The Holocene Deniers

[grmorton]

I don't know if it is your intent to sound snarky or like a bully, but at times you do Mr. Morton.

Many of the posters here, myself included admire your contributions to the debate. Your "Morton's Demon" post on Talk Origins was brilliant IMO.

However, your writing at times oozes contempt for anyone that disagrees with you.

You are right. I do ooze comtempt.

 

[Lilandra]

You are right. I do ooze comtempt.

You are true to your image. I'll give you that. You realize that if you hold others in contempt, that you may miss out on an important correction when you are in error?

How many years as a YEC did you hold modern geology in contempt?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Wow, what clairevoyance. All that took was a look at my blog. You seem to think that you will get some grand kudos for looking at my blog before the others do. A kewpie doll for you, Thaumaturgy.

Thank you! I just figured you weren't getting enough response on your blog so you took your admittedly inflammatory "holocene denier" rhetoric where folks would get worked up.

Now answer my question. Why should I worry about Antarctic Ice shelves melting when they were melted 80 kilometers further south 5000 years ago than they are today?

Because maybe, just maybe we are responsible for the melting going on today and maybe just maybe we should do something about it.

So, give me a number beyond which you think that two stations can't be measuring the same thing?

Well, looking at some of the postings on your blog where the median difference between stations is extremely close to 0 or 0.01 degF when looked at over the course of the history of those stations (decades), I'd have to say that I don't know what the real problem is.

The problem here Thaumaturgy is that you can't ever let the system be wrong.

Actually I can let the system be wrong. Because I've had enough statistics and worked with enough systems to know there are errors in all systems.

You are like a young-earth creationist here who can't possibly allow his precious world view to be doubted.

And you're like a young earth creationist who can't function without strawman arguments.

You will beleive that the government can measure the temperature correctly even when it can't and you will squeal like a pig that it is inappropriate to actually look at the raw data.

Again, I've looked at the data. I admitted there are some flaws in the data (the same way the climatologists look at it and say there are some flaws in the data), and I've got a reasonably good idea of how the underlying chemistry works.

At least we can agree that the data contains errors. Thaumaturgy, is there any level of error that would make you actually doubt that a station is doing what it should be doing?

Let's say you find two stations that show a median difference outside of the 85% confidence interval around zero.

Let's see you take two stations, run a t-test and determine if the two stations have a statisitically significant difference and then you tell me how great that difference is.

Then address the massive amount of information (stuff we've hashed out here on this board) around the climatologists assessment and treatment of these errors.

Then address how the data is actually used. ie: how does gridding of averages across a continental scale tend to affect the relative errors.

And please, at all points, remember how these stations were set up to have nothing to do with global warming topics. These stations are meteorological stations. If meteorological stations are so horribly flawed why have we be doing meteorology so badly for the past century and a half?

Are you willing to fire all the weather reporters and disband NOAA and the NWS?

Any temperature at all? Would a 60 degree difference be something that you would admit means that the station isn't being measured correctly? I bet you won't answer that.

A 60 degree temperature difference between two stations that is the median difference (or mean) over the history of those two stations will be damaging to the utility of those stations.

I will gladly agree to that.

IF, however you think showing me a tail of a distribution that lies out in that region and only occurs once or twice in nearly 80 years of daily data don't count on me being willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You know, a scientist must always be thinking about how bad data must be before one thinks that the equipment must be fixed. You, though, are not acting like a scientist because you won't give any number beyond which you would acknowledge a failure of equipment. Am I wrong in this?

Well, because you are thinking like a simple non-scientist and would refuse to admit this is somewhat of a rather involved topic I guess you would be right.

I won't say "oh two stations that one time differed by 30 degrees are to be destroyed and the whole system shut down".

I will say if you can show me a statistically robust analysis of the data that shows a consistent, continental-scale systematic error that has a p-value >0.05 then we'll have a talk.

And what pray tell is your beef with back woods Georgia?

An example, Glenn, an example. You like to dig up random stations from the thousands in the US and make examples of them. I just had happened to look at one of your blog posts about two Georgia stations.

I got no beef with backwoods Georgia. I used to live and work in Georgia and made the trips down to the kaolin district.

What so I am supposed to ignore what I have done in my life? I am proud of it. Maybe you are a slinky sort of person who only gets his kicks bullying people on insignificant internet boards but I am not.

Glenn, you are the first to trot out your bona fides all the time. Especially when you want to bully someone. (I think we all kind of do that but you are definitely guilty of that. (Just read through the nightmare that was this debate thread). And you are, indeed, by any metric, a bully. (I'll not claim that I am lilly white either.)

How many times were we reminded of how may publications you have (none of which I've been able to find were in the field of climatology), how many times did you bring up your living in China?

By the way, Thaumaturgy, if you think global warming is such a threat then stop being a hypocrite.

I have:

1. Installed solar on my home. I, for the past 3 months have generated more electricity back to the grid than I use. (And I didn't even worry about my precious "money" or what it would "cost me". I did it because it was the right thing to do)

2. I don't water my lawn and am replacing it with xeriscaping this week!

3. I drive a fuel efficient car (35-40mpg)

4. I bicycle to as many things as I can within town (the store, the garden, etc.)

Maybe you need to be careful who you call a hypocrite.

PCs take 15% of home power useage and are using 5% of world energy.

AHem...cf above. I'm not. I am generating more power back to the grid than I use!!!! (You're too funny when you get all riled up!)

Get off the web if you think the world needs to be saved and thereby save that energy. But of course, you won't because you really don't beleive what you spout, at least you don't believe it enough to do anything about it.

Well, now you've been proven wrong!

(That was easy!)

 

[Thistlethorn]

All you have to do, is to do a google scholar search on the Holocene Climatic Optimum and you will see that most of these papers talk about the world being 2-3 degrees warmer then than now. Conclusions are simple after that. Of course, you won't do the research for yourself. You will expect that I spoon feed you.

Yes, those papers will no doubt say that. That, however, has no bearing, and I mean absolutely no bearing, on our present predicament. The Holocene was warmer. Wopty-doo. Does that mean that we have to make the earth warmer again? You know, only a lot faster?

No, I am not aware of that. As the seas warm, it degasses CO2. In the little Ice Age the CO2 rose AFTER the temperature. See picture below.

So? How does that matter to the massive spiral WE are propelling the earth into? Let me paint the picture so everyone will understand:

1. The climate is in balance.
2. We start spewing green-house gases into the atmosphere.
3. The climate gets ever so slightly warmer.
4. The oceans heat up (ever so slightly) and releases more CO2.
5. Repeat 3 and 4 until we're over the edge.

Forty years ago, the winds in Antarctica shifted causing upwelling, which in turn caused degassing of CO2. To disbelieve this means that you must argue with the article in Nature--you know Nature, that rag of anti-global warming stuff.

