Arctic ice thins dramatically

[hendrickL]

That's scary, I better take a serious swimming lesson starting today....

 

[wirebender]

Now Chris, BiPolar will come back with a multi-page reply replete with cartoons, idiocies, and quotes from various whackos. See what you have done

Not to mention the hard observed evidence that you aren yours are universally unable to refute.

 

[RollingThunder]

Now Chris, BiPolar will come back with a multi-page reply replete with cartoons, idiocies, and quotes from various whackos. See what you have done

Not to mention the hard observed evidence that you aren yours are universally unable to refute.

You've never once come up with any "hard observed evidence" that refutes any part of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes, except maybe in your own fevered imagination. We can't refute what isn't there.

 

[saveliberty]

As government officials from eight Arctic nations - the United States, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland - prepare to meet in Greenland next week to discuss the challenges of climate change, a report released May 4, 2011 underscores the urgency of the Arctic Council meeting. The study finds the Arctic's polar ice is melting at a much faster rate than previously thought.

The report was released by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, the scientific arm of the 8-nation Arctic Council. It finds that the past six years - between 2005 and 2010 - were the warmest years recorded in the Arctic since measurements began in 1880.

Arctic Ice Melting Faster Than Predicted | Environment | English

Raw data or "corrected data"? Where's the flood then genius? Oh, and where is the link to it being manmade? Science? Not a chance.

 

[wirebender]

You've never once come up with any "hard observed evidence" that refutes any part of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes, except maybe in your own fevered imagination. We can't refute what isn't there.

You are kidding right? Everywhere you look is hard observed evidence that refutes the idea that man is responsible for climate change. The fact that the ice started melting some 14,000 years ago is the first bit of hard observed evidence that any rational person might look at. Then the fact that the present isn't even the hottest period of time in the past 14,000 years, nor a period of "unprecedented" speed of warming tells any resonable person that something else is probably at work behind the changing climate.

The physical fact that CO2 can not trap and retain heat is far down the list of observable evidence that AGW is a crackpot hypothesis based on poliical agendas rather than science.

Challenging someone to list hard observed evidence that refutes the hypothesis of AGW has got to be one of the stupidest things I have seen any AGW hysteric say. The fact is that you guys spend most of your time trying to put forward models instead of observed data as the observed data just doesn't support your claims.

 

[Big Fitz]

Of course..........the pink and purple cars pay homage to the limpwristed supporters of Obama!!!

Should have made them hybrids. Draw attention to two colossal failures with one image.

LMAO...........I drive by a hybrid about once per hour. People are confused.

So Wire bro.........which campaign symbol should I go with for beating up on the far let k00ks as we enter 2012??

Okay, i have to disagree a little with you.

Hybrids ARE a good idea, but not for the reasons that the ecofascists say. Every railroad locomotive is a first generation hybrid. The diesel engines power generators for electric motors. Essentially the difference is that they don't have a battery or capacitor to store a charge an then use it to cut back on fuel consumption. Then again, locomotives are very efficient when compared to cars and semis.

I think hybrid buses and cars are essentially a good idea. Not because of saving the planet, but fuel costs. I haven't driven any of our Hybrid buses, but I've heard good things about them for driving, and I don't mind being parked behind them when waiting, AND they are lower impact on negative qualities of life.

So, they are a good thing, but the problem lies in that the technology is new, and the limits of battery technology which we desperately needs to improve. I do hope that the labs get quantum well technology figured out so I can have superduper capacitors and programmable matter. This is the future... where's my flying car, sexbot and phaser gun?

 

[Old Rocks]

As government officials from eight Arctic nations - the United States, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland - prepare to meet in Greenland next week to discuss the challenges of climate change, a report released May 4, 2011 underscores the urgency of the Arctic Council meeting. The study finds the Arctic's polar ice is melting at a much faster rate than previously thought.

The report was released by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, the scientific arm of the 8-nation Arctic Council. It finds that the past six years - between 2005 and 2010 - were the warmest years recorded in the Arctic since measurements began in 1880.

Arctic Ice Melting Faster Than Predicted | Environment | English

Raw data or "corrected data"? Where's the flood then genius? Oh, and where is the link to it being manmade? Science? Not a chance.

Lordy, lordy, another dumbass. Eight nations that share the Artic are worried enough about the melt, it's implications for climatic and political problems, that they are holding meetings.

If you are really interested in the science, you can easily get data and articles published in peer reviewed journals, from the US, Europe, and Asia, stating what the scientists are seeing and measuring.

However, science and real data is hardly what you desire. You much prefer your data ran through an obese junkie of a radio jock, and then prefeced with 'the way things ought to be'. Reality is not your strong suit.

 

[RWatt]

Everywhere you look is hard observed evidence that refutes the idea that man is responsible for climate change. The fact that the ice started melting some 14,000 years ago is the first bit of hard observed evidence that any rational person might look at.

Your point here is well reasoned, but I wonder could man be responsible for recent changes even if changes have happened naturally in the past? Are the two really mutually exclusive? I can't see why they would be, after-all man can be responsible for a whole number of things that have happened naturally in the past. Forest fires are a prime example.

In fact when I explored this question a while ago it struck me that if man can change the climate and is changing the climate, shouldn't we expect the climate to be malleable - I believe scientists refer to this as the climate being sensitive - enough that therefore it would have changed significantly by natural means in the past?

Then the fact that the present isn't even the hottest period of time in the past 14,000 years, nor a period of "unprecedented" speed of warming tells any resonable person that something else is probably at work behind the changing climate.

This is a good argument too, but is it not possible for man to be changing the climate even if the changes are not unprecedented in 14,000 years? I don't believe the basis of assigning man as the cause is based on changes being unprecedented in 14,000 years, so I don't think this fact necessarily refutes the idea. In fact if man's changes were to become unprecedented for this timespan, there would always be an initial period in which they weren't, so I hesitate to write off man's role along these lines.

The physical fact that CO2 can not trap and retain heat is far down the list of observable evidence that AGW is a crackpot hypothesis based on poliical agendas rather than science.

I would think CO2 being a greenhouse gas must in some form or another be contributing to the significant warmth that the greenhouse effect affords the Earth, whether or not that be described in terms of trapping or by other words.

 

[RollingThunder]

You've never once come up with any "hard observed evidence" that refutes any part of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes, except maybe in your own fevered imagination. We can't refute what isn't there.

You are kidding right? Everywhere you look is hard observed evidence that refutes the idea that man is responsible for climate change. The fact that the ice started melting some 14,000 years ago is the first bit of hard observed evidence that any rational person might look at. Then the fact that the present isn't even the hottest period of time in the past 14,000 years, nor a period of "unprecedented" speed of warming tells any resonable person that something else is probably at work behind the changing climate.

The physical fact that CO2 can not trap and retain heat is far down the list of observable evidence that AGW is a crackpot hypothesis based on poliical agendas rather than science.

