Why worry about global warming?

[Thistlethorn]

it is not a superfluous statement, it relates preciecly to the subject at hand, rising sea levels.
(oooo, 2 whole centimetres in 130 years so what) the reason for rising sea levels is the little ice ages' sharply unusually cold temps built up allota ice. sure its obvious, so why would anyone think it was corbon dioxide?

yes it is warmer. it was warmer than it is now in the medieval warm period.
the little ice age was caused by very low sunspot activity, this was on the heels of the medeilive warm period the little ice age and the MWP are born out by tree rings and sediment deposits in water bodies world wide.
that you cant seem to grap what is so obvious is boring.

What evidence do you base these assertions on? All of what you are saying has been known to be false for a decade.

 

[canukian]

Why would it be obvious given the fact that we know why the ice is melting, and it has nothing to do with the "Little Ice Age"?

By the way, didn't you just make the (wrong) argument that the ice isn't melting?

your statement in red is arrogant, down to the royal we. its obvious to me that the ice is melting because its warmer now that during the unusually cold little ice age.
there has been a slight increase of ice in the antartic in the last decades. i didnt say the ice has not been melting since the little ice age.

 

[serenity2517]

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ <------------------------------------------ LOOK!

 

[thaumaturgy]

i
yes it is warmer. it was warmer than it is now in the medieval warm period.

I don't believe there is evidence for that on a global scale.

The folks at NOAA's Paleoclimatology group have this to say:

As paleoclimatic records have become more numerous, it has become apparent that "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum" temperatures were warmer over the Northern Hemisphere than during the subsequent "Little Ice Age", and also comparable to temperatures during the early 20th century.
...
...but all reconstruct the same basic pattern of cool "Little Ice Age", warmer "Medieval Warm Period", and still warmer late 20th and 21st century temperatures. (SOURCE)

(emphasis added)

The key differentiator being that it may have been places on the globe that were warmer, but not necessarily the global average (as I understand it).

And that is why current Global Warming is such an issue. If it is a global average increase of this magnitude then it is very disturbing.

In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years.

 

[Thistlethorn]

your statement in red is arrogant, down to the royal we.

It's not arrogant. I can back it up. Can you support scientifically that the Little Ice Age was anything more than a regional phenomena?

its obvious to me that the ice is melting because its warmer now that during the unusually cold little ice age.

How can it be obvious to you? Are you a climatologist? How would you explain the fact that what is obvious to you is viewed as wrong by climatologists?

there has been a slight increase of ice in the antartic in the last decades. i didnt say the ice has not been melting since the little ice age.

No, there hasn't. There has been no significant melting of sea-ice in the Antarctic, and right now the sea-ice is as thick as it has been in a couple of decades. However, sea-ice isn't what is worrying scientists, and there has been considerable melting of land-ice in the Antarctic.

 

[canukian]

What evidence do you base these assertions on? All of what you are saying has been known to be false for a decade.

wrong. the stuff i said has been well known for decades, some a century or more. the work has been done, and peer reviewed. it is easily discovered by anyone who is interested. it is easily understood by the layman, whereas the stuff the liars come up with is made to baffle and bambbozle. i wish i knew their motive, how their minds work. closest i can come is that they are just evil.

 

[canukian]

It's not arrogant. I can back it up. Can you support scientifically that the Little Ice Age was anything more than a regional phenomena?

i can back it up. i will not try and convince you. if i hade a captive audience who where commited to study both our maeirial i would be only to happy to comply. the audience would side with me. to try and convince you is an exersise in futility.

How can it be obvious to you? Are you a climatologist? How would you explain the fact that what is obvious to you is viewed as wrong by climatologists?

you dont need 16 years in univercity to look at the results that experts condence into laymans terms to disern the truth. you try to brow beat people by telling them that they are not competent enough to make a decision, that they must surrender their right to form opinions to higher beings. well they are perfectly capible, bully boy.

No, there hasn't. There has been no significant melting of sea-ice in the Antarctic, and right now the sea-ice is as thick as it has been in a couple of decades. However, sea-ice isn't what is worrying scientists, and there has been considerable melting of land-ice in the Antarctic

its my understanding that the acumulations have been on land. it may be you are refering to a study by mann, who did the hockey stick graph which is putrid trash.

 

[Thistlethorn]

wrong. the stuff i said has been well known for decades, some a century or more. the work has been done, and peer reviewed. it is easily discovered by anyone who is interested. it is easily understood by the layman, whereas the stuff the liars come up with is made to baffle and bambbozle. i wish i knew their motive, how their minds work. closest i can come is that they are just evil.

No, the things you speak of have been falsified by more current research. Read Mann et al 1998 or 2003. Nobody is lying except you. New research has shown the LIA and the MWP to be nothing but regional phenomena.

 

[Thistlethorn]

i can back it up. i will not try and convince you. if i hade a captive audience who where commited to study both our maeirial i would be only to happy to comply. the audience would side with me. to try and convince you is an exersise in futility.

I don't believe you. I think you're lying.

you dont need 16 years in univercity to look at the results that experts condence into laymans terms to disern the truth. you try to brow beat people by telling them that they are not competent enough to make a decision, that they must surrender their right to form opinions to higher beings. well they are perfectly capible, bully boy.

Yes, you need a scientific education to be able to properly question the work of other scientists. Otherwise you're just making arguments from incredulity.

its my understanding that the acumulations have been on land.

No, the accumulations have been on sea ice. It says so right in the article you quoted (the original one at least).

it may be you are refering to a study by mann,

I am not.

who did the hockey stick graph which is putrid trash.