Why would I disbelieve that? It has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You can keep erecting these straw men 'til the cows come home, but it won't lend credence to your argument.

I came to that conclusion because every time you global warming hysteriacs talk about what will happen to the earth, higher sea levels, melting permafrost, melted ice shelves, none of you all actually mention the fact that it all happened before without a single automobile or coal fired plant. You all are the ones who are ignoring the Holocene and denying it by never ever ever mentioning it and what happened then. Shame on you for ignoring scientific evidence that should have been presented as possibly not supportive of your position, i.e. that we should all spend lots of money to stop something that has happened before.

But no one is denying it. We just realize that just because it happened naturally before, this time WE are doing it, thus causing unnatural, or man-made, global warming. The effects might be less than before, and they might be worse. The point is, WE are having an adverse effect on our planet, and the planet is reacting. Things will happen that didn't happen last time. Like someone already mentioned, last time there was no Holland. No Bangladesh. No city on the island of Manhattan. There are people living in those places. Those people will become homeless.

Are you only able to be a sheeple? I have no doubt about the minority opinion I have here. But truth is NOT determined by vote.

If you have no doubt that you're in the minority, why did you assert earlier that you were in the majority? Why feel the need to lie to support your argument, and only fess up when you are called on it?

I would suggest that you brought it up. What do you want to know about it?

I already know about it. It's common for global-warming deniers to bring this into discussion, only to get owned terribly by science.

I already told them via correcting the previous bad post.

Well, that's good anyway.

What a crock. You haven't even looked at the references I provided on my blog for the facts I cited. They were all peer reviewed. I guess you don't think THE HOLOCENE, or Geology, or Nature are peer reviewed. Get real. When you actually know what you are talking about then we can have a real discussion. For the record here are the references for the OP.

The peer reviewed articles seem to talk about the Holocene being warmer than our current climate. I've asked you once, but I'll do it again: What does that have to do with our current situation? Why the continued straw-man?

Other than Wiki would you please tell me which reference isn't peer reviewed? If you can't, then your apology will be accepted when it is actually given.

Would you please tell me which of your references provides evidence for any denial on anyone's part of the warmer climate of the Holocene? Would you please tell me which of your references provides evidence for man-made global warming being made up? If you can, I will apologize.

Of course it is a political movement. Are you telling me that there is nothing that global warming hysteriacs want the governments to do?

Sure there is. However, it's based on science, which global-warming denial isn't. The political movement of global-warming denial is sponsored by people in no small part connected to the petroleum industry. Now, there's a political movement.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Glenn,
in case you needed reminding how you bring up your bona fides in unrelated ways here's :

Herr Doktor, I know that with your piled higher and deeper you can't possibly be wrong or make any error whatsoever and us mere amateurs must bow before you at all times
...
Well, this poor pup of a scientist can't match up to the likes of you. I have only been involved in finding a billion barrels of oil and publishing a few papers in a few topics.

...But then, I forget, I must bow to the Ph. D who knows it all.

(Gotta love the "billion barrels of oil"! Wow. That really was applicable to the point you were making. I liked how you made fun of a degree you yourself don't have.)

I hope you don't feel you were too bullied by the "Doktor", there. My apologies. But as you intimated, my degree is "piled higher and deeper", yet you didn't get one. It's so easy, apparently, even the likes of me could get one!

 

[thaumaturgy]

I am bowing out of this discussion as I've been around this stuff with Glenn before. I apologize for sidetracking it too quickly with the snark and bile. I did jump a bit quickly on Glenn.

(Not like he didn't want that, I mean his rhetoric appears to be crafted in no small part to inflame, but then I'm not lilly white either.)

I'll just sit back and watch as folks like Thistlethorn take their round in the cage match with "The Anecdotalizer" in a lucha libre match for the ages!

 

[Thistlethorn]

I am bowing out of this discussion as I've been around this stuff with Glenn before. I apologize for sidetracking it too quickly with the snark and bile. I did jump a bit quickly on Glenn.

(Not like he didn't want that, I mean his rhetoric appears to be crafted in no small part to inflame, but then I'm not lilly white either.)

I'll just sit back and watch as folks like Thistlethorn take their round in the cage match with "The Anecdotalizer" in a lucha libre match for the ages!

But I don't have a Ph.D! He's going to bully me right off the stage with his scientific degrees!

He does have those, doesn't he?

It's also late were I am. Going to have to wait 'til tomorrow to continue this discussion. o/

 

[grmorton]

Thank you! I just figured you weren't getting enough response on your blog so you took your admittedly inflammatory "holocene denier" rhetoric where folks would get worked up.

No, that is not why I came back. I merely observed that no matter how much traffic one has one always wants more. Like money. You seem to read into my statements things that aren't there. Maybe I write poorly.

I came back because we are told over and over by one and all that the world faces a crisis if we don't solve the global warming problem. Geology says something very interesting about that assertion--it says that we have been there before, all within the past 5000 years.

But of course, people don't want to hear that. Like Thistlethorn who didn't even bother to look at the references I used to do the OP he claimed that there was no peer reviewed science to support what I said. GW has become nothing more than a form of religion in which no one has a self-critical attitude. They KNOW they are right and don't bother me with data. Which, of course, is the attitude of the YECs.

Because maybe, just maybe we are responsible for the melting going on today and maybe just maybe we should do something about it.

Then get off the web and stop using electricity or driving a car. You are the believer in AGW, not me. So live what you believe and stop being a hypocrite telling all of us what we must do when you aren't willing to do it.

Well, looking at some of the postings on your blog where the median difference between stations is extremely close to 0 or 0.01 degF when looked at over the course of the history of those stations (decades), I'd have to say that I don't know what the real problem is.

We aren't talking about the average over decades. We are talking about knowing what today's temperature is. If you don't know what today's temperature is within 5 degrees, how can you know it is warming. Once again, I go back to the lunacy you refused to recognize in our last go round. It is stupid to say that the world has warmed 1.1 deg F +/- 5 deg. That is statistical stupidity.

Actually I can let the system be wrong. Because I've had enough statistics and worked with enough systems to know there are errors in all systems.

Then please tell me how to deal with a temperature bias that changes polarity over time? (I hate this list because it limits the number of pictures one can post). The picture below is self-explanatory. The data being collected is crap. Yet you blythly say that is 'has errors'. What bunk. If the errors are not correctable then the station is of no value. So please put up or shut up. Show us how to correct data like that shown below so that we can actually believe that it is within a degree of the true temperature.

And you're like a young earth creationist who can't function without strawman arguments.

You seem to prefer making baseless charges like the above, which are totally lacking in data. If you are the scientist you say you are, then please show me why I am wrong in saying that the seas were higher, the glaciers melted and the permafrost all melted 5000 years ago. So far you haven't even tried to contradict what I am saying. Do you agree with the data of the OP, that seas were indeed higher back then? If so, then please tell me why (the world will face some sort of catastrophy if it happens again, a catastrophe that it didn't face the first time)

Also, if you think the world is warming, please show us how to correct the data I am posting. I am the one posting actual data, you are the one making baseless, dataless assertions of strawmen. I stand by what I said.

