Unprecedented Climate? Really?

[wirebender]

For those of you who believe the climate today is unprecedented, here is a quick look at the not to distant past.

Look at the page from top to bottom then come back and tell me exactly what you believe is happening today that isn't just business as usual on plantet earth.

World’s Top Climate Scientist Fails At Climate History | Real Science

 

[konradv]

For those of you who believe the climate today is unprecedented, here is a quick look at the not to distant past.

Look at the page from top to bottom then come back and tell me exactly what you believe is happening today that isn't just business as usual on plantet earth.

World’s Top Climate Scientist Fails At Climate History | Real Science

WTF?!?! Most of what's reported in the article IS from today. It's not an overnight thing, so anything from the last 100 years might as well be today. NEXT!!!

 

[wirebender]

WTF?!?! Most of what's reported in the article IS from today. It's not an overnight thing, so anything from the last 100 years might as well be today. NEXT!!!

Not even a good try konradv. We are told by climate science that the climate since the 1980's is "unprecedented". Clearly, such claims are just more lies in an attempt to support the hoax; much like the attempted erasure of the MWP.

 

[gslack]

For those of you who believe the climate today is unprecedented, here is a quick look at the not to distant past.

Look at the page from top to bottom then come back and tell me exactly what you believe is happening today that isn't just business as usual on plantet earth.

World’s Top Climate Scientist Fails At Climate History | Real Science

WTF?!?! Most of what's reported in the article IS from today. It's not an overnight thing, so anything from the last 100 years might as well be today. NEXT!!!

I am so glad to hear you say that Kornhole..."It's not an overnight thing, so anything from the last 100 years might as well be today."

So then we can just dispense with all the nonsense you keep defending. The entire case for AGW is based on the last 100-150 years for the most part. Glad to see you admit its nothing..

 

[Old Rocks]

Rapid changes in climate are not unprecedented. Into and out of the Younger Dryas, the change was accomplished in about a decade. The consequences lasted far longer, but the major change was done in a decade. The evidence we find for that change indicates that it was quite unpleasant for the life at that time in both directions.

As for present changes, not extreme yet;

Climate Week NYC 2011 | Swiss Re - Leading Global Reinsurer

Climate Week NYC 2011: Rethinking resiliency – Innovative solutions for climate adaptationStrengthening community resilience to climate change will require new approaches and solutions. “Rethinking Resiliency,” a high-level panel sponsored by Swiss Re during Climate Week, highlighted how the public and private sectors can work together to make it happen.
A more climate-resilient society benefits all. But where and how can business and government work together to adapt to climate change?
Business, government and non-profit sector leaders explored these and other questions at the Swiss Re-sponsored panel “Rethinking Resiliency” during Climate Week NYC 2011, held at the New York Institute of Science and attended by over 200 people.
They shared a view that the global debate must focus on both mitigating climate change and adapting to its unavoidable consequences. Insurance can play a major role in mobilizing the financing needed to turn ideas into action. It’s cheaper to invest in adaptation now than to deal with the cost of doing nothing tomorrow.
Rebecca Grynspan, Associate Administrator at the United Nations Development Programme said adapting to climate change is a must, pointing out that the world already experiences about 500 weather-related disasters a year compared to about 100 per year in 1980. Developing countries suffer the most because they’re the most vulnerable. But there are encouraging signs that some of the poorest communities are taking matters into their own hands.

 

[gslack]

Rapid changes in climate are not unprecedented. Into and out of the Younger Dryas, the change was accomplished in about a decade. The consequences lasted far longer, but the major change was done in a decade. The evidence we find for that change indicates that it was quite unpleasant for the life at that time in both directions.

