I was scrolling down to post the very same thing. You beat me to it!

You beat me too, the next decade will make believers out of everybody. The situation is worse than you have been told, because Scientists are trying very hard not to appear as alarmists and are being highly conservative.

If El Nino returns (and so far, it looks likely), I wouldn't bet against you, Corey.

Last year was the warmest La Nina year on record. That's not just for the U.S. - that's global. And La Nina years tend to be cooler than El Nino ones.

If the meteorologists are right about El Nino's imminent return, we could be in for a very warm year indeed.

At this same time Australia is having record colds.

Shouldn't we focus on the temperature of the WHOLE earth or do you think it is flat and does not matter?

Actually, the whole earth's temperatures are rising.

I believe last year was the 6th hottest on record globally. Many of the top ten have been in the last few years.

That's the thing with global warming you can have record highs and record colds at the same time on the Earth.

As for your comment about record colds in Australia. You are mistaken.

"Australasia has hottest 60 years in a millennium, scientists find"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/may/17/australasia-hottest-60-years-study

lvingbarefoot,

And I'm sure you're not "buying anything that fits your agenda," are you? At least Eric presented scientific evidence instead of a lame excuse to ignore statistics.

This is GREAT news! I LOVE warm weather!!!

What does this have to do with a recession fool? Is that livingbarefoot spelled wrong, or are your feet burning? And BTW, Mr. Reagan spent us out of a recession fool.

Global what? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

And you think that cutting our way out works, barefoot? If that's the case you'll believe anything you're told.

This is GREAT news! I LOVE warm weather!!!

I agree. Massive wildfires, droughts, and shriveling crop fields are a hoot!

I'm not going to start worrying about it until it hits 175°. Fox News said that was where it really is going to start doing some damage.

Would it be too much for the forecasters to say, it will stay hot the rest of the summer BECAUSE ...?? If they are going to take away any hope for a cool spell, decent rainfall and saving the nation's crops, could they at least say WHY? When will our next cool spell come? Our next bumper crop of corn (it's been about ten years)? Where is all the heat coming from? The ocean? Is there any way to get rid of it? Will El Nino change the patter? If La Nina is blamed on the heat wave, El Nino should do the opposite, right? If it is not climate change, then what is it? Two straight summers of horrible heat in too much; why aren't we doing anything about it?

Space Captain, you were going to say "That isn't nothing"? LOL

Give it a rest,

Um...the sarcastic examples you provided to discredit science are ideas once expressed or presently expressed by fundamentalist Christians, not scientists. Just about every educated individual from Ancient Greece onward knew the Earth was spherical, thanks to a clever application of Pi.

Science is, at least, by principle, self-correcting. The idea that 97% of climate scientists are falsifying data for personal gain, as many conservatives suggest, is as laughable as any conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

It is a weird situation where people are being remarkably selfish and condemning our nation and our children to hard times in the future, but it doesn't hurt them much so that they can just ignore it and act superior about it.

The evolving anti-global warming theorists:

Early 1980s, before warming occurred but as it is being predicted by NASA and NOAA and others - "Scientist thought the earth was cooling in the 1970s, therefore scientists are excitable extremists who don't know what they are talking about."

When temperatures rose consistently in the 1980s - "This is a solar cycle thing. The temperatures will fall shortly as the sun cools."

When temperatures rose further in the 1990s - "Twenty years is a blip on a geological time scale. The earth will start to cool any day now."

When temperatures rose further over the next ten year - "Sure, warming is occurring. We've been warming since the last ice age. It's got nothing to do with us."

When Exxon CEO spoke last week - "Sure, everyone knows that our greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. But we are adaptable and it's not that big a deal."

My prediction for ten years from now - "Yes, global warming is a serious economic impact and hardship. But it's too late now to do anything. The level of CO2 is so high, and our dependence on oil so important to our economic well-being, we'll have to just keep muddling along. Too bad we weren't smarter in 1980 when we first discovered that this would happen."

Ironic, rest, how your promoting views that were held by those who science kept proving wrong. Must be like that whole sun revolving around the Earth thing that religion kept advocating until science proved it wrong. But it's okay...we all know that your faith is stronger than our facts.

If we elect Mitt Romney all of this will go away. He will tell you his plan after he is elected.

Ryan: I know those points I made are laughable. But "scientists" once considered those things to be set in stone. I was making a point that scientists are not always right.

I actually know a guy that believes that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time. He is a reverend of a Christian church. He also believes the Earth is only about 5,000 years old and God created everything. It's kind of hard having a real conversation with him.

Give it a rest,

I will concede that scientists are not always right. I personally think the evidence in favor of man-made climate change is overwhelming, though.

I like Ron Paul too, by the way. I'll be voting for Gary Johnson, though.

While it was hotter in much of north america, Europe and Australia had cooler than normal temps. The earth seeks balance.

It could also have been named "record-breaking-cold-across-europe-in-march-2012"

Sunday, August 14, 2011

The ice caps are melting!...on Mars

The Mars polar regions exhibit seasonal changes as does Earth, although Mars has warmed 4 times more than the Earth over the last 20 years. A 'death spiral' from anthropogenic Martian warming?

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/ice-caps-are-meltingon-mars.html

Everyone knows Martians are big carbon polluters causing their warming.

Hey give it a rest... Foolish to believe that we only have the technology to record/interpret temps from the last 200 years. We can infer much and more about greenhouse gas levels and temps from ice cores, rock samples etc. over periods spanning centuries. In addition, I can't tell if your comment was meant to be facetious but since you have a Ron Paul image up I am going to assume that you are the type that thinks scientists are conspiring to ruin the world because their theories threaten industries you think should rule the world and ALL the people as well.

PS- it WAS scientists that stated the following:

A) Heliocentric not Geocentric proven by a scientist name Copernicus. Geocentrism was a RELIGIOUS concept.

B)The flat earth (FE) theory was first thought to be incorrect by the mathematician/philosopher/scientist Pythagoras during the time of the Greeks. The FE theory was proven wrong by one of the basic tenets of the scientific method aka hypothesize then TEST. Columbus hypothesized that he could reach India because the earth was spherical and tested the hypothesis by actually sailing and ending up in san salvadore.

C) Scientists have conclusively proven that lead and gold are two distinct elements and there is no known way of making one into the other.

D) Science has proven (through various dating techniques) that dinosaurs and man NEVER EVER EVER coexisted.

Yes, scientists can be wrong but the scientific method MOSTLY weeds out the BS theories.

Aviator: You're right, that's why it's called global climate change -- It changes everything, just as predicted. The earth may correct itself over time, but humans will be long gone.

Leroy483977 states: "Would it be too much for the forecasters to say, it will stay hot the rest of the summer BECAUSE ...?? If they are going to take away any hope for a cool spell, decent rainfall and saving the nation's crops, could they at least say WHY? When will our next cool spell come? Our next bumper crop of corn (it's been about ten years)? Where is all the heat coming from? The ocean? Is there any way to get rid of it? Will El Nino change the patter? If La Nina is blamed on the heat wave, El Nino should do the opposite, right? If it is not climate change, then what is it? Two straight summers of horrible heat in too much; why aren't we doing anything about it?"

Many have been talking long and loudly about climate change and suggesting ways to deal with it or curb it. For the most part, Republicans and conservatives have scoffed at the ideas ("W" even said it was bad science to talk about global warming/climate change) and they rant that implementing methods to help decrease our carbon footprint would hurt the economy. So..."why aren't we doing anything about it"??? Well, you tell me.

Individuals can take some responsibility by lowering energy use, limit driving unnecessarily, use water-saving methods to water plants and yards, use less water in the home for washing, watch the thermostats in summer and winter, etc., etc. but, I believe we've passed the tipping point. We shoulda listened and believed all those years ago to those who, now we know, knew what they were talking about.

And this is the least of it. Ocean levels are rising and island nations will be harmed if not obliterated. Food costs will rise dramatically (all those corn crops and others dying in the fields). We've done it to ourselves and there's little that can be done to reverse it.

Geez a little sarcasm gets everybody up in arms. PS: I do not believe in conspiricay theories.

Long Range Forecast????? Weather records have been kept for about 135 years. Do you think you can develop a Long Range Forecast based on a nanosecond of weather history, which is what 135 years is compared to many millions or billions of years. Wise up, we are much too arrogant to believe we can actually cleanse the planet. Don't worry folks, it will be cleansed.

Give it a rest... wasn't clear whether you were being sarcastic or not. Most Ron Paul drones think climate change is a conspiracy by scientists to ruin industries so my mistake is understandable.

Give It A Rest!

Your moniker suits you well, btw.

You said:

Ryan: I know those points I made are laughable. But "scientists" once considered those things to be set in stone. I was making a point that scientists are not always right.

No scientist using the scientific method that I'm aware of ever espoused the sh*t you're tossing out. Feel free to point out one who did, as I'm curious as to where you're getting your information (other than from Bible tracts with barbecue sauce stains on them.)

What you 'are' doing is conflating "philosophers" with "scientists", and all the while forgetting (or simply showing your ignorance) that the scientific method is self-correcting by design.

But, I'm sure you know best. After all, the sum knowledge of 97% of earth's climatologists is a doddle compared to your cerebral cortex.

Finally, when it comes to track records, I challenge you to find anything better. Anything. Buddha knows "religion" or "prayer" doesn't stand a chance, so look elsewhere, or start literally praying for cooler temps. Let me know how that works out.

I'll wait...

I think everyone needs to give it a rest. We will all die some day and Earth will not be inhabitable forever. Don't worry global warming won't ruin Earth, something else will.

John,

All it would take is one super volcanic eruption or impact. Then you can say goodbye to the sun and warm weather.

My prediction for ten years from now - "Yes, global warming is a serious economic impact and hardship. But it's too late now to do anything. The level of CO2 is so high, and our dependence on oil so important to our economic well-being, we'll have to just keep muddling along. Too bad we weren't smarter in 1980 when we first discovered that this would happen."

Do you have any evidence that if we took action now global warming would be stopped? What are you suggesting we do? You think if we all traded in our 20 mpg cars for 50 mpg cars all would be fine? What about cow farts, volcano's, should we stop GM from manufacturing cars?

You fricken people are quick to say what is happening and that we have to stop it, but can't give any details on exactly how much do we need to reduce to offset the changes, is it even possible? Will the economic impact of Global Warming or Global carbon reducing be worse?

I'll cut my energy in half if you can explain to me how green house gases which come from natural sources as well as man made sources can be controlled to lower the global temperature.

give it a rest, in all due fairness, it wasn't scientists who said things like the Earth is flat... They also weren't following the sort of model for inductive reasoning, which is more typically followed by science, and had been brought to the fore in the days of Francis Bacon....

This said, there are natural cycles, and the time we have been observing it has been miniscule by comparison to the age of the Earth. This is also how Tepco got caught with their pants down with the tsunami that hit the Fukushima Diiechi reactors. They estimated the amount of earthquake proofing it would need based on the size of earth quakes/tsunami's recoreded within RECENT accounts, and yet failed to take into account what geologists could have told them from centuries before. As can also happen, the specialists in one branch of science or engineering, don't always collaborate with those from another field, and so the engineers didn't anticipate. The rest has been history....

This is not entirely uncommon either. Especially where for instance biology over the past couple decades has undergone some major changes due to new discoveries (for instance wrt discovering extremophiles, hell when I took biology in college vs high school there weren't even the same number of kingdoms for classification), astronomy has undergone major change, especially as we've now detected planets outside our solar system; and yet another field, perhaps innovative in it's own way isn't abreast of the new discoveries from some other field of specialization. The old adtage of "there is nothing more foolish then an expert, if you can get him on something he isn't an expert in" can apply :o You can find this in medicine for instance, where some in the health sciences, might be basing their own work off an older understanding of biology, and as it's a related field (not their own field), they could be basing their work off of old science/might discount some things that new discoveries elsewhere might open possibilities that doesn't occur to them. Debates between Egyptologists and geologists on the dating of the Sphynx can be some rather odd consequences, as they each argue from their own science, and yet draw different, sometimes even contradictory conclusions....

Nonetheless, and herein when looking at global temperatures, it is a reasonable hypothesis, and has been reasonably assumed in the past that the Earth was warmer then at present when T Rex was alive and rumaging about... It could well be again, and reason would also hypothesize that if the Earth was OK thenn, it too could survive a similar climate again. This said mass extinctions has happened several times (the Jurasic extinction was not the first), and so more to the point the question is about live on the planet, rather then the planet itself (and more to our own interest, ourselves). But more recent discoveries wrt extremophiles, such as those that exist in the volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean floor, we've found that life can evolve to conditions we formerly thought impossible, and is far less delicate then originally assumed. This of course has lead to an entirely new area of scientific questioning, wrt a new field in astro-biology, which is exploring the possibility of life existing in one of those extra-solar planets.... Without the recent discoveries in biology, scientists would have continued to assume such to be near impossible, but now their thinking has undergone a radical shift, among those most involved in the branches of science in question.... In fact even there, it was when newer discoveries in astronomy and newer discoveries in biology were brought together, because each branch only having part of the puzzle, if they weren't wedded together, people might still have not asked the right questions to open up that avenue of exploration....

@Jon-273 Calm down. We'll be exterminated by our own science. WWIII will see nukes flying and every one dying.

Axel's Rod, NAILED IT! Best post I've read.