Challenging someone to list hard observed evidence that refutes the hypothesis of AGW has got to be one of the stupidest things I have seen any AGW hysteric say. The fact is that you guys spend most of your time trying to put forward models instead of observed data as the observed data just doesn't support your claims.

Hot air. That's all you ever come up with is just hot air. You say things that are wrong and offer no evidence, just hot air. Pretty much everything in your little rant here is wrong but you're too ignorant and brainwashed to see that.

The ice sheets melted off of Europe and North America around 11,000 to 14,000 years ago but that melting had slowed enormously by around 10,000 years ago and stopped completely by about 6000 years ago. The current fast melting is not being caused by the same physical mechanisms that produced the end of the last glaciation. In the natural course of things, those forces would now be pushing the Earth towards cooler temperatures and eventually another period of glaciation. The present time is indeed the hottest period in at least the last 10,000 years, as the climate scientists have determined. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its heat trapping qualities have been extensively documented and described by physicists for over a century. You are just scientifically clueless and very ignorant and in denial of the facts. The fact is, as I said before, you have no "hard observed evidence" that refutes any part of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes; you just always claim to have it but you can never actually produce any. I doubt that you, in your denier cult delirium, even know the actual meaning of "hard observed evidence".

Here's some "hard observed evidence" for you.

The Earth's average temperature has already risen by at least 0.74°C in just the past century and much of the rise occurred in recent decades. Last year (2010) was tied for the warmest year on record and, in fact, the planet's ten warmest years ever recorded occurred within the past 12 years. The last decade was the warmest on record as was each of the two preceding decades in turn. The rate of temperate rise is also increasing.

Global warming has increased evaporation from the oceans and increased the moisture content of the atmosphere, which, in turn, is causing the increased incidences of intense rainfall, snowfall and flooding as well as droughts and heat waves and other extreme weather events.

Ice caps and glaciers in Antarctica and around the world are melting. In North America, the Glacier National Park has already lost 123 of its 150 glaciers and the Bering Glacier has already lost over 20% of its parts and 11 kilometers of its entire length. New Zealand's glaciers have also shrunk by about 26% within the last century. Throughout that time, the Tasman Glacier thinned by over a hundred meters. India's Gangotri Glacier has also been melting by 30 meters annually within the past 2 decades. Its annual melting rate was 18 meters from 1935-1990 and 7 meters from 1842-1935.

Rapid ice melts have also been occurring across the Arctic. In fact, the Arctic sea ice has already shrunk by over a million square kilometers.

The 2010 minimum ice extent is the third-lowest recorded since 1979. The 2010 minimum is 1.95 million square kilometers (753,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum and 1.62 million square kilometers (625,000 square miles) below the thirty-one-year 1979 to 2009 average minimum.​

Antarctica has been shown to be losing ice mass at an increasing rate and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is already starting to collapse.

Because the world's ice is melting rapidly and because of thermal expansion of the oceans caused by global warming, sea levels are rising and satellite measurements show that the rate of that rise has doubled since the first part of the twentieth century and is still increasing.

Due to the rise in global temperature and sea levels, corals have been dying. The worst even coral bleaching was recorded in 1998 when, in some areas, up to 70% of coral reefs died. Among the worst die-offs have been observed in the Caribbean.

Infectious tropical diseases are slowly spreading to more temperate areas. Dengue fever and malaria, for example, have spread to the United States.

Seasonal timing is changing with spring coming earlier and winter coming later.
Global Warming Bringing Spring Earlier

 

[westwall]

You've never once come up with any "hard observed evidence" that refutes any part of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes, except maybe in your own fevered imagination. We can't refute what isn't there.

You are kidding right? Everywhere you look is hard observed evidence that refutes the idea that man is responsible for climate change. The fact that the ice started melting some 14,000 years ago is the first bit of hard observed evidence that any rational person might look at. Then the fact that the present isn't even the hottest period of time in the past 14,000 years, nor a period of "unprecedented" speed of warming tells any resonable person that something else is probably at work behind the changing climate.

The physical fact that CO2 can not trap and retain heat is far down the list of observable evidence that AGW is a crackpot hypothesis based on poliical agendas rather than science.

Challenging someone to list hard observed evidence that refutes the hypothesis of AGW has got to be one of the stupidest things I have seen any AGW hysteric say. The fact is that you guys spend most of your time trying to put forward models instead of observed data as the observed data just doesn't support your claims.

Hot air. That's all you ever come up with is just hot air. You say things that are wrong and offer no evidence, just hot air. Pretty much everything in your little rant here is wrong but you're too ignorant and brainwashed to see that.

The ice sheets melted off of Europe and North America around 11,000 to 14,000 years ago but that melting had slowed enormously by around 10,000 years ago and stopped completely by about 6000 years ago. The current fast melting is not being caused by the same physical mechanisms that produced the end of the last glaciation. In the natural course of things, those forces would now be pushing the Earth towards cooler temperatures and eventually another period of glaciation. The present time is indeed the hottest period in at least the last 10,000 years, as the climate scientists have determined. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its heat trapping qualities have been extensively documented and described by physicists for over a century. You are just scientifically clueless and very ignorant and in denial of the facts. The fact is, as I said before, you have no "hard observed evidence" that refutes any part of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes; you just always claim to have it but you can never actually produce any. I doubt that you, in your denier cult delirium, even know the actual meaning of "hard observed evidence".

Here's some "hard observed evidence" for you.

The Earth's average temperature has already risen by at least 0.74°C in just the past century and much of the rise occurred in recent decades. Last year (2010) was tied for the warmest year on record and, in fact, the planet's ten warmest years ever recorded occurred within the past 12 years. The last decade was the warmest on record as was each of the two preceding decades in turn. The rate of temperate rise is also increasing.

Global warming has increased evaporation from the oceans and increased the moisture content of the atmosphere, which, in turn, is causing the increased incidences of intense rainfall, snowfall and flooding as well as droughts and heat waves and other extreme weather events.

Ice caps and glaciers in Antarctica and around the world are melting. In North America, the Glacier National Park has already lost 123 of its 150 glaciers and the Bering Glacier has already lost over 20% of its parts and 11 kilometers of its entire length. New Zealand's glaciers have also shrunk by about 26% within the last century. Throughout that time, the Tasman Glacier thinned by over a hundred meters. India's Gangotri Glacier has also been melting by 30 meters annually within the past 2 decades. Its annual melting rate was 18 meters from 1935-1990 and 7 meters from 1842-1935.

Rapid ice melts have also been occurring across the Arctic. In fact, the Arctic sea ice has already shrunk by over a million square kilometers.

The 2010 minimum ice extent is the third-lowest recorded since 1979. The 2010 minimum is 1.95 million square kilometers (753,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum and 1.62 million square kilometers (625,000 square miles) below the thirty-one-year 1979 to 2009 average minimum.​

Antarctica has been shown to be losing ice mass at an increasing rate and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is already starting to collapse.

