Greenhouse gases overpowering natural cooling

Chris

Gold Member
May 30, 2008
23,154
1,967
205
CNN) -- Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates.

The study presents new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions overpowering natural climate patterns.

The report published in Science magazine found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

"This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors, said in a statement.

"This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system."

Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author, said the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented.

"Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," said Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before."

The research team's temperature analysis showed that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun (related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun), cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per thousand years.

The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries.

Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees Celsius higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone.

"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study.

Warmest Arctic temperatures for 2,000 years, says new study - CNN.com
 

Shouldn't you be burning some Beatle records or something?

Do you set your boring trite repetitive blather on some kind of macro to re-dump it here without having to actually do more than hit one or two mouse clicks?

KK is right. That was a good question she asked you.

Again?

If your crap doesn't sell the first time, why start a new thread with your same tired, old and unpersuasive comments and links all over again?
 

Shouldn't you be burning some Beatle records or something?

Do you set your boring trite repetitive blather on some kind of macro to re-dump it here without having to actually do more than hit one or two mouse clicks?

KK is right. That was a good question she asked you.

Again?

If your crap doesn't sell the first time, why start a new thread with your same tired, old and unpersuasive comments and links all over again?

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up."

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive."
 
Shouldn't you be burning some Beatle records or something?

Do you set your boring trite repetitive blather on some kind of macro to re-dump it here without having to actually do more than hit one or two mouse clicks?

KK is right. That was a good question she asked you.

Again?

If your crap doesn't sell the first time, why start a new thread with your same tired, old and unpersuasive comments and links all over again?

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up."

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive."

Quit quoting Adolf. :razz:
 

Shouldn't you be burning some Beatle records or something?

Do you set your boring trite repetitive blather on some kind of macro to re-dump it here without having to actually do more than hit one or two mouse clicks?

KK is right. That was a good question she asked you.

Again?

If your crap doesn't sell the first time, why start a new thread with your same tired, old and unpersuasive comments and links all over again?


When the right has no facts, they resort to personal insults.

It is a very ineffective strategy.

When the facts are on your side, you argue the facts.

When the law is on your side, you argue the law.

When you have neither, you bang on the table.
 
Do you set your boring trite repetitive blather on some kind of macro to re-dump it here without having to actually do more than hit one or two mouse clicks?

KK is right. That was a good question she asked you.

Again?

If your crap doesn't sell the first time, why start a new thread with your same tired, old and unpersuasive comments and links all over again?

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up."

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive."

Quit quoting Adolf. :razz:

Sieg heil.
 

Shouldn't you be burning some Beatle records or something?

Do you set your boring trite repetitive blather on some kind of macro to re-dump it here without having to actually do more than hit one or two mouse clicks?

KK is right. That was a good question she asked you.

Again?

If your crap doesn't sell the first time, why start a new thread with your same tired, old and unpersuasive comments and links all over again?

I suggested he index his boring trite repetitive blather and just post the appropriate number when it's time to re-re-re-re-re-re-repeat it.

Saves keystrokes and precious electrons for those of us who have something even marginally interesting to say.

But I guess actually typing the agonizingly repetitive dreck is a requirement to get your inane asshole merit badge.
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't you be burning some Beatle records or something?

Do you set your boring trite repetitive blather on some kind of macro to re-dump it here without having to actually do more than hit one or two mouse clicks?

KK is right. That was a good question she asked you.

Again?

If your crap doesn't sell the first time, why start a new thread with your same tired, old and unpersuasive comments and links all over again?


When the right has no facts, they resort to personal insults.

It is a very ineffective strategy.

When the facts are on your side, you argue the facts.

When the law is on your side, you argue the law.

When you have neither, you bang on the table.


When you have neither verifiable facts nor good science on your side, you blather all the more.

I suppose we must resign ourselves to the fact that this means you'll be back real soon with another boring and totally unpersuasive thread.

Or, as KK aptly observed, "Again?"
 
Do you set your boring trite repetitive blather on some kind of macro to re-dump it here without having to actually do more than hit one or two mouse clicks?

KK is right. That was a good question she asked you.

Again?

If your crap doesn't sell the first time, why start a new thread with your same tired, old and unpersuasive comments and links all over again?


When the right has no facts, they resort to personal insults.

It is a very ineffective strategy.

When the facts are on your side, you argue the facts.

When the law is on your side, you argue the law.

When you have neither, you bang on the table.


When you have neither verifiable facts nor good science on your side, you blather all the more.

I suppose we must resign ourselves to the fact that this means you'll be back real soon with another boring and totally unpersuasive thread.

Or, as KK aptly observed, "Again?"

Keep banging on the table.

It doesn't work.

Here are the facts...

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We continue to add 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.
 
Shouldn't you be burning some Beatle records or something?

Do you set your boring trite repetitive blather on some kind of macro to re-dump it here without having to actually do more than hit one or two mouse clicks?

KK is right. That was a good question she asked you.

Again?

If your crap doesn't sell the first time, why start a new thread with your same tired, old and unpersuasive comments and links all over again?


When the right has no facts, they resort to personal insults.

It is a very ineffective strategy.

When the facts are on your side, you argue the facts.

When the law is on your side, you argue the law.

When you have neither, you bang on the table.
and you have neither
 
Still waiting for someone to disprove that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Anybody?
 
CNN) -- Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates.

The study presents new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions overpowering natural climate patterns.

The report published in Science magazine found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

"This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors, said in a statement.

"This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system."

Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author, said the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented.

"Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," said Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before."

The research team's temperature analysis showed that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun (related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun), cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per thousand years.

The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries.

Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees Celsius higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone.

"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study.

Warmest Arctic temperatures for 2,000 years, says new study - CNN.com

We are all doomed, DOOMED I say. Look out the SKY is falling. And yet the temperature change has not exceeded those in the past several Centuries. Go figure.
 

Forum List

Back
Top