard to make a total and utter fool of themselves. Even the guy who believes the planet is melting understands more science than you. You just make things up. And you wouldn't be able to substantiate any of your drivel if you tried.

But here's a couple of clues for you anyway:

1. There is no CO2 in the permafrost. The carbon that would allegedly be released by melting would be contained in methane gas
2. Plants do not store CO2
3. Plants do not add nutrients to the soil. They deplete the soil of nutrients. That's why we use fertilizers.
4. Your definition of photosynthesis would have gotten you failed in public school.

Incidently, there is an explosion of life in the Arctic every summer. Spectacular flora. Birds migrate from South America to nest there. And it's probably the worst place on the planet for bugs. Perhaps we should drop you into a canoe in the middle of the Mackenzie river at the end of June and let you experience a little of the real world.

Rank ignorance asserted as knowledge. Talk about projection! You're the queen ET.

pd- I think your comments ought to stand, as they are, in all their glory. Incredible.