Greenland glaciers receding SLOWER then in the 1930s..

[Old Rocks]

I am open to all scientific ideas but to claim one source is credible over another defies the very nature of scientific fact. One side has an unproven hypothesis that they are trying to promote as facts.

Good lord. Virtually every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Quite on the contrary, you are not open to any science that contradicts your political ideology. Reality has a way of trumping ideology, usually to the chagrin of the ideologues.

The only one to bring politics into this IS YOU. Science trumps politics because its based in FACT while your politics is based in EMOTION.

I have yet to see anything but CLAIMS of proof of anything in this thread. Nothing but emotional hyperbole disguised as fact.

I will also admit that it is likely we are having an impact. Difference being to what degree and of course the fact that I'm not willing to settle for some bullshit lifestyle so some schmuck 2000 years from now doesn't have to deal with a one or two degree increase in temperature. You guys are the same wackos that would stop driving cars if you thought it would save some exotic species of grasshopper in South America.

Damn. Not what I would expect to see posted from someone with any intellect at all. And it is not one or two degrees in a thousand years. It is four or more degrees by the end of this century.

 

[Old Rocks]

Grampa, I have posted real scientists statements in support of my arguement. Where are your supports for your side? Peer reviewed sources for articles, scientific societies for policy, please.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Anyone can find links to post. Hell you don't even have to understand what your link is communicating to appear like you're clued in.

All I see are links with agendas. From both sides. Can no one argue the points with their own brain?

Yes, I can argue that point. However, in a scientific arguement one has to go to the source of the evidence. That you object to that simply demonstrates that you have no such evidence for your side. Just political yap-yap.

A 100 ppm increase, from 180 ppm to 280 ppm, in CO2 caused the continental glacier to melt. During the last interglacial, the CO2 level hit 300 ppm and the sea level was roughly 10 meters higher than today.

Now we are at 390+ ppm of CO2. While the glaciers cannot respond quickly to the rise, they are responding. And the melting of the continental glaciers will raise the sea level far higher than the last interglacial. Not in my lifetime, nor those of my children, but it will happen. And the cost will be major, far more than it would have cost to address this issue 40 years ago.

By the midpoint of this century, I expect the CO2 level to be around 500 ppm, and the CH4 to be near 4 ppm.

I'm not disputing your facts. I'm questioning your conclusions.

And again MY OPINION HAS NOTHING to so with politics. Politicians on both sides spew nonsense if they think it will garner them favor.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Good lord. Virtually every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Quite on the contrary, you are not open to any science that contradicts your political ideology. Reality has a way of trumping ideology, usually to the chagrin of the ideologues.

The only one to bring politics into this IS YOU. Science trumps politics because its based in FACT while your politics is based in EMOTION.

I have yet to see anything but CLAIMS of proof of anything in this thread. Nothing but emotional hyperbole disguised as fact.

I will also admit that it is likely we are having an impact. Difference being to what degree and of course the fact that I'm not willing to settle for some bullshit lifestyle so some schmuck 2000 years from now doesn't have to deal with a one or two degree increase in temperature. You guys are the same wackos that would stop driving cars if you thought it would save some exotic species of grasshopper in South America.

Damn. Not what I would expect to see posted from someone with any intellect at all. And it is not one or two degrees in a thousand years. It is four or more degrees by the end of this century.

A sustained rise of that nature would be catastrophic. Many tropical rain forests would turn to deserts and the ocean levels would rise to levels that would engulf all coastal regions.

I've seen the argument for that case as well as the opposing views.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Grampa, I have posted real scientists statements in support of my arguement. Where are your supports for your side? Peer reviewed sources for articles, scientific societies for policy, please.

I don't know where to look for shit on this subject but I will try. Almost all of my knowledge comes from watching 3 channels on tv. NASA, Science, NatGeo/Discovery.

 

[Saigon]

Politicians on both sides spew nonsense if they think it will garner them favor.

They do.

But geographers don't, physicists don't, and spcialists in glaciers don't.

And they all firmly back Old Rocks argument.

Here are just 3 of more than 50 statements:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

American Geophysical Union

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement,[48] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

European Federation of Geologists

In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists[50] (EFG) issued the position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage :

The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.

It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.
CCS [Carbon Capture and geological Storage] should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[healthmyths]

AGU Responds to Op-ed

AGU Responds to Op-ed entitled "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," published by The Wall Street Journal, 27 January 2012

03 February 2012

Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.”

