Arctic warming not natural

[Chris]

Mauna Loa CO2.......

 

[JohnStOnge]

Here's another source on the methods;

EESC V2100 - Vostok Ice Core

Again, I didn't see a reference to the issue I was raising. As an aside, I find it remarkable that a lab assignment at Columbia would include this instruction:

"Insert today's CO2 concentration (use the IPCC value given above) into the linear regression equation from question #4 to determine what the past relationship between CO2 and temperature predicts that today's temperature should be at Vostok. How does your calculation compare with the known value?"

If the IPCC CO2 value is higher than any value in the ice core data, a basic rule of using regression is violated. Estimating a value of the dependent variable (in this case, temperature) based on a value of the independent variable (in this case, CO2) that is outside of the range of the values of the independent varible in the database used to generate the regression equation is invalid. If I've understood correctly, it's been stated that the CO2 concentration now is higher than it's been for hundreds of thousands of years as indicated by ice cores. If I understand correctly, today's level has not been trapped in the ice yet. That means that the IPCC value must be higher than any of the values estimated based on ice core data. Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things but it just kind of reinforces my belief that one really has to be careful about accepting things just because they come from sources generally perceived as prestigous and/or credible.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

who cares ?

People with more than two digit IQs.

The arctic is warming because of methane that is slowly being released from underneath the sea. This is a natural event.

That's odd considering methane levels are levelling off.

 

[Chris]

Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in 200 years is not a natural event.

CO2 in the atmosphere is now at its highest level in 600,000 years, which is as far as the Antarctic ice core record goes back.

Homosexuality is also at it's highest recorded level in 600,000 years.
Gee, it must be the homosexuals causing it.

Apparently so is stupidity....

 

[manu1959]

"The current rate of human-influenced Arctic warming is comparable to peak natural rates documented by reconstructions of past climates. However, some projections of future human-induced change exceed documented natural variability," the scientists conclude. "The past tells us that when thresholds in the climate system are crossed, climate change can be very large and very fast. We cannot rule out that human-induced climate change will trigger such events in the future."

the last paragraph of the op......

we aren't sure but we think maybe......how long have we been exploring the arctic.....how long has the earth been here......

but lets stipulate it is man......

lets assumethe us goes coal and fossil fuel free tomorrow......obama buys everyone a prius.....ships trains and 18 wheelers all go electric....and evry business and hous gets free solar panels......my understanding is the the biggest problem is india and china who are in their coal fired industrial revolution......how do you propose to legislate them....

 

[Diuretic]

"'The current rate of human-influenced Arctic warming is comparable to peak natural rates documented by reconstructions of past climates. However, some projections of future human-induced change exceed documented natural variability,' the scientists conclude."'

Study that statement and think about it.

I did. It means in addition to natural warmng humans are involved in creating more warming. Now while natural warming might wax and wane I'd bet that human-infuenced warming is a constant.

That's a worry. It means that humans are havng a big influence on climate change.

No?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How's that Arctic "Warming"?

 

[skookerasbil]

How's that Arctic "Warming"?

LMAO...…..this thread started 10 years ago!!

And what has changed?

Dick!

These fucking suckers!!

 

[Sunsettommy]

How's that Arctic "Warming"?

LMAO...…..this thread started 10 years ago!!

And what has changed?

Dick!

These fucking suckers!!

There sure are a LOT of Polar Bears up there milling around these days!

 

[Billy_Bob]

There's another thing involved in this kind of discussion. The article refers to thousands of years as though that's a long time. It's a long time to us, but it's not a long time to this planet. If you go with the estimate that life began here about 3.8 million years ago, even a million years to that tenure is like a couple of hours is to a year.

If I said, "It's the hottest it's been in over 2 hours," would that make a big impression on you? Below is one depiction of what's believed about what temperatures have been over some of the long term history of this planet. It's a figure entitled "Temperatures over the last 4.6 billion years" from a discussion at temperature. I think you'll find the same basic picture regardless of where you look for what's believed about the past.

Look at it and think about it when people say that what's going on now or what is likely to go on in, say, the next 100 years is something "unprecedented" in terms of global temperatures.

I like this one myself.... Tears up both the temp and CO2 fearmongering in one move...

 

[Crick]

That should be 3.8 BILLION years ago life began.

That graph is essentially irrelevant because it does a very poor job of displaying the conditions under which human culture, society, infrastructure and current population levels developed. THAT is what we hope to avoid changing. This graph, however, DOES display the 'glacial' pace at which past changes in temperature, sea level and ice cover have taken place in dire comparison to what is happening today.

 

[skookerasbil]

Funniest thing about this thread that started 10 years ago?

Back then, solar was providing less than 1% of our electricity.

Now?

About 1.4%.

@www.whosnotwinning.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's another source on the methods;

EESC V2100 - Vostok Ice Core

That shows a 1,000 year lad between changes in CO2 and temperature

 

[SSDD]

Doesn't look unusual to me....

 

[Rambunctious]

How long has mankind been on this planet?....a couple of 100000 years?....how do we know what is natural or not?....how is it that we pretend to know what is good or bad regarding temperature?....warmer very well could be better...we really do not know....
I have to laugh at the yard signs that state "climate change is real" well of course the climate changes...we all know it changes...but so what?.....the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world.....and look how many fall for it....

