Arctic sea ice melting toward record

[Big Fitz]

I see the cargo cultists are out again worshiping Chicken Little.

I see BigFistedAss is out making a fool out of himself again. I guess it comes naturally to you.

If you had a vocabulary greater than 3oo words, expletives included we might actually care what you said. But, as you don't, we don't And I was wrong, you may be a smart sloth, but you are not a smart primate.

I had him down with Eukaryotes, liver flukes, insurance salesmen and math tutors.

 

[RollingThunder]

Yes we have. Scientists have identified the various factors, like continental drift, volcanoes, ocean currents, the earth's tilt, and comets and meteorites, that have produced such changes. None of those other factors can be seen to be in play this time.

Many of these previous abrupt climate changes that have occurred naturally in Earth's history have been the triggers for mass extinctions. Did you know that? Some of these abrupt climate changes that caused some of the biggest mass extinctions seem to be linked to massive CO2 releases that raised world temperatures which then in turn triggered large scale releases of methane hydrates on the ocean floor which really warmed things up. The excess CO2, besides warming the Earth suddenly, also acidified the oceans and killed most life there. Scientists are observing the beginnings of that process of acidification now in our oceans.

Brovo, finally we speak.

I don't really mean to be nasty now that we are talking on a more factual level but it didn't happen before because this is the first time I've seen you say anything that wasn't either really ignorant or actually crazy, such as your casual acceptance as OK with you if the human race goes extinct.

I agree. You have seen me speak about abrupt climate change in other threads, what makes you think I don't understand all of the implications. Yes, I know that abrupt climate change changes the face of the earth and all life that exists upon it. I understand that abrupt climate change is responsible for mass extinctions. I do not expect humans to survive the next radical change no matter if that change is warm or cold.

A very odd attitude. You seem to be still confusing climate changes driven by natural factors, that may well be beyond our control, with the current changes that we are causing and that are therefore somewhat changeable if we can change what we doing that is causing them. I know there is now inertia in the system, involving the CO2 residency time in the atmosphere, that will continue to warm the Earth and change the climate for some time no matter what we do right now but the more fossil carbon we continue to dump into the atmosphere now, the farther out of whack the climate will get at its point of maximum change.

The continents are still moving, volcanoes are still alive and active both above and below the oceans, ocean currents are still changing, and the earth has just recently tilted. All of which still are contributing to the C02 levels.

Do you actually realize how slowly the continents are moving? They make snails look like hummingbirds on crack. Volcanoes are still active and some are erupting but they contribute less than 1% of the CO2 that mankind is emitting. A very large volcano can cause some temporary cooling for a few years as ash and sulfates blanket the upper atmosphere and reflect more light back out into space, and it may cause a very small pulse of warming later after the atmosphere clears due to the CO2 emitted by the volcano but overall these are minor blips in the climate, not the kind of major world altering changes our activities are creating.

"Still changing ocean currents"??? The main ocean currents are still pretty stable. There may be one down by Antarctica that has changed some. So what? What is your point and what effect would these "changing currents" have and what is causing them to change anyway?

The Earth "has just recently tilted"??? I think this would be big news to astronomers. LOLOL. I going to have to ask you to try to back that one up with some hard evidence or I will continue to laugh at you about it.

"All of which still are contributing to the C02 levels"??? Volcanoes a little bit but the movement of continents? Nope. Undersea currents? Nope, no carbon emissions there. "Tilting Earth"??? No again, I'm afraid. No CO releases there either.

You really don't seem to understand that just because climate changes can be natural doesn't mean that they have to be natural.

As a matter of fact, I do know that. I have never said otherwise. Nor have I ever stated that mankind is not contributing to this current increase in levels. I see your point and understand it well, do you see mine?

The evidence points to mankind being the major, dominating cause of the current warming trend. Given that, what is your point?

We have collectively raised the CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere by about 40% in the last two centuries, mostly in the last century and with the rate of emissions now rising yearly.

I do not dispute that the levels are, per your assertion, shall we say increased by 40%. You cannot definitely say that the increase is 100% due to human interactions with the environment. There is no way to calculate the precise contribution. So saying that man alone has increased the C02 levees 40% is arrogance. You can rightly claim that man is contributing to C02 levels, but you cannot claim the complete 40%. It could be just as easily humans are only contributing 1%.