Because the world's ice is melting rapidly and because of thermal expansion of the oceans caused by global warming, sea levels are rising and satellite measurements show that the rate of that rise has doubled since the first part of the twentieth century and is still increasing.

Due to the rise in global temperature and sea levels, corals have been dying. The worst even coral bleaching was recorded in 1998 when, in some areas, up to 70% of coral reefs died. Among the worst die-offs have been observed in the Caribbean.

Infectious tropical diseases are slowly spreading to more temperate areas. Dengue fever and malaria, for example, have spread to the United States.

Seasonal timing is changing with spring coming earlier and winter coming later.
Global Warming Bringing Spring Earlier

This spring we are 20 degrees below normal for temperature as are many areas of the world. We are now enjoying our 5th straight day of snow. We have yet to be able to plant my daughters garden do to cold. Yet again you resort to a warmist blog that presents no empirical data to support its claims. Once again we are treated to computer models of pathetic nature.

The claim of GW spreading malaria and Dengue fever to the US is laughable. The link is to the CDC and it has a brief history of malaria as you can see it was rampant throughout the south. Malaria dates back to the beginning of time in the southern US with many conquistadores contracting it when adventuring in the New World. You grasp of history is, like your grasp of science, pathetic.

The link below that is to the Dengue Fever map and as you can see in the map (also from the Center for Diesease Control) the two cases in Florida were brought to the US via air travel.

The U.S. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) - The Integration of Malaria Control with Economic Development (1933)

U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933. The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region. An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley. Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933. The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications.

CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - History

DengueMap | A CDC-HealthMap Collaboration

 

[RollingThunder]

Seasonal timing is changing with spring coming earlier and winter coming later.
Global Warming Bringing Spring Earlier

This spring we are 20 degrees below normal for temperature as are many areas of the world. We are now enjoying our 5th straight day of snow. We have yet to be able to plant my daughters garden do to cold. Yet again you resort to a warmist blog that presents no empirical data to support its claims. Once again we are treated to computer models of pathetic nature.

LOLOLOL....ahhh yes, that "warmist blog" called National Geographic and that other one called The Associated Press....LOLOLOL.

Global Warming Bringing Spring Earlier
March 20, 2008
(excerpts)

Washington, D.C.'s famous cherry trees are primed to burst in a perfect pink peak about the end of this month. Thirty years ago, the trees usually waited to bloom until around April 5. In central California, the first of the field skipper sachem, drab little butterflies, was fluttering about on March 12. Just 25 years ago, that creature predictably emerged there anywhere from mid-April to mid-May. And sneezes are coming earlier in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On March 9, when allergist Donald Dvorin set up his monitor, maple pollen was already heavy in the air. Less than two decades ago, that pollen couldn't be measured until late April.

For biologists, these trends are a worrying sign of the ominous effects of global warming. The fingerprints of human-caused climate change are evident in seasonal timing changes for thousands of species on Earth, according to dozens of studies and last year's authoritative report by the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. More than 30 scientists told The Associated Press how global warming is affecting plants and animals at springtime across the country, in nearly every state. "The alarm clock that all the plants and animals are listening to is running too fast," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said.

What's happening is so noticeable that scientists can track it from space. Satellites measuring when land turns green found that spring "green up" is arriving eight hours earlier every year on average since 1982 north of the Mason-Dixon line. (Related: "Warming Sign? Another Early Spring for Rocky Mountains" [April 9, 2007].)


....."no empirical data"....LOLOLOLOLOL....you are such a clueless lying troll, walleyedretard.

Unlike sea ice in the Arctic, which recently has shown record ice losses, the way climate change is tinkering with the natural timing of day-to-day life is concrete and local. People can experience it with all five senses.

• You can see the trees and bushes blooming earlier. A photo of Lowell Cemetery, in Lowell, Massachusetts, taken May 30, 1868, shows bare limbs. But the same scene photographed May 30, 2005, by Boston University biology professor Richard Primack shows them in full spring greenery.

• You can smell the lilacs and honeysuckle. In the U.S. West, they are coming out two to four days earlier each decade over more than half a century, according to a 2001 study.

• You can hear it in the birds. Scientists in Gothic, Colorado, have watched the first robin of spring arrive earlier each year in that mountain ghost town, marching forward from April 9 in 1981 to March 14 last year. This year, heavy snows may keep the birds away until April.

• You can feel it in your nose from increased allergies. Spring airborne pollen is being released about 20 hours earlier every year, according to a Swiss study that looked at common allergies since 1979.

• You can even taste it in the honey. Bees, which sample many plants, are producing their peak amount of honey weeks earlier. The nectar is coming from different plants now, which means noticeably different honey—at least in Highland, Maryland, where Wayne Esaias has been monitoring honey production since 1992. Instead of the rich, red, earthy tulip poplar honey that used to be prevalent, bees are producing lighter, fruitier black locust honey. Esaias, a NASA oceanographer as well as beekeeper, says global warming is a factor.

In D.C., seven of the past 20 Cherry Blossom Festivals have started after peak bloom. This year will be close, the National Park Service predicts.

Last year, Knoxville's dogwood blooms came and went before the city's dogwood festival started. Boston's Arnold Arboretum permanently rescheduled Lilac Sunday to a May date eight days earlier than it once was.

Even western wildfires have a timing connection to global warming and are coming earlier. An early spring generally means the plants that fuel fires are drier, producing nastier fire seasons, said University of Arizona geology professor Steve Yool.

It's such a good correlation that Weltzin, the phenology network director, is talking about using real-time lilac data to predict upcoming fire seasons. Lilacs, which are found in most parts of the country, offer some of the broadest climate overview data going back to the 1950s.

This year, though, it's the early red maple that's creating buzz, as well as sniffles.

A New Jersey conservationist posted an urgent message on a biology listserv on February 1 about the early blooming. A 2001 study found that since 1970, that tree is blossoming on average at least 19 days earlier in Washington, D.C.

 

[westwall]

Seasonal timing is changing with spring coming earlier and winter coming later.
Global Warming Bringing Spring Earlier

This spring we are 20 degrees below normal for temperature as are many areas of the world. We are now enjoying our 5th straight day of snow. We have yet to be able to plant my daughters garden do to cold. Yet again you resort to a warmist blog that presents no empirical data to support its claims. Once again we are treated to computer models of pathetic nature.

LOLOLOL....ahhh yes, that "warmist blog" called National Geographic and that other one called The Associated Press....LOLOLOL.