Again, I've looked at the data. I admitted there are some flaws in the data (the same way the climatologists look at it and say there are some flaws in the data), and I've got a reasonably good idea of how the underlying chemistry works.

SOME FLAW????? SOME FLAWS???? COME ON. Are you seriously saying that the data I have posted is GOOD DATA with only MINOR FLAWS? Please say that and embarass yourself.

Let's say you find two stations that show a median difference outside of the 85% confidence interval around zero.

If the data has unknown biases caused by unknown causes, with variable variance over time, as I know the dataset has, what you are starting to say is ridiculous. Crapola data is just that, useless crapola data.

Let's see you take two stations, run a t-test and determine if the two stations have a statisitically significant difference and then you tell me how great that difference is.

You do it. Why should I? I don't have to dance to your suggestions. You think the data is grand prove it.

Then address the massive amount of information (stuff we've hashed out here on this board) around the climatologists assessment and treatment of these errors.

Oh really? The methodology of Hadcrut has never been made public. Even Freedom of information requests have not been honored. I would suggest that people go read a very interesting article at Global Warming ate my data ? The Register

Steve McIntyre, a statistician is trying to get the raw data and methodology from the Climate Research Unit, the place that manages Hadcrut, a global temperature record. It seems that Phil Jones has refused to tell anyone what they are doing and wont release the raw data even in the face of freedom of information requests. Now they claim that they have lost the raw data (a month ago some of it was on their ftp portal). They also claim that there are confidentiality agreements, but they (conveniently) lost them as well. Jones said something quite amazing for a scientist who should be willing to have his conclusions tested. It is on that article.

Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.Global Warming ate my data ? The Register​

Then address how the data is actually used. ie: how does gridding of averages across a continental scale tend to affect the relative errors.

OK, if the data is crap and you grid it, you will get a number which is also crap. you can believe it if you will but it won't be good. If I make a geologic map (which requires geographic gridding) and use numbers that don't have any real relationship to the true depth and then I grid them, my map will not be correct. It will be wrong. Same with the temperature.

We explored this area last time Thaumaturgy. Now show me how you would go about corrrecting say ClintonIA and MOrrison Il, or Coldwater and Ashland Ks? Come on, put up. You say these can be corrected, I say they can't. Do it out in plain sight for us, Thau.

And please, at all points, remember how these stations were set up to have nothing to do with global warming topics. These stations are meteorological stations. If meteorological stations are so horribly flawed why have we be doing meteorology so badly for the past century and a half?

Because the government pays to collect crap data??? Just because data is crap, it doesn't stop people from using it. And meteorology is a branch of physics. Collecting temperature isn't per se meteorology. it is stamp collecting.

Are you willing to fire all the weather reporters and disband NOAA and the NWS?

If I hired a person to measure the temperature of the town, and they placed the thermometer as it is placed in the picture below, DARN RIGHT I WOULD FIRE THEM. Wouldn't you? Or do you like sloppy work and are deeply desirous to pay for it?

What idiot would put a thermometer above a running airconditioner exhaust? Is that where you want a thermometer placed?

I once measured the delta T of my airconditioner coil. 23 deg F.

A 60 degree temperature difference between two stations that is the median difference (or mean) over the history of those two stations will be damaging to the utility of those stations.

Why would a 60 deg difference not imply a problem if it lasted a week? Are you saying that it is possible for 2 towns 20 miles apart to be 60 deg different for a week? Can you provide one example of this as a real phenomenon?

I will gladly agree to that.

IF, however you think showing me a tail of a distribution that lies out in that region and only occurs once or twice in nearly 80 years of daily data don't count on me being willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Then since you are the one saying that the data is usable, show us. Quit saying it and show us.

Well, because you are thinking like a simple non-scientist and would refuse to admit this is somewhat of a rather involved topic I guess you would be right.



I won't say "oh two stations that one time differed by 30 degrees are to be destroyed and the whole system shut down".

the problem is Thau, I have yet to find a single pair of closeby stations that stay within 1 degree of each other over the entire series.

I will say if you can show me a statistically robust analysis of the data that shows a consistent, continental-scale systematic error that has a p-value >0.05 then we'll have a talk.

I did that last time. I showed you that the editing was adding half a degree C to the US temperature. That is, the raw data is half a degree cooler than the edited version. That means that the weather service is adding heat to the system by editing. You ignored it. Starting in 1930 there was little difference, but by 2000 the difference grew each year. Such a situation would imply that our modern thermometers record things cooler than they should be reading them. Go look up Balling and Idso.

An example, Glenn, an example. You like to dig up random stations from the thousands in the US and make examples of them. I just had happened to look at one of your blog posts about two Georgia stations.

I got no beef with backwoods Georgia. I used to live and work in Georgia and made the trips down to the kaolin district.

It isn't random. I can't find a single pair that doesn't have serious problems.

No, Glenn, you are the first to trot out your bona fides all the time. Especially when you want to bully someone.

Sorry if you missed that about you. But I didn't.

What a laugh. You trotted out my bona fides, not me. And you can't even remember that over a couple of hours.



I have:

1. Installed solar on my home. I, for the past 3 months have generated more electricity back to the grid than I use. (And I didn't even worry about my precious "money" or what it would "cost me". I did it because it was the right thing to do)

2. I don't water my lawn and am replacing it with xeriscaping this week!

3. I drive a fuel efficient car (35-40mpg)

4. I bicycle to as many things as I can within town (the store, the garden, etc.)

Maybe you need to be careful who you call a hypocrite.

And you can't do more, huh? The world is about to face a crisis and you can't do more.


Out of curiosity how much did your solar cost? I looked at it for my ranch and it was going to cost a quarter of a million.

 

[grmorton]

Glenn,
in case you needed reminding how you bring up your bona fides in unrelated ways here's :


(Gotta love the "billion barrels of oil"! Wow. That really was applicable to the point you were making. I liked how you made fun of a degree you yourself don't have.)

I hope you don't feel you were too bullied by the "Doktor", there. My apologies. But as you intimated, my degree is "piled higher and deeper", yet you didn't get one. It's so easy, apparently, even the likes of me could get one!

I love this. I was accused of oozing contempt tonight. What is the above?

By the way, I am not a Ph. D. Never have claimed it. Once again, Thau, you are wrong.

 

[grmorton]

Yes, those papers will no doubt say that. That, however, has no bearing, and I mean absolutely no bearing, on our present predicament. The Holocene was warmer. Wopty-doo. Does that mean that we have to make the earth warmer again? You know, only a lot faster?