So worried about your childrens climate but don't give two $h!ts about the economic disaster you're handing them.

Many of the earths "systems" are self healing....and some aren't. Global Warming could be either. In one scenario, (1) the earth heats up, (2) more evaporation from the oceans, (3) more clouds, (4) more rain, (5) cooler earth. In the other scenario, one of the above conditions does not occur and the earth continues to warm until the "tipping point" occurs. Remember the Passenger Pidgeon? The populations were enormous until excessive hunting had thinned the flocks to the "tipping point" after which the birds cease to reproduce....and the bird went extinct. This happened 70-80 years ago. I worry that we will push the thermal limits for earth to the point where we have runaway temperatures and nothing we do will bring the "system" back into thermal stability. Shall we flip a coin....Heads, we can push beyond the limit but we can fix it and the system will recover...Tails, we discover we cannot fix it after the tipping point, and we live, or die, with the consequences.

Denmark will stop using fossil fuels to generate electricity in just 8 years, Logic. Did their economy 'collapse'?

Why no - it's better than ours. Strawman argument.

Yes natural cycles make the Earth warmer and cooler without human intervention. We have proof of these cycles happening from ice cores and rock samples etc. However, what you skeptics fail to take into account is that the Earth has never warmed at such a fast rate. It is humans that are accelerating the rate of change.

@giveitarest,

Scientists NEVER thought the Earth was flat. It has been known to be round for over 3,000 years. Even in Columbus' time, no sailor thought the Earth was flat or that you would sail off it.

Scientists NEVER thought the Easth was the center of anything except the moon's orbit. It has been known for more like 4,000 years that the precession of the planbets is only possible if all are going around the Sun.

Scientists NEVER thought that man and dinosaurs were on Earth concurrently. When da Vinci wrote about seashells on mountaintops, he wrote of the ancient Greek writings that there was an "age before man" when shellfish lived on mountaintops and giant dragons roamed the Earth. Jefferson displayed a Mastodon tooth in the foyer of Montecello and told visitors that it was from a time so long ago that the bone had turned to stone. The ancient Greeks knew that trees found fossilized in coal and amber and petrified wood were all from a previous age before there were men.

People love to think that we know a lot smarter than the ancients. We aren't and for every bit of knowledge thatman has gained, he has lost some as well.

Denmark will stop using fossil fuels to generate electricity in just 8 years, Logic. Did their economy 'collapse'?

Denmark? Isn't 8 years to late? Do they have 300 million people like America? They will not be driving cars that run on gas in 8 years as well I presume, their industries will not give off any carbon emissions either correct? Or just their electricity will be fossil fuel free?

And how exactly are they able to do this, they are not buying energy from neighboring countries and claiming they are fossil fuel free just because they themselves aren't burning the fuel are they?

I knew we weren't in serious trouble when clean, cheap, Nuclear Energy Plants weren't being built everywhere. I understand there are some downsides to Nuclear but if we are in such bad shape to take fast action you think this would be one of the quickest options until more energy sources get online, but is Global Warming so dangerous as to start building Nulcear Energy Plants? Answer is a big fat no.

Denmark B.S.

Questions to ask yourself

1.) If Global Warming is happening is it man made?

2.) If Man made can it be stopped?

3.) If it can be stopped, what price would we have to pay and what sacrifices would it take to stop it?

4.) If it is really such a big concern why not more Nuclear Power plants, why are the supporters flying around on private jets telling me about my energy consumption, why are they living in homes that use more energy in a month then I use in a yeark, why is it many of the "models" predictions turning out to be wrong.

Trident submariner here-no one ever mentions the naval reactors either-safe and clean.

LogicReguired

How long is a Yeark? 1000 years?

the warmest 6 months on record - a record which is what % of 5 billion years - and what percentage of the land mass of the earth, remembering that 78% of the planet is covered by water.

Insignificant bump is what the 'record' is. The theory is GLOBAL warming - not US warming. And the fact, not the theory, show that since 1998 the GLOBE has not gotten any warmer than it was then.

The theory is wrong. So instead of trying to clothe the Emperor with new finery how about we look at the FACTS and the REALITY and try to come up with a theory that fits the facts instead of claims that fit the theory . . .

I read a study by real scientists who modeled Venus - if you took Venus, and reduced its atmospheric pressure to that of Earth, and brought it out to Earth's distance from the Sun, with an almost 100% CO2 atmosphere, Venus would be the same temperature as Earth. It is NOT CO2 that matters.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/

@EdfromPhilly,

You have the right idea but the wrong math. The global warning critics are correct in that the scientists have been consistently wrong in their predictions. They have always erred on the conservative side and it has been hotter than predicted as a result. But the major issue that is seldom to never discussed is why.

Scientists (both meterologists and climatologists) build linear deterministic models of the weather. They validate these models by taking old data and seeing if it predicts later activities. The problem is that while yesterday's data might predict today's weather using these models. Today's data will not predict tomorrow's weather. The reason is that weather and climate are not linear deterministic systems. Instead they are chaotic systems. In chaotic systems, activities and events tend to happen in small cycles with "mini rule sets" called "strange attractors." But these rule sets can change without warning and without a known "trigger." So, insteal of a slow incremental incremental change in climate, what we will see is cyles within a range and suddenly the range will change and cycles will happen within a new range.

The real problem with this is that we do not yet have the math necessary to predict chaotic systems. Literally thousands of mathematicians and engineers and scientists are looking for ways to predict chaotic systems. They know that they have patterns but can't understand what determines the patterns. Many, many things that appear to be random are actually very tightly organized, including climate and weather. In many ways we are, scientifically speaking, in an era similar to engineering before integral and differential calculus was "discovered" and codified. We know that there is a regime of math to cover chaos, but we just haven't found it yet so we limp along with the tools that we do have, even though they're wrong.

But more to your point, this means that there can be sudden changes in weather. The last ice age (the Younger Dryas) developed in between 10 and 30 years and was so severe a change that it wiped out all humans and all large mammals in North America within 20 years. Carbon-14 dating plus the Law of Large Numbers has pretty much confirmed the shortness of the time span.

As the oceans warm, as just one small example, the Atlantic Conveyor Current could stop. It stopped in the Youinger Dryas because an ice dam broke and allowed a huge amount of fresh water to dilute the Atlantic in the northern hemisphere. This stopped the Conveyor (known locally as the Gulf Stream.) It didn't slow down or even diminish over time. It just stopped cold and the northern hemisphere was plunged immediately into an ice age. The same thing could happen with the melting of the Greenland Ice Shield and Arctic ice. They are fresh water and could stop the Conveyor. If it stops the impact on mankind will be catastrophic. Weather patterns will change but there will be no time for anything to adapt. And the rule is: Adapt or Die.

the problem with nuclear power has been extant for decades -

Nuclear power is perfect safe when run by engineers - look at the Navy.

The problem for us is that accountants run most nuclear plants . . ..

I read a study by real scientists who modeled Venus - if you took Venus, and reduced its atmospheric pressure to that of Earth, and brought it out to Earth's distance from the Sun, with an almost 100% CO2 atmosphere, Venus would be the same temperature as Earth. It is NOT CO2 that matters.

Forgetting a few minor points: Albedo, size of the planets, makeup of the crust, etc. All of this plays a role in how much light gets absorbed and how much gets reflected.

So now, you are taking a TOTALLY different system, and putting that forward as proof that climate change doesn't exist. Nevermind data from earth going back a few million years that shows a direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. [I note CO2 levels are now their highest in recorded history.]

A few other effects will determine localized weather changes. Some areas, like India and Antartica, due to mountains terrain or ocean currents, are relativly closed systems that will not see significant change, at least initially. Other areas, like the continental US or Europe will be more likely to see changes.

@LogicRequired,

You need to read more --- a lot more.

1) There has been no serious discussion of whether or not global warming is happening in decades. Virtually scientists are in agreement on that.

2) The "tipping point" --- the point at which we could have stopped global warming or could have ameliorated it has not been under serious discussion if at least 15 years. The same scientists concur that what is going to happen is going to happen.

3) It is not a matter of stopping it. What is being looked at now is how badly methane will become the primary problem. There are huge amounts of methane trapped in frozen tundra and in undeseas hydrates. These are being released as the oceans warm and the tundras thaw. The quintillions of tons of methane that will be released will be around 20 times as bad a greenhouse gas as CO + CO2. Most scientists hold little hope that anyone will be able to do anything abpout methane either.

4) Nuclear power is incredibly dangerous, is incredibly expensive, and takes decades to build a powerplant. Meanwhile, why don't we change from oil to natural gas --- cleaner, cheaper, less polluting? Because we have a culture structured so that science counts for very little (people call it the Kardashian Effect. LOL)

5) That different people use different amounts of energy and have different energy footprints is entirely and absolutely irrelevant. It is the worst kind of straw dog argument and the lowest form of rhetoric.

6) I tried to explain in 1.52 why the models are not predicting as much warming as we are actually seeing.

There is some logic required. But your opinion is not logic. It is just a rather poorly informed opion.

How long is a Yeark? 1000 years?

You got me, all my points must be invalid because I type fast and don't edit my "newsvine posts". Seriously, please do better in the future or just save your time.

Chris,

My poorly informed opinion is based on the fact the earth IS NOT WARMING, hasn't been for the last 10 plus years, their models were all crap yet I'm still suppose to believe the premise, and I have found science like so many other professions to be junk when politics get involved. Not all scientist think global warming is happening and even more don't think it is a serious problem. I don't give a crap what you think because time will prove you to be another idiot predicting the end of the world with little understanding of the earth and universe as a whole.

Chris-749391: "Scientists (both meterologists and climatologists) build linear deterministic models of the weather. They validate these models by taking old data and seeing if it predicts later activities. The problem is that while yesterday's data might predict today's weather using these models. Today's data will not predict tomorrow's weather. The reason is that weather and climate are not linear deterministic systems."

You hit the nail right on the head Chris!

I rest my case --- you have confused your opinion with fact. It is a common mistake made by the poorly informed and poorly educated. And your tired old rant is entirely irrelevant. There are NO reputable scientists in climatology who don't think that it is happening. Period. And you don't give a crap because your tiny mind is all made up and nothing will change it. Too bad. You are eaten up by the silvae rhetorica.

In fact, the first six months of 2012 accounted for the warmest January-through-June period on record for the contiguous U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced Monday.

However, globally this is not the case. This past Winter the lower 48 basked in unusual warmth while our neighbors in Alaska and Europe suffered through epic Winter weather. As for this years heat wave and draught, 1995 and the 1930's respectively were worse. The climate does change, but humans do not cause it.

So the take home message, Chris, is ef it.. Drill baby drill, pollute baby pollute, there is nothing we can do about it so why even try to clean up our carbon emissions?

Is it really so out of the question to invest in green energy solutions and try to get away from fossil fuels?

I know, I know, not druing a recession right? Well when then? Is there ever a good time up EPA standards?

@notliborcon

I usually do not comment on these types of things, however, I do need to correct the statement you made:

C) Scientists have conclusively proven that lead and gold are 2 different elements and one cannot be produced from the other. (paraphrased)

This is incorrect information. Glenn Seaborg, one of the nuclear chemists that worked on the Mahattan Project, also successfully transmuted a few hundred atoms of lead into a few hundred atoms of gold by bombarding the nuclei with high energy protons.

One source from a university nuclear chemistry class website:

The climate is naturally warming. It has been since the end of the ice age. However, human activities do seem to increase the rate of warming.

Maybe, if we mess this world up enough, humanity will figure out how to pull together to get off this rock and start a new cycle of destruction on another planet. But if the human specie's track record is any indication of global cooperation I'd say we are doomed to extinction.

Hmm. As a new user and first time commenter, it will not show my links from Seaborg's paper and from the nuclear chemistry class.

What is truly lamentable about the deniers is that they are either completely incapable of understanding the correlations between the growth in human burning of fossil fuels and the rise of average temperatures globally, or they choose to embrace a "damn the messenger" attitude and resort to cynicism and insults. SOME OF US have seen this, and been talking about the need to do something, for MORE THAN 30 YEARS.

Maybe it wouldn't really matter if we didn't love our children. Instead, deniers choose to bequeath a future of increased hardship and suffering.

A multi-point approach to addressing the issue is NOT THAT COMPLICATED: solar and wind harvesting, increased efficiencies in all energy technologies, and the application of the same focus that created the particle accelerator at CERN. The problem is, these things require intelligence and commitment, while deniers either lack the intelligence or have some mental aberration that makes them resentful and resistant to doing the right thing.

Its an alarmist orgasm in here! Get out the plastic sheets!

Chris,

I admit I'm not a student of climate change, but I do read and people much smarter then I such as Princeton physics professor William Happer are also skeptics. I'm not saying global warming isn't happening, but I I feel it either is not happening, it's a cycle, or it is happening and there is nothing we can do about it anyway other then adapt. I also believe that it might be a good thing the world getting warmer as we tend to die less in warm areas compared to frozen tundras. I find the so called facts often tend to be misrepresented and sometimes outright lies.

The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows, despite earlier claims.

Ground Based Temperature Recording Stations: Stupid Locations For Measuring Global Warming

Most importantly is it's not that my tiny little mind is made up or that I can't be convinced, I don't give a crap because everything that has been told to me so far has turned out to be B.S. You cry wolf 20 years ago we are all doomed in 10 years and then repeat this claim every 10 years. All you and the brillant scientist need to do to get me to change my mind is not be wrong about all your stupid dooms day predictions. Since you say we can't do anything about now anyway way it's just more of a reason to not give a crap. My guess is 10 years from now the same arguments will still be being made on both sides and I will still not give a crap.