Global Warming Bringing Spring Earlier
March 20, 2008
(excerpts)

Washington, D.C.'s famous cherry trees are primed to burst in a perfect pink peak about the end of this month. Thirty years ago, the trees usually waited to bloom until around April 5. In central California, the first of the field skipper sachem, drab little butterflies, was fluttering about on March 12. Just 25 years ago, that creature predictably emerged there anywhere from mid-April to mid-May. And sneezes are coming earlier in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On March 9, when allergist Donald Dvorin set up his monitor, maple pollen was already heavy in the air. Less than two decades ago, that pollen couldn't be measured until late April.

For biologists, these trends are a worrying sign of the ominous effects of global warming. The fingerprints of human-caused climate change are evident in seasonal timing changes for thousands of species on Earth, according to dozens of studies and last year's authoritative report by the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. More than 30 scientists told The Associated Press how global warming is affecting plants and animals at springtime across the country, in nearly every state. "The alarm clock that all the plants and animals are listening to is running too fast," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said.

What's happening is so noticeable that scientists can track it from space. Satellites measuring when land turns green found that spring "green up" is arriving eight hours earlier every year on average since 1982 north of the Mason-Dixon line. (Related: "Warming Sign? Another Early Spring for Rocky Mountains" [April 9, 2007].)


....."no empirical data"....LOLOLOLOLOL....you are such a clueless lying troll, walleyedretard.

Unlike sea ice in the Arctic, which recently has shown record ice losses, the way climate change is tinkering with the natural timing of day-to-day life is concrete and local. People can experience it with all five senses.

• You can see the trees and bushes blooming earlier. A photo of Lowell Cemetery, in Lowell, Massachusetts, taken May 30, 1868, shows bare limbs. But the same scene photographed May 30, 2005, by Boston University biology professor Richard Primack shows them in full spring greenery.

• You can smell the lilacs and honeysuckle. In the U.S. West, they are coming out two to four days earlier each decade over more than half a century, according to a 2001 study.

• You can hear it in the birds. Scientists in Gothic, Colorado, have watched the first robin of spring arrive earlier each year in that mountain ghost town, marching forward from April 9 in 1981 to March 14 last year. This year, heavy snows may keep the birds away until April.

• You can feel it in your nose from increased allergies. Spring airborne pollen is being released about 20 hours earlier every year, according to a Swiss study that looked at common allergies since 1979.

• You can even taste it in the honey. Bees, which sample many plants, are producing their peak amount of honey weeks earlier. The nectar is coming from different plants now, which means noticeably different honey—at least in Highland, Maryland, where Wayne Esaias has been monitoring honey production since 1992. Instead of the rich, red, earthy tulip poplar honey that used to be prevalent, bees are producing lighter, fruitier black locust honey. Esaias, a NASA oceanographer as well as beekeeper, says global warming is a factor.

In D.C., seven of the past 20 Cherry Blossom Festivals have started after peak bloom. This year will be close, the National Park Service predicts.

Last year, Knoxville's dogwood blooms came and went before the city's dogwood festival started. Boston's Arnold Arboretum permanently rescheduled Lilac Sunday to a May date eight days earlier than it once was.

Even western wildfires have a timing connection to global warming and are coming earlier. An early spring generally means the plants that fuel fires are drier, producing nastier fire seasons, said University of Arizona geology professor Steve Yool.

It's such a good correlation that Weltzin, the phenology network director, is talking about using real-time lilac data to predict upcoming fire seasons. Lilacs, which are found in most parts of the country, offer some of the broadest climate overview data going back to the 1950s.

This year, though, it's the early red maple that's creating buzz, as well as sniffles.

A New Jersey conservationist posted an urgent message on a biology listserv on February 1 about the early blooming. A 2001 study found that since 1970, that tree is blossoming on average at least 19 days earlier in Washington, D.C.

Care to explain the BS about malaria then?

 

[wirebender]

Your point here is well reasoned, but I wonder could man be responsible for recent changes even if changes have happened naturally in the past? Are the two really mutually exclusive? I can't see why they would be, after-all man can be responsible for a whole number of things that have happened naturally in the past. Forest fires are a prime example.

Occam says.........no. The fact that the climate change we are experiencing today is no way unprecedented or even slightly unusual is strong evidence that man is not responsible. Logic suggests that if man were altering the climate that would be a new thing and in all likelyhood, look quite different from past climate change.

This is a good argument too, but is it not possible for man to be changing the climate even if the changes are not unprecedented in 14,000 years? I don't believe the basis of assigning man as the cause is based on changes being unprecedented in 14,000 years, so I don't think this fact necessarily refutes the idea. In fact if man's changes were to become unprecedented for this timespan, there would always be an initial period in which they weren't, so I hesitate to write off man's role along these lines.

Simply a different wording of your previous argument. Again, Occam says no. Climate change precipitated by man would be unprecedented in earth history and there is no reason to believe it would mimic natural changes in past climate.

I would think CO2 being a greenhouse gas must in some form or another be contributing to the significant warmth that the greenhouse effect affords the Earth, whether or not that be described in terms of trapping or by other words.

The greenhouse effect is little more than a piss poor hypothesis. Not a shred of empirical evidence exists to support its existence. CO2 has no capacity to absorb and retain heat. Look at the moon. It recieves roughly the same amount of energy per square meter from the sun as the earth. In the daytime, the temperature on the moon is considerably higher than the temperature on the earth. The moon has no atmosphere. The earth has an atmosphere. A rational mind must conclude that the atmosphere does not serve to warm the earth, it, in reality, keeps the earth cool during daylight hours and slows the escape of heat during the night time hours. In reality, the atmosphere does precisely the opposite of what the greenhouse hypothesis suggests.

 

[wirebender]

Hot air. That's all you ever come up with is just hot air. You say things that are wrong and offer no evidence, just hot air. Pretty much everything in your little rant here is wrong but you're too ignorant and brainwashed to see that.

Actually, I don't, but thanks for lying anyway.

The current fast melting is not being caused by the same physical mechanisms that produced the end of the last glaciation.[/quote]

Prove it. Show me the hard observed evidence that proves the claim.

In the natural course of things, those forces would now be pushing the Earth towards cooler temperatures and eventually another period of glaciation.

Prove that. Show me the hard observed evidence that proves the claim.

The present time is indeed the hottest period in at least the last 10,000 years, as the climate scientists have determined.

Sorry guy, but that simply is not true. The evidence that both the roman warm period and the medieval warm period were both global in nature and warmer than the present is overwhelming. The only suggestion that they were not warmer is the thouroughly debunked hockey stick. Place that one flawed paper against the work of more than 950 scientists representing more than 550 research institutions that say that the MWP and the RWP you don't come out very credible. Aside from that, the observed evidence contradicts you as well.

Here is the vostok ice core data. Look at the past 10,000 years. I count at least 13 times during the past 10,000 years that are warmer than the present and see nothing about the present that appears unprecedented.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its heat trapping qualities have been extensively documented and described by physicists for over a century.

Sorry guy, but such properties have never been documented. The emission spectra of CO2 is preciesly the opposite of the absorption spectra proving beyond question that any energy absorbed by CO2 is instantly emitted. No energy is captured.