Wait, not so fast. You implied that I didn't use peer-reviewed paper, and now you simply ignore the fact that you made a baseless erroneous assertion. These are the things that cause me to dis people.

So? How does that matter to the massive spiral WE are propelling the earth into? Let me paint the picture so everyone will understand:

1. The climate is in balance.
2. We start spewing green-house gases into the atmosphere.
3. The climate gets ever so slightly warmer.
4. The oceans heat up (ever so slightly) and releases more CO2.
5. Repeat 3 and 4 until we're over the edge.

The climate has never been in balance, not once, not ever. Please document this weird claim. The system is entirely nonlinear.

Why would I disbelieve that? It has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You can keep erecting these straw men 'til the cows come home, but it won't lend credence to your argument.

It has everything to do with what we are talking about. If the CO2 is released from the sea, at least part of it (and it would be isotopically old, at least it wouldn't be brand new), then it would increase the CO2 in the atmosphere along with the anthropogenic CO2.

I want something clear here. I do not deny that CO2 is increasing. Nor do I deny that humans are emitting it. I do not even deny that the world has warmed. But it was warming long before mankind started spewing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. (no doubt no one will remember this as we debate things).

But no one is denying it. We just realize that just because it happened naturally before, this time WE are doing it, thus causing unnatural, or man-made, global warming. The effects might be less than before, and they might be worse. The point is, WE are having an adverse effect on our planet, and the planet is reacting. Things will happen that didn't happen last time. Like someone already mentioned, last time there was no Holland. No Bangladesh. No city on the island of Manhattan. There are people living in those places. Those people will become homeless.

Are you aware that the sun has been more active in the 1990s than at any time in the last 8000 years?

"The reconstruction shows that the current episode of high sunspot number, which has lasted for the past 70 years, has been the most intense and has had the longest duration of any in the past 8,000 years. Based on the length of previous episodes of high activity, the probability that the current event will continue until the end of the t wenty-first century is quite low (1%)." Paula J. Reimer, "Spots from Rings," Nature, 431(2004), p. 1047


And it is a fact that when the sun is active, it outputs more energy. IPCC makes some mistakes in their handling of the irradiance.

"A criticism of the solar irradiance reconstructions that has to be addressed is whether the magnitudes of the changes in solar irradiance proposed would input sufficient energy to the climate system to be noticeable. The first issue is to establish the magnitude of additional solar energy intercepted since 1700 (the Maunder Minimum and depth of the Little Ice Age) and whether it would be sufficient to affect climate. The average increase in solar irradiance is taken to be 1.5 W/m20v r the period 1700-1900 and 2.5 W/m2 over the 20th century. The total increase in energy interception (assuming a 0.7 albedo for reflected radiation) by the climate system is 1.1 x 1022 joules. If directed entirely to melting land ice the increased energy would yield 3.4 x 1019 cm3 and raise sea level about 10 cm. For purpose of comparison only. This ice mass is equivalent to the volume of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."
"The above order of magnitude calculation supports peculation that there could be a causative link between solar irradiance increase since the late 17th century Maunder Minimum and global warming since the Little Ice Age but there are outstanding issues. Most of the solar irradiance increase would be absorbed by the tropical oceans and not over polar regions. However, as with the bulk of solar radiation reaching the earth, the additional energy would follow a path from the tropical oceans to the atmospheric boundary layer; via deep convection to the troposphere; and by the meridional circulation, Rossby Waves and weather systems to higher latitudes. The transport path means that additional solar energy is available to warm the earth's surface and melt polar ice, A critical point is that the additional solar insolation is retained in the climate system until the earth's surface over middle latitudes and polar regions is warmed, This last factor ensures that the earth's climate response is sensitive to variations in solar irradiance.
"In its discussion on varying solar radiation, the IPCC comes to a different conclusion about the overall importance of changes in solar irradiance. IPCC considers changes in solar irradiance as another form of radiative forcing that can potentially act on the climate system, That is, the solar forcing is the change in solar irradiance from an arbitrary period of 'climate balance'. Tree takes 1750 as the date of commencement of industrialisation and benchmark for solar forcing. In its application, IPCC takes solar forcing to be the difference between contemporary solar irradiance and that of 1750. as modified by a geometric: factor to convert irradiance to a global average forcing."
"There are two major issue with the IPCC approach, One acknowledged by the IP e and one not Firstly. IPCC recognises that its methodology for solar forcing is sensitive to the reference date, A choice of 1700 (the end of the Maunder Minimum) would give a value of solar forcing twice as large as the value for 1750; a choice of 1776 would have given a significantly smaller v:lluc. Secondly, the geometric factor used by IP C to convert irradiance to radiative forcing is again an application of nat-earth physics. The reduction of the solar irradiance by the earth's albedo is valid because it recognises that part is reflected back to space without interacting with the climate system. However. IP also reduces the solar irradiance by a factor of four on the basis that the total solar radiation intercepted across the area of the earth's disc is spread over all the area of the globe. The area of a sphere is four times the area of a disc of the same diameter, This latter does not acknowledge that the bulk of solar insolation is received in the tropics. The method overestimates the change to solar insolation received over the polar regions the polar regions and underestimates that received over the tropics. The IPCC underestimates the energy input into that part of the globe from where the climate system is energised."
"An impediment to causatively linking changing solar irradiance with global surface temperature variations is the apparent diverging of the trends of solar irradiance and surface-temperature over the past two decades when observational accuracy is at its best. The warming trend of global surface temperature between 1980 and 2000 is about 0.3oC, slightly less than the 0.4oC warming from 1910 through 1940, The reconstructions of the total solar irradiance for the first half of the 20th century give inceascs ranging betwccn 2 W/m2. and 4 W/m2."
William Kininmonth, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard, Multi-Science Publishing, Brentwood, 2004, 145-147


I do want you to notice the difference between your posts and mine. I am citing data showing graphs. You are making assertions.

If you have no doubt that you're in the minority, why did you assert earlier that you were in the majority? Why feel the need to lie to support your argument, and only fess up when you are called on it?

Gosh, I don't recall saying I was in the majority. I said that the majority of earth scientists don't accept global warming. That is different than saying that the majority of scientists don't accept global warming. What is wrong with that?

Before you cite polls, realize that the vast majority of earth scientists are not in academia. Geoscientist academics are in the minority. Most geoscientists are in the mining and oil companies. They don't get polled because they are hard to locate. I very very rarely run across a geologist or geophysicist who actually believes that we should worry about the current warming.


[quoteThe peer reviewed articles seem to talk about the Holocene being warmer than our current climate. I've asked you once, but I'll do it again: What does that have to do with our current situation? Why the continued straw-man? [/quote]

It isn't a strawman. Gosh, everyone seems to have straw in their mouths here. Here is the chain of logic.

