More Mega Earthquakes in a Climate Changed World Say Scientists

haiti_jan_2010_3_1007Is this what climate change looks like?

By Susan Kraemer

There has been an increase in the numbers of earthquakes over 6.0, over the last few years. For the first half decade till 2006, there were about 13 earthquakes a year over 6.0 according to statistics at the USGS (13, 13, 13, 12, 13).

But in the last few years, the frequency of major earthquakes (over 6.0) increased to 20, 17, 21, 25, and in just the first 3 months of this year we already have had 7 large earthquakes.

After the Haiti earthquake in 2010, followed by one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded in Chile in January, at 7.1, followed by two averaging 6.7 in February, and also in February a 6.3 in February in New Zealand (in a part of the country not prone to earthquakes), now we have the 9.0 mega quake with a 7.2 aftershock in Japan, in March.

At last year’s American Geophysical Union meeting geologists were already questioning whether there was a climate change link underlying the increasing frequency of unusually large earthquakes, according to  Mathew McDermott at Treehugger. The Haiti earthquake was then just the latest example.

Read the rest at Clean Technica.

  • paul wenum

    I cannot believe what I just read. Next thing you know Iran will turn Lutheran! Talk about reaching to the bottom of the barrel to try to win an argument. This one takes the cake. Must be in their genes. Obviously not Wrangler!

  • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

    So now it’s a “climate changed” world? Would these “megaquakes” be cause by a warming atmosphere? Or, a cooling atmosphere? And how is the atmosphere affecting tectonic plate movement anyway? How CAN the atmosphere affect tectonic plate movement? This is a bizzare twist to a twisted lie, if you ask me. It just goes to show that it’s true what they say about lying. If you lie, you will have to continuously make up new lies to support your old lies. Which, in my humble opinion, is exactly what this is all about…. no doubt!

    • V

      Things expand with an increase in heat, shrink with a decrease in heat. What does an increase in heat have to do with earthquakes? You’re a smart guy Neil, think about that for a while. Hint: absorption rates are not equal for all materials, some materials are more absorptive than others therefore when expansion happens some materials expand faster than others do. This causes a break in equilibrium. Earthquakes are the re-settling of the earths crust, re-equalibrization.

      Same goes for the opposite (decrease in heat, Ice age): Frozen, compressed, earth causes Earthquakes, they cause Volcanoes, which greenhouse the planet, which heats up, melting ice. Ice age gone. Tbc…
      —–
      Staying on topic of the oil industry, what is “fracking”? Could “it” cause earthquakes?
      —–
      …continued: When the earth is cold it shrinks causing an increase in pressure in the core, pressure translates to energy, the inside literally explodes outside, the hot inside (highly absorptive) envelopes the outside, holding heat. The cold earth is no more due to building inner pressures caused by the cold itself.
      —-
      No good can come out of resource extraction, period.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

        1. I happen to be educated on heat V. I have an AAS degree in HVAC&R Technology. That is Heating, Ventalation, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration. The Earth’s core is estimated to be between 5,400F-9,000F. It is basic thermodynamics that heat flows from warm to cold. So, in other words it is impossible for the global average temperature fluctuations of a few degrees to have any effect whatsoever upon things going on hundreds of miles below the surface of the Earth where heat is flowing outward. Any expansion, or contraction in the crust, which is about 25 miles thick, caused by fluctuations in the atmospheric temperatures would be negligable. In other words, it would be statistically insignificant.

        2. The Earth was never stable. The Earth is not re-settling because it would have had to start out from a settled state for that to be true. Earthquakes are caused by tectonic plates that are moving against each other, and where they stick together it causes stress. The Earthquake is the shaking that occurs when the plates break free of one another. It is no more complicated than that! There is no relationship between the air temperatures and tectonic plate movement. Period!

        3. Frozen, compressed earth does not, I repeat, does not cause Earthquakes. In an ice age giant glaciers form that can be miles high. It is the weight of the glaciers that compress the Earth. This is sometimes reffered to as isostatic compression. It is a fact that there are many places in the world right now that are experiencing isostatic rebound, where the Earth is rising back up from where it was compressed by glaciers. It is possible that this movement could cause Earthquakes but it is still the same process I described above that actually creates the Earthquake, and it would still be where plates stick together and break free. Whether the movement is horizontal, vertical, or diagonal matters not. It certainly has nothing to do with the air temperature.

        4. The jury is still out on whether or not fracking causes Earthquakes. I think it will turn out to be a matter of where you do it, more than if you do it. They did find a possible link in Arkansas between quakes and a couple of wells they were injecting disposed wastewater into. But did not establish any links to production wells. The production wells are not as deep as the disposal wells, and so far, there have only been some tenuous links to disposal wells. No production wells have had any quakes linked to them.

