How far have we already gone?

[Old Rocks]

At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects? According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTTlAAiwgwM&feature=relmfu]AGU FM11 - Paleoclimate record points toward potential rapid climate changes - YouTube[/ame]

 

[wirebender]

Rocks, can you name anything that is going on in the global climate that is outside the boundries of natural variability? Can you name anything that is even approaching the boundries of natural variability?

I didn't think so. Even the blatant data tampering going on with the temeprature record isn't moving the numbers anywhere close to being outside of natural variability.

You have been hoaxed rocks and every time I see you trying to justify your faith, I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or laugh in your ignorant face.

By the way rocks, sea level is not rising anywhere near the compuer model predictions and has actually decreased. Wonder why?

 

[Oddball]

I'd go with laughing in his face....It's more entertaining.

 

[whitehall]

Ah, no climate change yet but....gasp....potential rapid climate change. The freaking liberals can't enjoy a mild winter without trying to extort money because of it.

 

[wirebender]

Ah, no climate change yet but....gasp....potential rapid climate change. The freaking liberals can't enjoy a mild winter without trying to extort money because of it.

Well, you know that there is no means to earn money for the cause within liberalism so extortion is all they have.

 

[Sallow]

The earth is incredibly resilient. It will survive Humans. And thanks to the Conservative denial..it may not have to wait all that long.

 

[old navy]

I was at the beach not too long ago. The sea level looked about the same as I last remembered it.

 

[sitarro]

At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects? According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.

AGU FM11 - Paleoclimate record points toward potential rapid climate changes - YouTube

We're canceling flights to destinations in Mexico because of the high altitude ash that makes it extremely dangerous to fly through.......... wonder what kind of effect that has on the climate?

Popocatepetl volcano (Mexico) news and eruption updates / 13 Jan - 3 May 2012


Thursday, May 03, 2012
Popocatépetl volcano (Central Mexico) activity update: ongoing ash and steam emissions, occasional explosions
CENAPRED reported that gas-and-steam plumes, occasionally containing ash, rose from Popocatépetl during 25-29 April. ...more [read all]

Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Popocatepetl volcano (Mexico): continuing ash and steam eruptions

Ash eruption at Popocatépetl volcano on 2 May 2012 (CENAPRED webcam images)
Popocatépetl volcano continues to produce ash and steam eruptions several times a day, that generate plumes rising up to 1-2 km above the crater. A more powerful emission is in progress at the time of writing (see image). [read all]

Thursday, Apr 19, 2012
Popocatépetl volcano (Mexico): activity summary 11-17 April
The weekly Smithsonian/USGS volcanic activity report summarizes the recent increase of Popocatépetl volcano as follows: ...more [read all]

Wednesday, Apr 18, 2012
Popocatepetl volcano (Mexico): alert level raised
CENAPRED has raised the alert status of Popocatépetl to the third highest level (5 out of 7) and considers the possibility of a major eruption. The volcano continues to have elevated levels of seismicity, and produces frequent steam and ash emissions raising about 1 km above the crater. ...more [read all]
to top
Monday, Apr 16, 2012
Popocatepetl volcano (Mexico): largest eruption in 2012 on 16 April, heavy ash fall
Popocatepetl volcano near Mexico City had one of its largest eruptions this year yesterday 16 April. An explosion produced an ash plume rising 2 km and caused ash fall, up to 7 cm thick, in over 30 communities near the volcano. Strong incandescence can be seen at night from the summit, suggesting that fresh magma is arriving there building up a new lava dome. ...more [read all]

 

[konradv]

At the present 395 ppm of CO2, what are we already committed to in terms of ice melt, disregarding feedback effects? According to the paleo-record, an increase of about 25 meters in sea level.

AGU FM11 - Paleoclimate record points toward potential rapid climate changes - YouTube

We're canceling flights to destinations in Mexico because of the high altitude ash that makes it extremely dangerous to fly through.......... wonder what kind of effect that has on the climate?

Temporary cooling that the deniers will point to as "proof" that AGW is a hoax.

 

[Saigon]

Rocks, can you name anything that is going on in the global climate that is outside the boundries of natural variability? Can you name anything that is even approaching the boundries of natural variability?

I didn't think so. Even the blatant data tampering going on with the temeprature record isn't moving the numbers anywhere close to being outside of natural variability.

You have been hoaxed rocks and every time I see you trying to justify your faith, I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or laugh in your ignorant face.

By the way rocks, sea level is not rising anywhere near the compuer model predictions and has actually decreased. Wonder why?

What on earth are you talking about?