The globe is warming. This will cause 'tipping points' beyond which the earth's ecology won't survive. Some say it will cause runaway greenhouse effect. The fact that we have had all these things before denies the former. What is straw about that?

Be very careful before you deny that climatologists aren't out there scaring people with 'tipping' points and runaway greenhouse effects. Here is Hansen saying it. NASA scientist warns of runaway global warming - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist

Would you agree that Hansen saying we are going have a runaway greenhouse is lunacy? Shoot ,even if the North Pole warms by 20+ degrees, we won't have a runaway greenhouse--that was the temperature of the Arctic ocean in the Paleocene. Go look up the Azolla Event. Below is the CO2 history of the Cenozoic--the last 55 million years. Notice that the CO2 content at the start of the Cenozoic was 1000 ppm, way beyond what the hysteriacs say we should worry about. note that this chart is from Nature--a peer-reviewed journal. Apparently not many AGW supporters actually read it because they never see things like this.

So, would you agree that this statement by Hansen is a bit hysteriac?

Would you please tell me which of your references provides evidence for any denial on anyone's part of the warmer climate of the Holocene? Would you please tell me which of your references provides evidence for man-made global warming being made up? If you can, I will apologize.

I already said why I call them Holocene deniers. They don't ever mention it anywhere or let the public know that all these boogey men they claim are about to get us already visited humanity merely 5000 years ago and nothing happened. Thus, in a practical sence, they deny the Holocene. That is my point and that point won't change. If you can't understand it, so sorry.

Sure there is. However, it's based on science, which global-warming denial isn't. The political movement of global-warming denial is sponsored by people in no small part connected to the petroleum industry. Now, there's a political movement.

I believe in global warming. You apparently have me confused with someone who doesn't think that the world warmed over the past 250 years. I know it started long before this past century, long before CO2 started rising. That little fact is also never mentioned by the hysteriacs

By the way, you are one of the few that actually acknowledges that it is a political movement.

I am going to bed. See y'all tomorrow

 

[Baggins]

So Mr Morton's basic premise is because the earth has warmed naturally in the past we don't have to worry about it warming now and the 100s of millions of people who live at sea level can adapt to rising sea levels.

Not very impressive logically or morally.

You can all accept my word over Glen's because I have undoubtedly discovered more hydrocarbons than he has and I was in China this week doing it and that makes me far more impressive than him. And I speak can Welsh not the rather passé Mandarin.

 

[dad]

But this is the most amazing statement. If all we can say about the present climate is that we are no warmer than 700-800AD, that clearly argues that the present warmth is in no way unprecedented nor scary. But, everyone loves a good scary story, which is why the horror genre sells so well.

I wasn't going to comment, I thought you were not serious in the position you took. But apparently, you are. For different reasons, I do not find the present changes in temperature scary either.

There was an article a few days ago, about a glacier melting 6 times faster than predicted. If that is true, wouldn't that mean that (since it pre dates 800 AD) things are changing more now??


"The research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, also reveals that ice thinning is now occurring much further inland. At this rate scientists estimate that the main section of the glacier will have disappeared in just 100 years, six times sooner than was previously thought."

Antarctic Glacier Thinning At Alarming Rate

Given the above statement from the IPCC, anyone who says that the current warmth is unprecedented in human history is a Holocene denier. They are denying what happened in the last 10,000 years.

I don't deny that many climate changes happened in man's history. I only disagree with the dates.

Now it is interesting that the figure 1300 years is used, because 1000 years ago, the forests grew higher up the hills in Siberia than they do now. That means it was warmer then than now.

Well, that is interesting. But since it is localized, one must ask if the phenomena was mostly just in Siberia, or that area of Siberia, and if they even know that?

Not only that, the Siberian treeline was further north then

Again, was there a wind pattern, or something temporary that may have affected Siberia, not the whole planet?

If one goes back to a time before the Holocene, to that of the last interglacial, one finds that the trees were 600 km north and west of their present location and some studies say that the trees were at the arctic coast line. (

But more importantly, there is one fact that is true. Trees don't grow in permafrost. So, if the trees were further north a few thousand years ago, that means that the permafrost, of which Holocene deniers fear is melting, wasn't there a few millennia ago. That means that the permafrost they fear melting is NEW permafrost. It isn't primordial. Indeed one source says that much of it is only 300-400 years old. They call it Little Ice Age permafrost. That means it formed since 1300 AD, just when those older forests in Siberia were dying.

Are you really saying that the perma frost wasn't here when Columbus sailed the ocean blue? That is big news, if true!

You sure you aren't pulling someone's leg?

 

[grmorton]

So Mr Morton's basic premise is because the earth has warmed naturally in the past we don't have to worry about it warming now and the 100s of millions of people who live at sea level can adapt to rising sea levels.

Not very impressive logically or morally.

You can all accept my word over Glen's because I have undoubtedly discovered more hydrocarbons than he has and I was in China this week doing it and that makes me far more impressive than him. And I speak can Welsh not the rather passé Mandarin.

I will bow to a better oil finder than I. My hat is off to you. I know how hard it is to do that so you have my respect. What field/fields did you find? Was it a UK field? From the Welsh, I suspect you are from the UK cause few outside of there speak it.

Now as to morality. Is it moral in science to ignore contrary data? Is it moral when selling an oil deal? If you are out selling an oil deal and you know of a well that condemns your play, is it moral to continue selling it without mentioning the well? I say no. What say ye?

Let's start with some basic physics here. CO2 heats the earth radiatively. That is, the effect is felt at the speed of light. If you sit in your car on a sunny day with the windows down, the temperature will be that of the outside air. But when you role up your windows, which block the escape of infrared (which is what CO2 does) the temperature starts rising immediately. There is no delay of 1 year or 10 years or 50 years. Within 10-15 minutes the temperature will be 10-20 deg hotter than the outside, and within 30 minutes the temperature inside the car will kill pets and little children. CO2 has gone up 1/3 but the temperature isn't going up at a radiative rate.


Now, I go over that because of what everyone is not mentioning. Everyone points to the Arctic and says Golly it is melting this is awful.
What you never hear how the Antarctic sea ice is going to swallow the south if it continues doing what it is doing--expanding.

A recent PNAS article said

"In contrast to that observed in Greenland, glacial age temperature variability recorded by Antarctic ice cores is characterized by a more gradual and symmetric behavior that is approximately out-of-phase with the high-lattitude northern hemisphere. This relationship provides the basis for the so-called bipolar seesaw hypothesis whereby changes in ocean circulation associated with cooling (warming) across the North Atlantic and Greenland drive a corresponding warming(cooling) across the Southern Ocean and Antarctica."

Barker and Knorr, PNAS Oct 30, 2007, p. 17278​

Now there are no headlines proclaiming that Antarctic ice extent continues to grow. The picture below shows it. The second picture from the Barker and Knorr article show the red Byrd station ice core temp compared with the corresponding temperature in Greenland. Note that the two are out of phase. Why do you not hear this in the papers?