@LogicRequired -

3.) If it can be stopped, what price would we have to pay and what sacrifices would it take to stop it?

Quite frankly, at this point, I'm willing to sacrifice you and those like you.

This, in itself, will not solve or reverse global warming, but if we can't take ANY steps towards arrest or reversal of problems because of the obstructionism of interested parties and the submissive authoritarians that support them, then that problem must be solved first.

It is a good thing that the integrity of scientific data has never been compromised!

http://www.judiciaryreport.com/global_warming_email_scandal.htm

3.) If it can be stopped, what price would we have to pay and what sacrifices would it take to stop it?

Quite frankly, at this point, I'm willing to sacrifice you and those like you.

How about stop driving cars that suck up this evil oil libies? What a novel idea eh? Set an example? Dont sit around farting up a carbon storm and then propose people pay for carbon credits. That wont help. You must bite the bullet and show the world how one must live in a carbon free life style so that we all may follow the brilliance of those privileged enough to know what is happening!

Chris-749391

You said:

"People love to think that we know a lot smarter than the ancients. We aren't and for every bit of knowledge thatman has gained, he has lost some as well."

If we only had the knowledge from the Great Library of Alexandria... They did know more than we will ever know that they knew. The ancient Greeks had steam powered machines. What would the world look like now if they had put that technology to use and built the first railroads?

@ Logic - One issue with this last post is that a physics professor is NOT a climatiologist, and being listed as professor is an implication of not holding a PhD level education. Quite frankly, he does not have the reputation chops or the education chops to comment on the situation. The simple fact of the matter, whether you choose to see it or not, is that every ice core sample, every earth core sample and every fossil record that is being tested for carbon content does not have the levels of carbon present that we currently have. And we are not talking 3 times, 5 times, or even 50 times. We are beating those samples by the hundreds of times. Magnitudes of measurements that require scientific notation to describe. That is not a slight increase.

Additionally, accurate measurements of average tempuratures can be obtained from fossil records and those core samples based on prevalence of isotopic concentrations for those same periods that were naturally occuring and yes, the temp is much warmer.

Lastly, 5F change in climate globally has occured. It is why, according to measurments taken from satellites of ice densities, the complete lack of available ice core samples going back 30 years now, due to the top of the ice melting, has occured, and the reason for the "alarmist" approach is dictated by the previous story of the fresh water spillage into the Atlantic. The Atlantic is very close to those same saturation levels from that incident, but with the constant supply of fresh water, the Pacific is also near it, making it a GLOBAL event.

@Kornfed -

Nice link - you're thoroughly misinformed. Shocker.

Maybe use Google or something.

http://www.climategate.com/

I used google for this one....happy reading! BTW Zen, computers have oil by-products in them :(

That's a propaganda site.

Chris, A.K.A. angry elephant person. I'm confused. In one post you're claiming the science is settled, nothing to debate, we're all going to fry. However in anotherpost you list all the problems inherent in the models being used to predict said indisputable catastrophe. Then if that weren't bad enough, in your last post, you call out a sceptic as being poorly informed and stupid, simply parroting the party line, oblivious to the "Real Science" that you have used to back-up your own beliefs, dare I say, opinions. That takes the cake for unmitigated gall and hubris, but oh so typical of that displayed by the left. Please keep it up though, at the end of the day, as this will serve to move those who are truly independent will align with the right, turned off by the condescending, know-it-all, elitist attitudes on full display, each and every day on these boards.

Zen609

That's a propaganda site.

hahah, everything is a propaganda site. Do you drive a car Zen? Why do you use evil oil by-products? Does convenience actually trump your crusade? Being a hypocrite does not bug you? If you libs, which are obviously passionate about this subject, cant even live to the standards that you propose for others, how in the hell do you expect things to change? Or is bitching about it, or using it as a political football much more important?

Can you guys please stop linking .com, .org, and .net websites for your "proof?" These are not factual websites. The only sites you should be linking from for your information have the following web extensions: .edu, and .gov. These sites are the ONLY sites that contained peer reviewed information.

And we are not talking 3 times, 5 times, or even 50 times. We are beating those samples by the hundreds of times. Magnitudes of measurements that require scientific notation to describe. That is not a slight increase.

Brandon - When you spout crap like that you loose all credibility. We are currently at about 2x the minimum atmospheric CO2 levels

It is a dangerous hilarity that so many of you have o be in three digit temps for days on end with folks dying in double digit number to then say"its not hot".. You must remember that while history accounts for what man has known the other millions of years man did NOT walk the earth either. ; ]

I cannot take seriously those who deny what they see feel and touch. The same mediocre attempt to deny science regress people to a time where those same folks would have said the earth is flat. That science is an abomination to God. Yet God created people and the intelligence to apply science. To know when something is off and not correct.

We have here a brainwash of denial in many aspects of American culture yet none so stunning a to deny the swelter of what faces us each morning. God will not save us my friend. It is not his will to magically make the earth cooler warm where needed. Do you recall why? Because the earth belongs to the devil and man has dominion over the earth, not God. He has left it to us and sinful nature and it is ours to do what we will with it.

Shall we then participate in its downfall over greed and politics so that our children will be victim to our inaction? It does not quite add up to those same folk who make such a NOISE over debt being left to our children. Wake up for the unintelligent is disease spreading as did the wildfires. ; ]

Cheers

Site your sources Brian. Mine are from my current education level and peer reviewed sources. Please feel free to search Science magazine and The Journal of Atmospheric Science. These are where my statistics come from. Tell me where yours come from and I will be more than happy to look them up.

brandon - here's your link. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

Brandon, get off of facebook, its rotting your brain!

and another, easier to read; http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

@Kornfed

It's only political football because oil and gas made it that. And you buy it - hook, line, and sinker - because you're an authoritarian personality. You don't have your own opinions about issues such as this, in fact you don't know the first this about this particular issue - neither regarding the scientific nor the political aspects. Someone tells you what to think, and you think it. You write in cliches and propaganda, like every other "conservative"'s comment I've ever read.

You don't have to ever to tell me what you think about any political or social issue, because I can turn on Fox,, Drudge, Newsmax, or Rush and know what you think about any given issue before you do. They tell you what you think, and you think it. You don't have your own thoughts or opinions on this or most other issues, and how could you when you don't know anything about an issue except what you're told to know.

So from reading the last several posts I would guess that the moral of the story is: Become a "prepper", get guns food and water. Build a bunker 20' underground. Wait until the"Day After Tomorrow" scenario takes affect. After it stops snowing we can all hike into NYC to rescue Sam and his friends. After that we are all heroes.

It's only political football because oil and gas made it that.

Umm, libs dont use this issue? Gas and oil has to defend itself dont they? If someone is attacking your livelihood, will you not defend it?

You don't have your own opinions about issues such as this

I dont? hehe...Not going to address the point I brought up either are you? Whats wrong, cant answer it can you. You are everything you accuse me of. Take a look in the mirror.

What really "burns" the climate change deniers is that there was not a single mention of climate in the article. I couldn't help bringing it up myself with that observation.

Here are the issues with your baseless attack on me. First, there is no minimum CO2 levels. They are called baseline measurements. Secondly, your math is far off. Here is the summation of your link:

There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO₂ record shows that the main trends of CO₂ are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO₂ record shows the present-day levels of CO₂ are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 - 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO₂ values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO₂ concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO₂ increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.

Not knowing the baseline of CO2 levels is your down fall. Now, this is going to be pretty mathy, so if you are not good at it, I apologize.

The baseline for CO2 levels is at approximately 30 ppmv, this can vary throughout the planet, but it is the universally accepted standard used. That unit is 30 PARTS PER MILLION by VOLUME, with volume being represented as cubic meters. At the level of parts per million, an increase from the standard accepted ancient level of 30 ppmv to 60 ppmv is NOT a 2 fold increase, or times 2 increase. This represents an increase of 100 times. If you will notice, the levels mentioned in your own linkage, show levels of over 200 ppmv. This constitutes increases on the scales the several hundred to scientific notation to describe. Please, return to school and come back with more than false claims and attacks. You have just been voted off the island.

@Kornfed

Address what point? You're only typing generalized cliches and propaganda that aren't even your own thoughts or ideas.

Seriously, you quite obviously have no education, certainly no background in even basic science. You're an authoritarian, and rely on psychological, rather than intellectual, mechanisms in formulating arguments or defending propositions (that aren't even your own). You've obviously never had a logic, rhetoric, or critical analysis-type class in your life, and don't understand how to determine if a proposition or argument is valid or sound.

There's no point in having any meaningful exchange with someone like you - you're psychologically incapable of logical reasoning in most circumstances and have absolutely no basic knowledge of science and no real information about climate change - your only knowledge of the issue is from political sources, i.e., interested parties - so you wouldn't be able to participate in any real discussion of climate change, because you don't know anything about it.

And I'm out - take it easy, buddy.

Brandon, are you trying to say man is responsible for a 100 times increase in CO2 levels? If so please site your sources. I'll read it

Working for America, yeah you're right let's all vote for Romney and he'll probably offshore us all to a cooler place.

Address what point? you're only typing generalized cliches and propaganda that aren't even your own thoughts or ideas.

Do you drive a car Zen? Why do you use evil oil by-products? Does convenience actually trump your crusade? Being a hypocrite does not bug you? If you libs, which are obviously passionate about this subject, cant even live to the standards that you propose for others, how in the hell do you expect things to change? Or is bitching about it, or using it as a political football much more important?

I reposted it. You are like an attacking shark Zen, with that flap of skin closing over the eye as you attack hehe.

Seriously, you quite obviously have no education, certainly no background in even basic science

cute hehe.

Kornfed, most liberals I know live more simply than conservatives and have done so fo decades. Nobody is suggesting we stop using energy completely, so your line of attack is rather empty.

Brandon, the CO2 concentration has increased about 30% over pre-industrial levels. It will almost certainly double eventually, but I don't know where your numbers come from.

Kornfed, most liberals I know live more simply than conservatives and have done so fo decades. Nobody is suggesting we stop using energy completely, so your line of attack is rather empty

Thanks for answering the question. How are we expected to lower the output then with an ever increasing population that uses fossil fuels? Other than letting technology take its natural course and eventually render fossil fuels obsolete, which I have no doubt will happen eventually.

Bear with me, this is my first day ever posting here. I cannot provide the links. However, you can use the ones Brian provided, and the baseline statistics from The Journal of Atmospheric Science and Climatology, additional information can be found in Science magazine, both peer reviewed magazines. You will additionally have to convert the ppmv measurements given in the articles to mmolv as ppmv is not a measurement of the concentration, however, the millimoles by volume is a measurement of concentration. And the concentration increase is much higher than 100 times.

Brandon, are you trying to say man is responsible for a 100 times increase in CO2 levels? If so please site your sources. I'll read it

This is currently displayed on my screen when I try and link:

Welcome New Users!

With all of the great new users who join the Newsvine community
every day, it's hard to keep track of everybody. While the majority of new users
are thoughtful people looking to make a positive impact on the community,
inevitably you will have your automated spambots, your trolls, and other people
abusing the system.

To help curb the proliferation of these accounts, all new users begin in a
"New User" state. In this state, you have all privileges except the
following:

• The uploading of photos
• The ability to put HTML links in comments
• The ability for your articles and seeds to show up on The Vine

On the bright side, we feature all new users in our section called The Greenhouse. The Greenhouse is a place to
get discovered. Write a few articles or seed a few links and you should get on
the Vine in no time. Once you are eligible for Vine placement, all of your
articles and seeds will retroactively be placed on the Vine as well.

If you feel you've made contributions to the site and gone unnoticed, please
feel free to contact us. It is the goal of the Newsvine
team to get people onto the Vine as quickly as possible.

Kornfed, give it up on the "climategate" crap. Nobody falsified any data. They were certainly impolitic in their PRIVATE emails, but there is nothing there that changes the conclusions based on decades of research by thousands of scientists around the world. This is not "gotcha" politics. Character assasiation is not a valid scientific argument.

Jock,

If you look at data not knowing the measurement exchanges, it appears that way. However, you need to know concentration conversions, as explained by my posts.

Kornfed, give it up on the "climategate" crap. Nobody falsified any data. They were certainly impolitic in their PRIVATE emails, but there is nothing there that changes the conclusions based on decades of research by thousands of scientists around the world.

It indicates an agenda. Ignore if you wish, I will not.

"Other than letting technology take its natural course"

What dies that mean? We innovate when we have incentives to do so. Increase the incentives, and innovation will increase. That is the whole point of climate legislation.

Kornfed, what you see in the emails is anger and frustration at the denial industry for blocking progress on climate change. Scientists know they have this one figured out, and yet they are ignored or insulted, and nothing is done. Of course they are going to lash out in private emails.

What dies that mean?

Dont play silly games with me. You know what it means. Money is always the incentive, or compensation of any kind. The lure of money is always present. Viability is the goal for the next wave of energy innovation

Kornfed, what you see in the emails is anger and frustration at the denial industry for blocking progress on climate change. Scientists know they have this one figured out, and yet they are ignored or insulted, and nothing is done. Of course they are going to lash out in private emails.

