Climate change impacts already occurring

[TNHarley]

Own em'!

 

[Trakar]

They have been provided to you multiple times over the last few years, I'm not sure what is to be gained by presenting you with these same evidences over again. I even outlined the methodology that you could use to perform the experiments yourself and witness the difference with your own eyes and equipment and yet you refuse to conduct the experiment.

As for the graph, the rise you mention at 14,000 years ago, on your graph, looks like it started some 20,000 years ago and ended in the last couple of hundred years when it was overwhelmed by anthropogenic forcings that pushed the rise beyond the natural climate record peaks. This rise started as a part of the milankovitch cycle, but AGW has already doubled the forcing and rise in less than 200years. Our emissions are geometrically increasing and are currently doubling about every 1.5 decades

Looking at a graph that more accurately inputs current data, the picture becomes a bit more clear:

File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and for understanding, we can look at a graph that brings this latter period into sharper relief:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/800k-year-co2-concentration.gif

And this one looks at temperature with a focus on the last 200 years:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif

420,000 year data > 120 year data set. Was that supposed to be a joke?

You level of reading comprehension explains a lot of the problem you have in understanding published science.

 

[westwall]

"Alaska is going rogue on climate change.

Defiant as ever, the state that gave rise to Sarah Palin is bucking the mainstream yet again: While global temperatures surge hotter and the ice-cap crumbles, the nation's icebox is getting even icier.

That may not be news to Alaskans coping with another round of 50-below during the coldest winter in two decades, or to the mariners locked out of the Bering Sea this spring by record ice growth.

Then again, it might. The 49th state has long been labeled one of the fastest-warming spots on the planet. But that's so 20th Century.

In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Widespread warming

That's a "large value for a decade," the Alaska Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks said in "The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska."

The cooling is widespread -- holding true for 19 of the 20 National Weather Service stations sprinkled from one corner of Alaska to the other, the paper notes. It's most significant in Western Alaska, where King Salmon on the Alaska Peninsula saw temperatures drop most sharply, a significant 4.5 degrees for the decade, the report says.



The new nippiness began with a vengeance in 2005, after more than a century that saw temperatures generally veer warmer in Alaska, the report says. With lots of ice to lose, the state had heated up about twice as fast as the rest of the planet, in line with rising global greenhouse gas emissions, note the Alaska Climate Center researchers, Gerd Wendler, L. Chen and Blake Moore. After a "sudden temperature increase" in Alaska starting in 1977, the warmest decade on record occurred in the 1980s, followed by another jump in the 1990s, they note. The third warmest decade was the 1920s, by the way."








While the globe warms and people swelter, Alaska is chilling | Alaska Dispatch

 

[Politico]

100 years from now I'll still be dead.

 

[westwall]

100 years from now I'll still be dead.

And the planet will still look like it does now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They have been provided to you multiple times over the last few years, I'm not sure what is to be gained by presenting you with these same evidences over again. I even outlined the methodology that you could use to perform the experiments yourself and witness the difference with your own eyes and equipment and yet you refuse to conduct the experiment.

As for the graph, the rise you mention at 14,000 years ago, on your graph, looks like it started some 20,000 years ago and ended in the last couple of hundred years when it was overwhelmed by anthropogenic forcings that pushed the rise beyond the natural climate record peaks. This rise started as a part of the milankovitch cycle, but AGW has already doubled the forcing and rise in less than 200years. Our emissions are geometrically increasing and are currently doubling about every 1.5 decades

Looking at a graph that more accurately inputs current data, the picture becomes a bit more clear:

File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and for understanding, we can look at a graph that brings this latter period into sharper relief:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/800k-year-co2-concentration.gif

And this one looks at temperature with a focus on the last 200 years:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif

420,000 year data > 120 year data set. Was that supposed to be a joke?

You level of reading comprehension explains a lot of the problem you have in understanding published science.

I read your graphs quite well, they dont show any sign of this imaginary "CO2 forcing"

Was I supposed to click my heels together three times and say "i believe in AGW"?

 

[PredFan]

They have been provided to you multiple times over the last few years, I'm not sure what is to be gained by presenting you with these same evidences over again. I even outlined the methodology that you could use to perform the experiments yourself and witness the difference with your own eyes and equipment and yet you refuse to conduct the experiment.