As for present changes, not extreme yet;

Climate Week NYC 2011 | Swiss Re - Leading Global Reinsurer

Climate Week NYC 2011: Rethinking resiliency – Innovative solutions for climate adaptationStrengthening community resilience to climate change will require new approaches and solutions. “Rethinking Resiliency,” a high-level panel sponsored by Swiss Re during Climate Week, highlighted how the public and private sectors can work together to make it happen.
A more climate-resilient society benefits all. But where and how can business and government work together to adapt to climate change?
Business, government and non-profit sector leaders explored these and other questions at the Swiss Re-sponsored panel “Rethinking Resiliency” during Climate Week NYC 2011, held at the New York Institute of Science and attended by over 200 people.
They shared a view that the global debate must focus on both mitigating climate change and adapting to its unavoidable consequences. Insurance can play a major role in mobilizing the financing needed to turn ideas into action. It’s cheaper to invest in adaptation now than to deal with the cost of doing nothing tomorrow.
Rebecca Grynspan, Associate Administrator at the United Nations Development Programme said adapting to climate change is a must, pointing out that the world already experiences about 500 weather-related disasters a year compared to about 100 per year in 1980. Developing countries suffer the most because they’re the most vulnerable. But there are encouraging signs that some of the poorest communities are taking matters into their own hands.

Socks this is a thread asks people to think, not to blindly post propaganda.. Use your head for more than a PR repository for once.

 

[wirebender]

Rocks, the 500 weather disasters today vs 100 in 1980 is the product of a multi channel 24 hour a day 365 day per year news cycle. Tons of things make the news now that wouldn't have been worth consideration 30 years ago. Further, that news cycle has redefined what disaster is. The recent tropical storm that failed to wreck the east coast is evidence of that.

 

[Old Rocks]

Boy, the dumb fucks have once again proven what they are. This is Swiss Re. The people the insure the insurance companies. Munich Re, another firm that does the same, says exactly the same thing.

Neither of them are pushing alternative energy, or anything but preparing for the change that they see happening. Happening as in insurance claims for damage. A five fold increase in weather related disasters in 30 years. Nothing at all compared to the events we will see if the climate undergoes a chaotic change of state.

 

[gslack]

Boy, the dumb fucks have once again proven what they are. This is Swiss Re. The people the insure the insurance companies. Munich Re, another firm that does the same, says exactly the same thing.

Neither of them are pushing alternative energy, or anything but preparing for the change that they see happening. Happening as in insurance claims for damage. A five fold increase in weather related disasters in 30 years. Nothing at all compared to the events we will see if the climate undergoes a chaotic change of state.

Who debated who they were? I for one debate the validity of anything regarding potential future disasters coming from an insurance company. How do you think insurance companies make money? Selling people insurance in the hopes they never need it. They don't sell insurance in the hopes they have to pay out imbecile...

Socks you seriously cannot be this naive and ignorant...

 

[wirebender]

Socks you seriously cannot be this naive and ignorant...

Of course he can. He proves it beyond question every day.

 

[editec]

A single swallow does not a summer make.

 

[konradv]

For those of you who believe the climate today is unprecedented, here is a quick look at the not to distant past.

Look at the page from top to bottom then come back and tell me exactly what you believe is happening today that isn't just business as usual on plantet earth.

World’s Top Climate Scientist Fails At Climate History | Real Science

WTF?!?! Most of what's reported in the article IS from today. It's not an overnight thing, so anything from the last 100 years might as well be today. NEXT!!!

I am so glad to hear you say that Kornhole..."It's not an overnight thing, so anything from the last 100 years might as well be today."

So then we can just dispense with all the nonsense you keep defending. The entire case for AGW is based on the last 100-150 years for the most part. Glad to see you admit its nothing..

For the most part?!?! Could you get back to us when you're sure? I see the Industrial Revolution starting over 200 years ago, so there you go, cherry-picking data... AGAIN!!!

 

[gslack]

WTF?!?! Most of what's reported in the article IS from today. It's not an overnight thing, so anything from the last 100 years might as well be today. NEXT!!!

I am so glad to hear you say that Kornhole..."It's not an overnight thing, so anything from the last 100 years might as well be today."

So then we can just dispense with all the nonsense you keep defending. The entire case for AGW is based on the last 100-150 years for the most part. Glad to see you admit its nothing..

For the most part?!?! Could you get back to us when you're sure? I see the Industrial Revolution starting over 200 years ago, so there you go, cherry-picking data... AGAIN!!!