I can post some specific examples if you want to stay on this subject.

@kornfed -

You're so ignorant of "Climategate". You don't know anything about it. Nothing. You don't know what the issue was, why, or what happened - you only know "Climategate - it means they have an aganda!". You really don't know anything about "Climategate".

The party with the agenda is oil and gas, who made it a political issue. If you had any education or weren't so plugged into conservative propaganda to explain the world to you, you could seek real sources to understand climate change and science in general. You're on the internet, you should use it for something other than some jerk-off feeding you a bunch of organizational rhetoric that you think is information.

Welcome back Zen. Didnt feel good about your first appearance and looking for redemption? hehe

This is all obamas fault. If his green initiatives hadn't failed, then none of this would be happening right now.

"I can post some specific examples if you want to stay on this subject."

If you do so, please also desrcribe the context, which I doubt you even know.

For example, one of your favorites is probably "hide the decline," and you probably think they were talking about the temperature record, LOL.

Ok you got me, its all a fraud. Scientists are immune to human nature!

Oh wait, I forgot my condescending LOL!

One of the coolest Junes on record in Arizona. Someone is full of sh** here.

livingbarefoot, what record cold are you talking about for Australia? The temperrature for all Australia is .37% below normal,as far as winters go. Wait a minute, I get it. You're one of those people who throw out info, hoping nobody would check it out. It took maybe 30 seconds to find the answer. Murking up the water doesn't change the facts. Go back and read the article, and you will see that the "Australian Record Winter Temperatures" are insignificant, and in fact no records for the nation as a whole. Try this, get real facts, and use them to support the point you want, without any exagerations. But, you are right when you say what we need is the average temperature for the planet as a whole. It should take you maybe two minutes. I'm wauting.

This has become a very heated debate.

Just remember to mind the rules.

Give it a rest, we have limited manually checked records, but ice cores, and mud cores allow scientists to go back further. However the story is based on the records we can be certain of. You're right about there being higher temperatures. According to science, there was a time when the Earths temperature might not even have been suitable for eztremeophyles. During the age of dinosaurs it was hotter than it is now. But the last time it was hotter than it is now, was before the Ice Ages. Suffice it to say that in recent history, for hundreds of thousands of years, we're in the hottest period we can confirm.

In billions of years, the sun will grow into a red giant, and engulf the earth. Who are we going to blame for that, since there is no God?

It is painfully apparent the Limbag is remarkably influential, and many people are frighteningly impressionable. It reminds me of those gatherings where a man taps people on the forehead and they collapse in awe. In that case I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but in this case our entire future is on the line, and people keep lining up for the cool aid.

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck.........its a duck, even if that doesn't support the profits of Big Oil.

@Kornfed

You're in no position to condescend to anyone.

That's the point of my comments to you. You're delusional to think that you're informed about this issue (and likely others). I'm sure you think of yourself as a 'Leader of Men', but the reality is that you're undereducated and poorly informed. You might like to think that you're a smart guy and have important things to say about issues like climate change or political and social issues, but you don't really have the education to have any real understanding of these types of issues. You certainly don't have any real understanding of climate change, and I suspect that's true of other issues as well. And like I said before, if I want to know what you think about anything, I can go to some conservative news outlet and know what you think before you do.

I know that it's not exactly civilized to express this kind thing to others, but I can't pretend to respect you. You don't know what you're talking about, and you're too much of a jackass to admit that to yourself. You'd rather just claim superiority than merit it , just as you'd rather claim to know something about climate change than actually have any real understanding of it. You're full of sh1t. no one respects that.

but the reality is that you're undereducated and poorly informed

I hate to tell you this, but you are wrong. Perhaps you are wrong about other things as well? Insults seem to be your forte. Do you have anything of substance to add?

You're clearly uneducated and poorly informed. You'd like people to think that you're a smart guy that knows what's going on, but you're not and you don't. You think that because you have some kind of anonymity on the internet, that you people may assume that you could be anyone, maybe even someone that's smart, educated, informed, and worldly. But your comments betray you. You're not fooling anyone. You're just some guy that thinks he's superior to others, and for no apparent reason.

Clearly, you have no background in science. You have no real understanding of climate change. You've never had any logic, rhetoric, or critical thinking. I suspect your primary sources for information are conservative news outlets. If you want to try to tell me that you're educated or, especially that you're well-informed regarding climate change - I'll have to call bullsh1t on that.

But hey, you might just be out trolling because you're bored at work or something. I'm just telling you this after taking your comments at face value.

I think my question is answered hehe

Do you intend to claim to be educated, have a background in science, have some knowledge of climate change, have some credits in L&R, or eschew conservative news outlets?

@Brandon Plunkett

Don't claim that it is your first day posting here... Januarry, 2012.

I'm proposing what I call the "C. Montgomery Burns Plan to Mitigate Human Impacts on Climate Change". Under this plan, we place large, expandable mirrors in space that orbit the earth and reflect the sun's light back into space. That way we can cut down on the amount of solar radiation before it reaches the daggone stratosphere! It would of course be just a small amount, but that's all it should take, and if we powered it with some stinkin' photovoltaic cells, the mirrors could rotate to let the radiation through when it's blocking the direct radiation that reaches land and my all-important garden plants. Maybe we could make a couple of them that only blocked the radiation when over the open ocean.

Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and consumption. Obviously we need to do that as well, but we can't just shut off the world tomorrow, because that wouldn't cut it either. Even if we quit emitting greenhouse gases today, we'd still need to reduce the amount of C02 in the atmosphere. You heard it here first folks, and I'm rather serious about this, because it sure beats fertilizing the oceans or the stratosphere as some have proposed. Please pass this idea on to the powers in charge. I'm just a small person with good ideas. Ask me about my "Moon Space Vehicle" sometime.

Do you intend to claim to be educated, have a background in science, have some knowledge of climate change, have some credits in L&R, or eschew conservative news outlets?

Yes, I make the claim to be educated...No, it is not in science, although I have some general knowledge. I am not interested in propaganda of either party. I am a social liberal, a fiscal conservative. How about you Zen, tell us a little about yourself

logic required: just for your information, the atmosphere on mars is 95% carbon dioxide and the polar ice caps are not water, but frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice here on earth).

"In billions of years, the sun will grow into a red giant, and engulf the earth. Who are we going to blame for that"

Is this supposed to be relevant to something? I certainly hope you aren't suggesting this means we shouldn't act wisely in the meantime.

Nobody is blaming anyone for natural events. We are talking ONLY about changes due to human activity. If you really believe that human activity cannot affect the Earth, then I am not sure that any discussion is worthwhile.

@Kornfed

Fiscal conservative, huh? Let me guess, College Objectivist? Flirted with Libertarianism? Friedman, Chicago School? Steve Forbes is awesome?

What does fiscal conservative mean now anyway? No deficit spending?

But seriously, you're not interested in partisan propaganda, but you're a climate change denier? And a proponent of the climategate conspiracy theory thing? And use the term 'libs'? C'mon, you read Drudge

tstucker: "One of the coolest Junes on record in Arizona. Someone is full of sh** here."

You do understand that Arizona is not the entire United States, right?

Its give and take Zen... your turn to give.

"In billions of years, the sun will grow into a red giant, and engulf the earth. Who are we going to blame for that"

Is this supposed to be relevant to something? I certainly hope you aren't suggesting this means we shouldn't act wisely in the meantime

There was a lul in the action. Thought I would lure you back in...

Nobody is blaming anyone for natural events. We are talking ONLY about changes due to human activity. If you really believe that human activity cannot affect the Earth, then I am not sure that any discussion is worthwhile.

Are you implying that nature has nothing to do with climate? I too can play silly games hehe. Sure, human activity could possibly affect the earth. I would be quite the fool to be an absolutist about that. What I do claim is that it is not likely that big of a factor if at all at this point.

@kornfed -

Woah - Log Cabin Repub? Right?

Hey, it's cool, I'm also a social liberal, so whatever churns your butter, man.

On topic:

What I do claim is that it is not likely that big of a factor if at all at this point.

OK, you want to play ball ? You've made this proposition - now you need to support that.

OK, you want to play ball ? You've made this proposition - now you need to support that.

Climate has changed very drastically in the past when man was not present. Carbon dioxide occupies .03% of our atmosphere, while other greenhouse gasses are vastly more abundant. A 30% change in a gas that has such a minor presence in our atmosphere remains very minor after mans contribution with respect to its capacity to trap heat in comparison to other greenhouse gasses. Perhaps, just maybe, could any change we see at this time be due to other things? My logical answer is yes. Perhaps the sun has unusual cycles we are not aware of. Perhaps there is a wobble in the earths rotation that we cannot detect. Perhaps our sun passes through periodic gas and dust during its orbit in our galaxy. There are reasons that perhaps we have not even considered as of yet. We are sampling quite a small block of time respective to long term climate change.

Brandon -

At the level of parts per million, an increase from the standard accepted ancient level of 30 ppmv to 60 ppmv is NOT a 2 fold increase, or times 2 increase. This represents an increase of 100 times.

You will additionally have to convert the ppmv measurements given in the articles to mmolv as ppmv is not a measurement of the concentration, however, the millimoles by volume is a measurement of concentration.

Since my cited source is the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center and they seem perfectly content to use ppmv as a measure of concentration for atmospheric CO2 forgive me if I'm skeptical but I'm always willing to learn. Please show the unit analysis in detail. I think I'll be able to follow it.

"Are you implying that nature has nothing to do with climate?"

No, and I don;t see how you could possibly have gotten that from what I said.

"What I do claim is that it is not likely that big of a factor if at all at this point."

Claim all you want, but the science disagrees.

"Climate has changed very drastically in the past when man was not present."

Duh. everyone knows this. It says nothing about whether we can affect it ALSO.

"while other greenhouse gasses are vastly more abundant."

No. Water vapor is more abundant. CO2 is second. Nothing else comes close.

"A 30% change in a gas that has such a minor presence in our atmosphere remains very minor"

A 30% change a 30% change - in the second most important greenhouse gas.

"Perhaps, just maybe, could any change we see at this time be due to other things?"

That is a good question, which is why hundreds of scientists have been studying it for decades. And now they are quite confident they can show that most of it is do to us.

No, and I don;t see how you could possibly have gotten that from what I said.

Why do you insist on sillyness jock, you are better than that. It was a joke, a play off of your own tactics.

Claim all you want, but the science disagrees

It is not unanimous, and a consensus in science cannot exist. Science does not allow it. I love science, and respect scientists. I wish they didnt have to get mixed up in the politics of the day, it is a disservice to science, a terrible disservice. But the reality is, government employment happens to be the majority for scientists, and I hate to say this, but you have to legitimize your employment. This is a terrible reality that really harms science. I wonder what a scientists findings on climate would be if they were hired by Exxon Mobile?....

" I wonder what a scientists findings on climate would be if they were hired by Exxon Mobile?...."

You already know that. It is where most of the denialist crap you point us to comes from. ExxonMobil has pumped millions into conservative think tanks to spread disinformation on global warming.

Government scientists for the most part are professional and independent. Academics even more so. Before the Bush administration it was actually quite unusual for government to interfere with the findings of their scientists.

Yes, all scientists are human, and biases can occur. But science is self-correcting and egregious errors cannot be maintained for long. Too many other scientists are eager to pounce. Nobody is tougher on scientists than other scientists. Disagreeing is in our nature.

"Climate has changed very drastically in the past when man was not present."

Duh. everyone knows this. It says nothing about whether we can affect it ALSO

Another selective reader...

No. Water vapor is more abundant. CO2 is second. Nothing else comes close

I stand corrected, but from what I found methane comes close it appears to me. Certainly closer in comparison to water vapor I think all would agree.

Dang. How come y'all didn't tell me that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes broke up?

" I wonder what a scientists findings on climate would be if they were hired by Exxon Mobile?...."

You already know that. It is where most of the denialist crap you point us to comes from. ExxonMobil has pumped millions into conservative think tanks to spread disinformation on global warming

I think you just validated the point I was making.

They are all important, Kornfed. All of the greenhouse gasses contribute, and scientists measure them very carefully. Nothing you can come up with is news to climate experts. As hard as it may be for you to believe, they are not stupid. And if you have to believe they are lying (with zero evidence) just because you don't want to hear what they are saying, perhaps you should re-assess your objectivity.

Kornfed, questioning is good, but why do you assume that the thousands of scientists around the world who live and breathe this stuff haven't thought of these basic questions already? Why do you assume that professional scientists don't know what they are doing? I ask such questions too, and then I go find the answers. That is how I have confirmed to my own satisfaction that they have got this one pretty well nailed.

They are all important, Kornfed. All of the greenhouse gasses contribute, and scientists measure them very carefully. Nothing you can come up with is news to climate experts

For someone that needs to make astute observations for a living, you sure do miss the point an awful lot. Or, more likely, you conveniently do so. My point is that one change in a minut gas in the overall gravity of the cumulative effects of all the greenhouse gases combined does not, in my humble opinion, constitute the grandious predictions of an out of control greenhouse effect. I am not "coming up" with anything new.

As hard as it may be for you to believe, they are not stupid.

You tried this tactic last night, and I declared no such thing. Another silly tactic on your part.

And if you have to believe they are lying (with zero evidence) just because you don't want to hear what they are saying, perhaps you should re-assess your objectivity.