        5. “No good can come out of resource extraction, period.” Really? Do you know why oil is such a valuable commodity? It’s not just for the fuel that we all use every day. It has many byproducts that are used to create a wide range of products that we also use every day, including detergents, plastics, textiles and pharmaceuticals.

        • V

          You can’t have the best of both worlds. You disregard scientific findings you don’t like while embracing ones you do. That is favoritism, you are a man with an agenda, you’re not being a realist. You can’t support some data AND oppose other data when BOTH come from the SAME physical laws. You have a contorted take on reality. 

          Religion is based on belief, science is based on reality. You have a religious view on climate change that you are trying to support with science. You’re just as bad as the environmental scientists, your belief shines through your model

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

            I have no idea what you mean by that.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

            What scientific findings are you talking about V? Correllation and coincidence do not = causality! These morons are saying that deforrestation, and landslides caused the earthquake in Haiti! There was no study, they just say it! That would be like saying you can cause a tidal wave by peeing in the ocean. It’s just silly.
            They are saying there are more megaquakes as a result of climate change, and I’m saying they don’t know what they’re talking about! They are desperatly trying to establish a link to AGW so they have a larger arsenal of fear evoking scenarios so they can scare people who are deficient in judgment, sense, and understanding, such as yourself, into going along with the Leftist green agenda! And that is what this is. Pure and simple.
            Any expansion and contraction at the Earth’s surface caused by temperature fluctuations in the atmosphere, is part of the process of mechanical weathering, which has been a natural process of the planet for the last 4.5 billion years, and has never been believed by anyone to create Earthquakes…. untill these idiots said it.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_earth_theory
            Scientific consensus
            There is no evidence supporting expansion of the Earth :
            Measurements with modern high-precision geodetic techniques show that the Earth is not currently increasing in size, and there is no source of energy to power expansion. This is in contrast to plate tectonics, which is supported by a large range of geological and geophysical measurements, including direct measurements of plate motions by geodesy and of subduction at plate boundaries.
            Mass accretion on a scale required to change the Earth’s radius is contradicted by the current accretion rate of the Earth, and by the Earth’s average internal temperature: any accretion releases a lot of energy, which would warm the planet’s interior. Expanding Earth models based on thermal expansion contradict most modern principles from rheology, and fail to provide an acceptable explanation for the proposed melting and phase transitions.
            Paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of the Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8% of today’s radius. Furthermore, examinations of earth’s moment of inertia suggest that there has been no significant change of earth’s radius in the last 620 million years.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

            Dan, Can you please moderate the comment I have awaiting moderation? Thanks.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

            Thanks Dan.

          • V

            Correlation (as in interaction between variables) + coincidence (as in witnessed events) very much gives us cause. When we understand how variables interact (event) and factor all in all known events we get the cause/effect scenario.

            Regardless, you’re here to press your beliefs rather than discuss real issues.

            We could be discussing true science, like how that the projections of AGW have been a miss (timing wise) or the earths ability to rebound. You’re not being real Neil, you consistently disregard scientific findings (like absorptive properties of co2, and the weakening of the earths crust through resource extraction), you’re not being real and the worst part is you come across as an intelligent person, this leaves one answer: you have an agenda, you’re protecting anthropogenic warming practices. Whether you’re doing it to protect your livelihood or what not matters not, you’re compromised.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

            You say: Correlation (as in interaction between variables). That is not correlation.
            Correlation:
            1. A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship, especially a structural, functional, or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities.
            2. Statistics The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables.
            3. An act of correlating or the condition of being correlated.

            And you say: coincidence (as in witnessed events). That is not coincidence.
            Coincidence:
            1. The state or fact of occupying the same relative position or area in space.
            2. A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.

            By simply observing a correlation, and/or a coincidence does not prove cause and effect. It has to be proven through experiments, and continuous studies. And it is the duty of a scientist to continually try to find things to disprove the hypothesis, not to come out and say he has a definite answer.
            Causality:
            1. The principle of or relationship between cause and effect.
            2. A causal agency, force, or quality.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
            “Correlation does not imply causation” (related to “ignoring a common cause” and questionable cause) is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other.”

