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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23homer-dixon.html?src=me&ref=homepage
In 1994, the Louie, as the crew calls the ship, and a United States Coast Guard icebreaker, the Polar Sea, smashed their way to the North Pole through thousands of miles of pack ice six- to nine-feet thick. The sea conditions in the Arctic Ocean were rarely an issue for us in those days, because the thick continuous ice kept waves from forming, Marc Rothwell, the Louies captain, told me.
Now, theres so much open water that we have to account for heavy swells that undulate through the sea ice. Its almost like a dream: the swells move in slow motion, like nothing Ive seen elsewhere.
The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, and this summer its sea ice is melting at a near-record pace. The sun is heating the newly open water, so it will take longer to refreeze this winter, and the resulting thinner ice will melt more easily next summer.
never missed the argument. your friends here have.you're missing the whole argument...it is about causation, no one denies climate change....
never missed the argument. your friends here have.you're missing the whole argument...it is about causation, no one denies climate change....
Some people here have denied the planet is warming. They have called climate change a hoax.
Every post I've made (a few) on climate change was based on your premise: causation, and every post was ridiculed by the likes of you and your type.
Causation. What kind of thing can cause the atmosphere and ocean to warm?
But the sun has been very quiet for the last ten years. In fact. the deniers were posting that we should be expecting increasing cooling in the coming decades based on this fact. What we have seen is the warmest decade on record in the last 180 years.
Orbitual mechanics. Except that by the Milankovic Cycles, we should slowly be drifting toward another ice age. Drifting as in several thousand years before we are in a full ice age.
How about volcanic activity, heat from the earth? Volcanic activity has been relitively quiet for many years. No Trapp Volcanics, the last big eruption was in 1883, Krakatoa.
But what else can heat up the atmosphere and oceans? GHGs. CO2, CH4, and some of the new extremely effective industrial GHGs. So, have these been increasing? From 280 ppm of CO2 to 387 ppm. From 700 ppb of CH4 to 1800 ppm. And the industrial gases were not even present in the atmosphere prior to the industrial revolution. Some of them are over 10,000 times as effective GHG as CO2. Doesn't take much of that to go a long way.
The deniers are always stating that what we are now seeing is just a natural cycle, yet cannot point out what the driver for the natural cycle is. Virtually all the climatologists state that the driver of the present warming is the increased level of GHGs in the atmosphere.
never missed the argument. your friends here have.you're missing the whole argument...it is about causation, no one denies climate change....
Some people here have denied the planet is warming. They have called climate change a hoax.
Every post I've made (a few) on climate change was based on your premise: causation, and every post was ridiculed by the likes of you and your type.
WRONG! We have called ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE a hoax. Try taking your blinders off and look at the amazing amount of data manufacturing and manipulation going on in the alarmist camp. That should tell you something. If you cared to know the truth.
never missed the argument. your friends here have.
Some people here have denied the planet is warming. They have called climate change a hoax.
Every post I've made (a few) on climate change was based on your premise: causation, and every post was ridiculed by the likes of you and your type.
WRONG! We have called ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE a hoax. Try taking your blinders off and look at the amazing amount of data manufacturing and manipulation going on in the alarmist camp. That should tell you something. If you cared to know the truth.
I have not defended the alarmists on either side. There are people like you who are reactionaries sounding the alarm that others are alarmist.
the irony is almost always lost on your type.
and:
Anthropogenic climate change refers to the production of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity. By examining the polar ice cores, scientists are convinced that human activity has increased the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which has skyrocketed over the past few hundred years. -
Anthropogenic Climate Change
---
In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, climate change usually refers to changes in modern climate. It may be qualified as anthropogenic climate change, more generally known as "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW). -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
there is the growing suspicion that you are clueless about what you are alarmist about. You appear to be a follower without a firm grasp of exactly what the issues and terminology you use mean. Regurgitating talking points will always make you look like a fool in the end.
I hate to tell you but the Vostock ice cores tell a different story. They show (and this is from peer reviewed papers) that warming occurs first and then CO2 levels rise. It also seems that it has been the coldest summer on record north of the 80th degree of latitude.
And for your information the alarmists populate one side only and that is the side preaching anthropogenic climate change (but you allready knew that didn't you) we are all about real science not wikipedia crap that any political hack can change at his or her whim.
Sea Ice News #18 | Watts Up With That?
I hate to tell you but the Vostock ice cores tell a different story. They show (and this is from peer reviewed papers) that warming occurs first and then CO2 levels rise. It also seems that it has been the coldest summer on record north of the 80th degree of latitude.
And for your information the alarmists populate one side only and that is the side preaching anthropogenic climate change (but you allready knew that didn't you) we are all about real science not wikipedia crap that any political hack can change at his or her whim.