Pulling words out of your ass again I see. I brought up bias, not lies. If you wish for something to be true, that is where your focus of study will be, as observed in lets say, a scientist hired by Exxon Mobile for instance.

What is important to realize is that a billion or so cars, a few billion furnaces, air conditioners, cook fires, etc., millions of power plants, ten billion tons of CO2 per year, a few billion heat generating appliances, etc., etc., could not possibly have any effect whatsoever.

So trying to reduce any of this would have the unacceptable economic impact of reducing energy company executive's compensation from (ca.) 1,000,000/yr--20,000,000/yr to 700,000/yr--15,000,000/yr and, even worse, much much worse, reduce the fortunes of some of our energy billionaires by a hundred million dollars! Maybe even two hundred million dollars!

Think of the suffering!

Kornfed, questioning is good, but why do you assume that the thousands of scientists around the world who live and breathe this stuff haven't thought of these basic questions already?

Oh they have I'm quite sure. I dont claim to be prophetic. Some just choose to focus to narrowly in my opinion, by design.

Why do you assume that professional scientists don't know what they are doing?

Where did I say that?

I ask such questions too, and then I go find the answers. That is how I have confirmed to my own satisfaction that they have got this one pretty well nailed

You have found the answers to long term climate change? I question your threshold of satisfaction.

@ Korndog

Ugh . . No. And the alternatives you've mentioned are ridiculous.

You need a basic understanding of climate change. Go to NASA and NOAA. They have a lot of basic information in plain English, you don't need a background in science. And if you have further interest, insofar as the science, you can navigate from there.

Once you have a basic understanding of what science says about climate change, then take a look at the politics. It's really dramatic - a lot of drama - fun.

Your view of this is strictly from partisan politics. The politics are a lot more interesting when you understand what's going on, as opposed to buying into the politics, which you have done.

Essentially, oil and gas are attempting to maintain the status quo vis a vis national energy policy. They've thrown several billions of dollars into this propaganda campaign to convince the electorate that science is corrupt and that climate change is a hoax to make climatologists wealthy, or something - or that scientists are evil commies who are in cahoots with the evil libs who want to make slaves of decent white Christians - goddam hippie scientists - oh, and then probably outlaw Jesus or something, cuz they're godless atheists.

At first, and until just a few years ago, climate change was denied altogether, and it's proponents were portrayed in conservative media as a few conspiracy theorist nutjobs. But since then, oil/gas was forced to concede climate change, and so a shift in focus to a dual messages"climate change exsists, but it's not man-made" for the educated, and "climate change doesn't exist - it's a hoax by the Heathen Scientists" for the God-fearin, down-home folk.

It's strictly a propaganda campaign. you've likely read "97% of scientists support climate change bla bla bla" , but most of the 3% that of scientists that oppose the idea of climate change are not climatologists, but statisticians and computer scientists - almost exclusively funded by gas and oil to re-interpret existing data so that the electorate can be told of published papers that debunk the climate change myth. These guys do no new experimentation, with one notable exception:

There were legitimate climate change skeptics in the scientific community at-large.. One of the objections of the climate change opponents was that there was no surface temp data to corroborate ocean temp data. Climatologists essentially said that it wasn't necessary to corroborate surface temp data with ocean temp data.

Richard Muller, a respected physicist at UC Berkeley, and climate change skeptic, thought that it was a legitimate objection, and that a large scale land temp study should be undertaken.

The project was called the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study, and was famously funded by the Charles G. Koch Foundation. Basically, the data from the the study corroborated the ocean temp data.

So, AFAIK, of the 3% of scientists who oppose the idea of climate change, the one work, AFAIK, that was an actual real collection and analysis of new data, was the BEST study, and it corroborated the previous data. Most of the rest of the 3% are stat guys trying to show statistical trends inferring that this warming trend is part of a regular cycle, and CS guys making models with existing data trying to show the same. It's purely motivated reasoning, and so far a bunch of BS.

So, really - go to NASA and NOAA and learn some of the basics of climate change first, and then move on from there. I guarantee you won't learn anything useful about climate change from political news sites. And what you know now is zilch.

I've been to the NASA site many times Zen hehe. Quite frankly, your condescending style is quite tiring. You have caused me to become sleepy. Sweet dreams and non carbonated drinks for all!

It's not condescending to say that you don't know what you're talking about.

For example:

My point is that one change in a minut gas in the overall gravity of the cumulative effects of all the greenhouse gases combined does not, in my humble opinion, constitute the grandious predictions of an out of control greenhouse effect

What a crock of sh1t. That doesn't mean anything. I mean, it doesn't mean ANYTHING - it's just word salad.

Give it a rest, doesn't believe in conspiracies - I guess the USA doesn't exist either, but I could swear that it was a bunch of people living in a new world that conspired to defeat the Brits and form their own country (sorry Native Americans, I mean no disrespect). Some words have been brutally hi-jacked for the lamest reasons.

Kornfed: "I question your threshold of satisfaction"

Of course you do. You start with the assumption that AGW can't be true, therefore I am wrong, therefore I am too easily swayed. So you feel justifed in your condescension, even as you criticize others for it.

The problem is that I am not easily swayed, and AGW is real, and someday even you will have to accept that. And no, I don't expect you to believe me. In fact I kind of hope you don't. It confirms my opinion of you.

Of course you do. You start with the assumption that AGW can't be true,

Wrong yet again, anything is possible. Jock, what in the hell is wrong with you? Do you read anything I say or do you have the attacking shark syndrome too? I have stated time and time again that I do not know, as you arrogantly claim to, as to what is causing any climate change we are experiencing, or have experienced in the past. There are a myriad of factors that go into it as I'm sure you are well aware.

So you feel justifed in your condescension, even as you criticize others for it.

Again, read in context, and stop your silly childish games. Read Zen's posts and you will see the light as to how I used the word.

The problem is that I am not easily swayed,

Wait a minute, I thought that was my problem. You seem to be quite swayed to me.

And no, I don't expect you to believe me. In fact I kind of hope you don't. It confirms my opinion of you.

Because I question you, you despise me, I know. Not an attitude a scientist should have btw.

@kornfed

I have stated time and time again that I do not know, as to what is causing any climate change we are experiencing

And that's the entire point of my comments to you. You don't know anything, yet have a position that is:

1) not supportable

2) not your own opinion

3) politically motivated

4) based on manufactured propaganda from political sources and funded by interested parties.

But also, you didn't actually say "I don't know" over and over. You actually said in various comments ITT, IIRC:

1) Climate change is a hoax propagated for political reasons.

2) Proponents of climate change are alarmists.

3) Climatologists have an 'agenda' and are involved in a conspiracy.

This story isn't about climate change, yet you came into the comments thread with guns blazing with this climate change denial crap, with absolutely no arguments for that position and, by your own admission, no knowledge of climate change other than the conservative talking points listed above. And you flatly reject the idea of actually doing a few minutes of research into the basics of climate change research.

Because I question you, you despise me

The only question you've asked is "do you drive a car?". You've asked no real questions that pertain to climate change, and how could you legitimately question it you don't know anything about it. There would be good questions to ask, but you don't know what they are, and you likely wouldn't be asking them from real skepticism or information, but I suspect rather, that your only goal of questioning would be asked for purposes of rhetoric, to support an assumed position that you already hold - an extension of motivated reasoning.

At this point, your argument seems to be something like:

"Just because I'm ignorant of climate change, yet took strong positions on the issue doesn't mean I'm stupid, and you're just a condescending jerk for making that proposition."

That's the thread now: "I'm really not as silly as you seem to think I am."

In this thread you are, at least.

I don't despise you. You don't seem like a complete assh0le. But I can't say that I respect your intellect or thought processes.

I don't disrespect you because you don't have any science ed, or have no basic, general understanding of climate change, but that you take and argue for a position (that's not even your own) without even a basic understanding is not respectable.

Don't be p1ssed or hurt - you feel the same way when you deal with people like that, don't you?

And that's the entire point of my comments to you. You don't know anything, yet have a position that is:

Here you go Jock, the example of the word in context referring to .....

So you feel justifed in your condescension, even as you criticize others for it.

I hope this clarifies at least this point of confusion.

As for you Zen, grow up first, then we can talk.

Oh, please.

You don't know what your talking about regarding this issue, which was clear from your comments, but then you stated it yourself

I have stated time and time again that I do not know, as to what is causing any climate change we are experiencing

Yet, for some reason, you seem to think that, even though you don't know the first thing about the issue, that you and your comments should be taken seriously:

"Hey guys, I'm don't have even the most basic education in science, know nothing about climate change, and I'm going to post some conservative talking points propagated through massive funding by interested parties, m'kay? Oh, and if anyone thinks that this is intellectual contemptible, then they're immature and condescending. And I warn you now: I WILL tell you to grow up."

I don't know why you would expect that I would have even the least regard for such comments, or intellectual respect for the commenter.

You call me stupid, I call you childish. Do we need to say anything more to each other? You start off your arguments with a non starter kid.

I didn't call you 'stupid'.

I basically said that:

1) You lack any credibility in or basic knowledge of this issue, regarding both the scientific and political aspects.

2) That your stated positions are not your own, but that you are merely parroting conservative talking points propagated through conservative news outlets and funded by interested parties.

3) That adopting, expressing, and arguing for positions of which one has no knowledge or understanding, which are not derived from one's own intellectual process, which are not supportable, and which are purely partisan organizational rhetoric, is intellectually contemptible.

" I have stated time and time again that I do not know, as you arrogantly claim to, as to what is causing any climate change we are experiencing, or have experienced in the past."

And that is the problem. Because YOU don't know, you assume nobody knows. It turns out that thousands of scientific careers devoted to the subject over the last several decades have learned a fair bit about how the climate works. The fact that you are unaware of this is your problem, not ours.

Questioning is only the first part of science. If it is not followed by research, it is just annoying. And it suggests that someone doesn't really want to know the answers, because they might have to admit they were wrong. THAT is definitely not science.

And that is the problem. Because YOU don't know

and thats the problem, you assume that YOU DO KNOW! I could say that I know that a higher power exists merely due to the fact that life is truly complicated. Man, with all his intelligence, cannot even manufacture one cell, let alone trillions that work in tandem to create a living thing. But I would be wrong in saying I know now wouldnt I?

OK - I think I'm finished.

I think the point has been made:

The strategy of climate change opposition is to attack the credibility of science and scientists. This is the frame of the political aspect of the issue,

It makes no sense to discuss or try to communicate the science of climate change with climate change opponents, because they have no interest in science in general and certainly no interest in a basic understanding of climate change. Their interest is purely political.

Since the frame of the political aspect is credibility, then fine - that's like shooting fish in a barrel.

I'm starting to feel like I'm attacking someone who can't defend herself. I'm not at all interested in that kind of thing. I don't know Kornfed's real motivations or purpose for posting, but taken at face value, he/she seems to have some kind of masochistic streak. I'm not a sadist, so I don't want to play this game anymore.

It makes no sense to discuss or try to communicate the science of climate change with climate change opponents, because they have no interest in science in general and certainly no interest in a basic understanding of climate change. Their interest is purely political.

Wrong, I enjoy science. If you read up the thread here, you will see the positions I took that you chose to ignore. Take that hate and redirect it into civil argument and you will feel less frustrated.

I'm starting to feel like I'm attacking someone who can't defend herself

Like this for example haha. You amuse me, that is certain.

The crap you posted about CO2 was silly.

I'm not angry with you, and I certainly don't hate you.

I was trying to communicate something to you, and your response was:

"LA LA LA I can;t heeee-aaaar yoouuu - LA LA LA"

I used you and your comments to make a larger point. My comments weren't about YOU or to you.

Oh, you enjoy science, huh? Sure ya do.

And if you really just want to have a chat with other people, to have some kind of social interaction, you should rather try a chat program or social site. But here is OK, too - I just think you may enjoy the alternatives more.

I'm not angry with you, and I certainly don't hate you

Personal attacks and indirect belittling comes out of what then? Interesting tact.

And if you really just want to have a chat with other people, to have some kind of social interaction, you should rather try a chat program or social site. But here is OK, too - I just think you may enjoy the alternatives more.

I dont even think you realize that you are doing it haha. Maybe you should work on you, and worry less about me.

lets stop the personal attacks and answer one simple question . . . .

What is the optimum temperature for the Earth?

Until we answer that question then there is nothing to measure warming or cooling from. Personally, given what I know about population dynamics, lifespan research, epidemic studies - the climate of the Medieval Optimum was just about right for humanity - thus - we have about 1.7F to go before its warm enough. . . .

Personal attacks: that's the entire strategy of climate change opposition - attack the credibility of science and scientists.

Again, a few of original comments were:

1) Libs are alarmist.

2) Climatologists have an agenda.

3) Climate change is a politically motivated conspiracy, and scientists are perpetrating a fraud on the public.

You subscribe to partisan political rhetoric that attempts to attack the credibility of science and scientists, and have done so in your comments, but when your own credibility is attacked, and rightfully so, now you stomp your feet and whine, "Hey - no fair! You're a big meanie!"

You're not credible and neither are the positions to which you've been given. In a political frame that focuses on credibility, climate change opponents are sitting ducks. You're hoist on your own petard.

What is the optimum temperature for the Earth?

This is an excellent question. Another question would be, what is a normal temperature at this exact point in time. How can this be determined when climate is always changing no matter what the earths occupants are or are not doing. One can speculate, and that is fine. But dont say you know when it is impossible to do so.