As we look at the ever-increasing attacks on those whose research has established the fact that climate change is real and human activity is most probably the cause, Moynihan’s sentiment still holds true. There are those who would want us to believe that climate change isn’t happening and that human activity isn’t playing a role, but unfortunately wishful thinking won’t make the facts disappear.

Attacking the character and motives of a scientist or organization because they stand behind a conclusion that is politically charged – that the Earth's climate is out of balance and human activities are in all probability responsible for global warming – is counterproductive and short sighted. Likewise, we ignore the scientific evidence for climate change at our peril because it will have an impact on national security, the economy, our food supply, and many other areas that affect our health and well-being.

The research and discovery process that has led scientists to these conclusions is governed by well-established and widely accepted practices designed to ensure the integrity of scientific findings. These same methods have also brought civilization profound achievements like human flight, life-saving vaccines, electric power and the Internet.

As leaders from around the world tackle the challenge of addressing and mitigating the impacts of changing climate, there are three things they can be assured of: (1) Climate change is real, and in all likelihood is being caused by human behavior; (2) There is wide-spread consensus on this point, with 97 percent of the climate science community agreeing; (3) That consensus is rooted in a foundation of scientific knowledge gained through careful, thoughtful, and thorough research, not political or ideological rhetoric.

That would be valid.. IF the entire world's temperature taking was the basis.. BUT
with 12.5% of the World's land mass NOT being included in the temperature stations around the world.. HOW could any scientist conclude the data inclusive?
Consider this.. if you have 5 kids each 5 ft tall and 1 kid 3 ft tall what is the average?
4.6 is the average.. BUT when you drop out the 3 ft kid.. average increases to 5 !

I know this is very simple BUT evidently you and other global warming supporters are
dealing with SKEWED data...


The number of [Siberian ]stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and
then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present Only four stations,
those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large
populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect
more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions
for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order
to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ozone Hole Watch: 2012 Antarctic MERRA Temperature

The depth and area of the Antarctic ozone hole are governed by the temperature of the stratosphere and the amount of sunlight reaching the south polar region. Temperatures that are cold enough can form polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). PSCs are an important component in the destruction of ozone molecules. PSCs can be formed when temperatures fall below a given threshold for each type of PSC. The formation temperature is dependent on concentrations of nitric acid and water vapor, and the potential temperature of the air. PSCs can be formed from sulfate aerosols, nitric acid trihydrate (NAT), or ice.

 

[Bloodline]

Glaciers expand and contract naturally. Everything from the wobble of the earths axis to solar activity and geological activity effects the rate.

All else is just human speculation.

I see. The worldwide deglaciation that we are seeing is just the result of natural processes and has nothing to do with a CO2 level that has gone from 280 ppm to 390+ ppm. Yet the increase from 180 ppm to 280 ppm was the differance between glaciated continents and the glaciers we saw a hundred years ago.

The glaciers have advanced and retreated hundreds of times throughout history. Which of course was long before humans ever came to be.

OK...let's go with your current statement here.

BTW, there have been five major glaciations in the history of the earth....not hundreds.

Approximately 20,000 years ago the last ice age was at its peak. How do scientists know this? By studying chemical isotopes in existing sediments, geological evidence in the form of structures and core samples from ice and sediment, and paleontological evidence.

Based upon this, scientists know this interglacial period we humans have lived in began about 11,000 years ago. The natural cycle (based on the earth's evidence) is for an interglacial period to last anywhere from 28,000 to 50,000 years.

So you see....there is just NO way to explain the rate of glacial melting away on "natural" cycles. Nature requires thousands of years for changes like we've seen in just the past 50 to occur.

We DON'T have much more time for skeptics like you to mess around with debating on whether the science is "real." This argument was formulated by industry to protect the profit driven interests of industry. It's all about the status quo and short term fortunes. It is disengenious of you to simply assume the role of unwitting mouthpiece for these interests but that is what you and others like you are doing even though you may not even have any vested interest at all of your own in their agenda. It is NOT a "liberal" versus industry argument!

We MIGHT already be past the point of no return in this climate catastrophe. If you're as old as me you might just get out of here in time. If you have any children and grandchildren though....forget about it. They are doomed!


"However, climate change is happening even faster than
previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000
have been higher than even the highest predictions,
Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster
than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become
more rapid. Feedbacks in the climate system might lead
to much more rapid climate changes."


http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

In this context, the kind of material used by climate-change skeptics to cast doubt on global warming — whether it be a handful of emails stolen from an East Anglian research facility or a few errors in an IPCC report — are meaningless. The mountain of climate data assembled over decades by the scientific community as a whole is irrefutable. The records collected and analyzed by independent scientists from many disciplines and thousands of locations, paint a consistent, verifiable picture of a rapidly warming world.

