The "Normal" Arctic Climate is Now Obsolete

Our climate is normal whan it isn't as steady as it has been for the last couple of millennia.

Climate change happened like in the switch of a button according to ice core studies.

Besides... If the warming continuous... Greenland's ice will melt causing sallinty levels of the artic sea to decrease exponential making it to buoyant to sink. The gulf stream will come to a stop and...

Tada !! Instant Ice age.

Originally posted by badgerprints
. Pinatubo put more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere in a week than mankind did since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

And the moon is made of green cheese. Honest, gov! A Nigerian prince told me by email.

ABE: mockery aside, please read section 4 of the following paper, figures 3 and 4 are the picture book version...

climate.envsci.rutgers.edu...

Up is down, black is white, hot is cold, and pinatubo actually reduced increases in CO2.

Originally posted by watchitburn
While we should not go out and actively try to harm the enviroment, climate change is a naturally occurring phenomena. It has happened many times throughout the history of the planet.

Can you point out where in the natural cycle these things have always been presents so as to dismiss that as merely being natural.
6 biilion people.
The vast scale destruction of forests and jungles that act as natural parts of the cycle, for the resource of wood.
The burning(CO2) of vast tracks of forest and jungles to make way for agriculture.

The mining and burning of billions of tonnes of fossil fuels that normally, as a part of the natural cycle, were sequestered underground but are now in the atmosphere as CO2 from HUMANS converting it from that naturally sequestered state.
Where is that in the history of the natural cycle, can you just point that out please.

Where in the natural cycle is the myriad of DAMS that have diverted waterways that effect rain fall patterns, diverted to irrigate crops to feed live stock that produce methane which is also a Greenhouse gas.
What about this irrigation increasing soil salinity rendering the land inhospitable to the plants that would naturally grow there, and absorb heat CO2.
Is that part of the cycle.
What about the degradation of huge amounts of natural top soil that provides a stable environment for vegetation that acts as a natural sinks for CO2, that this has led to desertification, and again the loss of plant life that would naturally play a part in the cycle.

In 1997 there were 600,000,000 fossil fuel burning cars.
In 1900 there were around 4000 in the USA.
Are these part of the natural cycle.
600 coal fire power plants in the USA alone with China now out pacing the US with new ones at a staggering rate.
I guess all these are part of the way Mother nature regulates the climate.

To think people can change or stop it is pretty arrogant in my opinion.

No one is talking about stopping or changing the weather, just our effect on it. Which I admit is debatable.
But please don't plaster this issue with "its just a natural cycle" by ignoring the fact that in the last hundred years alone, we have changed the world in all the ways I list above, and many, many more.
That have never, ever been a part of any cycle.

So when you say these changes are all just apart of the natural cycle, can you please point out where we observe all this as being a natural cycle.
Thanks.

Unless of course, you are foolish enough to actually think what we do is all natural.

Previous climate change events can be studied in great detail - we can look at what caused these past climate changes and examine the effect they had. By deducing what caused these climate change events we can find the effect that man-made emissions will have on the climate - warming. This is actually a fundamental part of modern climatology. Previous climate changes, therefore, merely reinforce the notion that our emissions are and will adversely change the climate.

So now that it is gone we got no need to worry about it, right?

One of the biggest problems I have with this mass man-made climate change hysteria is the constant use of computer modelling.
Past events can be measured, the evidence gathered to prove or disprove theories, future events cannot be determined this way because the evidence is not yet there in any measurable way. Feeding numbers into a climate modelling computer programme will produce a set of results that can vary greatly based on the smallest tweaks to the data being input. Just because a bunch of career academics and scientists - whose standing in the science world and living comes from taxpayer money and funding from corporate entities - say it is so, does not necessarily mean it will happen. Their work is theoretical as the events have not yet hapened.

Also, the outrageous claims being levelled against "deniers" is ridiculous. Any sane person can see that the climate changes, and has done throughout the history of this planet, both before we were around and since we appeared on the scene. To try to claim that people deny the climate changes is laughable and makes those making such claims look childish at best and pushing self serving agendas at worst.

Once again.
The climate will continue to change with or without our help.

I'm getting mighty tired of these ridiculous straw man attempts that we have all heard over nine-thousand times before and have been debunked over nine-thousand times before. Of course the climate will change and will continue to change with and without man-kind, that does not imply that we are not in actuality having a significant effect on the climate either. Get it right.