The Earth's average temperature has already risen by at least 0.74°C in just the past century and much of the rise occurred in recent decades.

Actually, most of the rise in the past century occurred in the early part of the 20th century but even that would be hard to prove beyond question. You are talking about a fraction of one degree. Can you point to any study that claims to report temperatures over the past century in which the claimed temperature rise is greater than the margin of error in the data? When the claimed change is not even as large as the margin of error, you don't have reliable data.

Last year (2010) was tied for the warmest year on record and, in fact, the planet's ten warmest years ever recorded occurred within the past 12 years. The last decade was the warmest on record as was each of the two preceding decades in turn. The rate of temperate rise is also increasing.

Sorry guy, 1934 was the warmest year on record and 2010 was not as warm as that. As to the rate of warming increasing, that is easily explained by the constant data manipulation that has been exposed on the part of "climate scientists". When the earth doesn't warm as the models predict, they are left with nothing to do but admit their mistake or cool down the past. Cooling down the past is what they opted to do.

Global warming has increased evaporation from the oceans and increased the moisture content of the atmosphere, which, in turn, is causing the increased incidences of intense rainfall, snowfall and flooding as well as droughts and heat waves and other extreme weather events.

Right. Global warming is causing it to get colder. Wake up and smell the coffee. You have been hoodwinked.

 

[westwall]

Hot air. That's all you ever come up with is just hot air. You say things that are wrong and offer no evidence, just hot air. Pretty much everything in your little rant here is wrong but you're too ignorant and brainwashed to see that.

Actually, I don't, but thanks for lying anyway.

The current fast melting is not being caused by the same physical mechanisms that produced the end of the last glaciation.

Prove it. Show me the hard observed evidence that proves the claim.

In the natural course of things, those forces would now be pushing the Earth towards cooler temperatures and eventually another period of glaciation.

Prove that. Show me the hard observed evidence that proves the claim.



Sorry guy, but that simply is not true. The evidence that both the roman warm period and the medieval warm period were both global in nature and warmer than the present is overwhelming. The only suggestion that they were not warmer is the thouroughly debunked hockey stick. Place that one flawed paper against the work of more than 950 scientists representing more than 550 research institutions that say that the MWP and the RWP you don't come out very credible. Aside from that, the observed evidence contradicts you as well.

Here is the vostok ice core data. Look at the past 10,000 years. I count at least 13 times during the past 10,000 years that are warmer than the present and see nothing about the present that appears unprecedented.

Sorry guy, but such properties have never been documented. The emission spectra of CO2 is preciesly the opposite of the absorption spectra proving beyond question that any energy absorbed by CO2 is instantly emitted. No energy is captured.

The Earth's average temperature has already risen by at least 0.74°C in just the past century and much of the rise occurred in recent decades.

Actually, most of the rise in the past century occurred in the early part of the 20th century but even that would be hard to prove beyond question. You are talking about a fraction of one degree. Can you point to any study that claims to report temperatures over the past century in which the claimed temperature rise is greater than the margin of error in the data? When the claimed change is not even as large as the margin of error, you don't have reliable data.

Last year (2010) was tied for the warmest year on record and, in fact, the planet's ten warmest years ever recorded occurred within the past 12 years. The last decade was the warmest on record as was each of the two preceding decades in turn. The rate of temperate rise is also increasing.

Sorry guy, 1934 was the warmest year on record and 2010 was not as warm as that. As to the rate of warming increasing, that is easily explained by the constant data manipulation that has been exposed on the part of "climate scientists". When the earth doesn't warm as the models predict, they are left with nothing to do but admit their mistake or cool down the past. Cooling down the past is what they opted to do.

Global warming has increased evaporation from the oceans and increased the moisture content of the atmosphere, which, in turn, is causing the increased incidences of intense rainfall, snowfall and flooding as well as droughts and heat waves and other extreme weather events.

Right. Global warming is causing it to get colder. Wake up and smell the coffee. You have been hoodwinked.[/QUOTE]

 

[westwall]

Hot air. That's all you ever come up with is just hot air. You say things that are wrong and offer no evidence, just hot air. Pretty much everything in your little rant here is wrong but you're too ignorant and brainwashed to see that.

Actually, I don't, but thanks for lying anyway.

The current fast melting is not being caused by the same physical mechanisms that produced the end of the last glaciation.

Prove it. Show me the hard observed evidence that proves the claim.




Prove that. Show me the hard observed evidence that proves the claim.



Sorry guy, but that simply is not true. The evidence that both the roman warm period and the medieval warm period were both global in nature and warmer than the present is overwhelming. The only suggestion that they were not warmer is the thouroughly debunked hockey stick. Place that one flawed paper against the work of more than 950 scientists representing more than 550 research institutions that say that the MWP and the RWP you don't come out very credible. Aside from that, the observed evidence contradicts you as well.

Here is the vostok ice core data. Look at the past 10,000 years. I count at least 13 times during the past 10,000 years that are warmer than the present and see nothing about the present that appears unprecedented.

Sorry guy, but such properties have never been documented. The emission spectra of CO2 is preciesly the opposite of the absorption spectra proving beyond question that any energy absorbed by CO2 is instantly emitted. No energy is captured.




Actually, most of the rise in the past century occurred in the early part of the 20th century but even that would be hard to prove beyond question. You are talking about a fraction of one degree. Can you point to any study that claims to report temperatures over the past century in which the claimed temperature rise is greater than the margin of error in the data? When the claimed change is not even as large as the margin of error, you don't have reliable data.

Last year (2010) was tied for the warmest year on record and, in fact, the planet's ten warmest years ever recorded occurred within the past 12 years. The last decade was the warmest on record as was each of the two preceding decades in turn. The rate of temperate rise is also increasing.

Sorry guy, 1934 was the warmest year on record and 2010 was not as warm as that. As to the rate of warming increasing, that is easily explained by the constant data manipulation that has been exposed on the part of "climate scientists". When the earth doesn't warm as the models predict, they are left with nothing to do but admit their mistake or cool down the past. Cooling down the past is what they opted to do.

Global warming has increased evaporation from the oceans and increased the moisture content of the atmosphere, which, in turn, is causing the increased incidences of intense rainfall, snowfall and flooding as well as droughts and heat waves and other extreme weather events.

Right. Global warming is causing it to get colder. Wake up and smell the coffee. You have been hoodwinked.

[/QUOTE]




Indeed. The New Zealand scientists in charge of the historical temperature record were caught falsifying the record to make it cooler. For 9 months New Zealand had no official record till they could sort it out. Look up NIWA hearings on youtube and you can see the parliamentary debates they held where the scientists were reamed. The same behavior has been discovered in Australia.