Well now we get to the reason I see you as someone who is getting their information on this subject from biased denier cult blogs or the rightwingnut echo chamber. You have been misinformed on this. I can definitely say that the increase is due to human influences. If you had actually studied the real science on this you would know how scientists have been able to determine this but your sources have kept this info from you.

There are other indicators and evidence for this but the most direct one is this:
"Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 confirms that fossil fuel burning is the source of most of the CO2 increase, unlike during prior interglacial periods.[34]"

34 - ^ Schimel D (1996). "CO2 and the carbon cycle". in Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenberg A, Maskell K. Climate change 1995: the science of climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 76-86. ISBN 0-521-56436-0. OCLC 123378640

If you'd like, I can easily find a lot more citations on this point. Here is a real simple version of the facts on this from here.

"Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4)"

Here some more evidence you should really consider with an open mind. I don't have time to insert all the links in this article so if you want to see the hyperlinked version, please go to the original wiki page.

Attribution of recent climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
This article is semi-protected indefinitely in response to an ongoing high risk of vandalism.
Further information: Global warming, Climate change, and Climate change denial

Attribution of recent climate change is the effort to scientifically ascertain mechanisms responsible for relatively recent changes observed in the Earth's climate. The effort has focused on changes observed during the period of instrumental temperature record, when records are most reliable; particularly on the last 50 years, when human activity has grown fastest and observations of the upper atmosphere have become available. The dominant mechanisms to which recent climate change has been attributed all result from human activity. They are:[1]

* increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
* global changes to land surface, such as deforestation
* increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.

Attribution of recent change to anthropogenic forcing is based on the following facts:

* The observed change is not consistent with natural variability.
* Known natural forcings would, if anything, be negative over this period.
* Known anthropogenic forcings are consistent with the observed response.
* The pattern of the observed change is consistent with the anthropogenic forcing.

Recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have concluded that:

* "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."[2]; It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing (i.e., it is inconsistent with being the result of internal variability), and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling. [1]
* "From new estimates of the combined anthropogenic forcing due to greenhouse gases, aerosols, and land surface changes, it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750."[1]
* "It is virtually certain that anthropogenic aerosols produce a net negative radiative forcing (cooling influence) with a greater magnitude in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere.[1]

The panel defines "very likely," "extremely likely," and "virtually certain" as indicating probabilities greater than 90%, 95%, and 99%, respectively.[1]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Key attributions
o 1.1 Greenhouse gases
o 1.2 Land use
+ 1.2.1 Livestock and land use
o 1.3 Aerosols
* 2 Attribution of 20th century climate change
* 3 Detection vs. attribution
* 4 Scientific literature and opinion
* 5 Findings that complicate attribution to CO2
o 5.1 Warming sometimes leads CO2 increases
o 5.2 Warming on other planets?
* 6 See also
* 7 References
* 8 Further reading
* 9 External links

Key attributions
Greenhouse gases
Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research version 3.2, fast track 2000 project

Scientific consensus has identified carbon dioxide as the dominant greenhouse gas forcing. (The dominant greenhouse gas overall is water vapor. Water vapor, however, has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days) and is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, so it is not a forcing gas in the context of global warming.[3]) Methane and nitrous oxide are also major forcing contributors to the greenhouse effect. The Kyoto Protocol lists these together with hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6),[4] which are entirely artificial (i.e. anthropogenic) gases which also contribute to radiative forcing in the atmosphere. The chart at right attributes anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to eight main economic sectors, of which the largest contributors are power stations (many of which burn coal or other fossil fuels), industrial processes (among which cement production is a dominant contributor[5]), transportation fuels (generally fossil fuels), and agricultural by-products (mainly methane from enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide from fertilizer use).
Land use

Climate change is attributed to land use for two main reasons. While 66% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the last 250 years have resulted from burning fossil fuels, 33% have resulted from changes in land use, primarily deforestation.[5] Deforestation both reduces the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by deforested regions and releases greenhouse gases directly, together with aerosols, through biomass burning that frequently accompanies it. A second reason that climate change has been attributed to land use is that the terrestrial albedo is often altered by use, which leads to radiative forcing. This effect is more significant locally than globally.[5]
Livestock and land use

Worldwide, livestock production occupies 70% of all land used for agriculture, or 30% of the ice-free land surface of the Earth.[6] Scientists attribute more than 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to livestock and livestock-related activities such as deforestation and increasingly fuel-intensive farming practices.[6] Specific attributions to the livestock sector include:

* 9% of global carbon dioxide emissions
* 35-40% of global methane emissions (chiefly due to enteric fermentation and manure)
* 64% of global nitrous oxide emissions, chiefly due to fertilizer use.[6]

Aerosols

With virtual certainty, scientific consensus has attributed various forms of climate change, chiefly cooling effects, to aerosols, which are small particles or droplets suspended in the atmosphere.[7] Key sources to which anthropogenic aerosols are attributed[8] include:

* biomass burning such as slash and burn deforestation. Aerosols produced are primarily black carbon.
* industrial air pollution, which produces soot and airborne sulfates, nitrates, and ammonium
* dust produced by land use effects such as desertification

Attribution of 20th century climate change
IPCC
Assessment reports:
First (1990)
1992 sup.
Second (1995)
Third (2001)
Fourth (2007)
Fifth (2014)
UNFCCC | WMO | UNEP
One global climate model's reconstruction of temperature change during the 20th century as the result of five studied forcing factors and the amount of temperature change attributed to each.

Over the past 150 years human activities have released increasing quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This has led to increases in mean global temperature, or global warming. Other human effects are relevant—for example, sulphate aerosols are believed to lead to cooling—and natural factors also contribute. According to the historical temperature record of the last century, the Earth's near-surface air temperature has risen around 0.74 ± 0.18 °Celsius (1.3 ± 0.32 °Fahrenheit).

A historically important question in climate change research has regarded the relative importance of human activity and non-anthropogenic causes during the period of instrumental record. In the 1995 Second Assessment Report (SAR), the IPCC made the widely-quoted statement that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate". The phrase "balance of evidence" suggested the (English) common-law standard of proof required in civil as opposed to criminal courts: not as high as "beyond reasonable doubt". In 2001 the Third Assessment Report (TAR) refined this, saying "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".[9] The 2007 fourth assessment report (WG1 AR4) strengthened this finding:

* "Anthropogenic warming of the climate system is widespread and can be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the free atmosphere and in the oceans. Evidence of the effect of external influences, both anthropogenic and natural, on the climate system has continued to accumulate since the TAR."[5]

Over the past five decades there has been a global warming of approximately 0.65 °C (1.17 °F) at the Earth's surface (see historical temperature record). Among the possible factors that could produce changes in global mean temperature are internal variability of the climate system, external forcing, an increase in concentration of greenhouse gases, or any combination of these. Current studies indicate that the increase in greenhouse gases, most notably CO2, is mostly responsible for the observed warming. Evidence for this conclusion includes:

* Estimates of internal variability from climate models, and reconstructions of past temperatures, indicate that the warming is unlikely to be entirely natural.
* Climate models forced by natural factors and increased greenhouse gases and aerosols reproduce the observed global temperature changes; those forced by natural factors alone do not[9].
* "Fingerprint" methods indicate that the pattern of change is closer to that expected from greenhouse gas-forced change than from natural change.[10]
* The plateau in warming from the 1940s to 1960s can be attributed largely to sulphate aerosol cooling.[11]

In 2001, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released a report supporting the IPCC’s conclusions regarding the causes of recent climate change. It stated, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes are also a reflection of natural variability."[12][13][14]
Detection vs. attribution
Per capita greenhouse gas emissions by country including land-use change

Detection and attribution of climate signals, as well as its common-sense meaning, has a more precise definition within the climate change literature, as expressed by the IPCC[15].

Detection of a signal requires demonstrating that an observed change is statistically significantly different from that which can be explained by natural internal variability.

Attribution requires demonstrating that a signal is:

* unlikely to be due entirely to internal variability;
* consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing
* not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings.

Detection does not imply attribution, and is easier to show than attribution. Unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments with multiple copies of the climate system, which is not possible. Therefore, attribution, as described above, can only be done within some margin of error. For example, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report says "it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750," where "extremely likely" indicates a probability greater than 95%.[1]

Following the publication of the Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001, "detection and attribution" of climate change has remained an active area of research. Some important results include:

* A review of detection and attribution studies by the International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group[16] found that "natural drivers such as solar variability and volcanic activity are at most partially responsible for the large-scale temperature changes observed over the past century, and that a large fraction of the warming over the last 50 yr can be attributed to greenhouse gas increases. Thus, the recent research supports and strengthens the IPCC Third Assessment Report conclusion that 'most of the global warming over the past 50 years is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases.'"
* Multiple independent reconstructions of the temperature record of the past 1000 years confirm that the late 20th century is probably the warmest period in that time
* Two papers in the journal Science in August 2005[17][18] resolve the problem, evident at the time of the TAR, of tropospheric temperature trends. The UAH version of the record contained errors, and there is evidence of spurious cooling trends in the radiosonde record, particularly in the tropics. See satellite temperature measurements for details; and the 2006 US CCSP report.[19]
* Barnett and colleagues say that the observed warming of the oceans "cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models," concluding that "it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences"[20]

Scientific literature and opinion
Main article: Scientific opinion on climate change

Some examples of published and informal support for the consensus view:

* The attribution of climate change is discussed extensively, with references to peer-reviewed research, in chapter 12 of the IPCC TAR, which discusses The Meaning of Detection and Attribution, Quantitative Comparison of Observed and Modelled Climate Change, Pattern Correlation Methods and Optimal Fingerprint Methods.
* An essay[21] in Science surveyed 928 abstracts related to climate change, and concluded that most journal reports accepted the consensus. This is discussed further in scientific opinion on climate change.
* A 2002 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research says "Our analysis suggests that the early twentieth century warming can best be explained by a combination of warming due to increases in greenhouse gases and natural forcing, some cooling due to other anthropogenic forcings, and a substantial, but not implausible, contribution from internal variability. In the second half of the century we find that the warming is largely caused by changes in greenhouse gases, with changes in sulphates and, perhaps, volcanic aerosol offsetting approximately one third of the warming."[22][23]
* In 1996, in a paper in Nature titled "A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere", Benjamin D. Santer et al. wrote: "The observed spatial patterns of temperature change in the free atmosphere from 1963 to 1987 are similar to those predicted by state-of-the-art climate models incorporating various combinations of changes in carbon dioxide, anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and stratospheric ozone concentrations. The degree of pattern similarity between models and observations increases through this period. It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities, although many uncertainties remain, particularly relating to estimates of natural variability."
* Some scientists noted for their somewhat skeptical view of global warming accept that recent climate change is mostly anthropogenic. John Christy has said that he supports the American Geophysical Union (AGU) declaration, and is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured.[24]

CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and that is an established scientific fact. The Earth is currently warming up rapidly due the excess CO2 absorbing more of the outgoing infrared radiation from the Earth's surface after it has been heated by the sun. What is hard for you to understand about that?

It is not hard for me to understand at all. I do understand it. I will ask you the same measure of understanding.

It is still not clear just what you think you're saying that you think I don't understand. Given that we are definitely causing this ongoing and accelerating warming trend, what is your point exactly?

 

[gslack]

Love the method trolling blunder.... if its already bashed to smithereens just re-post in another thread or add some more to it and repeat.....

LOL, so.... Ed... Why not actually defend that piece the first time?

 

[Activist Too]

Back when I studed Geography and environment and climate, we learned the effects of ocean currents on climate, and on patterns of temperature range in various locations along the coasts of various continents. It is the oceans currents and the movement of warmer and cooler water that creates in part the climate ranges of locations on our planet. It is why the Pacific Northwest is not as frigid as one might expect for its latitude, and why Great Britain also is not a deep freeze. It also affects patterns of precipitation. I think there are maps you can look at and read about all of this on line. Possibly at the NOAA web site. If temperatures and currents then changed, it would have a dramatic impact on world climate zones.

 

[Chris]

And again, have we never in the earths history had abrupt climate change before this warming? No ice ages before this one? No melting s? The earth moves from hot to cold and cold to hot? It is arrogant to believe that mankind is the ONLY reason for climate change.

No one is saying that.

Yes the AGW crowd are saying exactly that. You blissfully ignore the scientific method and the basic rules of experimentation. Old Fraud thinks that it is totally acceptable to "extrapolate" temperatures for a 1200 kilometer swath of the arctic whereas in the exact science that is considered manufactured data and unusable. Yet you clowns crow about how accurate your data is....then find that you have no raw data at all. All you have is "value added" data....even Jon Stewart thinks that is a problem and he is as pro AGW a non scientist media person you could get. If you've lost him...you've lost the plot boys.

Show me where any climate scientist says that CO2 is the only reason for climate change.

Please provide a link.

