Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
1) Temperatures will very soon exceed any values they have reached since the dawn of human civilization and they will do so at a rate that has not been seen for 65 million years. Humanity will have inadequate time to adjust and the suffering and the cost will be greater than anything in human history. The fantasy is that this is "normal" and that it will not harm us.
2) 2,000 years is an eye-blink geologically speaking. Fortunately, neither climate nor human-history are geological processes. Be that as it may, my point was simply to put the lie to your 50 year contention, which by your lack of pertinent response, I assume you accede.
3) For the umpteenth time human civilization has only been around a hundred centuries, not a thousand, not ten thousand. THOSE are the climatic conditions under which humanity throve. Those cores do show two rather critical things: nowhere in the 800,000 years of the Vostok cores do temperatures rise at the rate at which they have risen this last 150 years and nowhere in those cores have CO2 levels EVER attained their CURRENT VALUE.
1) the data proves otherwise
2) perhaps I'm over your head when I say geologically, I refer to the age if the earth when u say that and since climate is almost as old as the earth, it's more accurate to compare the current trend to the longest spam of time we can. The comparison is more accurate than your cherry picking and shows you wrong.
3) your religious fervor has blinded you. Apparently. CO2 is irrelevant, as clearly shown by the cores.
None of those responses were worth the electrons to get them here. The data supports what I've said - that's why I put it up here.
When folks like you insist on using the entire history of the Earth as the natural climatic range of modern human civilization, I can only conclude that you couldn't care less whether or not the species lasts the next few centuries.
That CO2 comes out of solution when temperatures rise should scare the shit out of you, not make you more comfortable.
Riddle me this: why has the radiative imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere - the direct measurement of energy coming in versus energy going out - been getting consistently larger ever since 2001 when the first satellite began measuring it?
DO ANY OF YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT?
I do. Global warming is still underway. It's primary cause is the Greenhouse Effect working on human GHG emissions. We're all gonna cook cause you people are just too stupid to do anything about it.
DO ANY OF YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT?
1) the data proves otherwise
2) perhaps I'm over your head when I say geologically, I refer to the age if the earth when u say that and since climate is almost as old as the earth, it's more accurate to compare the current trend to the longest spam of time we can. The comparison is more accurate than your cherry picking and shows you wrong.
3) your religious fervor has blinded you. Apparently. CO2 is irrelevant, as clearly shown by the cores.
None of those responses were worth the electrons to get them here. The data supports what I've said - that's why I put it up here.
When folks like you insist on using the entire history of the Earth as the natural climatic range of modern human civilization, I can only conclude that you couldn't care less whether or not the species lasts the next few centuries.
That CO2 comes out of solution when temperatures rise should scare the shit out of you, not make you more comfortable.
Riddle me this: why has the radiative imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere - the direct measurement of energy coming in versus energy going out - been getting consistently larger ever since 2001 when the first satellite began measuring it?
DO ANY OF YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT?
I do. Global warming is still underway. It's primary cause is the Greenhouse Effect working on human GHG emissions. We're all gonna cook cause you people are just too stupid to do anything about it.
Yeah ok, dodge deflect and avoid.
I guess that's what you have to do to keep the faith. I personally don't care if you don't accept the truth. I am only here to make sure your bull shit doesn't go unchallenged.
To all if the sensible people who might read this, the only real question is "is man causing changes in our climate?", or is it simply the natural system and cycle of the planet?. Actual data says it a natural cycle.
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2013/december/dec2013GTR.pdf
2013 was the fourth warmest year in the satellite era, trailing only 1998, 2010 and 2005, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The warmest areas during the year were over the North Pacific and the Antarctic, where temperatures for the year averaged more than 1.4 C (more than 2.5 degrees Fahenheit) warmer than normal. There were small areas of cooler than normal temperatures scattered about the globe, including one area over central Canada where temperatures were 0.6 C (about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the 30-year norm.
So, why do you think this has happened? Has the world gotten colder? No. Has Antarctica gotten colder? No? Has the Southern Ocean gotten colder? No.
So... why?
Looked at on a climatic time span, the world is still getting warmer. Looked at on ANY timespan, the world has not cooled off below the record setting temperatures of 1998. Are you suggesting that was sufficient "cooling" to have produced this record setting maximum minimum ice extent?
The question is has the Earth gotten cold enough to explain a record ice extent in Antarctica? Is the ice due to the Earth's temperature?
What accurate, long term data do you think we're missing? As you have all been noting, governments and institutions have been funding climate research - particularly research into temperature changes - hand over fist for two decades now. We have flocks of satellites watching the Earth in every portion of the EM spectrum 86,4000 seconds per day. Antarctica is peppered with research stations who, these days, spend most of their time studying weather and ice cores. And how much temperature change would be required to produce record levels of ice? Would it not require record lows and for extended periods of weeks to months at the very least?
Were globally falling temperatures to be the cause of that ice, we would most certainly know it. Your response is just a cop-out because you don't want to say what everyone here knows: the increased ice shelf extent is NOT due to falling temperatures. It is from one or (likely) more poorly-understood mechanism. Look at the role that increased temperatures in the water upwelling at coasts had on the stability of the ice sheets. That process was unknown till recently.
It's a little too early - and a little light on the evidence side - to claim that AGW has been refuted or even that it has slowed. The ToA imbalance is still growing and NO ONE on your side of this argument has yet to address a single word to that completely critical and fundamental point.
the CERES data on upwards and downwards radiation can easily be used to poke holes in AGW theory.
Would it not require record lows and for extended periods of weeks to months at the very least?
The question is has the Earth gotten cold enough to explain a record ice extent in Antarctica? Is the ice due to the Earth's temperature?
IMO the answer is yes. However, as we really don't have enough accurate and long term data, that is merely an opinion.
What accurate, long term data do you think we're missing? As you have all been noting, governments and institutions have been funding climate research - particularly research into temperature changes - hand over fist for two decades now. We have flocks of satellites watching the Earth in every portion of the EM spectrum 86,4000 seconds per day. Antarctica is peppered with research stations who, these days, spend most of their time studying weather and ice cores. And how much temperature change would be required to produce record levels of ice? Would it not require record lows and for extended periods of weeks to months at the very least?
Were globally falling temperatures to be the cause of that ice, we would most certainly know it. Your response is just a cop-out because you don't want to say what everyone here knows: the increased ice shelf extent is NOT due to falling temperatures. It is from one or (likely) more poorly-understood mechanism. Look at the role that increased temperatures in the water upwelling at coasts had on the stability of the ice sheets. That process was unknown till recently.
It's a little too early - and a little light on the evidence side - to claim that AGW has been refuted or even that it has slowed. The ToA imbalance is still growing and NO ONE on your side of this argument has yet to address a single word to that completely critical and fundamental point.
Would it not require record lows and for extended periods of weeks to months at the very least?
No.
Would it not require record lows and for extended periods of weeks to months at the very least?
No.
Why don't you try explaining why you believe that to be the case? When, as is so often the case, you don't do so, it's very easy to assume you can't. Show me I'm wrong.
the CERES data on upwards and downwards radiation can easily be used to poke holes in AGW theory.
Do you still think the rocket launch of temperatures since 1880 is a rebound from the LIA? I couldn't talk a grade school student into believing that.
If you think the CERES data refutes AGW, let's see what you're looking at.
Antarctic sea ice headed for new record minimum