 

[grmorton]

I wasn't going to comment, I thought you were not serious in the position you took. But apparently, you are. For different reasons, I do not find the present changes in temperature scary either.

Darn tootin I am serious. I think we have all been sold a bill of goods. Pay attention in this debate to who is posting quotes and graphs from peer reviewed journals. Those that aren't are mostly parroting what they read in the news papers.

There was an article a few days ago, about a glacier melting 6 times faster than predicted. If that is true, wouldn't that mean that (since it pre dates 800 AD) things are changing more now??


"The research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, also reveals that ice thinning is now occurring much further inland. At this rate scientists estimate that the main section of the glacier will have disappeared in just 100 years, six times sooner than was previously thought."

Antarctic Glacier Thinning At Alarming Rate

I have been to Antarctica it is an interesting place. There are several illogical things about the claim that Antarctica is melting. First only on the fringes of the continent does it get above freezing for about a month a year. Most of that is due to the warmth of the sea waters. Indeed, if Antarctica warmed, it would snow a whole lot more and there is no data showing an increase in snowfall. As it is, it is too damn cold to snow much down there.

Now to your glacier. It is a tidewater glacier and the hysteriacs leave out that little fact. The glacier is sitting on water and the water warms, not the air. Indeed one article talking about this particular glacier says.

"Scientists believe that the retreat of glaciers in this sector of Antarctica is caused by warming of the surrounding oceans, though it is too early to link such a trend to global warming." Antarctic Glacier Thinning At Alarming Rate

Of course it is much more fun for them to immorally leave out that little fact, or make it so unimportant as to make you miss it, and then sell you a bill of goods that this is awful. It is normal and it isn't due to CO2.

I don't deny that many climate changes happened in man's history. I only disagree with the dates.

Then I would love to hear how those dates need correcting. Are you a youngearther?

Well, that is interesting. But since it is localized, one must ask if the phenomena was mostly just in Siberia, or that area of Siberia, and if they even know that?

It is or was widespread.

Again, was there a wind pattern, or something temporary that may have affected Siberia, not the whole planet?

No,, this is seen all over the world.

Are you really saying that the perma frost wasn't here when Columbus sailed the ocean blue? That is big news, if true!

You sure you aren't pulling someone's leg?

If I wrote that the permafrost was gone when Columbus sailed, then I screwed up royally. It was gone 5000 years ago, not 600 years ago. When I come home tonight I will see if I left out a zero--thus a typo

 

[Baggins]

I will bow to a better oil finder than I. My hat is off to you. I know how hard it is to do that so you have my respect. What field/fields did you find? Was it a UK field? From the Welsh, I suspect you are from the UK cause few outside of there speak it.

I am Welsh but I have been an exploration geophysicist for 20 years for GSI, Halliburton and Western. I am currently a Chief Geophysicist for a multinational exploration contractor.

So we find the fields and the Oil Company interpreters get the credit

The first field I "found" was an extension to Clare. You don't find large fields these days in mature provinces like the North sea just satellites. but I have moved into frontier 2D work in the Far East now as it is more interesting so my day may come again.

Now as to morality. Is it moral in science to ignore contrary data?

No, and it doesn't.

Is it moral when selling an oil deal? If you are out selling an oil deal and you know of a well that condemns your play, is it moral to continue selling it without mentioning the well? I say no. What say ye?

Absolutely not, we get paid whatever the results company policy is to give the client the bad news unvarnished.

Let's start with some basic physics here. CO2 heats the earth radiatively. That is, the effect is felt at the speed of light. If you sit in your car on a sunny day with the windows down, the temperature will be that of the outside air. But when you role up your windows, which block the escape of infrared (which is what CO2 does) the temperature starts rising immediately. There is no delay of 1 year or 10 years or 50 years. Within 10-15 minutes the temperature will be 10-20 deg hotter than the outside, and within 30 minutes the temperature inside the car will kill pets and little children. CO2 has gone up 1/3 but the temperature isn't going up at a radiative rate.

Okay

Now, I go over that because of what everyone is not mentioning. Everyone points to the Arctic and says Golly it is melting this is awful.
What you never hear how the Antarctic sea ice is going to swallow the south if it continues doing what it is doing--expanding.

Its called climate change and global warming. No one expects uniform heating and climate change over the whole earth, well no one sensible at any rate.

A recent PNAS article said

"In contrast to that observed in Greenland, glacial age temperature variability recorded by Antarctic ice cores is characterized by a more gradual and symmetric behavior that is approximately out-of-phase with the high-lattitude northern hemisphere. This relationship provides the basis for the so-called bipolar seesaw hypothesis whereby changes in ocean circulation associated with cooling (warming) across the North Atlantic and Greenland drive a corresponding warming(cooling) across the Southern Ocean and Antarctica."

Barker and Knorr, PNAS Oct 30, 2007, p. 17278​

Okay

Now there are no headlines proclaiming that Antarctic ice extent continues to grow.

Okay

The picture below shows it. The second picture from the Barker and Knorr article show the red Byrd station ice core temp compared with the corresponding temperature in Greenland. Note that the two are out of phase. Why do you not hear this in the papers?

Because it is boring and academic and not sensational front page stuff?

If you buy loopy right wing papers like the Daily mail you probably will hear about it if distorted and mangled to fit their politics.

one of this affects the point that there is a scientific consensus that the Earth is warming climatic patterns are changing and we are too some degree responsible. I accept that.

I am not aware of a consensus as to the degree of responsibility or to the likely outcome although things don't appear to be going well.

Given that and given that hydrocarbons are a finite source that should be husbanded I think we should react as if things are going to be pretty catastrophic, this is based on a simple premise.

If we act and the scientists are wrong then we probably wasted a few % points on GDP but have husbanded an important resource and made large steps to finding alternative energy sources.

If we don't act and the scientists are correct we will damage human civilisation possibly to the point of sending it into reverse.

we will condemn hundreds of millions to death displace huge populations and send human progress into reverse.

That looks like a no brainer to me. and seeing as I am not tied to a political ideology that makes accepting AGW anathema it is an easy decision to make.

 

[thaumaturgy]

By the way, I am not a Ph. D. Never have claimed it. Once again, Thau, you are wrong.

You will note I didn't claim you had a PhD. I did claim you poked fun at a degree you don't have calling it piled higher and deeper. (In case you are curious, that is "contempt". And ironically from a man who flogs his own accomplishments with the best of us.)

Now, back to the fun.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Wait, not so fast. You implied that I didn't use peer-reviewed paper, and now you simply ignore the fact that you made a baseless erroneous assertion. These are the things that cause me to dis people.

No, I stated out right that the peer-reviewed papers you used as references DID NOT support the assertions you made. Those assertions, if you have forgotten already, were that scientists believing in global-warming are denying the Holocene, and that man-made global warming is nothing to be worried about. Neither assertion is supported by your sources.