 

[Chris]

And again, have we never in the earths history had abrupt climate change before this warming? No ice ages before this one? No melting s? The earth moves from hot to cold and cold to hot? It is arrogant to believe that mankind is the ONLY reason for climate change.

No one is saying that.

Yes the AGW crowd are saying exactly that. You blissfully ignore the scientific method and the basic rules of experimentation. Old Fraud thinks that it is totally acceptable to "extrapolate" temperatures for a 1200 kilometer swath of the arctic whereas in the exact science that is considered manufactured data and unusable. Yet you clowns crow about how accurate your data is....then find that you have no raw data at all. All you have is "value added" data....even Jon Stewart thinks that is a problem and he is as pro AGW a non scientist media person you could get. If you've lost him...you've lost the plot boys.

The Sun is at it's lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the polar ice cap is still melting.

Why?

 

[elvis]

No one is saying that.

Yes the AGW crowd are saying exactly that. You blissfully ignore the scientific method and the basic rules of experimentation. Old Fraud thinks that it is totally acceptable to "extrapolate" temperatures for a 1200 kilometer swath of the arctic whereas in the exact science that is considered manufactured data and unusable. Yet you clowns crow about how accurate your data is....then find that you have no raw data at all. All you have is "value added" data....even Jon Stewart thinks that is a problem and he is as pro AGW a non scientist media person you could get. If you've lost him...you've lost the plot boys.

The Sun is at it's lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the polar ice cap is still melting.

Why?

because you're a load that should have been spit.

 

[gslack]

Back when I studed Geography and environment and climate, we learned the effects of ocean currents on climate, and on patterns of temperature range in various locations along the coasts of various continents. It is the oceans currents and the movement of warmer and cooler water that creates in part the climate ranges of locations on our planet. It is why the Pacific Northwest is not as frigid as one might expect for its latitude, and why Great Britain also is not a deep freeze. It also affects patterns of precipitation. I think there are maps you can look at and read about all of this on line. Possibly at the NOAA web site. If temperatures and currents then changed, it would have a dramatic impact on world climate zones.

Yeah I have noticed for so-called climatologists they are ominously silent in regards to the other well known and factual particulars of climate... They ignore the North Atlantic Oscillation, The arctic oscillation, and the Antarctic oscillation. And the only mention of the North Atlantic current was in their PR movie "day after tomorrow".. And they even fudged that up terribly..

Just more evidence of this being a political agenda rather than a scientific one...

 

[Activist Too]

As with any segment of society, there are ethical and unethical people to be found everywhere. There are examples to be found of unethical medical researchers, environmental scientists, FDA investigators and Dr's, university professors, grocery store clerks, defense contractors, the Pentagon and the FBI, to name a few.

It is mushy headed thinking to lump everyone together and try to discredit every individual because of a "few bad apples." The pressure was being applied to people who stubbornly wished to publish their work which opposed the last administrations political and economic views. I fear that our current administration may not be much better due to the obvious compromises I see that are becoming clear regarding Obama's relationship to industry.

Only those who seek to stop all inquiry and discussion would say some of the things I've read that have been said here. Openminded discussion would better serve all of us. Why are some of you so threatened? The tempest in a teapot created by some to try to prevent most if not everyone from clearly being able to consider what may really be happening and why, is not helpful.

But then, I'm one of those types of people who wants to know the truth and deal with it. I know people who will do almost anything to avoid acknowledging what they do not want to be true, for whatever reason.

The problem is the degree to which the issue will affect all of our lives. Natural selection does exist; some will adapt and change; some will not. And if the change is so dramatic, none can? We become an interesting post notation in someone's history journal.

 

[Chris]

Back when I studed Geography and environment and climate, we learned the effects of ocean currents on climate, and on patterns of temperature range in various locations along the coasts of various continents. It is the oceans currents and the movement of warmer and cooler water that creates in part the climate ranges of locations on our planet. It is why the Pacific Northwest is not as frigid as one might expect for its latitude, and why Great Britain also is not a deep freeze. It also affects patterns of precipitation. I think there are maps you can look at and read about all of this on line. Possibly at the NOAA web site. If temperatures and currents then changed, it would have a dramatic impact on world climate zones.

Yeah I have noticed for so-called climatologists they are ominously silent in regards to the other well known and factual particulars of climate... They ignore the North Atlantic Oscillation, The arctic oscillation, and the Antarctic oscillation. And the only mention of the North Atlantic current was in their PR movie "day after tomorrow".. And they even fudged that up terribly..