Pinatubo put more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere in a week than mankind did since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The eruption in Iceland this summer did quite a bit of damage as well. Of course nobody seems to mind that. A few major eruptions either way and that's ok because it's "natural" but, it actually makes mankinds contribution to this warming trend a moot point. The damage has been done.

melatonin and others have already debunked that at least once.

China and India will pollute more in the next 30 years than the US and Europe have in the last 200.

You can view projected emissions from China, US, India and Europe in International Energy Outlook under the reference scenario under Table A10.

USA starts at 5,986 MtCO2 in 2007, average growth rate is 0.2% total emissions from 2007 to 2030 are therefore: 204.2 GtCO2

China starts at 6,284 MtCO2 in 2007, average growth rate is 2.7% total emissions from 2007 to 2030 are therefore 334.6 GtCO2

India starts at 1,399 MtCO2 in 2007, average growth rate is 1.8% total emissions from 2007 to 2030 are therefore 63.0 GtCO2

OECD Europe starts at 4,386 MtCO2in 2007, average growth rate is -0.2% total emissions from 2007 to 2030 are therefore 140.1 GtCO2

Non-OECD Europe starts at 683 MtCO2 in 2007, average growth rate is 0.3% total emissions from 2007 to 2030 are therefore 38.50 GtCO2

USA + Europe = 382.8 GtCO2 2007-2040
India + China = 397.6 GtCO2 2007-2040
Cumulative emissions USA + Europe = 767.3 GtCO2 1900-2005
Cumulative emissions India + China = 118.8 GtCO2 1900-2005
Emissions Europe + USA 1900-2040 = 1150.1 GtCO2
Emissions India + China 1900-2040 = 516.4 GtCO2

You were only off by a factor of 2, approximately. So can you stop lying and or making things up on the spot? So far your post has been stawman, lie, and another lie.

Instead of crying about it and spending time supporting the political agenda to screw the citizens of the developed nations out of trillions in carbon credit fees and carbon taxes in the name of stopping CC or GW

Another straw-man. Nobody is suggesting that we should support the political agenda for carbon credit fees on developing nations nor carbon taxes on developing nations. There are plenty of wars to fight climate change, what you have done is cherry pick one and form a straw-man around it. Create an international framework into moving to a carbon-free economy at minimal cost, support research and development into low-cost sustainable energy at a lower cost than fossil fuels, or support tax and 100% dividend (that's where you tax polluters and give 100% of the money back to the people in tax reduction or otherwise).

Your statement on volcanoes was incorrect so I'll ignore that.

The only way to stop them would be to shut down their entire economies.

No, the only way to stop them is to improve their efficiency and move to clean energy. Nuclear power has equal economics to coal in China provided cheap financing.

Instead of wasting all of the time and money to do something that won't be successful they might as well start relocating developed coastal population centers and infrastructure inland. Put the money into viable power resources and outlaw the exploitation of the new green religion for the profit of the wealthy.

That's not realistic that's stupid.

The entire reason why cities are located where they are is because they are near natural resources and are easily accessible by the sea. Relocating developed coastal population centers would cost trillions of dollars and wouldn't even prevent climate-change but rather ignore the core problem. You rant about carbon taxes and green energy but then you suggest a massive infrastructure shift away from the sea. This idea would require us to shift to clean energy anyway (when we run out of fossil fuels which is inevitable) AND require us to move all our infrastructure inland. That is simply not realistic. Coping with climate-change will also cost money and lots of it, especially if we fail to prevent it. How will be pay for coping with climate change? Probably a carbon tax (which apparently you despise).

Shift to clean energy anyway, just do it at an earlier date to help prevent global warming. Incidentally this will also help energy security, lower air pollution, and lower water pollution. Besides, when you add external costs to the internal costs of energy, clean energy comes out cheaper (this means that when you buy coal electricity you don't pay for the air pollution it causes. When you include air pollution damages it's actually rather expensive). Spend 15% more on clean energy now to help energy security, lower air pollution, lower water pollution and help mitigate global warming so we don't have to spend as much reacting to the consequences of global warming.

Originally posted by C0bzz
I'm getting mighty tired of these ridiculous straw man attempts that we have all heard over nine-thousand times before and have been debunked over nine-thousand times before. Of course the climate will change and will continue to change with and without man-kind, that does not imply that we are not in actuality having a significant effect on the climate either.