Make no mistake: Science has given us unequivocal warning that global warming is real. The time to start working on solutions is now.

Scientific consensus on global warming | Environmental Defense Fund

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

NASA - Ozone Levels Drop When Hurricanes Are Strengthening

In a recent study, Xiaolei Zou and Yonghui Wu, researchers at Florida State University found that variations of ozone levels from the surface to the upper atmosphere are closely related to the formation, intensification and movement of a hurricane.

They studied ozone levels in 12 hurricanes and looked at total ozone levels, that is, from the ground to the upper atmosphere. Now scientists have clues on how a hurricane behaves when the ozone levels are high and low.

Zou and Wu noticed that over 100 miles, the area of a hurricane typically has low levels of ozone from the surface to the top of the hurricane. Whenever a hurricane intensifies, it appears that the ozone levels throughout the storm decrease. When they looked at the storm with ozone data a hurricane's eye becomes very clear. Because forecasters always try to pinpoint the eye of the hurricane, this knowledge will help with locating the exact position and lead to better tracking.


Now im no genius but im pretty sure hurricanes arent fueled by freon

 

[Saigon]

And again MY OPINION HAS NOTHING to so with politics.

Liberalism is a disease

Grampa -

Perhaps you should have changed your sig line before you posted the first quote here....?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I see. The worldwide deglaciation that we are seeing is just the result of natural processes and has nothing to do with a CO2 level that has gone from 280 ppm to 390+ ppm. Yet the increase from 180 ppm to 280 ppm was the differance between glaciated continents and the glaciers we saw a hundred years ago.

The glaciers have advanced and retreated hundreds of times throughout history. Which of course was long before humans ever came to be.

OK...let's go with your current statement here.

BTW, there have been five major glaciations in the history of the earth....not hundreds.
Approximately 20,000 years ago the last ice age was at its peak. How do scientists know this? By studying chemical isotopes in existing sediments, geological evidence in the form of structures and core samples from ice and sediment, and paleontological evidence.

Based upon this, scientists know this interglacial period we humans have lived in began about 11,000 years ago. The natural cycle (based on the earth's evidence) is for an interglacial period to last anywhere from 28,000 to 50,000 years.

So you see....there is just NO way to explain the rate of glacial melting away on "natural" cycles. Nature requires thousands of years for changes like we've seen in just the past 50 to occur.

We DON'T have much more time for skeptics like you to mess around with debating on whether the science is "real." This argument was formulated by industry to protect the profit driven interests of industry. It's all about the status quo and short term fortunes. It is disengenious of you to simply assume the role of unwitting mouthpiece for these interests but that is what you and others like you are doing even though you may not even have any vested interest at all of your own in their agenda. It is NOT a "liberal" versus industry argument!

We MIGHT already be past the point of no return in this climate catastrophe. If you're as old as me you might just get out of here in time. If you have any children and grandchildren though....forget about it. They are doomed!


"However, climate change is happening even faster than
previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000
have been higher than even the highest predictions,
Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster
than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become
more rapid. Feedbacks in the climate system might lead
to much more rapid climate changes."


http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

In this context, the kind of material used by climate-change skeptics to cast doubt on global warming — whether it be a handful of emails stolen from an East Anglian research facility or a few errors in an IPCC report — are meaningless. The mountain of climate data assembled over decades by the scientific community as a whole is irrefutable. The records collected and analyzed by independent scientists from many disciplines and thousands of locations, paint a consistent, verifiable picture of a rapidly warming world.

Make no mistake: Science has given us unequivocal warning that global warming is real. The time to start working on solutions is now.

Scientific consensus on global warming | Environmental Defense Fund

Actually to be technical about it there have only been 3 major ones. However there have been hundreds of mini ice ages

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And again MY OPINION HAS NOTHING to so with politics.

Liberalism is a disease

Grampa -

Perhaps you should have changed your sig line before you posted the first quote here....?

Point taken, but it has nothing to do with science and my opinions or level of knowledge on it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

http://forgottenliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg

If anyone would tell me how to make this graph appear rather than text I would appreciate it

 

[Bloodline]

AGU Responds to Op-ed

AGU Responds to Op-ed entitled "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," published by The Wall Street Journal, 27 January 2012

03 February 2012

Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.”