            I’m sorry V, but you say you want to discuss the real science yet you don’t even understand the meaning of the words! We have never discussed the absortion properties of CO2 before so how can you say I don’t want to discuss them? As far as hydraulic fracturing goes I said the jury is still out on that and it will probably turn out to be a matter of where you do it as opposed to if you do it. And that is the fact of it! I can only read what I see on the internet about it, and I have read articles on both sides of the issue. Environmentalist activists are the ones saying it is definately a problem. The scientists are saying that it can cause quakes if it is done near faultlines, but are unsure as to what effect it is having in other places, and are continuing to study it. That is it in a nutshell. I am not neccessarily for, or against it, but for now I am going to go against the evironmentalist tree hugging people because of my bias. Yes, That’s what I said, my bias! Environmentalists are usually Liberals. And Liberals lie.

            As far as being biased, I never claimed to be unbiased! I believe AGW is a lie. I believe advocates of the AGW theory lie. I believe Liberals lie. I have no personal stake in it. Sure my livelyhood depends upon oil and gas, but your’s does too. You tell me what you do for a living and I will point out how dependent you are on it.

            As far as discussing true science, that is what I am doing. When I say that correlation and coincidence does not = causality, I am not stating my opinion, I am stating established scientific criteria of the scientific method. I am employing deductive reasoning, and critical thinking. Which is more than I can say for you. You do understand that a discussion does not mean that I agree with everything you say, because everything you say is wrong, and I can point out where, why, and how it is wrong. And a discussion involves both parties listening to each other, which is obviously something you have not been doing.
            Forgive me if you think I’m being hard on you, but your reasoning is inane, your fact’s are confusing, and disjointed, and you have no finesse in making a point. If you want to discuss the science of something, perhaps you should find out the facts surrounding the issue before you posit another ludicrous, inept, poorly thought out post. Good bye!!!

            Sorry about the length Dan.

          • V

            Coincidence [2events+(happened past tense as in observed or witnessed)] x Correlation [variable interaction] = reality.

            When you know the variables involved and know the way they interact between each other you can calculate and experiment the result from altering variables.

            Thought you mentioned it before but what about co2 absorption, do you think that an increase in co2 equals increase in Energy (ie heat)?

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

            We are talking about warming of the atmosphere causing earthquakes! In the first place you have to accept the premise that the atmosphere is warming. The atmosphere is not warming. http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=453 There has been no observed warming other than El Nino events in 1998 and 2010. And those are not related to global warming.
            They are saying that the correlation of warming + increase of Earthquakes = a causal relationship. How is that possible if there is no warming? It’s not.
            As far as CO2 absobtion? It is a fact that CO2 only absorbs certain wavelengths of energy. Once you reach the point where all of the wavelengths of energy that can be absorbed by CO2 are absorbed, it won’t absorb any more energy if you double, tripple, or even quadruple CO2 from that point. So basically CO2 will not aborb any heat past a certain point, and the heat it does trap is confined to a specific range of wavelengths. If you want to know more do a search for “CO2 diminishing returns”.

          • V

            Fact: extracting hydrocarbons and other organic compounds from the earths crust leaves the crust weakened.
            Fact: extracting crude oil creates infertile grounds (hydrocarbons and other organic compounds necessary for life seep from top soil into the reservoirs
            we leave empty after extraction (dry oil wells)) h2co3

            So as you see Neil, if you are trying to prove why AGW is not a climate changing problem you have to delve deeper than simply rejecting the ability of co2 increase resulting in heat increase. The earth has ways of balancing itself.

            Fact: an increase in heat equals an increase in water vapor and as a result clouds. The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the more weather.
            The earth washes its own atmosphere.

            So there is your climate change answer, AGW is real, but the earth has ways of dealing with it.

            —-

            Like I’ve stated before there are just as many pro as there are anti- AGW arguments. Both sides are correct, AGW is real, but it is not a threat as the earth is able to cool itself down.

            —-

            Regardless of all else, burning of hydrocarbons needs to stop, it is wasteful, and will result in a dead planet, no home planet for the future of mankind. Is that responsible?

          • V

            Fact: extracting hydrocarbons and other organic compounds from the earths crust leaves the crust weakened.
            Fact: extracting crude oil creates infertile grounds (hydrocarbons and other organic compounds necessary for life seep from top soil into the reservoirs we leave empty after extraction (dry oil wells)) h2co3

            So as you see Neil, if you are trying to prove why AGW is not a climate changing problem you have to delve deeper than simply rejecting the ability of co2 increase resulting in heat increase. The earth has ways of balancing itself.

            Fact: an increase in heat equals an increase in water vapor and as a result clouds. The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the more weather. The earth washes its own atmosphere.

            So there is your climate change answer, AGW is real, but the earth has ways of dealing with it.

            —-

            Like I’ve stated before there are just as many pro as there are anti- AGW arguments. Both sides are correct, AGW is real, but it is not a threat as the earth is able to cool itself down.