 

[Yurt]

chris blames bush for the last ice age

 

[RollingThunder]

You are kidding right? Everywhere you look is hard observed evidence that refutes the idea that man is responsible for climate change. The fact that the ice started melting some 14,000 years ago is the first bit of hard observed evidence that any rational person might look at. Then the fact that the present isn't even the hottest period of time in the past 14,000 years, nor a period of "unprecedented" speed of warming tells any resonable person that something else is probably at work behind the changing climate.

The physical fact that CO2 can not trap and retain heat is far down the list of observable evidence that AGW is a crackpot hypothesis based on poliical agendas rather than science.

Challenging someone to list hard observed evidence that refutes the hypothesis of AGW has got to be one of the stupidest things I have seen any AGW hysteric say. The fact is that you guys spend most of your time trying to put forward models instead of observed data as the observed data just doesn't support your claims.

Hot air. That's all you ever come up with is just hot air. You say things that are wrong and offer no evidence, just hot air. Pretty much everything in your little rant here is wrong but you're too ignorant and brainwashed to see that.

The ice sheets melted off of Europe and North America around 11,000 to 14,000 years ago but that melting had slowed enormously by around 10,000 years ago and stopped completely by about 6000 years ago. The current fast melting is not being caused by the same physical mechanisms that produced the end of the last glaciation. In the natural course of things, those forces would now be pushing the Earth towards cooler temperatures and eventually another period of glaciation. The present time is indeed the hottest period in at least the last 10,000 years, as the climate scientists have determined. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its heat trapping qualities have been extensively documented and described by physicists for over a century. You are just scientifically clueless and very ignorant and in denial of the facts. The fact is, as I said before, you have no "hard observed evidence" that refutes any part of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes; you just always claim to have it but you can never actually produce any. I doubt that you, in your denier cult delirium, even know the actual meaning of "hard observed evidence".

Here's some "hard observed evidence" for you.

The Earth's average temperature has already risen by at least 0.74°C in just the past century and much of the rise occurred in recent decades. Last year (2010) was tied for the warmest year on record and, in fact, the planet's ten warmest years ever recorded occurred within the past 12 years. The last decade was the warmest on record as was each of the two preceding decades in turn. The rate of temperate rise is also increasing.

Global warming has increased evaporation from the oceans and increased the moisture content of the atmosphere, which, in turn, is causing the increased incidences of intense rainfall, snowfall and flooding as well as droughts and heat waves and other extreme weather events.

Ice caps and glaciers in Antarctica and around the world are melting. In North America, the Glacier National Park has already lost 123 of its 150 glaciers and the Bering Glacier has already lost over 20% of its parts and 11 kilometers of its entire length. New Zealand's glaciers have also shrunk by about 26% within the last century. Throughout that time, the Tasman Glacier thinned by over a hundred meters. India's Gangotri Glacier has also been melting by 30 meters annually within the past 2 decades. Its annual melting rate was 18 meters from 1935-1990 and 7 meters from 1842-1935.

Rapid ice melts have also been occurring across the Arctic. In fact, the Arctic sea ice has already shrunk by over a million square kilometers.

The 2010 minimum ice extent is the third-lowest recorded since 1979. The 2010 minimum is 1.95 million square kilometers (753,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum and 1.62 million square kilometers (625,000 square miles) below the thirty-one-year 1979 to 2009 average minimum.​

Antarctica has been shown to be losing ice mass at an increasing rate and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is already starting to collapse.

Because the world's ice is melting rapidly and because of thermal expansion of the oceans caused by global warming, sea levels are rising and satellite measurements show that the rate of that rise has doubled since the first part of the twentieth century and is still increasing.

Due to the rise in global temperature and sea levels, corals have been dying. The worst even coral bleaching was recorded in 1998 when, in some areas, up to 70% of coral reefs died. Among the worst die-offs have been observed in the Caribbean.

Infectious tropical diseases are slowly spreading to more temperate areas. Dengue fever and malaria, for example, have spread to the United States.

Seasonal timing is changing with spring coming earlier and winter coming later.
Global Warming Bringing Spring Earlier

This spring [in my backyard] we are 20 degrees below normal for temperature as are many areas of the world. We are now enjoying our 5th straight day of snow.

Once again you imagine that the weather in your backyard means anything about global averages. You say "20 degrees below normal for temperature as are many areas of the world" but that is just more of your deluded bullshit.

State of the Climate
Global Analysis - April 2011
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Climatic Data Center

* The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for April 2011 was the seventh warmest April on record at 14.29°C (57.76°F), which is 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F). This was also the 35th consecutive April with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20th century average.

* The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.38°C (0.68°F) above the 20th century average of 16.0°C (60.9°F) and the 11th warmest April on record.

* The April worldwide land surface temperature was 1.12°C (2.02°F) above the 20th century average of 8.1°C (46.5 °F)—the 6th warmest on record.

Yet again you resort to a warmist blog that presents no empirical data to support its claims. Once again we are treated to computer models of pathetic nature.

No, you flaming dimwit, I cited two sources and one was an Associated Press article from National Geographic News and the other was a science blog with accurate information that you can't refute. Want more?


Climate changes shift springtime
A Europe-wide study has provided "conclusive proof" that the seasons are changing, with spring arriving earlier each year, researchers say.
25 August 2006
(excerpts)

Scientists from 17 nations examined 125,000 studies involving 561 species. Spring was beginning on average six to eight days earlier than it did 30 years ago, the researchers said. In regions such as Spain, which saw the greatest increases in temperatures, the season began up to two weeks earlier. The findings were based on what was described as the world's largest study of changes in recurring natural events, such as when plants flowered. The team of researchers also found that the onset of autumn has been delayed by an average of three days over the same period. The study, published in the journal Global Change Biology, shows changes to the continent's climate were shifting the timing of the seasons, the scientists said.


Onset of spring starting earlier across the Northern Hemisphere

1. MARK D. SCHWARTZ1,
2. REIN AHAS2,
3. ANTO AASA2

Journal - Global Change Biology
Volume 12, Issue 2, pages 343–351, February 2006
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01097.x

View Full Article (HTML)
Get PDF (449K)

Abstract

...Here, we show that a suite of modeled and derived measures (produced from daily maximum–minimum temperatures) linking plant development (phenology) with its basic climatic drivers provide a reliable and spatially extensive method for monitoring general impacts of global warming on the start of the growing season. Results are consistent with prior smaller area studies, confirming a nearly universal quicker onset of early spring warmth (spring indices (SI) first leaf date, −1.2 days decade−1), late spring warmth (SI first bloom date, −1.0 days decade−1; last spring day below 5°C, −1.4 days decade−1), and last spring freeze date (−1.5 days decade−1) across most temperate NH land regions over the 1955–2002 period.