Sea Ice News #18 | Watts Up With That?
as you were saying...
"This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet." - Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist
NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core
btw, your posts are almost alarmist.
I hate to tell you but the Vostock ice cores tell a different story. They show (and this is from peer reviewed papers) that warming occurs first and then CO2 levels rise. It also seems that it has been the coldest summer on record north of the 80th degree of latitude.
And for your information the alarmists populate one side only and that is the side preaching anthropogenic climate change (but you allready knew that didn't you) we are all about real science not wikipedia crap that any political hack can change at his or her whim.
Sea Ice News #18 | Watts Up With That?
as you were saying...
"This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet." - Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist
NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core
btw, your posts are almost alarmist.
Really now. Well I think you proved my point quite eloquently. Thank you.
I hate to tell you but the Vostock ice cores tell a different story. They show (and this is from peer reviewed papers) that warming occurs first and then CO2 levels rise. It also seems that it has been the coldest summer on record north of the 80th degree of latitude.
And for your information the alarmists populate one side only and that is the side preaching anthropogenic climate change (but you allready knew that didn't you) we are all about real science not wikipedia crap that any political hack can change at his or her whim.
Sea Ice News #18 | Watts Up With That?
as you were saying...
"This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet." - Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist
NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core
btw, your posts are almost alarmist.
Really now. Well I think you proved my point quite eloquently. Thank you.
Sure we can old fraud. 800 years ago the planet was enjoying the Medieval Warming Period. The Vostock ice cores show a 800 year lag from the time warming occurs to the rise in CO2.
Simple, elegant, the evidence supports the hypothesis. Prove it wrong. That is science in action.
Prove what wrong? You have to prove yourself right, first. What you've posted is interesting, but irrelevant. One period of warming does not necessarily tell us anything the cause of another. The whole 800 years thing is just fudging of the data. You take enough data and you can correlate anything to anything, but correlation does NOT equal causation. Basic knowledge of CO2 tells you that when a molecule absorbs an infra-red photon, it DOES NOT take 800 years to re-emit it. I'll take that basic bit of laboratory data correlation over something you can't prove, i.e. that the present rise in CO2 is a remnant of another time. What of the CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere at a higher rate in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year? What of the potent GHGs found in the atmosphere, but not found in nature? In applying Occam's Razor to this particular controversy, ongoing possible causes naturally take precedence over possibilitities from the distant past, especially when no evidence is given for how such a thing could occur!!!
as you were saying...
"This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet." - Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist
NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core
btw, your posts are almost alarmist.
Really now. Well I think you proved my point quite eloquently. Thank you.
Interesting. Dante post real science sites, you post crackpots, and you state he proves your point?
thanksas you were saying...
"This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet." - Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist
NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core
btw, your posts are almost alarmist.
Really now. Well I think you proved my point quite eloquently. Thank you.
Interesting. Dante post real science sites, you post crackpots, and you state he proves your point?
Sure we can old fraud. 800 years ago the planet was enjoying the Medieval Warming Period. The Vostock ice cores show a 800 year lag from the time warming occurs to the rise in CO2.
Simple, elegant, the evidence supports the hypothesis. Prove it wrong. That is science in action.
Prove what wrong? You have to prove yourself right, first. What you've posted is interesting, but irrelevant. One period of warming does not necessarily tell us anything the cause of another. The whole 800 years thing is just fudging of the data. You take enough data and you can correlate anything to anything, but correlation does NOT equal causation. Basic knowledge of CO2 tells you that when a molecule absorbs an infra-red photon, it DOES NOT take 800 years to re-emit it. I'll take that basic bit of laboratory data correlation over something you can't prove, i.e. that the present rise in CO2 is a remnant of another time. What of the CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere at a higher rate in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year? What of the potent GHGs found in the atmosphere, but not found in nature? In applying Occam's Razor to this particular controversy, ongoing possible causes naturally take precedence over possibilitities from the distant past, especially when no evidence is given for how such a thing could occur!!!
konrad,
The link below is from your beloved wiki so maybe you'll actually read it. It is actually fairly accurate (unlike most wiki crap) and gives a good rundown of how the Scientific Method is supposed to work.
I will add one other example.
I will add the example of a climatology experiment. Climatologists use their experience and statistical methodologies to generate computer models which they then try to use to predict the future. The model is the theory. The accuracy of the computer model is then used to check the accuracy of the theory. So far the computer models that the climatologists have created can't recreate the actual weather that we KNOW occured.
What does that mean? After you have read the wiki link I provided what does the failure of the computer models mean? The Jeapordy music is playing.
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