            —-

            Regardless of all else, burning of hydrocarbons needs to stop, it is wasteful, and will result in a dead planet, no home planet for the future of mankind. Is that responsible?

          • V

            Two portions of the text had arrows, everything between them got chopped, here’s the modified version:

            Fact: extracting hydrocarbons and other organic compounds from the earths crust leaves the crust weakened.
            Fact: extracting crude oil creates infertile grounds (hydrocarbons and other organic compounds necessary for life seep from top soil into the reservoirs we leave empty after extraction (dry oil wells)) – this tends to be slow process (seepage)

            You say that hydrocarbons have many purposes, absolutely! That’s the whole point Neil! Organic compounds are necessary for life (animals and plants), burning them for energy generation purposes is a wasteful act! I don’t object to usage of organic compounds, we need them, that’s why we need to conserve their usage.

            Fact: AGW is real. All macroscopic animals exhale co2, co2 is a known greenhousing gas, we humans have increased the amount of co2 we release into the atmosphere (anthropogenic effect), therefore AGW is real.
            Fact: the earth has neutralizing properties, atmospheric co2 is regulated through different processes:
            1. Photosynthesis – gives animals breathable usable oxygen.
            2. Atmospheric wash – rain picks up atmospheric co2 producing carbonic acid, all rain is slightly acidic (ph below 7), co2 + h2o = h2co3

            So as you see Neil, if you are trying to prove why AGW is not a climate changing problem you have to delve deeper than simply rejecting the ability of co2 increase resulting in heat increase. The earth has ways of balancing itself.

            Fact: an increase in heat equals an increase in water vapor and as a result clouds. The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the more weather. The earth washes its own atmosphere.

            So there is your climate change answer, AGW is real, but the earth has ways of dealing with it.

            —-

            Like I’ve stated before there are just as many pro as there are anti- AGW arguments. Both sides are correct, AGW is real, but it is not a threat as the earth is able to cool itself down.

            —-

            Regardless of all else, burning of hydrocarbons needs to stop, it is wasteful, and will result in a dead planet, no home planet for the future of mankind. Is that responsible?

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

            V, I’m not going to argue with you anymore. You are Rob’s replacement. And you are not here to have a real discussion. You are here to make ridiculous assertions, and deploy red herrings, just like Rob did. The only difference between you and Rob is that his ridiculous assertions, and red herrings were of a political nature, where yours are LOOSELY (and I’m being kind by saying loosely) based on science. This was one of my main criticisms of Rob’s posts. So whoever you two work for decided to pull him out, and put you in. You’re not fooling anyone.

  • paul wenum

    As stated in prior posts, V doesn’t know the answer. By the way, how many earthquakes does the planet have daily? Check it out and you will be amazed. Not rocket science.

    • V

      You’re right Paul, nobody really knows we all just want what’s best for mankind, whatever we think that is, but that’s not it, I believe neil has an agenda, vested interest, his livelyhood is dependant on the resources in question, that leaves a nonneutral attitude, as in preferential, he is an advocate for the oil industry, IMHO.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

        You are starting to sound like Rob N’ Hood. MIP.

  • Hal Groar

    I watch the USGS website for earthquakes around the world, over the last year on a weekly basis I would say on average we have 350-380 earthquakes. Today it is in the 490’s. When the earthquake happened in Japan the map went to the high 700’s for the week. Mostly aftershocks from Japan…hey did Japan just melt down a massive glacier? Must have been a doozie!

  • paul wenum

    In other words, earthquakes are a “natural” weekly, monthly, yearly occurance. Some are larger in magnitude in scope than others and some get closer to a land source. Japan, for example. It, my friends, happens daily as Hal states. Until it hits a land mass it is insignificant and is a “natural occurance” and unfortunately this one affected land (Japan) and my prayers go out to them. Enough said.

    • V

      I believe in respecting all scopes in life, what I say is there increased probability of intelligent design with increase in complexity. Amen to what you said Paul.

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

        What is your scope in life V? What do you do for a living?

  • Hal Groar

    V I have read your last post over and over and still can’t put that statement into context. Are you saying that due to larger earthquakes there is more reason to go the intelligent design route? (I admit to leaning in favor of intelligent design by the way) Or are you saying the more complex plate tectonics turn out to be the more God is playing a role? And as for the “respecting all scopes”, that has an eerily familiar ring to it. “All religions are equal! It’s not the outcome, it’s the intention”. I will go on record as saying I don’t necessarily respect all “scopes”. Again though, I may have your context wrong so shed some light on this for me will ya!