***

More...
^ Schwartz, M. D.; Ahas, R.; Aasa, A. (2006). "Onset of spring starting earlier across the Northern Hemisphere". Global Change Biology 12 (2): 343–351. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01097.x. "SI first leaf dates, measuring change in the start of ‘early spring’ (roughly the time of shrub budburst and lawn first greening), are getting earlier in nearly all parts of the Northern Hemisphere. The average rate of change over the 1955–2002 period is approximately -1.2 days per decade.".

^ Miller-rushing, A.J.; Katsuki, T.; Primack, R.B.; Ishii, Y.; Lee, S.D.; Higuchi, H. (2007). "Impact of global warming on a group of related species and their hybrids: cherry tree (Rosaceae) flowering at Mt. Takao, Japan". American Journal of Botany 94 (9): 1470. doi:10.3732/ajb.94.9.1470. Impact of global warming on a group of related species and their hybrids: cherry tree (Rosaceae) flowering at Mt. Takao, Japan. Retrieved 2007-12-29. "We examined a 25-yr record (1981–2005) of flowering times for 97 trees, representing 17 species and hybrids of cherry (Cerasus sp. or Prunus sp.) grown at Mt. Takao, in Tokyo, Japan. The cherry trees flowered earlier over time, by an average of 5.5 d over the 25-yr study.".

^ Cleland, E.E.; Chuine, I.; Menzel, A.; Mooney, H.A.; Schwartz, M.D. (2007). "Shifting plant phenology in response to global change". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22 (7): 357–365. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.04.003. PMID 17478009. http://www.aseanenvironment.info/Abstract/41015195.pdf. Retrieved 2007-12-29. "The longest and best known phenological records come from the Far East and Europe, including ... the 1300+-year Kyoto cherry blossom time series [37]... These longterm historical records can serve as proxies for temperature where thermometer data are unavailable.".

^ >Abu-asab, M.S.; Peterson, P.M.; Shetler, S.G.; Orli, S.S. (2001). "Earlier plant flowering in spring as a response to global warming in the Washington, DC, area". Biodiversity and Conservation 10 (4): 597–612. doi:10.1023/A:1016667125469. http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/3371/1/Abu-Asab_et_al_2001_early_flowering.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-27.

^ Peterson, Paul M.; Stanwyn G. Shetler, Mones S. Abu-Asab, Sylvia S. Orli (2005). "Chapter 8 Global Climate Change: The Spring Temperate Flora". In Krupnick, Gary A; W. John Kress. Plant conservation: a natural history approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 192. ISBN 0-226-45513-0. "Finally, there is the Cherry Blossom Festival in Washington, DC, each spring. On average the two principal species, Prunus serrulata (Kwanzan cherry and other varieties) and P. X yedoensis ( Yoshino cherry), bloom six and nine days earlier, respectively, than they did in 1970."

^ Richardson, A.D.; Bailey, A.S.; Denny, E.G.; Martin, C.W.; O'Keefe, J. (2006). "Phenology of a northern hardwood forest canopy". Global Change Biology 12 (7): 1174–1188. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01164.x. "...significant trends (P≤0.05) towards an earlier spring (e.g. sugar maple, rate of change=0.18 days earlier/yr), consistent with other studies documenting measurable climate change effects on the onset of spring in both North America and Europe. Our results also suggest that green canopy duration has increased by about 10 days (e.g. sugar maple, rate of change=0.21 days longer/yr) over the period of study.".

^ a b Linderholm, H.W. (2006). "Growing season changes in the last century". Agricultural and forest meteorology 137 (1-2): 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.071. http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/papers_PDF/Linderholm_2006_AFM.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-27. "The evidence points to a lengthening of the growing season of ca. 10–20 days in the last few decades, where an earlier onset of the start is most prominent. This extension of the growing season has been associated with recent global warming.".

^ Smith, Virginia A. (2007-04-07). "Out on a limb: Gardeners excited by the early warmth — call it "season creep" - are experimenting with earlier planting and new varieties.". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Out on a limb: Gardeners excited by the early warmth - call it "season creep" - are experimenting with earlier planting and new varieties. - The Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, PA) | HighBeam Research. Retrieved 2007-12-23. "...earlier springs — an idea known as "season creep" — may or may not be related to long-term warming trends. Yet the reality of year-to-year weather weirdness recently, coupled with the ever-present impulse to outsmart Mother Nature, has prompted more than a few gardeners to shun conventional horticultural wisdom."

^ Williams, Brad (2007-04-08). "Dogwoods to frogs, tulips to snow, Knox shows signs of warming". Knoxville News Sentinel. Dogwoods to frogs, tulips to snow, Knox shows signs of warming » Knoxville News Sentinel. Retrieved 2007-12-23. "Knoxville is now in hardiness Zone 7, a zone where more southern trees and shrubs flourish. The zone shift can be seen all across the northern half of the state. It effectively means plants that once had difficulty growing here are now finding it easier to thrive, said Lisa Stanley, master gardener at Stanley's Greenhouses"

The claim of GW spreading malaria and Dengue fever to the US is laughable. The link is to the CDC and it has a brief history of malaria as you can see it was rampant throughout the south. Malaria dates back to the beginning of time in the southern US with many conquistadores contracting it when adventuring in the New World. You grasp of history is, like your grasp of science, pathetic.

The link below that is to the Dengue Fever map and as you can see in the map (also from the Center for Diesease Control) the two cases in Florida were brought to the US via air travel.

LOLOLOLOL....you challenging anyone in the areas of science and history is very much like a one legged man challenging everyone in the bar to an ass kicking contest.....LOL.

Rising temperatures will allow the mosquitoes that carry malaria and dengue fever to live and breed at higher latitudes. Currently, neither disease is established in America. The cases that occur now are almost all brought into this country from elsewhere. The scientific projections indicate that the mosquitoes breeding areas will spread farther and farther north into areas of North America that are currently too cold in the winter for the diseases to get established as self perpetuating areas of infection. As one of these reports says: "In these regions, a temperature increase can convert areas that are malaria-free into areas that experience seasonal epidemics. In many cases, the affected populations will have little or no immunity, so that epidemics could be characterized by high levels of sickness and death."

MALARIA AND DENGUE FEVER IN NORTH AMERICA
(excerpt)

MALARIA and DENGUE fever are not currently established in the US although they are introduced regularly and have been established there previously. Travellers returning from endemic regions frequently introduce these diseases into areas with competent vectors. Between 1 977 and 1 994, 2,248 suspected cases of imported DENGUE fever were reported in the US. Legal immigrants, refugees and illegal immigrants and migrant workers are two possible sources of introduction of these diseases into the US in amounts sufficient to promote their establishment. DENGUE fever and MALARIA are endemic in areas that are important sources of immigration to the US such as South East Asia, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Central/South America. Competent vectors of MALARIA and DENGUE fever are established in the US. Even though MALARIA was eradicated from the US previously, if it were to re-establish itself, resistance of the vector to pesticides would make present-day control more difficult. According to Health Canada there were 483 reported cases of MALARIA in Canada in 1 993, and approximately 431 in 1994. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States received reports of 910 cases of MALARIA in 1 992 and seven of those cases were acquired there. In 1 970, reported MALARIA cases in the U.S. were 4,247 with more than 4,000 of the total being U.S. military personnel.


Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Spreading Disease
(excerpts)

Climate change affects the occurrence and spread of disease by impacting the population size and range of hosts and pathogens, the length of the transmission season, and the timing and intensity of outbreaks (McMichael, 1996; McMichael et al., 1996; Epstein et al., 1998; Epstein, 1999). In general, warmer temperatures and greater moisture will favor extensions of the geographical range and season for vector organisms such as insects, rodents, and snails. This in turn leads to an expansion of the zone of potential transmission for many vector-borne diseases, among them malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and some forms of viral encephalitis. Extreme weather events such as heavy rainfall or droughts often trigger disease outbreaks, especially in poorer regions where treatment and prevention measures may be inadequate.

Mosquitoes in particular are highly sensitive to temperature. The mosquitoes that can carry malaria (Anopheline spp.) generally do not develop or breed below about 16° C, and the variety that transmits dengue fever (Aedes aegypti) is limited by winter temperatures below 10° C. Mosquito survival also drops at their upper temperature threshold, about 40° C. With sufficient moisture, warmer temperatures will generally cause an increase in mosquito abundance, biting rates, and activity level, and will accelerate the incubation of the parasites and viruses within them.

Warmer global temperatures will allow an expansion of the geographic range within which both the mosquito and parasite could survive with sufficient abundance for sustained transmission. Model predictions indicate that a 3° C global temperature rise by 2100 could increase the number of annual malaria cases by 50-80 million (not considering factors such as local control measures or health services) (Martens et al., 1995). The largest changes will occur in areas adjacent to current risk areas, at both higher altitudes and latitudes. In these regions, a temperature increase can convert areas that are malaria-free into areas that experience seasonal epidemics. In many cases, the affected populations will have little or no immunity, so that epidemics could be characterized by high levels of sickness and death.

Recent disease outbreaks are consistent with model projections that warmer, wetter conditions will lead to greater transmission potential at higher altitudes and elevations. Mosquito-borne diseases are now reported at higher elevations than in the past at sites in Asia, Central Africa, and Latin America (Epstein et al., 1998). This is coincident with growing evidence for significant warming at high altitude sites in tropical latitudes, as indicated for example by retreating glaciers (e.g., Fitzharris, 1996) and a 150 meter upward shift in the elevation of the freezing level (0° C isotherm) (Diaz and Graham, 1996). In New York City, an encephalitis outbreak in summer 1999 claimed three lives and prompted widespread pesticide spraying. The Centers for Disease Control have identified the West Nile virus as being responsible for this outbreak, a virus transmitted by mosquitoes that feed on infected birds (CDC, 1999a). The disease, which had not been previously documented in the Western Hemisphere, occurs primarily in the late summer or early fall in temperate regions, but can occur year round in milder climates (CDC, 1999b).

 

[RollingThunder]

Last year (2010) was tied for the warmest year on record and, in fact, the planet's ten warmest years ever recorded occurred within the past 12 years. The last decade was the warmest on record as was each of the two preceding decades in turn. The rate of temperate rise is also increasing.

Sorry guy, 1934 was the warmest year on record and 2010 was not as warm as that. As to the rate of warming increasing, that is easily explained by the constant data manipulation that has been exposed on the part of "climate scientists". When the earth doesn't warm as the models predict, they are left with nothing to do but admit their mistake or cool down the past. Cooling down the past is what they opted to do.

Sorry guy, but you're a clueless retard. This nonsense here is so typical of your usual lies and misinformation that debunking it is about all I can be bothered with.

1934 was the warmest year on record all right but only in the continental United States. That's a fact that you can't refute, nitwit. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record globally. That's also a fact that you can't refute. No "data manipulation has been exposed", that's just one of your idiotic, denier cult myths that has itself been exposed as just propaganda. The Earth has indeed been warming just as the models predicted and the rate of warming is increasing.

Global warming has increased evaporation from the oceans and increased the moisture content of the atmosphere, which, in turn, is causing the increased incidences of intense rainfall, snowfall and flooding as well as droughts and heat waves and other extreme weather events.

Right. Global warming is causing it to get colder. Wake up and smell the coffee. You have been hoodwinked.

Still plagued by those pesky comprehension problems, I see, but I guess that's not too surprising in a retarded and very ignorant fool like you, wireup&bentover. No little retard, nobody said that 'warming makes it get colder', that's just your stupidity speaking. Global warming is warming the oceans and increasing evaporation and the moisture content of the atmosphere. More water in the air means more rainfall and snowfall. Basic physics. You've been hoodwinked, bamboozled and duped but you're far too brainwashed and stupid for any coffee to help.

 

[Big Fitz]

On a related note, which is clear to everyone anti-glowbull wurming here, the topic is more or less a conspiracy theory.

I was listening to the Michael Medved show yesterday and he made a salient point on one of his conspiracy days with his guest. It was pointed out that when talking with conspiracy nuts, they often have TONS of "science", motive and evidence. As your discussion with them continues though, you realize quickly that it is not about the science to them. It's about justifying an emotion they have. For instance, truthers who bite the 'it was an inside job' apple, have an inherent hatred for America and are looking for an excuse and line of reasoning to justify what is in essence a worldview that is hypocritical and at odds with everything (at least for Americans) that makes their lives as good as it is.

Now why do I bring up such insanity? Because it is right here in the AGW debate. I've seen so much competing 'proof, evidence and science' to know that everyone (no offense Polar and Westwall) is cherry picking their sources to fit their beliefs. Nobody gives a fuck about the evidence save that which fits the underlying emotion they have and/or political desires.

Those who want to push for global warming legislation hate the way the world is now. They fear the private sector and the rights of individuals to choose for themselves. They've decided in their hearts, as the little control freaks they are, that they must proscribe for them, the 'correct' way to live and exist and think. It is an excuse.

Rush said it first "(Glowbull Wurming) is a solution in search of a problem (how to institute global collectivist tyranny)."

I say it better:

"Glowbull Wurming is to global fascism as nacho chips are to guacamole. It is a delivery method."

On the other hand, that dogma is anathema to the anti-glowbull wurming crowd. This group HATES, and rightfully so, the idea of do-gooder liberalism and collective government control over their lives. They believe that they are their own best judge of what is right and how to live their lives, not some bureaucrat ivory tower fucktard who has nothing better to do with their lives.

This is also the essence of why this the topic is a religious/political/ethical debate...

Not scientific.

That is only set dressing.

And to prove the point, any of you glowbull warming chicken little fucktards propose ONE private sector solution to your problem without including government, the law, or mandates on a local, regional, national or international level that involves free choice.