Just more evidence of this being a political agenda rather than a scientific one...

What climatological journals do you read?

 

[gslack]

Back when I studed Geography and environment and climate, we learned the effects of ocean currents on climate, and on patterns of temperature range in various locations along the coasts of various continents. It is the oceans currents and the movement of warmer and cooler water that creates in part the climate ranges of locations on our planet. It is why the Pacific Northwest is not as frigid as one might expect for its latitude, and why Great Britain also is not a deep freeze. It also affects patterns of precipitation. I think there are maps you can look at and read about all of this on line. Possibly at the NOAA web site. If temperatures and currents then changed, it would have a dramatic impact on world climate zones.

Yeah I have noticed for so-called climatologists they are ominously silent in regards to the other well known and factual particulars of climate... They ignore the North Atlantic Oscillation, The arctic oscillation, and the Antarctic oscillation. And the only mention of the North Atlantic current was in their PR movie "day after tomorrow".. And they even fudged that up terribly..

Just more evidence of this being a political agenda rather than a scientific one...

What climatological journals do you read?

Yeah, gonna try the "you're not educated/smart enough/informed enough to talk about this" tactic huh???

Yeah nice, then you sir are definitely not any of the above..... Way to show your true nature there buddy....

 

[RollingThunder]

I see the cargo cultists are out again worshiping Chicken Little.

I see BigFistedAss is out making a fool out of himself again. I guess it comes naturally to you.

If you had a vocabulary greater than 3oo words, expletives included we might actually care what you said. But, as you don't, we don't And I was wrong, you may be a smart sloth, but you are not a smart primate.

If you ever posted anything other than your usual empty drivel and nonsense, maybe someone would actually give a flying f... what you say. As it is, no one cares. I only respond occasionally to your insanity because it is fun to mock and denigrate your utter stupidity and cluelessness.

 

[gslack]

I see BigFistedAss is out making a fool out of himself again. I guess it comes naturally to you.

If you had a vocabulary greater than 3oo words, expletives included we might actually care what you said. But, as you don't, we don't And I was wrong, you may be a smart sloth, but you are not a smart primate.

If you ever posted anything other than your usual empty drivel and nonsense, maybe someone would actually give a flying f... what you say. As it is, no one cares. I only respond occasionally to your insanity because it is fun to mock and denigrate your utter stupidity and cluelessness.

LOL, why its the sock back for more..... Tell me socko, why do you re-post already busted pieces over and over?

 

[RollingThunder]

If you had a vocabulary greater than 3oo words, expletives included we might actually care what you said. But, as you don't, we don't And I was wrong, you may be a smart sloth, but you are not a smart primate.

If you ever posted anything other than your usual empty drivel and nonsense, maybe someone would actually give a flying f... what you say. As it is, no one cares. I only respond occasionally to your insanity because it is fun to mock and denigrate your utter stupidity and cluelessness.

LOL, why its the sock back for more..... Tell me socko, why do you re-post already busted pieces over and over?

You are clearly one of the most delusional, actually insane, totally ignorant denier cult trolls ever to pollute a forum, slack-jawed-idiot, so don't ever expect me to pay any attention to your deranged nonsense. You live in a fantasy world of your own that is impenetrable to facts or truth. You are a worthless waste of time and energy so I will only respond to you when I feel like making fun of you and your pitiful, uneducated pea-brained posts.

 

[gslack]

If you ever posted anything other than your usual empty drivel and nonsense, maybe someone would actually give a flying f... what you say. As it is, no one cares. I only respond occasionally to your insanity because it is fun to mock and denigrate your utter stupidity and cluelessness.

LOL, why its the sock back for more..... Tell me socko, why do you re-post already busted pieces over and over?

You are clearly one of the most delusional, actually insane, totally ignorant denier cult trolls ever to pollute a forum, slack-jawed-idiot, so don't ever expect me to pay any attention to your deranged nonsense. You live in a fantasy world of your own that is impenetrable to facts or truth. You are a worthless waste of time and energy so I will only respond to you when I feel like making fun of you and your pitiful, uneducated pea-brained posts.

Yeah, Yeah, denier cultist troll, got it.... you say that every time I bust you.... So.... Any chance you actually defending one of your trolling posts? Or is it just going to be wash, rinse, repeat all the time?