As we look at the ever-increasing attacks on those whose research has established the fact that climate change is real and human activity is most probably the cause, Moynihan’s sentiment still holds true. There are those who would want us to believe that climate change isn’t happening and that human activity isn’t playing a role, but unfortunately wishful thinking won’t make the facts disappear.

Attacking the character and motives of a scientist or organization because they stand behind a conclusion that is politically charged – that the Earth's climate is out of balance and human activities are in all probability responsible for global warming – is counterproductive and short sighted. Likewise, we ignore the scientific evidence for climate change at our peril because it will have an impact on national security, the economy, our food supply, and many other areas that affect our health and well-being.

The research and discovery process that has led scientists to these conclusions is governed by well-established and widely accepted practices designed to ensure the integrity of scientific findings. These same methods have also brought civilization profound achievements like human flight, life-saving vaccines, electric power and the Internet.

As leaders from around the world tackle the challenge of addressing and mitigating the impacts of changing climate, there are three things they can be assured of: (1) Climate change is real, and in all likelihood is being caused by human behavior; (2) There is wide-spread consensus on this point, with 97 percent of the climate science community agreeing; (3) That consensus is rooted in a foundation of scientific knowledge gained through careful, thoughtful, and thorough research, not political or ideological rhetoric.

That would be valid.. IF the entire world's temperature taking was the basis.. BUT
with 12.5% of the World's land mass NOT being included in the temperature stations around the world.. HOW could any scientist conclude the data inclusive?
Consider this.. if you have 5 kids each 5 ft tall and 1 kid 3 ft tall what is the average?
4.6 is the average.. BUT when you drop out the 3 ft kid.. average increases to 5 !

I know this is very simple BUT evidently you and other global warming supporters are
dealing with SKEWED data...


The number of [Siberian ]stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and
then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present Only four stations,
those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large
populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect
more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions
for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.

The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order
to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

Your post is a PERFECT example of the bullshit the corporate apologists use to muddy the waters on scientific fact!

ONE rejected paper (Lars Kame'l) does NOT constitute any type of "scientific" body of evidence contradicting what the vast majority of the world's scientific community are in agreement on.

Either would a DOZEN!

If you REALLY want to learn how data is gathered for atmospheric studies here....this might be useful.

How to Use Remote Sensing As Evidence for Global Warming | eHow.com

 

[FJO]

You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.

Very scientific.

NOT!

There is plenty that scientists DON'T know I'll admit that. But they've got a pretty good fix on what is "natural" and what is not on this planet.

Almost unanimously all CREDIBLE scientists agree that the rate the climate has been changing in the last 50 years does NOT fit any "natural" cycles of the planet.

Only to a liberal free-loading and hypocritical excuse of a human being would the existence and activities of humans seem no "natural".

 

[Bloodline]

You guys all think in such short human terms when it comes to global issues. And therein lies the flaws in your arguments. Our ability to measure climatology is an infant compared to the history of the cycles on our planet.

Very scientific.

NOT!

There is plenty that scientists DON'T know I'll admit that. But they've got a pretty good fix on what is "natural" and what is not on this planet.

Almost unanimously all CREDIBLE scientists agree that the rate the climate has been changing in the last 50 years does NOT fit any "natural" cycles of the planet.

Only to a liberal free-loading and hypocritical excuse of a human being would the existence and activities of humans seem no "natural".

Actually in nature it does happen "naturally" for species to "foul" their own nests so to speak. Higher organisms usually move on to fresh new surroundings when it happens.

I have heard of some bacteria that actually poison themselves with their own wastes until they simply die off.

Back to the former, our dillemma is that we can't simply "move on" from our planet once we start experiencing the large scale die-off that results from fouling our "nest."

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ozone Hole Watch: 2012 Antarctic MERRA Temperature

The depth and area of the Antarctic ozone hole are governed by the temperature of the stratosphere and the amount of sunlight reaching the south polar region. Temperatures that are cold enough can form polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). PSCs are an important component in the destruction of ozone molecules. PSCs can be formed when temperatures fall below a given threshold for each type of PSC. The formation temperature is dependent on concentrations of nitric acid and water vapor, and the potential temperature of the air. PSCs can be formed from sulfate aerosols, nitric acid trihydrate (NAT), or ice.

Old Rocks?

You asked, I gave, you disappeared..........

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

http://forgottenliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg


So were the vikings driving too many cars? Their temperatures were warmer than ours.....

 

[Saigon]

Only to a liberal free-loading and hypocritical excuse of a human being would the existence and activities of humans seem no "natural".

Um....you might want to go away and think about that one a bit, and then get back to us.