MWP is one of the MANY pieces of misinformation thrown against the wall by oil/gas propaganda.

There is no merit to any of the rhetoric around it, and the issue was only propagated through conservative news sources and info sites funded by oil/gas.

It was a conservative talking point, and an old one at that, which was instantly and easily refuted, it was entirely ridiculous, and the propaganda moved onto the next talking point. but there are still those who refer to it because their source of information is exclusively partisan organizational rhetoric.

It's a talking point, intentional disinformation. You will never understand anything about this or any other issue if your sources of information explicitly exist to disinform you.

It's a talking point, intentional disinformation

Perhaps it can be called a theory, just as man caused global warming is.

It's not.

You need to understand that:

1) the sole and chief opponent to climate change is oil/gas, that there is NO new research by climate change opponents, except the BEST study

2) all rhetoric associated with climate change denial is intentional disinformation funded solely by gas/oil, in a blatant attempt to influence the electorate regarding national energy policy.

3) there is no valid scientific opposition to accepted climate change research.

4) what may sound to you as all 'sciencey-N-such', like MWP and other such nonsense, is not science at all - it's intentional disinformation.

Sorry - I keep typing "oil/gas" - I meant "oil/coal" or" coal/oil".

It's not.

You need to understand that

Opinions are not facts, you need to understand that as well.

I fail to see how that's relevant to my comment.

Further, not only do you, self-admittedly, not know basic facts of climate change, but you've substituted disinformation for fact in this issue. Your previous comments parroted conservative talking points. Your only understanding of this issue is from sources that exist solely to disinform you. And even though you are aware of this, you still can't process what that means - not just regarding this issue, but others.. Your psychology doesn't deal with cognitive dissonance constructively, and that's not surprising.

Also, I suspected yesterday that you may a bot.

Are you a bot? - because you definitely have that flavor.

If so, who programmed you and why are you running on a public board?

I love it when people tell me what I know and dont know, and what my level of education is heheh. Now I'm a bot. I must say, that is the first time I have heard that one. I will give you points for originality. BTW, you are getting better at refraining from insults.

If I were you, I would use even bigger words to convey an aura of intelligence. Libs love it, I'm not sure if it will effect those that sit on the fence about this issue though!

Do these people work for big oil?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes

Yes - many of these are/were funded by coal/oil or have other private funding from sources sympathetic to climate change denial, some are active in conservative politics or are, themselves, politicians.

Some are genuine and legitimate skeptics.

Some are people whose views or statements have been exaggerated in order to include them in the list.

Some held certain opinions at one time, but have shifted their views since then. There was more legitimate skepticism in the early-mid 90s, when much less data was available. This no longer the case.

A few are active in conservative politics .

At least one - Abdussamatov - is insane.

The number of scientists, of all fields, in the world, listed in the section "climate change is primarily caused by natural processes" is 21, the majority listed are/were funded by oil/coal or have relationships with coal/oil. Geologists, geochemists, and hydrogeologists have traditionally been funded by oil and coal. The views of some others in this list have been exaggerated in order to include them in the list.

Lol, nothing will satisfy you. But I knew that.

Satisfy insofar as what?

You asked me if these people worked for oil/coal and I answered.

A list of 21 scientists worldwide, most of whom make their livelihoods from oil and coal, some of whom shouldn't be on the list, should convince me of something?

That you know what you're talking about?

That climate change is a politically motivated hoax?

That climatologists have an agenda?

I could provide the list of 35000 that signed the petition and you would say the same thing.

Here is my prediction....We will run out of carbon based energy sources long before any damaging global warming will occur, or, humanity finds a new method of energy extraction from other sources. Lets not destroy the global economy on a theory that increased carbon emissions will cause an out of control global catastrophy. That is my opinion. Berate me if you wish, call me a complete moron. You personally will not affect my life either way, but your cause will. I am sure you feel the same way, thus the debate will go on.

What we should really be worried about is our over all population growth. We are blooming like a culture of bacteria in log phase.

"Lol, nothing will satisfy you. But I knew that."

The feeling is mutual, dear.

The "35000" are people who signed an ambiguous petition and claimed to be "scientists."

Poll actual climate scientists, and you will get about 98% agreeing with AGW.

I don't say this to convince you of anything, since that is clearly impossible. I say it only so that when you evventually realize you are wrong, you will remember how many times you were told as much and dismissed those people, and your embarrassment will be all the more satisfying for the rest of us.

And yes, I realize that is petty. That can happen after wasting time arguing with arrogant, politically-motivated deniers.

The feeling is mutual, dear

Female Jock? or you one of them there metro sexuals?

I don't say this to convince you of anything, since that is clearly impossible

That would be a mutual feeling there as well.

say it only so that when you evventually realize you are wrong, you will remember how many times you were told as much and dismissed those people, and your embarrassment will be all the more satisfying for the rest of us.

This is true, but if it were to be reversed, I'll bet we couldnt expect the same from the likes of you now could we my arrogant friend.

Let me ask you something Jock, is there warming on Mars? or are you a denier?

Yet another ridiculous conservative talking point which goes something like this:

"The South polar dry ice cap has been observed to be shrinking. Therefore, Mars is also experiencing global warming. Therefore, the global warming of both planets must be the same cause. Therefore, Earth's climate change is caused by the sun."

Nope

1) There is no global warming of Mars. There is temporal, localized warming of a specific region. The cause is not the sun.

2) There has been no net increase in solar energy since 1978.

Here is an NOAA ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) page with some basic information about climate change in plain English:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

The hot weather will all be Obama's fault too... Wait and see.

Conservatives are trying to make the rest of us burn in hell along with them.

I do recall Obama claiming there is more drilling under his administration than Bush.

so the planet is 5 BILLION years old and man has changed the climate in the last 100 years? wow.

Yeah. He's been drilling the whole country so far!!!!!!!!!!!!LOL

Wahoo's right. This whole article is just a hoax!

it's called nature. the earth changes constantly.get a clue! i hate being considered the same species as some people who can't understand the simplest things in life.

Of course they aren't wrong. Rush Limbaugh told them so.

so the planet is 5 BILLION years old and man has changed the climate in the last 100 years? wow.

Yes, indeed sir. When a few dozen nuclear weapons are unleashed, will you also say this: so the planet is 5 BILLION years old and man has destroyed the planet in under two hours? wow.

You seem to think that it should take the same amount of time to destroy, as it does to build. That is not a scientific principle. Certain species have taken millions of years to evolve, and have gone extinct rather quickly. I myself can demolish a house much faster than I can build one.

Never happened before?

"Coral reefs along Panama's Pacific coast completely collapsed for 2,500 years due to natural climate cycles,"

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/05/12580878-coral-clues-to-climate-reefs-vanished-for-2500-years?lite

hey stoopid. explain how the earth warmed from the ice age until now? must have been those humans in cars and industrial plants that existed before humans had anything but sticks and stones right? yeah, bet you really do feel stupid now. you seem to think that the earth changing while we are around means that we caused it when nature has obviously changed before, and it will continue to change the earth forever all on it's very own.

Most of the naysayers aren't bright enough to understand the dramatic changes in the last 100 years. In 1900 how many factories were spewing heated, acrid fumes? How many jet aircraft were emitting high temperature exhaust at 30,000+ feet? How much land was being covered with roofs and concrete? How many million trees were eliminated since then? There HAS been a change but those who fear anything they don't have dropped on their toes doesn't make sense to them. And then they have those who were dropped on their heads as children, like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al, that reinforce their blindness. The biggest problem with their line of non-thinking is that if they're wrong we're ALL done for. Saying 'I told you so' won't have much impact.

the temperature will continue to rise as the industrial revolution is in full swing in China and India.

Sad thing is, even if we corrected our ways, there is no guarantee we haven't set in motion something that would stop any time soon.

hs321--

And the first sentence/paragraph of the article you bring up says,

"Coral reefs along Panama's Pacific coast completely collapsed for 2,500 years due to natural climate cycles, researchers reported in a study Thursday, adding that there's a lesson in the data for man-made climate change: ease up on greenhouse gasses and reefs will restore themselves."

This was followed later by: "[Researcher] Aronson emphasized that the fact that coral reefs returned does not mean mankind can expect them to survive a climate made warmer by industrial emissions of carbon dioxide."

and: "'Everyone agrees that overfishing, particularly the depletion of predators from coral reef ecosystems, is an enormous, global problem,' [John Bruno, a marine biology professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill] added. 'But the current science indicates that this problem is largely unrelated to the climate change problem. We urgently need to tackle both problems -- simultaneously and with equal vigor and commitment. Unfortunately, solving one will not negate the other.'"

Pandas:

It's pointless to argue with people who refuse to debate. In the face of very strong science, naysayers prefer to tear down instead of listen and judge based on sound research.

Want facts: http://climate.nasa.gov/ is an excellent resource.

Think global warming is not real? Then tell me why every government on Earth is planning for it and the US is realigning major portions of its military toward Arctic defense?

People don't spend money on faith and hunches.

Road Warrior,

First of all, global temperatures have increased more than a full degree. Second of all, that is a huge difference, and it's not normal. One degree doesn't sound like a lot, but think about the amount of energy it would take to heat an object as enormous as Earth by a full degree.

It takes longer to boil a gallon of water than it takes to boil a cup of water.

Ryan,

Wow, one whole degree, huh? 85 doesn't feel much warmer than 84. Neither does 25 feel much colder than 26.

Wow, one whole degree, huh? 85 doesn't feel much warmer than 84. Neither does 25 feel much colder than 26.

/palmface. You cannot be serious...

Road Warrior-252445:

Try NASA's example on the effects of a 1 degree shift in global temperatures:

In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

Yikes. Let's try another analogy.

You're cooking a 13,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pound steak on the grill and you want to raise its internal temperature (the middle of the steak) by a full degree Fahrenheit. The amount of charcoal you need to burn = The amount of energy that is being retained by the Earth's atmosphere because of green house gas emissions.

monkey, you seem to be under the assumption that this wasn't all started as a way to make money by politicians... here's some info that you don't know or refuse to acknowledge:

http://www.varight.com/news/a-real-inconvenient-truth-100-reasons-why-global-warming-is-not-man-made/

people do spend money when they don't know anything about it and have "experts" who are making money because of it tell them it's real. we have a president who hasn't shown any intelligence saying it's real, that should tell you something.

oh and i never said the earth wasn't warming. only that nature is the obvious reason for the changes.

you were wrong too: naysayers use the obvious and scientific evidence to say you're full of crap and here's why...

We aren't harming the Earth's life so much as we are harming ourselves. We can change the climate and deforest and pollute all we want, life is extremely resilient. Life on Earth will continue...but will we? Our population is ballooning and I fear it will reach a point where we all start to kill each other over our dwindling natural resources. In this century we will determine which is a greater influence of human nature - our intelligence or our greed.

For the first time in the history of life on Earth a species has control of its own destiny. It would be a shame if we were the first species to choose its own demise.

Monkey,

So there is precedence. It was worse 20,000 years ago and North America was under water. What does NASA have to say about a 5-degree increase in average global temperatures? Did the dinosaurs drive SUVs?

Road Warrior-252445:

Detailed answer: (http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/warming_world_final.pdf)

Short (optimistic) answer: End of civilization as we know it.

The same @!$%#s claiming that global climate change is a hoax are the same @!$%#s who, when someone's hair spontaneously bursts into flames someday will argue that they should have worn a hat. Problem solved.

Monkey,

Call me when the average temperature increases 5 degrees. I doubt if you will ever call. Oil and gas will be obsolete by then and the liberals will have something else to worry about.

Ethan-817656

Outstanding comment. At the rate we are depleting the natural resources on this planet.. it makes me wonder how long it will be before humanity fights each other for what's left. Everyone knows America... If we can't buy it, we'll take it.

Road Warrior-252445

Don't worry, I am sure our great grand children will forgive us for the destroying their environment. They will look back and say "what a shame that this wasn't addressed a LONG time ago".

Until then. DRILL BABY DRILL!!!! Oil has no effect on our climate and its better to pollute and use it all up than look for alternatives. Sigh.

Road Warrior-252445:

I don't understand your "liberal" slam.

I'm staunchly pro-business, totally red state and very pro-gun, but because I actually believe 100 years of hard science, I'm "liberal"?

You need to try another tact to prove your point. What you're doing is way too weak.

Here we go again more fighting and mudslinging. Denying and debating.

My only question(s) is this: if we have or can have the technology to reduce pollution, waste, and be more sustainable with the resources we have, why not use it?

Do we have to a major issue develop first? Why do we always have to be reactive? Can't we be proactive? Fine if this is all a load of $hit and we make all these switches over to renewable power and do other things that protect the enviroment, reduce pollution, and conserve? Is it all the sudden a bad thing? Sure we don't have to wake up tommorrow and say no more coal power, won't happen, but we could wake up and say in the next 10yrs I want to reduce coal by x and increase solar by x or increase recycling by x (x being actual meaningful numbers, not just symbolic).

Those are my questions. To me its not whether we are headed for some disaster if we don't change our ways but rather, this would have other benefits for us (here in this country and the planet as a whole) and we can do it, and do so in a manner that spreads the pain of changing out, so why are we not doing it?