As for the graph, the rise you mention at 14,000 years ago, on your graph, looks like it started some 20,000 years ago and ended in the last couple of hundred years when it was overwhelmed by anthropogenic forcings that pushed the rise beyond the natural climate record peaks. This rise started as a part of the milankovitch cycle, but AGW has already doubled the forcing and rise in less than 200years. Our emissions are geometrically increasing and are currently doubling about every 1.5 decades

Looking at a graph that more accurately inputs current data, the picture becomes a bit more clear:

File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and for understanding, we can look at a graph that brings this latter period into sharper relief:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/800k-year-co2-concentration.gif

And this one looks at temperature with a focus on the last 200 years:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif

420,000 year data > 120 year data set. Was that supposed to be a joke?

You level of reading comprehension explains a lot of the problem you have in understanding published science.

Dumbass, do you even know what forcing means? Where do you see it in any of that?

You just can't tolerate the heresy can you?

 

[Trakar]

420,000 year data > 120 year data set. Was that supposed to be a joke?

You level of reading comprehension explains a lot of the problem you have in understanding published science.

I read your graphs quite well, they dont show any sign of this imaginary "CO2 forcing"

Was I supposed to click my heels together three times and say "i believe in AGW"?

You presented a graph based solely on proxies that excluded modern measurements, I responded with links that added the modern instrument reading measurements as well as a graph that looked at, and was labelled as a look at, these figures over the last 200 years to demonstrate how much further out or the range of normal/natural the modern warming is. Your inability to grasp this simple and clearly spelled out response is symptomatic of your approach to reasoned discussion and scientific analysis in general, and leaves much to be desired.

 

[westwall]

You level of reading comprehension explains a lot of the problem you have in understanding published science.

I read your graphs quite well, they dont show any sign of this imaginary "CO2 forcing"

Was I supposed to click my heels together three times and say "i believe in AGW"?

You presented a graph based solely on proxies that excluded modern measurements, I responded with links that added the modern instrument reading measurements as well as a graph that looked at, and was labelled as a look at, these figures over the last 200 years to demonstrate how much further out or the range of normal/natural the modern warming is. Your inability to grasp this simple and clearly spelled out response is symptomatic of your approach to reasoned discussion and scientific analysis in general, and leaves much to be desired.

You present graphs that are entirely based on crappy computer models. Practice what you preach.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Alaska is going rogue on climate change.

Defiant as ever, the state that gave rise to Sarah Palin is bucking the mainstream yet again: While global temperatures surge hotter and the ice-cap crumbles, the nation's icebox is getting even icier.

That may not be news to Alaskans coping with another round of 50-below during the coldest winter in two decades, or to the mariners locked out of the Bering Sea this spring by record ice growth.

Then again, it might. The 49th state has long been labeled one of the fastest-warming spots on the planet. But that's so 20th Century.

In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Widespread warming

That's a "large value for a decade," the Alaska Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks said in "The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska."

The cooling is widespread -- holding true for 19 of the 20 National Weather Service stations sprinkled from one corner of Alaska to the other, the paper notes. It's most significant in Western Alaska, where King Salmon on the Alaska Peninsula saw temperatures drop most sharply, a significant 4.5 degrees for the decade, the report says.



The new nippiness began with a vengeance in 2005, after more than a century that saw temperatures generally veer warmer in Alaska, the report says. With lots of ice to lose, the state had heated up about twice as fast as the rest of the planet, in line with rising global greenhouse gas emissions, note the Alaska Climate Center researchers, Gerd Wendler, L. Chen and Blake Moore. After a "sudden temperature increase" in Alaska starting in 1977, the warmest decade on record occurred in the 1980s, followed by another jump in the 1990s, they note. The third warmest decade was the 1920s, by the way."








While the globe warms and people swelter, Alaska is chilling | Alaska Dispatch

Alaska

Over the past 50 years, Alaska has warmed at more than twice the rate of the rest of the United States. Its annual average temperature has increased 3.4°F, while winters have warmed by 6.3°F. The higher temperatures are already causing earlier spring snowmelt, reduced sea ice, widespread glacier retreat, and permafrost warming. The observed changes are consistent with climate model projections of greater warming over Alaska, especially in winter, as compared to the rest of the country. Climate models also project increases in precipitation over Alaska. Simultaneous increases in evaporation due to higher air temperatures, however, are expected to lead to drier conditions overall, with reduced soil moisture. Average annual temperatures are projected to rise between 5 and 13°F by late this century, with lower emissions scenarios yielding increases at the lower end of this range and higher emissions yielding increases near the high end of the range.

 

[Trakar]

You present graphs that are entirely based on crappy computer models. Practice what you preach.

Not unexpectedly, your assertions are once again without credible or compelling support and distinct from reality.

 

[Dubya]

I read your graphs quite well, they dont show any sign of this imaginary "CO2 forcing"

Was I supposed to click my heels together three times and say "i believe in AGW"?