Whether it's our fault or not, I hope some big organization steps up in a massive global effort to try to reverse warming of the planet.

Because I think the problem is 'solvable'. We only need to reflect more of the sunlight back to space in significant amounts. Because I tell everyone here, living near the equator, the effects of global warming is really felt and starting to get annoying. It's plain and simple, summers are getting longer and who wants to bask in 90 degree heat all year long save for few months. 20 years ago, November is already cold, now it's like summer!

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

IMO saying that all RECENT global warming is caused by man, is the SAME argument in reverse and makes no sense......

The fact that global warming and cooling has been happening despite us , is pretty clear indication that were not causing the poles to melt......

Do we pollute, of course, should we all do our part to keep the invironment clean of course......should we use this as an excuse to push a man made global warming agenda.....absolutely not...

The VAST MAJORITY of the warming we've seen is MAN-MADE. The science overwhelmingly supports this. If you want to deny science because it makes you feel good to be an AGW denier then fine, but dont inject yourself in scientific conversations.

The fact that global temp changes happen despite us is ABSOLUTELY NOT an indication that we're not causing global warming. There are MANY potential factors in climate change, and humans have become an extreme one in just a short amount of time in a myriad of ways.

There IS NO AGENDA TO PUSH GLOBAL WARMING ON FALSE GROUNDS. Global warming is being pushed because it's REAL and it poses SERIOUS PROBLEMS, just as those other environmental problems do. If we don't increase awareness of man's role in global warming then how the hell are people supposed to wake up and change their ways??

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
You're setting up seriously ridiculous arguments I'm not even sure why I'm addressing them...

Not arguments. Just statements.
I don't really need to convince you that you are wrong or I'm right. It's not that important to me how you feel about my point of view.

Once again.
The climate will continue to change with or without our help.
Pinatubo put more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere in a week than mankind did since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The eruption in Iceland this summer did quite a bit of damage as well. Of course nobody seems to mind that. A few major eruptions either way and that's ok because it's "natural" but, it actually makes mankinds contribution to this warming trend a moot point. The damage has been done.

The climate will change without us, yes, but right NOW it's changing mostly BECAUSE of us. How is that very simple logic not clear to you??

Humans put out 100 TIMES MORE CO2 than volcanoes. Pinatubo, and most other volcanic eruptions, have a net COOLING effect on the planet via aerosols/sulfur/ash. The damage was NOT done without us... we DID the damage... how is that not clear to you, once again?

The funny thing is the people that freak out about it and keep pushing the idea of stopping "Climate change" or "global warming."

It won't happen.

Instead of crying about it and spending time supporting the political agenda to screw the citizens of the developed nations out of trillions in carbon credit fees and carbon taxes in the name of stopping CC or GW they might as well start getting ready for the changes that are coming and deal with it realistically.

Whether or not we'll decrease emissions or halt/reverse global warming is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT discussion. And ya know what... I'm actually somewhat in agreement, we will probably do next to nothing about it. However, we also collectively control our future and if we don't even attempt to change the world for the better then there's no chance we can fix things. History is full of small efforts snowballing into beautiful world-changing movements, education and awareness are key to this.

I'm not crying about it either, I'm very pissed off, everybody should be. Now dont you put words in my mouth about carbon taxes and cap n' trade. If you knew anything you'd know that most environmentalists DO NOT SUPPORT these measures. Carbon taxes and cap n' trade were crafted by the fossil fuel industry because they're so weak and catering to their profits. That said, there HAVE been successes in other countries with carbon taxes and WITHOUT any kind of giant tyrannical conspiracy you seem fixated on. Ultimately we need to STOP using fossil fuels and start using sustainable, renewable, and eco-friendly energy sources and lifestyles in general. If we dont... we'll face collapse of both the biosphere and of humanity, it's alarming but not alarmist, it's just a cold hard fact of the universe that if we screw things up, bad things happen. We are the only thing protecting us from ourselves.

China and India will pollute more in the next 30 years than the US and Europe have in the last 200. The only way to stop them would be to shut down their entire economies. There will continue to be volcanic eruptions, methane releases from the seabed, more emissions from the rest of the undeveloped world and continued release of carbon and greenhouse gasses from thawing areas in the northern latitudes. It simply won't stop.