 

[Chris]

Yeah I have noticed for so-called climatologists they are ominously silent in regards to the other well known and factual particulars of climate... They ignore the North Atlantic Oscillation, The arctic oscillation, and the Antarctic oscillation. And the only mention of the North Atlantic current was in their PR movie "day after tomorrow".. And they even fudged that up terribly..

Just more evidence of this being a political agenda rather than a scientific one...

What climatological journals do you read?

Yeah, gonna try the "you're not educated/smart enough/informed enough to talk about this" tactic huh???

Yeah nice, then you sir are definitely not any of the above..... Way to show your true nature there buddy....

Thanks for proving my point.

You really don't know what climatologists research, do you?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Back when I studed Geography and environment and climate, we learned the effects of ocean currents on climate, and on patterns of temperature range in various locations along the coasts of various continents. It is the oceans currents and the movement of warmer and cooler water that creates in part the climate ranges of locations on our planet. It is why the Pacific Northwest is not as frigid as one might expect for its latitude, and why Great Britain also is not a deep freeze. It also affects patterns of precipitation. I think there are maps you can look at and read about all of this on line. Possibly at the NOAA web site. If temperatures and currents then changed, it would have a dramatic impact on world climate zones.

So true. Those ocean currents do in fact have one of the largest impacts on earth's climate. Also there are "phases" one being the ENSO going from warm to cold(nino to nina) and another NAO, and many more. Some years the wind pattern can be different from the next and within a longer period of time like decades can have its set-ups. Like the warm and cold periods within the Atlantic hurricane seasons. From the 1930-1960's was a very active period with warmer Atlantic sst's and lower shear, but during the 1970s to early 1990 had a very inactive cool phase. In yet again during the last 15 years we've been in a warm phase once again. You can look at every ocean on the planet with tropical cyclone development and see patterns in each one, one phase being more active, while another can be more active for another basin and quitter for the other basin. Who's to say that we're not in a phase that is for a warmer planet and less ice at the poles? Looks like a pattern to me.

There is so many different factors within climate that it is currently impossible to predict what it will do. In fact we only have about 100 years world wide with any kind of worth while data, but sure go ahead rely on some african temperature station with a idiot running it that don't understand or care about accuracy. The problem is the data is not good enough to convince me one way or the other globally, sure within North America and Europe the temperature data is good enough, but the last few years have seen some very cold weather within those area's. Which leads me not to be sure.

Truth is even if those scientist where right. Would we know what we're looking at and if it's accurate enough to be taken seriously with everything else in mind. We will start getting a idea what is going to happen within the next 50 years.

Any ways good post.

 

[gslack]

What climatological journals do you read?

Yeah, gonna try the "you're not educated/smart enough/informed enough to talk about this" tactic huh???

Yeah nice, then you sir are definitely not any of the above..... Way to show your true nature there buddy....

Thanks for proving my point.

You really don't know what climatologists research, do you?

No you just proved my point... You idiots can't think or reason for yourselves. You follow a path made out for you by your perceived betters... you think they are the experts so they are not to be questioned. Even if their logic is unsound, even if they are continuously wrong, even if they lie and get caught doing it, and even if they are proven time again to mislead you.

So tell me chris, if you actually read these so-called science journals; why do we never see you posting from them? Matter of fact all you do is grab headlines from your favorite media of the day and mindlessly call it evidence..... MSNBC, or any other biased media's take on what is in a science journal, is not reading a science journal.....

What you think this is the first time have had a tool try this ploy? Get a clue chris oldsocks tries this every time he is nailed and has no way out... Just like oldoscks, when you can no longer excuse or justify the BS in your AGW nonsense you resort to trying to tell us we are unfit to dispute it.... Doesn't matter if we bust it all to hell using logic and reason, or even if we take the actual science your articles are claimed to be from and show how they twisted it plain as day; you tools try and pretend we are unfit to debate it...

Well tool, we do a far better job showing our ability to debate this than you do.... At least I don't try and stop you by telling you're not fit for it... Despite the fact all you do is parrot the AGW media and post what they tell you the science says rather than what it actually says....