The climate has never been in balance, not once, not ever. Please document this weird claim. The system is entirely nonlinear.

If you truly are a scientist of any kind you will understand what I mean. The climate can be kept in equilibrium for many years, until the balance is broken by changing circumstances in the earth's environment, for example, increased amounts of particles in the atmosphere due to volcanic eruption, the angle of earth rotation changing (the earth wobbles after all), or any other such major event. When this happens, the climate drastically changes. As long as the environment stays the same, the climate is in equilibrium. But you know this, right?

It has everything to do with what we are talking about. If the CO2 is released from the sea, at least part of it (and it would be isotopically old, at least it wouldn't be brand new), then it would increase the CO2 in the atmosphere along with the anthropogenic CO2.

And it does. The problem, as I've already told you, is that our pumping out more CO2 into the atmosphere heats the earth beyond the point at which it can absorb the CO2 (f.ex. plants using photosynthesis). This means we are plunged into a vicious circle. Again, you already know this. It's not rocket-science, and it's something you learn in high-school.

I want something clear here. I do not deny that CO2 is increasing. Nor do I deny that humans are emitting it. I do not even deny that the world has warmed. But it was warming long before mankind started spewing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. (no doubt no one will remember this as we debate things).

Let's look at a graph of temperatures since the mid 1800s shall we?
metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/myth6_1.gif

Let's combine that with a graph of CO2 and other green-house gases emitted:
Since I can't post links or images yet (need 50 posts) I ask you to use this adress: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png />

The correlation is quite easy to see there.

Are you aware that the sun has been more active in the 1990s than at any time in the last 8000 years?

"The reconstruction shows that the current episode of high sunspot number, which has lasted for the past 70 years, has been the most intense and has had the longest duration of any in the past 8,000 years. Based on the length of previous episodes of high activity, the probability that the current event will continue until the end of the t wenty-first century is quite low (1%)." Paula J. Reimer, "Spots from Rings," Nature, 431(2004), p. 1047


And it is a fact that when the sun is active, it outputs more energy. IPCC makes some mistakes in their handling of the irradiance.

"A criticism of the solar irradiance reconstructions that has to be addressed is whether the magnitudes of the changes in solar irradiance proposed would input sufficient energy to the climate system to be noticeable. The first issue is to establish the magnitude of additional solar energy intercepted since 1700 (the Maunder Minimum and depth of the Little Ice Age) and whether it would be sufficient to affect climate. The average increase in solar irradiance is taken to be 1.5 W/m20v r the period 1700-1900 and 2.5 W/m2 over the 20th century. The total increase in energy interception (assuming a 0.7 albedo for reflected radiation) by the climate system is 1.1 x 1022 joules. If directed entirely to melting land ice the increased energy would yield 3.4 x 1019 cm3 and raise sea level about 10 cm. For purpose of comparison only. This ice mass is equivalent to the volume of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."
"The above order of magnitude calculation supports peculation that there could be a causative link between solar irradiance increase since the late 17th century Maunder Minimum and global warming since the Little Ice Age but there are outstanding issues. Most of the solar irradiance increase would be absorbed by the tropical oceans and not over polar regions. However, as with the bulk of solar radiation reaching the earth, the additional energy would follow a path from the tropical oceans to the atmospheric boundary layer; via deep convection to the troposphere; and by the meridional circulation, Rossby Waves and weather systems to higher latitudes. The transport path means that additional solar energy is available to warm the earth's surface and melt polar ice, A critical point is that the additional solar insolation is retained in the climate system until the earth's surface over middle latitudes and polar regions is warmed, This last factor ensures that the earth's climate response is sensitive to variations in solar irradiance.
"In its discussion on varying solar radiation, the IPCC comes to a different conclusion about the overall importance of changes in solar irradiance. IPCC considers changes in solar irradiance as another form of radiative forcing that can potentially act on the climate system, That is, the solar forcing is the change in solar irradiance from an arbitrary period of 'climate balance'. Tree takes 1750 as the date of commencement of industrialisation and benchmark for solar forcing. In its application, IPCC takes solar forcing to be the difference between contemporary solar irradiance and that of 1750. as modified by a geometric: factor to convert irradiance to a global average forcing."
"There are two major issue with the IPCC approach, One acknowledged by the IP e and one not Firstly. IPCC recognises that its methodology for solar forcing is sensitive to the reference date, A choice of 1700 (the end of the Maunder Minimum) would give a value of solar forcing twice as large as the value for 1750; a choice of 1776 would have given a significantly smaller v:lluc. Secondly, the geometric factor used by IP C to convert irradiance to radiative forcing is again an application of nat-earth physics. The reduction of the solar irradiance by the earth's albedo is valid because it recognises that part is reflected back to space without interacting with the climate system. However. IP also reduces the solar irradiance by a factor of four on the basis that the total solar radiation intercepted across the area of the earth's disc is spread over all the area of the globe. The area of a sphere is four times the area of a disc of the same diameter, This latter does not acknowledge that the bulk of solar insolation is received in the tropics. The method overestimates the change to solar insolation received over the polar regions the polar regions and underestimates that received over the tropics. The IPCC underestimates the energy input into that part of the globe from where the climate system is energised."
"An impediment to causatively linking changing solar irradiance with global surface temperature variations is the apparent diverging of the trends of solar irradiance and surface-temperature over the past two decades when observational accuracy is at its best. The warming trend of global surface temperature between 1980 and 2000 is about 0.3oC, slightly less than the 0.4oC warming from 1910 through 1940, The reconstructions of the total solar irradiance for the first half of the 20th century give inceascs ranging betwccn 2 W/m2. and 4 W/m2."
William Kininmonth, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard, Multi-Science Publishing, Brentwood, 2004, 145-147

Let's counter that whole paragraph with a few simple lines and a picture: (again, go to the source as I can't post links or images)
solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

Climatologists are aware that the sun is a contributing factor. However, as can be clearly seen in the graph above, it cannot in any way account for the total change in temperature. Scientists estimate about a quarter of the total change can be attributed to solar activity. For more information about this, see the solar-center at Stanford University, solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

I do want you to notice the difference between your posts and mine. I am citing data showing graphs. You are making assertions.

That's because I can only post images by giving you links. A pretty big disability. However, I think I've been able to work around it to provide you with the evidence you were looking for. It's evidence that is very easy to find, and I'm shocked that you haven't seen it before.

Gosh, I don't recall saying I was in the majority. I said that the majority of earth scientists don't accept global warming. That is different than saying that the majority of scientists don't accept global warming. What is wrong with that?

Before you cite polls, realize that the vast majority of earth scientists are not in academia. Geoscientist academics are in the minority. Most geoscientists are in the mining and oil companies. They don't get polled because they are hard to locate. I very very rarely run across a geologist or geophysicist who actually believes that we should worry about the current warming.