You presented a graph based solely on proxies that excluded modern measurements, I responded with links that added the modern instrument reading measurements as well as a graph that looked at, and was labelled as a look at, these figures over the last 200 years to demonstrate how much further out or the range of normal/natural the modern warming is. Your inability to grasp this simple and clearly spelled out response is symptomatic of your approach to reasoned discussion and scientific analysis in general, and leaves much to be desired.

You present graphs that are entirely based on crappy computer models. Practice what you preach.

You don't know the difference between a computer model and an NCDC chart, based on annual instumental records. Who hires a geologist like that, Short Bus Mining Inc.?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You level of reading comprehension explains a lot of the problem you have in understanding published science.

I read your graphs quite well, they dont show any sign of this imaginary "CO2 forcing"

Was I supposed to click my heels together three times and say "i believe in AGW"?

You presented a graph based solely on proxies that excluded modern measurements, I responded with links that added the modern instrument reading measurements as well as a graph that looked at, and was labelled as a look at, these figures over the last 200 years to demonstrate how much further out or the range of normal/natural the modern warming is. Your inability to grasp this simple and clearly spelled out response is symptomatic of your approach to reasoned discussion and scientific analysis in general, and leaves much to be desired.

If you're not kidding you have to be totally fucking mental.

The chart I posted was a consecutive 425,000 years data set that showed CO2 LAGGING temperature. LAGGING LAGGING

Not Forcing ANYTHING!

LAGGING

You're either stupid or lying to look at the chart and tell me there's a forcing and I say you're lying

 

[Dubya]

I read your graphs quite well, they dont show any sign of this imaginary "CO2 forcing"

Was I supposed to click my heels together three times and say "i believe in AGW"?

You presented a graph based solely on proxies that excluded modern measurements, I responded with links that added the modern instrument reading measurements as well as a graph that looked at, and was labelled as a look at, these figures over the last 200 years to demonstrate how much further out or the range of normal/natural the modern warming is. Your inability to grasp this simple and clearly spelled out response is symptomatic of your approach to reasoned discussion and scientific analysis in general, and leaves much to be desired.

If you're not kidding you have to be totally fucking mental.

The chart I posted was a consecutive 425,000 years data set that showed CO2 LAGGING temperature. LAGGING LAGGING

Not Forcing ANYTHING!

LAGGING

You're either stupid or lying to look at the chart and tell me there's a forcing and I say you're lying

Lagging indicator was coined in a right-wing think tank and is a term used in economics and not science.

Many changes can cause climate forcing, including increasing or decreasing greenhouse gases. Since the solar radiation was increasing, while ice cover was melting away changing the albedo, the additional CO2 was just more positive feedback causing warming.

To think otherwise is to believe in propaganda and not science.

 

[westwall]

You presented a graph based solely on proxies that excluded modern measurements, I responded with links that added the modern instrument reading measurements as well as a graph that looked at, and was labelled as a look at, these figures over the last 200 years to demonstrate how much further out or the range of normal/natural the modern warming is. Your inability to grasp this simple and clearly spelled out response is symptomatic of your approach to reasoned discussion and scientific analysis in general, and leaves much to be desired.

If you're not kidding you have to be totally fucking mental.

The chart I posted was a consecutive 425,000 years data set that showed CO2 LAGGING temperature. LAGGING LAGGING

Not Forcing ANYTHING!

LAGGING

You're either stupid or lying to look at the chart and tell me there's a forcing and I say you're lying

Lagging indicator was coined in a right-wing think tank and is a term used in economics and not science.

Many changes can cause climate forcing, including increasing or decreasing greenhouse gases. Since the solar radiation was increasing, while ice cover was melting away changing the albedo, the additional CO2 was just more positive feedback causing warming.

To think otherwise is to believe in propaganda and not science.

Pot, meet kettle. If CO2 lags temperature increase what does that say about your "science?.

It says it's WRONG! But that would be a fact and clearly you don't do facts.

 

[Old Rocks]

If you're not kidding you have to be totally fucking mental.

The chart I posted was a consecutive 425,000 years data set that showed CO2 LAGGING temperature. LAGGING LAGGING

Not Forcing ANYTHING!

LAGGING

You're either stupid or lying to look at the chart and tell me there's a forcing and I say you're lying

Lagging indicator was coined in a right-wing think tank and is a term used in economics and not science.

Many changes can cause climate forcing, including increasing or decreasing greenhouse gases. Since the solar radiation was increasing, while ice cover was melting away changing the albedo, the additional CO2 was just more positive feedback causing warming.

To think otherwise is to believe in propaganda and not science.