I think its time to stop the fighting and face the facts that warming or not, we are f*ing up are planet at a rate that it can not repair itself. Using to many resources and creating to much pollution. Screw CO2, I'm pretty sure all the other stuff that comes out those smoke stacks or your car exhaust is not good for you or some of those chemicals that we dump in the oceans or pour out in fields. We need to change our ways otherwise warming or not this planet won't be some place we would look forward to living on. And if it does still end up being a case where its all on the planet and changes happen anyway that seriously effect us, I know our alternate efforts will be more beneficial as well for helping us to adapt if the time comes.

Anyone remember the "Ozone Hole"?

We were going to be the kernals in a giant microwave Jiffy Pop bag, remember?

Give it a rest.

It is time, the first rule of liberalism is LIE TO THE MASSSES TO GET THEM TO FOLLOW YOUR AGENDA (or as E Holder put it, "brain wash" them). This is the left's way to get us to all hug trees with them.

F*(k that!

it is time, because that costs a lot of money. you're right, if we spent all the money that is freely given to these "global warming" scientists on actually doing some good, then there would be a purpose. but right now we are forking over a lot of money so they can look at two trends and try to come up with whatever reason to connect the two... unfortunately a lot of the environmentalists dont want to move forward with proven pollution control methods and stuff like that, they would rather industry and whatnot come to a halt instead... it costs money to fight these idiots and it costs money to pay these "scientists" and then whatever is left over goes towards actually doing something useful. that is why there is this debate. need to shut up the morons and freeloaders first. sad isn't it? i'm all for reducing pollution. but not at a cost that is detrimental to industry expansion and for a reason that is obviously nature.

Axel - I think that is the first rule of politicians in general. Doesn't matter who it is. That's why my first rule is don't drink the kool aide

Believe me, I don't think we need to all live in tepees or anything but I know we can be doing better than we are and should be. Like I said, why not spread the pain to make the switch out some while we have the time, not wait until the 11th hour. We have ways and technology to be better that would be a win win for all.

As to the ozone hole, it is still there but repairing itself. We acted and did so in a manner that was beneficial to all. It's no longer a major concern, and there were clear and more immediate signs of issue related to the growing ozone hole. Also, it wasn't as politically charged and hostile a subject like we see now. I'm sure there were deniers and those that said switching would ruin business ect. but we acted and it turned out fine. Though I will say you can't say that the ozone issue is a apple to apple comparison either. There were alternatives to CFC's not as cheap but not much more cost wise that made it easier. A switch from fossil fuels wouldn't be near as easy or practical for that matter. However, a reduction in their use or the amount of pollution we produce to a point that the Earth can deal with it is something we can do and like I said spreading it out will make any pain that we would see to do that, much less noticeable.

Pandas - I won't get detailed into the whos and whats (I admit I at least want to know what is going on, or have some info there) but I agree let's get something done for a change; which was my main point. To many far left, far right, just like in politics, all talk and no action except what is needed to get votes/money. And for the money its both sides, spending it to say yes or spending it to say no and not try to make a change. Again, that is besides the point, of which is still lets finally do something!

It is time, want your head to hurt?

Read this:

ht tp://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/shrinking-ozone-hole-could-speed-global-warming

Good on you for not drinking the juice.

;-)

@pandas,

Let's look at what happened in the last ice age (the Younger Dryas). It was caused by an event. An ice dam left over from a the previous ice age burst and dumped the largest freshwater lake on the planet (equivalent to two Black Seas) into the Atlantic. The freshwater diluted the ocean and caused the Gulf Stream (actually the whole Atlantic Conveyor to stop. It didn't slow down gradually --- it just stopped cold dead. Devastating winters engulfed all of Asia. In North America the climate became very cold and very, very dry. Within a couple of years all human life in North American was killed. All large mammals in North America were killed. About half of all plant species in North America that were exclusive to the continent went extinct. This was about 12,000 years ago. Golbeki Tepe was already built.

Then because the fresh water floats, it finally evaporated out of the oceans enough for the Gulf Stream to start up again. It took around 1500 years for things to get back to normal from an event that took less than 20 years to be catastrophic. There were no dinosaurs in SUVs --- it was just evaporation that did it.

Calling people names is not an argument. In fact, it only shows how lame your critiv=cal thinking skills are.

t4e1

so the planet is 5 BILLION years old and man has changed the climate in the last 100 years?

mmmm....yea

We should have all learned a lesson from Fred and Barney and powered the Industrial Revolution with dinosaurs, dodo birds, and sabertooth cats.

chris, so what you're saying is that it was because of nature and not because of humans. thanks for proving my point exactly.

Axel - yeah I saw something similar to that. It is interesting. Though I think the alternative to not trying to solve the ozone issue was still worse.

I thought about it and my conclusion was we were doing something that we shouldn't have been(though we didn't know at first CFC's were bad, but when we found out, in a somewhat timely manner, corrected our error) and can't let that factor into the equation because of that. It just so happens in solving one problem, we may have intensified another. But again the first problem wasn't natural so solving it was still good.

Thanks, never know what it has been spiked with.

Let me clarify - I said "wasn't natural" I was not trying to infer anything about the natural or manmade aspects of the second problem which is climate change and global warming.

However, since I haven't touched on it, I think its a combo of both, which is it more of, is the raging question I guess, but back to my original point of lets stop arguing and do something finally.

How the @!$%# does the earths climate shifts have anything to do with politics? Or are you all just trying to act like it has something to do with it?

The earth has always had it's changes. Change is the only constant in life. Man's activities though are also having an effect. No use arguing about it, it's a fact and it doesn't matter if it's nature's fault or man's fault or both or what percentage. It's all about the CO2. Just use your eyes and see how greenland's ice sheet is melting and huge chunks of antarctica are breaking away. Greenland is important because unlike a lot of other ice on the planet it's not floating in the water so as its ice sheet melts it raises the water level and that will have consequences. Read The Flooded Earth by Peter D. Ward. An excellent book.

clearly this is all obamas fault. if solyndra hadn't gone belly up, temperatures wouldn't be this hot.

Throughout history the world has warmed and cooled on a regular basis. But, this is the FIRST time man has been a significant contributer to it warming or cooling. The carbon dioxide level is the highest it's been since the earliest time they can find records for, in ice cores, mud cores, or through modern times. Doubters, can you please find relevant facts to support your position. Since none of you have done that, I understand, because THERE ARE NO SUCH FACTS. Stir up the mud, and all you're doing is nothing. Present clear relevant facts, and you have a chance of convincing intelligent people. However, the real proof about global warming/climate change will be seen in the future. When the oceans expand too much to argue about anymore. I've listened to your ignorant logic for many years. I've challenged people who live on tidal rivers to take a metal screw as far as they can, into the edge of that river. When it's definitely on the bottom, pick a day, and paint as much of the the planted object, on a day that you can document the actual tide, and flood records. Use paint that water can't wash away. Check it a year later, with the same conditions as when you planted it. If any part of it that was painted, paint everything that's sticking out, an different color, that's readily different from the first. Do it for ten, or twenty years, and then release the results. But, to make everybody happy, get a tree hugger to do it with you the entire time. The results will show the truth to you. The question is, will you accept it at that time. I've tried to get doubters to do this for over twenty years, and none have tried. They just keep on throwing out the same old BS.

I have noticed a trend recently. The deniers used to deny that global warming was occurring at all. Now they have shifted, and are saying there is global warming, its just caused by natural forces. Why the shift in thinking, I wonder?

The deniers used to deny that global warming was occurring at all. Now they have shifted, and are saying there is global warming, its just caused by natural forces.

Look for (in progressing order):

It isn't real.

It's not us.

Okay, it's us, but it's not going to be that bad.

Okay, it's us and it's bad, but we can't fix it without China/India/Brazil/insert country here.

Okay, it's us and it's bad, and China/India/Brazil are doing something about it, but it's too late/expensive/difficult for us to do anything about it now.

Any questions?

What I really love are the ones who can't seem to remember which one they are denying.

Don't, like many others here are doing, confuse local weather patterns with global climate.

Is this article only about the United States, isn't that local?

What has the entire earth's change been?

Entire earth has been getting hotter. Last year was 6th hottest on record.

Bart, this article is about this year. What is the stat for the earth on this year?

Oh, we're not done yet folks:) The year is just barely over half complete.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2012 was the 11^th warmest on record, at 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 20^th century average.

Source.

June numbers aren't published yet.

Barefoot,

Why do you keep asking for proof of world-wide warming? You don't accept facts when they're presented anyway; you simply go off on another tangent. A very common right-wing tactic.

Global warming is a hoax! It's made up, just like evolution, atoms, and gravity!

/sarc

Congrats HRDawg, You are officially every wealth-distributing politician's best friend. Snap out of it....

Matt,

You forgot, "Cigarettes that CAUSE Lung Cancer..."

We all remember how stupid that liberal attempt to take control our lives turned out to be.

Chitown,

Cigarettes, fatty foods, salt, sugar, buckle Fido, Patriot Act, drones, traffic cameras, socialized medicine, incandescent light bulbs, plastics. The government is just beginning to take control.

ConservativeVictory!

I'll never understand why conservatives would sooner trust a politician than a scientist. It's the politicians, after all, who have something to lose if global climate change is recognized as a fact, because their corporate backers stand to lose a lot of money if they have to start playing it the environmentally-safe way.

Ryan, it's not that they trust a politician. It's that they only trust the "R" after certain politicians. If a Republican politician came out and said "The clear sky is green and watered grass is blue" you would hear people like "Victory" claiming how backward us "pinko commie socialist fascist libruls were" for not knowing that normal sky is green.

RoadWarrior,

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, why?

Why does the "Government" want to take control??? Who in the government wants to take control???

What sense could it possibly make for politicians or bureaucrats to want "Control" over your life when most federal politicians have public careers that are limited to 2-10 years max???

Why on Earth would they want to "control" you???? To what purpose does it serve???

That is the single most ridiculous hoax the Right-Wing machine has ever played on their undereducated knuckle-dragging Conservative base.... Be afraid of the "Government" 'cause they want to Control YOU"

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the Right-Wing machine IS [already] CONTROLLING YOU???

Yo!

Conservativevictory!

Go back to your incest and leave the rest of us to the real world.

Chitown,

One word....POWER. Control leads to power. Ever heard of kings, emperors and dictators? Not so ridiculous, is it? I spent seven years in China, not Chitown NY. Anytime you concentrate the authority in the hands of a few, freedom is gone. Come to think of it, that is what Obama wants, control in the hands of a few bureaucrats. The IRS is coming after you and your house.

Road Warrior,

Do you really think Obama believes he is going to be in power in 6 years???

What "Power" do you really think he wants??? Obama is very aware that a Republican or a Democrat or even a TEA PARTY Candidate might have all that POWER in just a few years. Why on Earth would he want to give anyone that kind of power over his life as well?

The citizens that make up our Government are people just like you and me, they are not on some QUEST for POWER.

Like I said, that is a HOAX that has been perpetrated upon YOU by the Right-Wing machine. Why, you ask? Because they are in POWER; they do not need to worry about elections and losing power, as long as the company stays profitable, they keep their POWER.

The "Government" may pass environmental and worker's right/wage requirements that could possibly cut into those profits and weaken their POWER, so they pay the RIGHT WING MACHINE billions of dollars to convince people just like you that the GOVERNMENT is out to get YOU.

And apparently you have swallowed the BS hook line and sinker.

Chitown,

The left's hero FDR got four terms. He would have been in power longer if he hadn't died. He had the press behind him doing his bidding. The public wasn't even aware he was in a wheelchair all those years. It was FDR that forced the amendment to the Constitution limiting the president to two terms. Otherwise, a FDR can be king for life since he had all the people in his control by tossing them crumbs with the New Deal and prolonging the depression until he died. Obama would love nothing more than being another king. He has said on record that the Constitution is an impediment to what he wants to accomplish.

RoadWarrior,

Until President Obama starts petitioning to revoke the 22nd amendment, I stand by everything I said.

You are blindly swallowing BS from the Right Wing Machine.

You are their prey.

Road Warrior-252445

Chitown,

One word....POWER. Control leads to power. Ever heard of kings, emperors and dictators?

Yes. And for perspective, kings, emperors and dictators all fit neatly into a very tiny sliver of their population as a whole, regardless of which country they came from - I'd guess in the range of less than 1%. That same small group of kings, emperors and dictators also controlled the majority of the wealth. It seems to be the case here in America right now too.

I would challenge you, Road Warrior, to name just ONE UNION BOSS. Give me one name of one of those "union thugs" who are taking control of millions of Americans, and for every name you can provide of these powerful union bosses, I will provide the names of 10 wealthy benefactors of the Republican far right.

You are either already being controlled or you're a troll for the Tea Party. I'm putting my money on the latter.

JR-

No need for the Brothers to fund anything. All they have to do is throw another piece of raw meat under the door of that idiot they have locked up in their basement that keeps churning out the fodder for the right-wing blogs. Then the wingers who get the stuff turn it around to their entire address book, just as they're told to do, as in "pass this on to everyone in your address book before the (fill in the blank) come to rape your wife and daughter and kill us all". Never occurs to them to substantiate anything in the propaganda. Doesn't cost the Kochs a nickle!

Yours?

OK then, we're all in agreement. Finally someone is being rational on this thread.

Officials in Rick Perry's home state of Texas have set off a scientists' revolt after purging mentions of climate change and sea-level rise from what was supposed to be a landmark environmental report

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/14/rick-perry-texas-censorship-environment-report

And people wonder why there has been so little sympathy for Texas over their drought and dying forests. They censor the truth about this issue. Any Texans out there care to peek at this link and comment back?