 

[syrenn]

A very odd attitude. You seem to be still confusing climate changes driven by natural factors, that may well be beyond our control, with the current changes that we are causing and that are therefore somewhat changeable if we can change what we doing that is causing them. I know there is now inertia in the system, involving the CO2 residency time in the atmosphere, that will continue to warm the Earth and change the climate for some time no matter what we do right now but the more fossil carbon we continue to dump into the atmosphere now, the farther out of whack the climate will get at its point of maximum change.

You see this is where being emotional is getting you into hot water. You assume that I don't think chaining how much C02 humans emit is important. That still does not blind me to the fact that the earth will warm and warm to the point of human extinction. With or without our help.

Do you actually realize how slowly the continents are moving? They make snails look like hummingbirds on crack.

They move in geologic time. I am sure you have seem me say this before.

Volcanoes are still active and some are erupting but they contribute less than 1% of the CO2 that mankind is emitting. A very large volcano can cause some temporary cooling for a few years as ash and sulfates blanket the upper atmosphere and reflect more light back out into space, and it may cause a very small pulse of warming later after the atmosphere clears due to the CO2 emitted by the volcano but overall these are minor blips in the climate, not the kind of major world altering changes our activities are creating.

Just as it is possible that humans are also only a blip.

"Still changing ocean currents"??? The main ocean currents are still pretty stable. There may be one down by Antarctica that has changed some. So what? What is your point and what effect would these "changing currents" have and what is causing them to change anyway?

Ocean currents change all the time. El Nino and El Nina are both parts of these changes.

The Earth "has just recently tilted"??? I think this would be big news to astronomers. LOLOL. I going to have to ask you to try to back that one up with some hard evidence or I will continue to laugh at you about it.

You may have missed the bit about the Chillian earthquake.

NASA - Chilean Quake May Have Shortened Earth Days
Chile Earthquake May Have Tipped Earth's Axis, Shortened Days | Inhabitat - Green Design Will Save the World

"All of which still are contributing to the C02 levels"??? Volcanoes a little bit but the movement of continents? Nope. Undersea currents? Nope, no carbon emissions there. "Tilting Earth"??? No again, I'm afraid. No CO releases there either.

All of which contribute to the natural climate change of the earth.

The evidence points to mankind being the major, dominating cause of the current warming trend. Given that, what is your point?

The evidence suggests that we are a major player. Suggesting something in and of itself is not definitive.

Well now we get to the reason I see you as someone who is getting their information on this subject from biased denier cult blogs or the rightwingnut echo chamber. You have been misinformed on this. I can definitely say that the increase is due to human influences. If you had actually studied the real science on this you would know how scientists have been able to determine this but your sources have kept this info from you.

Actually no. I know nothing of your "biased denier cult blogs or the rightwingnut echo chamber". So you see, that is not where I base my points. You can say definitely that we contribute. You can not definitely say what that percentage is.

It is still not clear just what you think you're saying that you think I don't understand. Given that we are definitely causing this ongoing and accelerating warming trend, what is your point exactly?

That the earth warms and cools. It always has and it always will.

 

[westwall]

No one is saying that.

Yes the AGW crowd are saying exactly that. You blissfully ignore the scientific method and the basic rules of experimentation. Old Fraud thinks that it is totally acceptable to "extrapolate" temperatures for a 1200 kilometer swath of the arctic whereas in the exact science that is considered manufactured data and unusable. Yet you clowns crow about how accurate your data is....then find that you have no raw data at all. All you have is "value added" data....even Jon Stewart thinks that is a problem and he is as pro AGW a non scientist media person you could get. If you've lost him...you've lost the plot boys.

The Sun is at it's lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the polar ice cap is still melting.

Why?

I highly doubt that Chris.

Even Phil Jones...you remember him don't you, has said there has been no warming for 12 years. How do you explain that old chum? You guys remind me of the Monty Python sketch "the Argument Clinic" We present factual evidence of the AGW crowds doctoring of data, making up data wholesale, refusing publications and all you have is "no we didn't".

What a joke your whole BS "science is now...what is sad is climatology is damaged for decades and the arrogant asshole bastards like Mann, and Jones have done serious harm to the real sciences as well.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

And just to make you boys happy I linked the UK Daily Mail newspaper article for you as if it comes from a sceptical blog you folks seem to think the information is not valid. Of course if it comes from a warmer centric blog it's A-OK....yet more evidence that you boys are CLUELESS. It's not about the message, it's about the data. But you guys wouldn't know about that as you don't care about data as admitted to by old fraud. And you twits wonder why only 25% of the population believes you anymore