So you contend that the industrial revolution starting over 200 years ago had an instant effect on the climate rather than starting a few decades later? How is it the start of the industrial revolution which started around the late 1780's has an immediate and drastic effect on climate when the sheer numbers of CO2 output was nowhere near the levels of today, which shows such little and gradual change? The point being it wasnt an instant effect and the CO2 in the atmosphere that you claim made the change was a build-up that took some time.. So you can whine about when the IR started, but the effects didn't come until a few decades according your own scientists.

Kornhole you lack the aptitude to debate logically please stop before you make a fool of yourself again...

 

[Old Rocks]

By 1896, the effect of the GHG's was apperant enough that Arrnhenius wrote his essay on the effects of additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. But this idea could only answer the riddle of the ice ages if such large changes in atmospheric composition really were possible. For that question Arrhenius turned to a colleague, Arvid Högbom. It happened that Högbom had compiled estimates for how carbon dioxide cycles through natural geochemical processes, including emission from volcanoes, uptake by the oceans, and so forth. Along the way he had come up with a strange, almost incredible new idea.
Hogbom
<=Simple models




It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas. As another scientist would put it a decade later, we were "evaporating" our coal mines into the air. The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere &#8212; the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part. But the additions might matter if they continued long enough.(2) (By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).(3)

 

[gslack]

By 1896, the effect of the GHG's was apperant enough that Arrnhenius wrote his essay on the effects of additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. But this idea could only answer the riddle of the ice ages if such large changes in atmospheric composition really were possible. For that question Arrhenius turned to a colleague, Arvid Högbom. It happened that Högbom had compiled estimates for how carbon dioxide cycles through natural geochemical processes, including emission from volcanoes, uptake by the oceans, and so forth. Along the way he had come up with a strange, almost incredible new idea.
Hogbom
<=Simple models




It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas. As another scientist would put it a decade later, we were "evaporating" our coal mines into the air. The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere — the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part. But the additions might matter if they continued long enough.(2) (By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).(3)

1896 over a hundred years after the IR started. Hence my point it taking a few decades AFTER to show any effect if any such effect was even measurable back then.

Follow the conversation socks... You just made my point even clearer...

 

[wirebender]

Rocks, nothing happening today is outside the parameters of natural variability therefore you can not assign any cause.

 

[code1211]

Boy, the dumb fucks have once again proven what they are. This is Swiss Re. The people the insure the insurance companies. Munich Re, another firm that does the same, says exactly the same thing.

Neither of them are pushing alternative energy, or anything but preparing for the change that they see happening. Happening as in insurance claims for damage. A five fold increase in weather related disasters in 30 years. Nothing at all compared to the events we will see if the climate undergoes a chaotic change of state.

Inflation, hugely expanded and newly created wealth and a population that doubles every 50 years might also account for the increased costs.

Let's see, there is one thing that is changing rapidly and that is the world economy and that is certain. There is another thing that is changing rapidly and that is the population and that is certain. There is another thing that is changing rapidly and that is the movement of the populations to the coastlines.

So we have three things all changing rapidly that taken alone or together all explain the increased insurance costs due to weather related events.

We have one thing, the climate, that may or may be changing and that seems to be pretty consistant.

Let's blame that last thing.


File:World-Population-1800-2100.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ScienceRocks]

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Code, you just explain that to Swiss Re and Munich Re. And, yes, they do factor in inflation and population increase. Were you ever to bother to read what they have to say you would know that. Not that you would ever admit to it. You have your political agenda, and it does not yield to reality.

 

[gslack]

Now Code, you just explain that to Swiss Re and Munich Re. And, yes, they do factor in inflation and population increase. Were you ever to bother to read what they have to say you would know that. Not that you would ever admit to it. You have your political agenda, and it does not yield to reality.

YOU of all people lecturing to someone about reading something is just plain silly...

How many times you been busted not reading the crap you post here? 10 or more times maybe? I personally caught you doing it several times and I am sure I'm not the only one to do it...