Climate Change Already Impacting ‘All Continents’ According To New International Report

reply to post by Rosinitiate


I'm in south jersey. It was snowing massive flakes this morning at 7 a.m., then the temperature went up to almost 60 today...IT WAS BIZARRE......Snow was not even in our forecast! All in one day.....

reply to post by Phage


You seem to be a smart fella and reasonable .Could you tell me when AGW started ? ...I am serious ...I think it's a very simple question that can be answered with a starting date ....peace

reply to post by Phage


How do we know that the warming isn't causing a rise in CO2 as opposed to a rise in CO2 causing the warming?

I found that to be a rather staggering hole in Gore's inconvenient "chart", which no one seems to address. People seemed to just take it as is, because the science priest said so. I assume the implications of that would be that instead; nature is causing the warming rather than the suggested warming caused by nurture (humans)...?

I am not against living on a sustainable, clean planet. I just don't really buy the GW crap that this "science" is then laid down to prove that humans are the direct cause of global warming, therefore we should pay, literally. Why not change the toxic socio-economic systems we have been using that apparently got us in this mess to begin with, if GW truly is a crisis level mess which needs to be fixed/mitigated. I am quite sure there are other messes that we have caused on this planet that need cleaning up even more urgently than CO2, and also don't have profit margins attached to them.

reply to post by the2ofusr1

They are the ones that Peter Glick had fabricated a document from and got caught .

You may want to check your facts on that statement. The documents which Glick obtained from Heartland were not fabricated. Heartland itself does not say they were.

articles.latimes.com...

reply to post by j.r.c.b.

You seem to be experiencing what we up the coast usually get this time of year .I think it has something to do with the polar vortex being quite active this year ..It seems to drive the cold further south then normal ...peace

reply to post by Sparkymedic

How do we know that the warming isn't causing a rise in CO2 as opposed to a rise in CO2 causing the warming?

Because CO2 levels have been rising ever since people started burning fossil fuels.
Because the isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere indicates that it the result of the burning of fossil fuels and not natural sources.

reply to post by Phage


He did get some genuine docs. from them but he also fabricated one and got called out on it ...I think it was Mosher over at WUWT that figured it out but I think there was a forensic analysis done that pointed to Glick as well ....If I am not mistaken there may have been some action taken at the University he was at ...peace

reply to post by the2ofusr1

I think it's a very simple question that can be answered with a starting date

January 23, 1947.


That isn't a simple question, it is a simplistic question. Pretty typical of the simplistic stuff that comes from deniers.

reply to post by Sparkymedic


You do raise a good point on co2 following the rise in heat in the past .I am not sure what the lag time was but it was quite substantial ..peace

reply to post by the2ofusr1


You are mistaken.

reply to post by Phage


Denier ...is that a ad hominem or are you saying I am denying something particular ? ....

anon72


"General Consenus" is NOT SCIENCE or EVIDENCE!

Right on. General Consensus is what scientists agree to if they want to make sure their organization continues to get government and corporate grant money.

The earth has been in a stage of 'global warming' since the end of the last glacial maximum.

liejunkie01
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

A little bit of an update on the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes.

In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, releasedthis February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.   

m.livescience.com...

Thank you for the update but I think that was already factored however going from 100 million to 200 million metric tons probably isn't going to move the scale much when we are dealing with numbers like 440 billion metric tons.

Here is an interesting site. It is pretty up to date.

trillionthtonne.org...

reply to post by Phage


That is a interesting date January 23, 1947...considering man was churning out co2 well before that date . But thank you I will do some research on that and maybe get back to you with a follow up question ...I know I can make mistakes and I have to reply to one you made where you said Heartland didn't claim he did create the document ..You are correct they didn't but I didn't say they did ...In fact I said Mosher figured it out and there was a forensic analysis done on it ..Was I incorrect about that ?

ETA You might like to have a look at this post about when AGW started . I am not a scientist and probably not very good at reading charts and graphs but the author of this piece seems to know what he is talking about wattsupwiththat.com... There appears to be some confusion as to when humans might have begun to influence “Earth’s Temperature”. For example, “Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past centuryprimarily due to the greenhouse gases released as people burn fossil fuels.” NASA Earth Observatory “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”

reply to post by the2ofusr1

Denier ...is that a ad hominem or are you saying I am denying something particular ? ....

I don't see that being referred to as a denier is an attack on one's person or character. You do seem to be refuting that there is evidence of AGW and that would make you a denier.

I am a denier of HAARP controlled weather. I accept the designation.

reply to post by the2ofusr1

That is a interesting date January 23, 1947...considering man was churning out co2 well before that date .

The date was a facetious (as meant to be indicated by its specificity) answer to a simplistic question.

reply to post by Phage


Well if you are not going to be genuine and already know everything info like this is useless to you .."“The observed global warming of the past century occurred primarily in two distinct 20 year periods, from 1925 to 1944 and from 1978 to the present. While the latter warming is often attributed to a human-induced increase of greenhouse gases, causes of the earlier warming are less clear since this period precedes the time of strongest increases in human-induced greenhouse gas (radiative) forcing.” NASA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory / Delworth et al., 2000 “Internal climate variability is primarily responsible for the early 20th century warming from 1904 to 1944 and the subsequent cooling from 1944 to 1976.” Scripps / Ring et al., 2012: “There exist reasonable explanations, which are consistent with natural forcing contributing significantly to the warming from 1850 to 1950″. EPA

reply to post by Phage


Well there seems to be a trend in the blog-sphere and in news articles that used the term in a derogatory fashion associated with denying the holocaust and in many cases suggesting the death penalty for anyone that would dare to disagree with AGW ... I use the term , I disagree instead of using something synonymous with the holocaust ....But have at it I wont take it to heart ..

reply to post by the2ofusr1

the author of this piece seems to know what he is talking about

At least now I know where your question came from. As far as Watt knowing what he's talking about, no. Not really. But he is, definitely, a denier.

Here's a good example of his "technique."

As such, since there is not compelling evidence that Anthropogenic CO2 was sufficient to have ab influence Earth’s temperatures prior to 1950, Anthropogenic CO2 cannot be the cause of the warming that occurred before 1950.

wattsupwiththat.com...

He first attempts to demonstrate that there isn't "compelling" evidence that anthropogenic CO2 increases were suffcient to influence global temperatures. Nothing wrong with claiming that, it is arguable to a certain degree. But he then takes that interpretation and says therefore "anthropogenic CO2 cannot be the cause." What? Why not?

reply to post by the2ofusr1

Yeah, I guess Watt doesn't expect people to read his sources. That's another of his gimmicks, he likes taking statements out of context. For example, here's what it says in the Conclusions of Scripps / Ring et al., 2012

Our findings have confirmed that human emissions are the main cause of the global warm-ing over the past 150 years. Since human emissions are the cause of the global warming, reducing emissions will reduce the amount of warming in the future.

www.scirp.org...