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      I respect all scopes too. Telescopes, ocilliscopes, periscopes, microscopes, stethescopes, Bronchoscopes, Colonoscopes, Gastroscopes, Duodenoscopes, Sigmoidoscopes, Push Enteroscopes, Choledochoscopes, Cystoscopes, Hysteroscopes, Laryngoscopes, Rhinolaryngoscopes, Thorascopes, Ureteroscopes, Arthroscopes, Laparoscopes, Neuroscopes, Otoscopes, Sinuscopes, binocculars, rifle scopes… I’m sure there are many more scopes in life, that was to name but just a few. Although I don’t know if I respect the colonoscope….. much.

      • Rob N. Hood

        Wow, he write many words, he must be very smart….

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      Hal, I’m assuming he means he respects all views, and all philosiphies. In which case I would tend to levitate to your position. I think it is a ridiculous notion to think that you can respect all views. Think about that! So, he respects the view of a farmer in Iowa, and he respects the view of a child molester in New York. Or, he respects the view of an American infantry soldier, and he respects the view of Osama Bin Laden! He respects the view of a rape victim, and he respects the view of the man who raped her! It’s just ridiculous!!!!

    • V

      “Hal, I’m assuming he means he respects all views, and all philosophies”

      Sorry for the late response Hal. Neil is correct with his assumptive “assertion”. And you are right, I do enter all view points unbiased, I give everyone the initial benefit of the doubt, I ‘scope’ people out.

      As for religions? What do you think? Are they all the same – in different context – or is there a different God for different human beings? And if so is it possible for all races and nationalities to be 1, as in human? It gets rather silly. I believe that one God created everything, dark energy is the unknown influence of the universe, human beings have evolved, just as all other things, through subtle changes and influences over time.

      But I believe in free will, the future is subject to change, human beings are evolved past the point of innate matter, we have the ability to influence “in the image of the creator”, we humans are able to affect our surroundings, we call this anthropogenic.

      —-

      Respecting all ‘scopes’, means I enter each matter with a clear head, a neutral mind, this is the only way to get to the truth, stepping in biased gives a biased result.

      Do I agree that God shook the earth to teach man a lesson? No. That’s not how He works. He gave us free will and judgement comes after we do what we will. Sometimes many suffer for the sins of a few. Is our gluttonous dependence on oil worth the repercussions? Evolution is a slow process – in the viewpoint of man – God influences matter by changing conditions, slowly, we are the result of changing conditions. Organic compounds took billions of years form here on earth, life has evolved from the combinations of organic matter – some call this chance while some call it god – inorganic material combined to produce organic material, organic material combined to produce cells, cells evolved into lifeforms, and so on. The combination is complex, complexity is variable interaction.

      While I believe the universe arose from Gods influence, others believe it spontaneously arose from nothing. At which point you have to evaluate, what is nothing?

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

        Uh….. we call it anthropomorphism.

        • V

          “I feel like I’m morphing, into something so incredible that I’m dwarfing, all competitors, better get your girlfriend in check, this is psychological warfare, endorphins I affect” ha ha

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

            You’re only fooling yourself.

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

            I used to hear things like that when I was a security guard at Ramsey Hospital. You’d hear talk like that on 8 South. For those of you who don’t know, that was the psych ward.

  • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

    If you think CO2 causes warming, I think you should take a look at this:
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=515

  • paul wenum

    Good read. By the way, don’t bring up colonoscopes!

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      Sorry.

  • paul wenum

    Been there.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      So sorry!

  • V

    My post got chopped. Twice.

    Fact: extracting hydrocarbons and other organic compounds from the earths crust leaves the crust weakened.
    Fact: extracting crude oil creates infertile grounds (hydrocarbons and other organic compounds necessary for life seep from top soil into the reservoirs we leave empty after extraction (dry oil wells)) h2co3

    So as you see Neil, if you are trying to prove why AGW is not a climate changing problem you have to delve deeper than simply rejecting the ability of co2 increase resulting in heat increase. The earth has ways of balancing itself.

    Fact: an increase in heat equals an increase in water vapor and as a result clouds. The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the more weather. The earth washes its own atmosphere.

    So there is your climate change answer, AGW is real, but the earth has ways of dealing with it.

    —-

    Like I’ve stated before there are just as many pro as there are anti- AGW arguments. Both sides are correct, AGW is real, but it is not a threat as the earth is able to cool itself down.

    —-

    Regardless of all else, burning of hydrocarbons needs to stop, it is wasteful, and will result in a dead planet, no home planet for the future of mankind. Is that responsible?