The collapse of glaciers is far beyond any known natural variation.

The collapse of arctic and antarctic ice is far beyond any known variation.

It always amazes me how people who talking about laughing at ignorance represent a position which flies in the face of all scientific study.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, they flap yap, but never, never put up anything from real scientists that are studying the problem. Satellites for the EU, the US, Russia, and China, even Japan, confirming the increasing heat in the troposphere and ocean, but all they do is denigrate the scientists presenting the evidence, and flaunt their willfull ignorance.

 

[Saigon]

Yes, they flap yap, but never, never put up anything from real scientists that are studying the problem. Satellites for the EU, the US, Russia, and China, even Japan, confirming the increasing heat in the troposphere and ocean, but all they do is denigrate the scientists presenting the evidence, and flaunt their willfull ignorance.

I was amazed to read the comments on this thread - I had really thought most people understood that the situation with climate change has gone far beyond being a theory.

Just 2 weeks back the BBC launched this amazing satellite tracking tool:

BBC News - Cryosat mission's new views of polar ice

Read the material available on Cryosat tracking, I wouldn't have really thought there was any doubt at all that the situation in the Arctic is catastrophic and unprecedented.

I think it also worth noting that Wirebender disagrees with the Science Academies of around 50 countries and the societies of virtually every related field, from the American Society of Geology to the American Society for Climatology.

So apparently they are all wrong, and he is right.

 

[Old Rocks]

Another affect of the increase in CO2;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utQ41I6tkZ8&feature=relmfu]AGU FM11 - Ocean Acidification 1: Increasing ocean acidification, declining reef health - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

Rocks, can you name anything that is going on in the global climate that is outside the boundries of natural variability? Can you name anything that is even approaching the boundries of natural variability?

I didn't think so. Even the blatant data tampering going on with the temeprature record isn't moving the numbers anywhere close to being outside of natural variability.

You have been hoaxed rocks and every time I see you trying to justify your faith, I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or laugh in your ignorant face.

By the way rocks, sea level is not rising anywhere near the compuer model predictions and has actually decreased. Wonder why?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ-OhzFblI4&feature=related]How 2011 Became a 'Mind-Boggling' Year of Extreme Weather - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bV5C8rDEPc&feature=related]Test Tube Earth: Extreme Weather 2011 (Extended) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXA82tTbpho&feature=related]Extreme Weather 2011 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[wirebender]

[What on earth are you talking about?

The collapse of glaciers is far beyond any known natural variation.

The collapse of arctic and antarctic ice is far beyond any known variation.

It always amazes me how people who talking about laughing at ignorance represent a position which flies in the face of all scientific study.

Spoken like a true believer. A believer, by the way, who has never taken the time to learn the first thing about the earth's history. Are you aware that in the history of the earth, ice anywhere is the anomoly, not the norm?

It is well known that both the medieval and roman warm periods were warmer than the present. Do you believe that the ice didn't melt then? The vostok ice cores tell us that it most certainly did melt then and to a greater degree than any melting we see today.

The ignorance you guys display at every turn is simply astounding.

 

[wirebender]

I was amazed to read the comments on this thread - I had really thought most people understood that the situation with climate change has gone far beyond being a theory.

AGW is not a theory and the defintion of hypothesis must be tortured in order to call the claim a hypothesis.

I think it also worth noting that Wirebender disagrees with the Science Academies of around 50 countries and the societies of virtually every related field, from the American Society of Geology to the American Society for Climatology.

Yeah, I am funny about disregarding the laws of physics in favor of funding. Speaking of the laws of physics genius, can you name even one that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science? I didn't think so. Climate scientists are not keen on talking abou the laws of physics as they tend to contradict the piss poor hypothesis that underlies what passes for climate science.

So apparently they are all wrong, and he is right.

You do realize that when you are talking about those science academies you are only talking about the political heads, right? Well maybe you don't realize it. I think you probably know so little that you don't have any idea how much you don't realize.

 

[Saigon]

Wirebender -

Given the entire scientific community have gotten this wrong, perhaps you can explain why. Because let's face it - you know more than anyone else.

Here is the statement of the US Geological Society - who are clearly a bunch of commies.

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources...

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Please have a look at their site, and explain where their science is wrong.

 

[Saigon]

The ignorance you guys display at every turn is simply astounding.

Says the person who is taking a position opposed by almost every scientist on earth.

To my mind there have been two ways people can respond to news about climate change.

One has been to read a lot of news, particularly from sources we know and trust, and compare that with our own experience.

The other is to ridicule the science and go with blind faith.

I'm fine with you doing the latter.