Pot, meet kettle. If CO2 lags temperature increase what does that say about your "science?.

It says it's WRONG! But that would be a fact and clearly you don't do facts.

What your comment shows is that you are willing to lie about anything. Scientists have pointed out for decades the relationship between the Milankovic Cycles, and the increase and decrease of CO2 from lows of 170 ppm during glacial periods to highs of 300 ppm during interglacials. And we have equaled that addition to the atmospheric CO2 in just 150 years. And will more than likely add that much again in less than 50 years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You presented a graph based solely on proxies that excluded modern measurements, I responded with links that added the modern instrument reading measurements as well as a graph that looked at, and was labelled as a look at, these figures over the last 200 years to demonstrate how much further out or the range of normal/natural the modern warming is. Your inability to grasp this simple and clearly spelled out response is symptomatic of your approach to reasoned discussion and scientific analysis in general, and leaves much to be desired.

If you're not kidding you have to be totally fucking mental.

The chart I posted was a consecutive 425,000 years data set that showed CO2 LAGGING temperature. LAGGING LAGGING

Not Forcing ANYTHING!

LAGGING

You're either stupid or lying to look at the chart and tell me there's a forcing and I say you're lying

Lagging indicator was coined in a right-wing think tank and is a term used in economics and not science.

Many changes can cause climate forcing, including increasing or decreasing greenhouse gases. Since the solar radiation was increasing, while ice cover was melting away changing the albedo, the additional CO2 was just more positive feedback causing warming.

To think otherwise is to believe in propaganda and not science.

CO2 Forcing is total bullshit.

The Vostok Ice Cores show 425,000 years of CO2 LAGGING temperature

 

[Dubya]

If you're not kidding you have to be totally fucking mental.

The chart I posted was a consecutive 425,000 years data set that showed CO2 LAGGING temperature. LAGGING LAGGING

Not Forcing ANYTHING!

LAGGING

You're either stupid or lying to look at the chart and tell me there's a forcing and I say you're lying

Lagging indicator was coined in a right-wing think tank and is a term used in economics and not science.

Many changes can cause climate forcing, including increasing or decreasing greenhouse gases. Since the solar radiation was increasing, while ice cover was melting away changing the albedo, the additional CO2 was just more positive feedback causing warming.

To think otherwise is to believe in propaganda and not science.

Pot, meet kettle. If CO2 lags temperature increase what does that say about your "science?.

It says it's WRONG! But that would be a fact and clearly you don't do facts.

It tells me the CO2 was locked up by glaciers, a cooler ocean that had reduced water levels and the initial cause for the temperature increase was increased solar radiation, but that solar radiation has been decreasing since the Holocene Climatic Optimum and the albedo was changing to make the planet colder.

What part of many things can cause climate forcing didn't a geologist understand, but many things doesn't mean we don't know what they are or can't measure the changes of the things?

Something reversed the process of slow cooling and the only thing that fits to cause climate forcing is the increase in greenhouse gases.

How do you get a degree in geology and not see a connection between changes in greenhouse gases and climate? You have to take a Physical Geography course to get the degree in Geology, so how is it possible to not know the connection between changes in greenhouse gases and past climate changes? Climatology is part of Physical Geography, which is a branch of Geology. Changes in greenhouse gases are fundamental to the understanding of Geology. Do they give degrees to people who don't even know the fundamentals of the subject?

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, Walleyes is a bit younger than I am, much of what we know today was not in the curriculam in the '60s. Today, Geology is a very differant science than it was in the '60s. The paradigmn change of plate tectonics is now accepted theory. GHG driven warming is equally accepted among the present scientists teaching geology today. In the '60s, we were still using Brunton Compasses and slide rules. Today, GPS and GIS data make field work much more accurate.

For many of the people from that era, the change has been a bit hard on them. Much of what they were taught and believed is no longer relevant.

 

[Dubya]

If you're not kidding you have to be totally fucking mental.

The chart I posted was a consecutive 425,000 years data set that showed CO2 LAGGING temperature. LAGGING LAGGING

Not Forcing ANYTHING!

LAGGING

You're either stupid or lying to look at the chart and tell me there's a forcing and I say you're lying

Lagging indicator was coined in a right-wing think tank and is a term used in economics and not science.

Many changes can cause climate forcing, including increasing or decreasing greenhouse gases. Since the solar radiation was increasing, while ice cover was melting away changing the albedo, the additional CO2 was just more positive feedback causing warming.

To think otherwise is to believe in propaganda and not science.

CO2 Forcing is total bullshit.

The Vostok Ice Cores show 425,000 years of CO2 LAGGING temperature

It takes more than a flock of idiots to change science.