 

[skookerasbil]

How long has mankind been on this planet?....a couple of 100000 years?....how do we know what is natural or not?....how is it that we pretend to know what is good or bad regarding temperature?....warmer very well could be better...we really do not know....
I have to laugh at the yard signs that state "climate change is real" well of course the climate changes...we all know it changes...but so what?.....the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world.....and look how many fall for it....

Correct

Many many scientists have said that, indeed, we still dont know dick about what drives the climate. The fact that the sun has no impact is laughable....obviously. Which leads one back to the whole matter of the hoax....and we know the concept of "peer review" is nothing but a rigged process.

 

[Crick]

How long has mankind been on this planet?....a couple of 100000 years?....how do we know what is natural or not?....how is it that we pretend to know what is good or bad regarding temperature?....warmer very well could be better...we really do not know....
I have to laugh at the yard signs that state "climate change is real" well of course the climate changes...we all know it changes...but so what?.....the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world.....and look how many fall for it....

We know that the current warming is synthetic (ie, man-made) because the natural factors involved should be producing slight cooling. The pre-industrial level of CO2 was 280 ppm. It is now over 405 ppm and isotopic studies show that 125 ppm (all of the increase) has its source in the combustion of fossil fuels. Studies of the effects of different radiant factors show the calculated effects of the various known factors. As you can see, CO2 has the greatest effect while the second is methane, another GHG whose increase is predominantly anthropogenic. Water vapor - the most powerful of all the GHGs - does not appear on this map because it has not changed "relative to 1750, as have the factors listed and thus has no forcing factor.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How long has mankind been on this planet?....a couple of 100000 years?....how do we know what is natural or not?....how is it that we pretend to know what is good or bad regarding temperature?....warmer very well could be better...we really do not know....
I have to laugh at the yard signs that state "climate change is real" well of course the climate changes...we all know it changes...but so what?.....the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world.....and look how many fall for it....

We know that the current warming is synthetic (ie, man-made) because the natural factors involved should be producing slight cooling. The pre-industrial level of CO2 was 280 ppm. It is now over 405 ppm and isotopic studies show that 125 ppm (all of the increase) has its source in the combustion of fossil fuels. Studies of the effects of different radiant factors show the calculated effects of the various known factors. As you can see, CO2 has the greatest effect while the second is methane, another GHG whose increase is predominantly anthropogenic. Water vapor - the most powerful of all the GHGs - does not appear on this map because it has not changed "relative to 1750, as have the factors listed and thus has no forcing factor.

Crick Citing a FAILED MODEL.... Who would of thunk it....

 

[Crick]

What model and who says it is "failed"?

 

[Muhammed]

Climate warming 'highly unusual' says new study



A major U.S. government report on Arctic climate, prepared with information from eight Canadian scientists, has concluded that the recent rapid warming of polar temperatures and shrinking of multi-year Arctic sea ice are "highly unusual compared to events from previous thousands of years."

The findings, released Friday, counter suggestions from skeptics that such recent events as the opening of the Northwest Passage and collapse of ice shelves in the Canadian Arctic are predictable phenomena that can be explained as part of a natural climate cycle rather than being driven by elevated carbon emissions from human activity.

A summary of the report -- described as "the first comprehensive analysis of the real data we have on past climate conditions in the Arctic," by U.S. Geological Survey director Mark Myers -- warns that "sustained warming of at least a few degrees" is probably enough "to cause the nearly complete, eventual disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet, which would raise sea level by several metres."

The study also sounds the alarm that "temperature change in the Arctic is happening at a greater rate than other places in the Northern Hemisphere, and this is expected to continue in the future. As a result, glacier and ice-sheet melting, sea-ice retreat, coastal erosion and sea-level rise can be expected to continue."

Ice cover in the Canadian Arctic and throughout the polar world has experienced record-setting melts in the past few years. The summer of 2007 saw polar ice cover shrink to its lowest extent in recorded history. Last summer's melt came close to matching that record, and recent research indicates that overall ice volume -- because of the continual replacement of thicker, multi-year ice with thinner new ice -- was lower in 2008 than 2007.

This past summer also saw further dramatic evidence of the unusual warming of the Canadian Arctic, including record-setting high temperatures in Iqaluit, Nunavut, rapid erosion and flooding of a glacial landscape on Baffin Island, the re-opening of the Northwest Passage, an unprecedented clearing of ice from the Beaufort Sea and the collapse of hundreds of square kilometres of ancient ice shelves on Ellesmere Island.

Research for the U.S. Congress-commissioned report was conducted by 37 scientists from the U.S., Germany, Canada, Britain and Denmark.

"The current rate of human-influenced Arctic warming is comparable to peak natural rates documented by reconstructions of past climates. However, some projections of future human-induced change exceed documented natural variability," the scientists conclude. "The past tells us that when thresholds in the climate system are crossed, climate change can be very large and very fast. We cannot rule out that human-induced climate change will trigger such events in the future."

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

In other news, an airplane was found covered with ice in Greenland because man-made global warming is melting all the ice.

Or probably not.