Instead of wasting all of the time and money to do something that won't be successful they might as well start relocating developed coastal population centers and infrastructure inland. Put the money into viable power resources and outlaw the exploitation of the new green religion for the profit of the wealthy.

Green is the new big oil.

Yeah... and maybe their economies NEED to be shut down. I'm all for peaceful methods that save as much as possible, but when it comes down to it people may need to either get dirt on their hands and shut down the machine or just stick their head in the sands of consumerism and entertainment and stop even participating in the struggle/conversation on either side. Once again, volcanic eruptions typically COOL the planet, and we emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes do. Methane releases are INCREASING because of human actions via our fuels, livestock, and feedback effects of global warming (which thaws permafrost and releases methane stores within a century that have been locked up for millenia).

Just because the green movement is being exploited, this DOES NOT MEAN that global warming is magically a hoax or that REAL environmentalists support the perversion of their legitimate issues. What it means is that business as usual is occurring and taking something noble/serious and turning it into a commodity in our globalized, capitalized markets. Some of the WORST corporations on the planet are putting out massive ad campaigns to greenwash themselves and pretend they're super-green companies; this is absolutely HATED by environmentalists and these companies should be resisted by everyone. We need to TAKE OUR ISSUES BACK from the elites and MAKE THEM do our bidding instead of letting them turn it into another watered-down profit source without adequate benefits for the planet/humanity.

Green is NOT the new big oil. Big oil is always big oil, the richest industry ever to exist on the planet, and you wanna pretend like they're NOT putting out propaganda/disinformation to convince people that global warming is a hoax? They already have!!!

www.greenpeace.org...

www.greenpeace.org...

www.pbs.org...

www.ucsusa.org...

Originally posted by Britguy
One of the biggest problems I have with this mass man-made climate change hysteria is the constant use of computer modelling.
Past events can be measured, the evidence gathered to prove or disprove theories, future events cannot be determined this way because the evidence is not yet there in any measurable way. Feeding numbers into a climate modelling computer programme will produce a set of results that can vary greatly based on the smallest tweaks to the data being input. Just because a bunch of career academics and scientists - whose standing in the science world and living comes from taxpayer money and funding from corporate entities - say it is so, does not necessarily mean it will happen. Their work is theoretical as the events have not yet hapened.

Also, the outrageous claims being levelled against "deniers" is ridiculous. Any sane person can see that the climate changes, and has done throughout the history of this planet, both before we were around and since we appeared on the scene. To try to claim that people deny the climate changes is laughable and makes those making such claims look childish at best and pushing self serving agendas at worst.

You're wrong on all counts:

www.skepticalscience.com...

and

www.grist.org...

reply to post by NorthStarRise

carbon dioxide has been keeping the CO2 content on average at 278ppm for the last million years.

It is only in ice core paleoclimate conjectures that indicate the CO2 levels haven't been over 390ppm in around a million years and they are uncheckable by direct observation. Paleoclimate reconstructions seem extremely conjectural to me, especially ice cores, because we don't know exactly how much diffusion of CO2 there's been, and we have striking contradictions with Stomata and flask measurements. That is not to say that they are no good for explaining the occurrence of ice-ages and interglacials, of course and acting as 'relatives'. My criticism of them is just that they do not provide any real information about the complex variability of climate within the modern interglacial period.

But please don't plaster this issue with "its just a natural cycle" by ignoring the fact that in the last hundred years alone, we have changed the world in all the ways I list above.

And therein lies the problem. We only have global temperature records going back 100-130 years.

Every time I see the word "denier", all I see is a rabid and racist Jew who wants to protect his Holocost religion.

It's gone beyond petty name-calling now. Hansen of NASA has now called for people who express scepticism over CAGW to be thrown in jail for "crimes against humanity": www.grist.org... If Hansen gets his way I guess Lindzen and Spencer will soon be enjoying four grey brick walls. There is no room for scepticism over CAGW. We sceptics of CAGW are being painted as 'denialists' by aggressive CAGW-advocates who evidently are totally unaware of being the very denialists that they say we are.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHAT SO EVER that the vast majority of Global warming that we are seeing right now is Man Made........

NONE.........there is conjecture, and there is manipulated data..........but there is no PROOF

reply to post by Nathan-D


I find it highly amusing that you will question Ice core data in this thread, yet rely on it in other threads to prove your point.

What a hypocrite.