My mistake. I'm not a native English speaker, so I thought that earth scientists were academics like any other scientists. Now that you've told me about your close link with the petroleum industry, your whole denial is much easier to understand. If people start using less oil, your job is on the line. It's a pity you feel the need to set your own professional life against the lives of so many other people.

It isn't a strawman. Gosh, everyone seems to have straw in their mouths here. Here is the chain of logic.

The globe is warming. This will cause 'tipping points' beyond which the earth's ecology won't survive. Some say it will cause runaway greenhouse effect. The fact that we have had all these things before denies the former. What is straw about that?

Because the last part is a complete fallacy. That the earth has experienced climate change before doesn't lessen the impact of the current one, OR the fact that WE are responsible for this one, and it's going much faster than we believe the earlier ones went. How hard is this to understand: People will die and/or become homeless in their millions!

Be very careful before you deny that climatologists aren't out there scaring people with 'tipping' points and runaway greenhouse effects. Here is Hansen saying it. newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/nasa-scientist-warns-of-runawa.html NASA scientist warns of runaway global warming - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist

Would you agree that Hansen saying we are going have a runaway greenhouse is lunacy? Shoot ,even if the North Pole warms by 20+ degrees, we won't have a runaway greenhouse--that was the temperature of the Arctic ocean in the Paleocene. Go look up the Azolla Event. Below is the CO2 history of the Cenozoic--the last 55 million years. Notice that the CO2 content at the start of the Cenozoic was 1000 ppm, way beyond what the hysteriacs say we should worry about. note that this chart is from Nature--a peer-reviewed journal. Apparently not many AGW supporters actually read it because they never see things like this.

So, would you agree that this statement by Hansen is a bit hysteriac?

No, I would say that Hansen is doing his part to convey to the masses that this is a serious situation. This kind of tactic is necessary, especially with people like you out there, obfuscating science and calling for nothing to be done out of purely selfish reasons.

I already said why I call them Holocene deniers. They don't ever mention it anywhere or let the public know that all these boogey men they claim are about to get us already visited humanity merely 5000 years ago and nothing happened. Thus, in a practical sence, they deny the Holocene. That is my point and that point won't change. If you can't understand it, so sorry.

Your point is stupid. They aren't denying the Holocene. They understand the difference between that situation and the current one.

I believe in global warming. You apparently have me confused with someone who doesn't think that the world warmed over the past 250 years. I know it started long before this past century, long before CO2 started rising. That little fact is also never mentioned by the hysteriacs

That's because that's bending the truth, at best. Natural processes might have been kicking off before, but the current trend of temperature change is almost only because of human activities.

By the way, you are one of the few that actually acknowledges that it is a political movement.

I acknowledge the fact that politicians are the ones who has to kick things off if we are going to halt this process. I acknowledge that in order to get them to do this, we need to use political lines of approach. I also acknowledge that your side of this issue is a movement purely motivated by greed.

 

[Baggins]

I said that the majority of earth scientists don't accept global warming

I work in the oil industry and I have an extensive network of friends who are Earth Scientists from university days and work and I have never met an Earth Scientist who doesn't accept the consensus of climatologists belief than humans are causing global warming and climate change.

Mr Morton must move in very different earth Science circles to those that I move in. There is no professional body of Earth Scientists that doesn't accept AGW either as far as I am aware.

 

[dad]

Darn tootin I am serious. I think we have all been sold a bill of goods. Pay attention in this debate to who is posting quotes and graphs from peer reviewed journals. Those that aren't are mostly parroting what they read in the news papers.[/quoote]
Ok

I have been to Antarctica it is an interesting place. There are several illogical things about the claim that Antarctica is melting. First only on the fringes of the continent does it get above freezing for about a month a year. Most of that is due to the warmth of the sea waters. Indeed, if Antarctica warmed, it would snow a whole lot more and there is no data showing an increase in snowfall. As it is, it is too damn cold to snow much down there.

So how do you explain the far from anywhere glacier bigger than Scotland melting 6 times faster? Does that mean the satellite data is wrong, because it doesn't snow enough?

Now to your glacier. It is a tidewater glacier and the hysteriacs leave out that little fact. The glacier is sitting on water and the water warms, not the air. Indeed one article talking about this particular glacier says.

"Scientists believe that the retreat of glaciers in this sector of Antarctica is caused by warming of the surrounding oceans, though it is too early to link such a trend to global warming." Antarctic Glacier Thinning At Alarming Rate

If a planet heats up, would not the waters on the planet also get warm? Why would it matter if air or water melted it? What about the fuss in the arctic over Canada? The passage is open longer and longer each year, they even talk about it being open year round fairly soon.

As far as the bible goes, the millennium is a great climate, compared to what we know. Plants grow fantastic, etc. Therefore, it seems that there will be climate change as far as the bible is concerned. Why doubt that it has started?
Do you think the passages will freeze up again, and the glaciers grow again, and that the current trend is only short term?

Of course it is much more fun for them to immorally leave out that little fact, or make it so unimportant as to make you miss it, and then sell you a bill of goods that this is awful. It is normal and it isn't due to CO2.

Well, for our life time, it is not all that normal. Therefore, we get into the records of the past. I doubt the Northwest passage was open as much as now when Columbus sailed to America. I do not doubt that it was a different climate before the flood up there. But that's another story.

Then I would love to hear how those dates need correcting. Are you a youngearther?

Yes, absolutely. But that's something for another thread. Too big for this one.

It is or was widespread.




No,, this is seen all over the world.

Well, you may be right. However, all I have to go on is what you posted, and that was about Siberia. As far as the changed temp merely hundreds of years ago.

If I wrote that the permafrost was gone when Columbus sailed, then I screwed up royally. It was gone 5000 years ago, not 600 years ago. When I come home tonight I will see if I left out a zero--thus a typo

Ah, OK. Now we are getting into the deep past, and that is very thin ice for old agers.

 

[dad]

Because the last part is a complete fallacy. That the earth has experienced climate change before doesn't lessen the impact of the current one, OR the fact that WE are responsible for this one, and it's going much faster than we believe the earlier ones went. How hard is this to understand: People will die and/or become homeless in their millions!

Wow. Freak out much? Strange prophesy.

No, I would say that Hansen is doing his part to convey to the masses that this is a serious situation. This kind of tactic is necessary,...

That tactic is fear mongering, and hypocritical.

Do you drive a car? Live in a house, or apt? Use heat or AC. or electricity? Have you taken a cruise, or tour in train or bus? What exactly is it you think we should do about the changing realities of the planet? I figure that is is better to accept change. If the north gets warmer, and polar bears all die, and Kodiak bears move in, or something, and plants, why cry over it? Why scare school kids, and make them feel they killed the cute white bears?