    • V

      And again, let’s give the missing portion a try.

      extraction (dry oil wells)) h2co3

      So as you see Neil

  • V

    Fact: extracting hydrocarbons and other organic compounds from the earths crust leaves the crust weakened.
    Fact: extracting crude oil creates infertile grounds (hydrocarbons and other organic compounds necessary for life seep from top soil into the reservoirs we leave empty after extraction (dry oil wells)) – this tends to be slow process (seepage)

    You say that hydrocarbons have many purposes, absolutely! That’s the whole point Neil! Organic compounds are necessary for life (animals and plants), burning them for energy generation purposes is a wasteful act! I don’t object to usage of organic compounds, we need them, that’s why we need to conserve their usage.

    Fact: AGW is real. All macroscopic animals exhale co2, co2 is a known greenhousing gas, we humans have increased the amount of co2 we release into the atmosphere (anthropogenic effect), therefore AGW is real.
    Fact: the earth has neutralizing properties, atmospheric co2 is regulated through different processes:
    1. Photosynthesis – gives animals breathable usable oxygen.
    2. Atmospheric wash – rain picks up atmospheric co2 producing carbonic acid, all rain is slightly acidic (ph below 7), co2 + h2o = h2co3

    So as you see Neil, if you are trying to prove why AGW is not a climate changing problem you have to delve deeper than simply rejecting the ability of co2 increase resulting in heat increase. The earth has ways of balancing itself.

    Fact: an increase in heat equals an increase in water vapor and as a result clouds. The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the more weather. The earth washes its own atmosphere.

    So there is your climate change answer, AGW is real, but the earth has ways of dealing with it.

    —-

    Like I’ve stated before there are just as many pro as there are anti- AGW arguments. Both sides are correct, AGW is real, but it is not a threat as the earth is able to cool itself down.

    —-

    Regardless of all else, burning of hydrocarbons needs to stop, it is wasteful, and will result in a dead planet, no home planet for the future of mankind. Is that responsible?

  • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

    This V is not for real. This is Rob’s replacement.

  • paul wenum

    It is us, V: V. He’s a plant like Robbie Boy. I will check, I’m curious as always.

  • V

    The added AGW danger. Hot regions. In hot areas of the globe clouds are mostly made, the side of the earth exposed to direct sunlight the most produces the most vapor, but the earth is a rotating sphere, centrifugal force (magnified earth x’s) clouds tend to disperse out of equatorial regions and move toward polar regions, central America ( and outlying islands), northern Africa, southern europe, middle-east, southern Asia, northern Australia (and out lying islands ( including Hawaii), these central populated global regions although highly envolved in the washing process do not receive as much precipitation as the upper northern and lower southern hemispheres. Hot goes into cold, cold doesn’t permeate through to hot, cold is the absence of energy or heat, the equatorial regions produce clouds but benefit little from percipitations, they are not void of it (although some areas are) but they get little of the cooling off effect, because the more heat produced the more energetic the shift is from hot to cold regions. Hot spots could get hotter, and some are not able to sustain life (like deserts, relatively speaking), but others are on the verge of survivability. What we need is technology to control weather events, and the current cloud seeding doesn’t count (I don’t think silver iodide is safe), cloud is condensing vapor, when vapor condenses it begins to merge into droplets at which point it is too heavy to be a gas, gases are molecules and compounds which float in their own energy, liquids (as in water) are polarized gases, phasal change, liquids have commonality, they are a form, water droplets form from water vapor at which point they are too heavy to be held up by individual energy (gases), in the hot spot of the world we have to figure out a safe way of creating condensation, hot moves toward cold. Gases are free liquids. Liquids are freed solids. Cleanse the atmosphere. “Cleansiness is next to Godliness.”

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      Does this not illustrate my point? This post makes no sense at all. It’s rambleing, incoherant gibberish designed to throw the discussion off track. (Exactly like Rob’s posts.)

  • paul wenum

    Still checking. Science teacher, Na, plant, yeah. From where? Will know soon. See you, V Never forget an alias nor a face. Nice post but disagree. Doesn’t equate, but, hey, your opinion. Keep posting need your position.

    • V

      I’m an animal, not a plant.

    • V

      And if you’re referring to “The added danger” comment I made, it is just a possible scenario, an unlikely one in my opinion, but a possibility that needs to be explored further, again, in my opinion. I don’t believe that atmospheric co2 increase = global warming, it would if the earth didn’t have neutralizing reactions following the increase. Like 1. and 2. above, and

      3. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-antarctic-icebergs-previously-unknown-role.html

      Which was just brought to my attention.