Show peer-reviewed science that falsifies it. It has been given the backing of the National Academies of Science, and has been verified by independent research. Try again, denier.

 

[plindboe]

it is not a superfluous statement, it relates preciecly to the subject at hand, rising sea levels.
(oooo, 2 whole centimetres in 130 years so what)

20 cm.

the reason for rising sea levels is the little ice ages' sharply unusually cold temps built up allota ice.

Repetition doesn't make your statement any less superfluous.

We agree that the past has been colder. We agree that it has been warming since then and as a consequence the sea levels are rising. None of that explains why the world is warming.

sure its obvious, so why would anyone think it was corbon dioxide?

We know carbon dioxide is a factor because it's a greenhouse gas.

yes it is warmer. it was warmer than it is now in the medieval warm period.

That's not what the most recent research reveals.

the little ice age was caused by very low sunspot activity

That's one important factor. No doubt other factors were involved.

that you cant seem to grap what is so obvious is boring.

It might be obvious in your head because you consider yourself omnipotent and wiser than all the world's climatologists, but to the rest of us mortals it's not that simple. There are alot of factors to consider, tons of data to take into account, which requires an extensive knowledge of statistics to sort through, and a lifetime of training to get a proper grasp of climate changes.

It's easy to read some propaganda on the internet and convince yourself that you have it all figured out. How about some humility?

Peter

 

[canukian]

i am relieving my self of this thread. all i said is true and will be self evident to anyone who cares to do the work. self evident because the average joe and jane are capable of looking at the evidence and extracting the truth. just as people know evil when they see it, they know the truth when they see it. some are led astray. those that lead others astray will reap their reward.

13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

 

[plindboe]

Btw, I like how the "Medieval Warm Period" was an average of a mere ~0,3 C warmer than the "Little Ice Age". Notice how these periods are overemphasized by the deniers, yet the ~0,4 C warming we've seen in the last 30 years is brushed aside as insignificant.

Peter

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

whereas the stuff the liars come up with is made to baffle and bambbozle. i wish i knew their motive, how their minds work. closest i can come is that they are just evil.

It's funny, the first thing that popped into my head when I read this was creationists/IDists/ICists.

 

[Thistlethorn]

i am relieving my self of this thread. all i said is true and will be self evident to anyone who cares to do the work. self evident because the average joe and jane are capable of looking at the evidence and extracting the truth. just as people know evil when they see it, they know the truth when they see it. some are led astray. those that lead others astray will reap their reward.

13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Next time you try to cast doubt on an established field of science, bring some actual evidence instead of bluster and bible quotes. Saying something is "self evident" when you don't have the relevant education is a sure sign you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

 

[serenity2517]

Lol I never thought someone would be naieve enough to agree with me when I posted this thread. It's funny

 

[serenity2517]

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about seven thousand years ago, marking the beginning of the modern climate era &#8212;and of human civilization. Most of these changes are attributed to the very small changes in the Earth&#8217;s orbit changing the amount of solar energy the Earth receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.
Certain facts about Earths climate are not in dispute:

• The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

• Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth&#8217;s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth&#8217;s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

Levels of Carbon Dioxide are higher today than at anytime in past 650,000 years.

Scientists reconstruct past climate conditions through evidence preserved in tree rings, coral reefs and ice cores. For example, ice cores removed from 2 miles deep in the Antarctic contain atmospheric samples trapped in tiny air bubbles that date as far back as 650,000 years. These samples have allowed scientists to construct a historical record of greenhouse gas concentration stretching back hundreds of thousands of years.

Global surface air temperatures rose three-quarters of a degree Celsius (almost one and a half degrees Fahrenheit) in the last century, but at twice that amount in the past 50 years. Eleven of the last 12 years (1995-2006) are the warmest since accurate recordkeeping began in 1850.

The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1955.

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have shrunk in both area and mass. Data from JPLs Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030.

Many species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving to higher elevations or closer to the poles.

Precipitation and evaporation patterns over the oceans have changed, as evidenced by increased ocean salinity near the equator and decreased salinity at higher latitudes.

- Climate Change: Evidence

 

[Belk]

Here we go again --- same logic as with the Tiktaalik in the Donovan stones argument.

Disaster predicted --- avoidance techniques implemented --- no disaster = prediction justified.

Well, I predict there will be buckeyes found in Ohio, and no where else.

Guess what? There are buckeyes found in Ohio.

How do you know a disaster was averted, if the disaster wasn't real?So the computer programmers went over the heads of the computer scientists?

I don't. I just know that it was identified as an issue, a large amount of money and time where spent to correct it, and there was no large issues for Y2K.

Now perhaps you could explain to us exactly why this is a problem for you?

 

[serenity2517]

My dad's a computer programmer and he told me that Y2K would have been a problem if they hadn't hyped it in the media. They got people active soon enough though that the smaller banks that didn't know about it fixed their problems and so did businesses. They did blow it out of proportion but it was really important that they made people pay attention to it.

 

[Cabal]

i am relieving my self of this thread. all i said is true and will be self evident to anyone who cares to do the work.

Yeah that bit with the expansion of water over 4 deg C, flawless!

Either you or AV care to comment further on this? I'm not surprised you're both cutting and running from this thread...

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

My dad's a computer programmer and he told me that Y2K would have been a problem if they hadn't hyped it in the media. They got people active soon enough though that the smaller banks that didn't know about it fixed their problems and so did businesses. They did blow it out of proportion but it was really important that they made people pay attention to it.

Right, because if they had not "made people pay attention to it," computer programmers wouldn't have made as much money as they did.

I've also talked to "computer programmers" who say absolutely very little in the way of real consequences would have transpired.