  • Hal Groar

    Wow Paul, just don’t know what part you disagree with…or understand…or comprehend…I gotta go with Neil. V makes no sense.

    On a side note…Dan heard you on Bob Davis this morning! Keep pushing the voter ID thing!!

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      What happened to Chris Baker? I like Bob Davis, I used to listen to him all the time on KSTP, (which officially sucks now BTW), Baker was OK, but just disappeared!

      If you missed Dan this morning go here, http://www.ktlkfm.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=KTLKMornings.xml 2nd hour of the 3/24/11 show around 08:30:00.

      • Dan McGrath

        Chris Baker moved to Texas – he was doing two radio shows – one in Minnesota and one in Texas. He’s from there originally – probably got sick of our especially Minnesotan winter this year.

        • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

          Glad to know it. Thank you.

  • paul wenum

    Heard Dan as well. Excellent job! Miss Chris Baker and would laught when shaving, cut myself numerous times he was great!, but Bob Davis, in my opinion, is excellent as well. By the way Hal, I totally disagree with V!

    • V

      No, you don’t. If you disagreed you’d voice that which you disagree with and would give a reason behind it. You just don’t ‘like’ what I have to say, or, you don’t ‘like’ the way I’m saying it. The fact is I’m right, and you know it whether you admit to it or not, combustion of organic compounds is a wasteful act!

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

        Rob N’ Hood II! To go thruogh your post to refute your points one by one would be a complete waste of time. I could write an essay on the contradictions alone, and another on the words that are misused! Your posts are quicksand. By design. You are here to throw a monkey wrench in the works. And I am not biting.

  • Hal Groar

    I was on the fence about Chris Baker, some times he was funny, sometimes he drove me nuts. I like Bob Davis but he has an edge on him that is a little childish. He study’s his stuff though. I remember listening to Bob right after 911, he went ballistic! I will never forget that night. Him and Kodiak were fantastic together!

  • paul wenum

    V. Show us your credentials please. We await your response. I disagree with you totally. Climate change is, in my humble opinion. a natural occurance. As to the study of tree rings by Mann, by Grandfather owned, ran three lumber companies and we were taught tree rings when we were children. Funny how the Hockey Stick theory dissappeared by Mann after challenged. Listed to Jason Lewis tonight and agree. Viewing tree rings by they way is a fasinating subject, you can see when the area was wet, dry, age of tree, disease etc. Everytime I cut trees for firewood I’m amazed at what I find. Even in the same area they are different. Wonder if Mann had that in his “comupter model?”

  • paul wenum

    V, by the way is Rob.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      I disagree Paul. V is not Rob. I think he is an associate of Rob’s who uses a different angle. The goal is the same. The work is the same. But I don’t think they are the same person. But I do think he is Rob’s replacement, and is employed by the same entity.

      • Rob N. Hood

        Paranoid Right…

  • V

    How many republicans does it take to change a light bulb? – Doesn’t matter the democrats are changing it for them! Ha ha ha

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

      Congratulations, you’ve found something else to do poorly.

  • Hal Groar

    Didn’t Bush sign the light bulb thing? Sorry V, it is not that funny.

  • paul wenum

    We are arguing with a non entity. Let’s get real. My God, I can blast e-mails through servers until Hell freezes over using alia’s. I chase down people of their ilk. Rob, V, et al, are all one in the same. Just different names etc. Similiar to to anarchists in England today. All have masks on and always dressed in black, and never, ever give their actual names. Wonder why? If identities known, we would know who they are and how to confront them, if needed. Remember, chickens roost at night in the black and I must say, run when their identity is known. See it daily in my business. They yell, scream and holler until cornered with facts then they melt like a marshmellow on an open fire. It will never change.

    Anyone can find me, have nothing to hide. That said I do have resourses to repel any person(s) that attempt to accoust me or family. Have been prepared for years. The day a person cannot make his/her opinions known in this beautiful republic will be our downfall. Look at the Middle East and now Europe. Enough pontificating by the ole scot.

    • V

      Choose your words wisely, they may come back to bite you in the a**. People in your profession should know not to write checks they can’t cash. And don’t forget the old adage about playing with fire.

      With kindest regards,
      V

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

        What’s the matter V? You said it yourself, this is psychological warfare! Ssssss burn!

        • V

          No, it is a misrepresentation through a mischaracterization, Paul fully failed in his assessment, and his manner is uncivilized and immature. He knows nothing about me and his assessment was a total miss. He has never encountered anyone like me in his career, and if he actually had cornered anyone like me he would run the other way with his tail between his legs (and that’s if I allowed his retreat).

          • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD

            Easy for you to say! Hiding behind the 22nd letter of the alphabet, as you are. Touched a nerve did he? Now this is a new side to you. Combative, egotistical, delusions of grandure. You’ve cracked much quicker than your associate.
            It would be a mistake to take these things personally. Really. If you are just a guy just trying to express his opinion, you have nothing to worry about.

          • Rob N. Hood

            Neil, sounds like you are describing Paul…

    • Rob N. Hood

      Empty veiled threats… very Christian of you Paul…not.

  • paul wenum

    V, I always choose my words wisely and unfortunately sometimes with consequences. My nose has been broken 16 times, bad knees and back over the last 60 plus years. Oh well, that’s what happens when you are an old duffer and have a difference of opinion. Times are a changin aren’t they. Your threat by the way is personally taken and well noted/documented. Have looked over my shoulder for over 40 plus years. Days of knowing the party you are talking/discussing topics with differences of opinion are gone. Now everyone hides behind an alias’. I must be old school. Sit down, have a discussion and talk looking the one that disagrees in the eye. Sadly those days are gone and I have been told by my lovely family that I put my life at risk when I post. Is that what this world is coming to? Fear of your open opinion? Feel like I live in Syria or Eqypt.

  • paul wenum

    My number was 73 (tackle) and my name is real. I cannot say what people call me. It would be embarrassing to say the least. It is related to a dog. Let’s both get back on Climate change that, by the way is natural! How can any human call their kid V? Born in 63? Persons on this site are tired of tirades by this Robbie Boy, and yes, Im will call him a Boy! to find that he was nothing but a campaign to get everyone off subject and a plant. If you are real them I apologize. If not, we have a problem and I assume that you agree. Back on subject. Finally, make your point in less than 50 para’s.

    • V

      I’ll take partial blame here, me saying what you do or don’t agree with was rather immature as well, I can see how that comment may have somewhat enraged you and pushed you to say what you did, for that I apologize. Let’s bury the hatchet and stop acting like children.

  • paul wenum

    By the way V. How’s your day “Peter.”

  • paul wenum

    Neatherlands, military, Bram, Peter, or Van. Curious. Which one?

  • paul wenum

    V, hatchet buried. Remember, climate change is natural. Will never change this man’s old mind. Have an excellent day. Now I must get back to serous stuff like work!

    • V

      Good luck on your hunt.

  • paul wenum

    My hunt is over. My left eye is going bad.

    • V

      That sucks, looked at regeneration?

  • paul wenum

    I know, I’m left handed left eyed. It sucks major! Damn, don’t get old it sucks! Family has history of glaucoma. Oh well, someone has to take the hit, right? May as well be me. At least I have three deer in the freezer from November. Ate good tonight! Venison steaks on the grill. Now that is a good life!

    • V

      Deer is tasty.

  • paul wenum

    So is talking to your opponent in debate, that is. Take care.

  • ben

    This article is absolutely absurd. I cannot believe how far these people will go to spread their hysteria. And I thought Haiti’s deforestation was caused by man, not climate change, isnt the dominican heavily forested right up to the Haitian Border? SO climate change decided to creep up only to the border and then stopped? Another example of these clowns grabbing at anything.

  • paul wenum

    You are on the correct path Ben. We seem to have gotten off the subject here. Climate didn’t do it, nature did. It happens daily.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Ben, you are correct that humans can and have had a huge impact on nature. But sometimes, according to real science, climate change no matter the cause, has also had even greater effects on the planet and its species.

  • paul wenum

    We would love to see explanations of eathguakes, volcanos et al. Please explain how man made?

  • Rob N. Hood

    and “no matter the cause” was lost on you…how again?

  • paul wenum

    I never missed anything. You stated “Humans can and have had a HUGE impact on nature and ended with “even greater effects” …..” etc. etc. Explain please. Just how do you know that this is fact?

  • Rob N. Hood

    You apparently don’t read and/or compehend very well. I cannot answer your illogical question, based upon what I actually posted.

  • paul wenum

    I comprehend very well. Unfortunately not your posts.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Of course, it’s not you… You are perfectly logical and rational… and yet you ask inane questions even when I have specifically addressed your concerns directly. Even though you often don’t reciprocate. But that is your elitish deluded right, as a wingnut.

  • paul wenum

    When I ask a simple question I expect direct answers not dribble. You dodge direct questions like animals I hunt.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Dribbling is for basketball…

  • paul wenum

    Dribbling thoughts are the same. They bounce up and down like you. Good Bye.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Oh good one. Sarah Palin would be proud of you.

  • paul wenum

    I quess so.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.