Spacy, sorry, but that mentality is not confined to Texans:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/24/nation/la-na-sea-level-20120624

Heh, really, when you put the bar as low as Texas, you shouldn't be surprised when North Carolina pops up...

Oh, I hate to admit it but I have lived in Texas my entire life. I'm consistantly disappointed and many times humiliated by my so-called representation from this state. I thought higher education made one more logical and reasonable with the ability to think critically. So far these politicians have proven that a degree from a certain well-known agricultural and mechanical university just makes you a smarter criminal. I love the state itself for it's beauty and majesty and so many wonderful things, but the politicians are a bunch of oil whores and big business owners who couldn't care less about the middle class, much less the environment. They hire (or fly in on private planes) illegal immigrants from all over South America to work for no benefits and little pay, they cheat on their taxes and pay off the EPA. Yep, I know this firsthand so I don't need to add a link for proof of "the facts."

Money talks.

Reason walks.

Mitt happens.

Ah, sarcasm. That will positively change the course of global warming.

That's because we're screwed already. Most just don't know it yet.

Right on Starmanz...but the ultra rich will get to populate the star ship Enterprise...not the regular folk. Sick, considering they are the ones who accelerated the problem.

Douglas, I think their more likely to be on an Imperial Star Destroyer. After all they all follow in lockstep with Darth Cheney.

Scientist: Hand over all your cash so we can re-distribute it in an effort to "deflect the asteroid"

Bureaucrat: But the rich people need their money because their "job creators" and need to put more in their Camen Island and Swiss bank accounts. What would the rich do without getting all the concentration of wealth?

Really ConservativeVictory!? That's like saying, let's not store food for the winter until we "know" we won't have enough. Foolish...think ahead or perish.

Scientist: Well, we have about another 5,000 years.

Liberal Bureaucrat: We have to start taxing the rich now.

It was warmer because the climates were in a different place and there was a lot of volcanic activity. Gee... maybe Romney and Limbaugh could reverse continental drift. Then Industry could just keep on keeping on.

North Carolina needs to outlaw continental drift.

Siara, So what you're saying here is naturally Earth was warmer and Earth has cooled since then? Brilliant!

ConservativeVictory- Our species wasn't on earth when it was warm before. Minor detail. Now we're here. Wouldn't it be a good idea to aim for the climate that OUR species evolved in?

Duhhhh......

Yours is the mind clouded by politics and brainwashing, those that believe global warming are thinking clearly. You can learn to think clearly too if you educate yourself. Need I say more??

O Johny "Need I say more??"

Yes, please apologize for your last stupid coment.

ConservativeVictory!,

I'm sure your education was quite selective since the reasons for warmer climate back then where much the same as they are today. More carbon in the atmosphere.

You see, volcanoes erupted much more often back then because the earths core was much hotter. The earth formed over millions of years, with rocks colliding with the molten lava that was to become our earth and creating extremely hot energetic reactions. The surface of the earth then cooled creating the crust we know today as terra firma. But energy, in the form of heat still remained in the earths core and needed to escape. That is why volcanoes exist, even to this day. Those volcanoes spewed molten rock consisting primarily of carbon. This increased carbon in the atmosphere caused an explosion of plant life in areas that could sustain growth. Because plants breathe C02, carbon dioxide, that is one carbon molecule and two oxygen molecules. They exhaust oxygen which we breath and convert into CO2 and so the cycle continues. But the core has cooled more now than it was way back in the time of the dinosaurs and that is why we see less volcanic eruptions.

Most scientists think that the dinosaurs went extinct because of an asteroid impact that caused the sun to be blocked out for many years. This ushered in a massive cooling period and caused the earth to freeze over, we call this the ice age. Sure these where all natural occurrences, but on a very massive scale. Today we are recreating these massive changes by taking the dead plant matter that turned into oil during the great extinction of the dinosaurs and placing it back into the atmosphere. Essentially recreating the volcanic atmosphere that existed during the time of the dinosaurs.

How do we know this? Well, oil is decomposed plant matter that has been fermented over millions of years. Plants, like trees, bushes, grasses and in the oceans algae, store and convert CO2 in the atmosphere into breathable O2. They use the Carbon like all living things to create tissue. All living things exist because we are made of carbon. When they died off the carbon settled into the ground and was kept away from the atmosphere. Until today when we began extracting the oil and burning it, filling the atmosphere once again with ancient carbon emissions.

This is why scientists are in agreement that we are causing global warming. You can deny it all you want but the fact remains that Carbon in the atmosphere causes heat to remain trapped in the atmosphere. I could go on for day's regarding the reasons as to the different environmental effects such as more rain and snow but I think your great education would have taught you something about evaporation and ocean currents. So I will for now say class is dismissed. Go forth with your new knowledge about the world and spread the word.

CV, Its idiots like you who will be cursed by future generations. I do notice the anti-science thinking that is common among those who call themselves conservatives (what a misnomer that is!). People like you think that science is like your religion- you know- a cafeteria where you can pick and choose the parts you like and ignore or belittle the rest. Television- wow magically picking invisible signals out of thin air-you're OK with that I bet. But Human evolution, the Earth being billions of years old? No thanks, must be a democratic socialist commie plot. Global warming? Gee do scientists really think the Earth is warming? They must be wrong. Lets equate that with so called science that was around before there was a scientific method of evaluation. Idiots like you should go back to yelling at those kids to get off your lawn. Unfortunately it is impossible to even have a rational argument with idiots like you. You do have a lot in common with Islamic fundamentalists- that should brighten your day You are not only truly pathetic, but there are enough of you idiots to be dangerous to the rest of us. Do us all a favor and read a book on science.

It could be global warming, but we are going to need more data over much more time to come to that conclusion. The heat this year could be an anomalie. We could be in a short term dry heat pattern like the 1930's. The earth has heated up and cooled down several times throughout its history. Is there global warming? Absolutely. Is the warming caused by man? It's an unprovable point. The earth can heat up on its own, so is man the cause of 90% of the heating, or is it 30%? 10%?, or 2%?, there's really no way to prove it.

@Woody...it doesn't matter why, or how...simply that it is happening and we need to address it before we go extinct.

Woody, Do you know what the carbon cycle is? Yes, the Earth has had different temperatures in the past- look at a map of North America about 75,000,000 years ago. Then think about how we are digging up all the energy (coal, natural gas, petroleum) that has been captured by the Earth over many millions of years and that has been burned up in the past few centuries- any kind of logical thinking might lead you to some conclusions. And buy some of that future beachfront property in Nebraska while you're at it.

Last year it was Europe. Do you want to wait until we all fry at the same time?

siara -

The contiguous United States comprises about 5% of the Earth's surface, east of the Rockies, less than 3%. Until we all "fry" at the same time, including the oceans, it isn't global warming, it's variations in regional weather patterns.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2012 was the 11^th warmest on record, at 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 20^th century average.

Source.

June numbers aren't out yet.

Physicist-retired...good to see you. Say, do you still have that list of links to articles showing increased solar activity is not responsible for the increase in earth's temps? I could sure use it if you don't mind sharing it. Thanks in advance. - Geophysicist-not retired

Geophysicist-not-retired, you need to retire if you don't know that the sun has a 12 year cycle, and we have been through several and the warming trend is constant even during the lowest activity. Hope your boss sees this and realizes he is not getting his money's worth!

...and I thought it was an 11 year cycle <smacks forehead>.

Will this do, hs321?

Or did you have something else in mind? Good to 'see' you too, BTW.

SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids

Huh! I thought the Sun was having a hissy fit the last few years.

Physicist...That is a good one I can use for reference, but a few months ago there was another article on weather and global warming. You posted several links to articles, at least 6 or 7, and I think one I read was on the Nature website, links to articles showing increased solar activity is not responsible for the increase in earth's temps. Those links are the ones I could use, if you still have them.

but a few months ago there was another article on weather and global warming. You posted several links to articles, at least 6 or 7, and I think one I read was on the Nature website, links to articles showing increased solar activity is not responsible for the increase in earth's temps.

LOL, hs321 - I post 30+ comments a day on the topic! I'll look through my site and see what I can find. Do you remember the article/topic/anything?

I seeded this in February:

NASA Report: Greenhouse Gases, Not Sun, Driving Warming | Global Warming & Solar Cycles | LiveScience

But here are some other links that may help:

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? (dozens of links to studies in that article)

'No Sun link' to climate change (BBC article that discusses a study in Nature - but you can't access the actual paper)

Abstract:

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007).

Related news article:

New Scientist: Environment

Wow - there's so much out there. Anything in particular you need?

I don't recall the exact article, but those will be good enough, especially with the references.

"I post 30+ comments a day on the topic!" I may have time to the same once I'm retired!

Thanks again!

Starderup...currently I'm monitoring drilling on a deep water prospect that took 3 years of research and analysis to produce and almost another year to engineer the drilling and completion procedures. AFE'd for $60 million dollars to drill and another $30 million if it's economical and will be completed.

Based on statistics, I think it's a good bet you're not qualified to even have an opinion on whether or not my boss is getting his money's worth.

P.S. Have any idea why super-fluid helium three exist in a state of non-rotation with respect to the universe as a whole? No? Maybe your not worth what you think you are.

Obviously, everyone is living inside a very small weather box, when they need to be watching the Universal, and Out of the Box, Galaxy Dynamics of "Temperatures".

As our Sun travels through the Universe, it is said, to have a 23,000 year Cycle between Ice Ages. Our Galaxy, is somewhere in that time slot of 13,000 years, which puts us in the area of the warmest period of time, that Ice Age Revolution Cycle. Having said this; We must expect this trend, as naturally, probable, and likely, happening. There is nothing we are capable of doing anything about. Global Warming, is the Command of Mom Nature, so far as our Math Majors are able to tell..... Bless their hearts.... they try so hard to entertain us in the news media. Some are prone to Sensationalization the lightest of events.

I suggest, everyone just accept what's obvious, and deal with it. Don't let Big Government do this deed of Fear Mongering on you, to get you to give up more tax money, on something no one can effect. Put that Tax Money, in building an Underground House, where it's cooler... Duh!!!!! Some people build their homes in dry river beds, and cry to everyone, were tricked by God. The Joke's on them.

Just accept the warm weather, and find a Cave. Wake up, America. Are you that Naive!

There are two things in life, that can't be fixed....... Death and Stupidity. Nothing else matters. Deal with it.

"Only advantage of growing older is that you hear this crap every ten years with a new apocalyptic event."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Unfortunately, Political Correctness, instead of History and critical thinking, is taught in Public Schools these days.

Regardless, What's money and wealth re-distribution got to do with it? Take all money out of the cause and quite possibly it may have some credibility.

Ah yes CV, cause modern day climatologists are just rolling in dough (Scrooge McDuck style) while those poor impoverished simpletons at Exxon Mobil have no stake in maintaining the status quo...

The financial / political interest is in denying global warming, this is because of profits and investments in major energy companies and the incredible wealth associated with energy consumption. Find a list of the global warming denier funding and you can see for yourself. There is more than 1000x as much money in energy than in the funding for global warming research. Quick estimate - an exact number would be a very useful article.

wait, what? Can you please re-read that and let me know what the heck you meant? You would not be opposed to the theory of climate change if it didn't cost anything to fix? But since trying to fix it would be expensive you're opposed to it? So you're an ostrich? You don't like the costs so you'll bury your head?

ohiodude,

Financing of climate science denial front groups:

Through Koch Industries and their family foundations, the Koch brothers are premier financiers to organizations that deny, skepticize or belittle the significance of global warming. Compared to ExxonMobil, which spent $10.2 million on skeptic groups from 2005-2008, Koch Industries dwarfed their contribution with a $31.6 million effort. More than $5.6 million went to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (founded and chaired by David Koch), over $2.2 million to the Heritage Foundation and over $1.2 million the Cato Institute (co-founded by Charles Koch, chaired by David Koch). The Koch family foundations have contributed over $55 million since 1997, more than half of which was spent after 2005.
Source: Greenpeace Report

http://www.polluterwatch.com/koch-industries

There's much more in this link, but mostly concerning other forms of pollution and of political bribery.

Another interesting fact about the Koch studies is that they paid a climatologist to disprove climate change. After his exhaustive study, he found that climate change was happening and it was caused by man. Surprise, surprise. I wonder how the Koch brothers reacted to that one.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/richard-muller-koch-brothers-funded-scientist-declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870

According to the story, his fellow deniers took the very scientific approach of calling him a traitor.

"For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/richard-muller-koch-brothers-funded-scientist-declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870#ixzz20AKJlxrd

It used to be so much easier when the church would just kill the scientists that disputed them, now the religion of politics costs money to achieve the same effect. But I don't know which is worse.

Actually, they have ice cores from Antarctica that go back 40,000 years (containing bubbles of atmosphere, biological debris, etc.)

But that's a conspiracy of scientists and the liberal elite, I guess.

Yea, we certainly don't want to believe science when politics gets in the way.

Yea, I went back in time and planted the evidence. Same time trip where I put that Kenyan kid's birth announcement in the Hawaii newspaper.

Thats why he keeps money invested there. When he moves his millions from the Cayman's to Switzerland, its time to buy a boat.

Actually, it might come to that if we keep following the Kochs over the cliff.

Well the oceans are going to rise because they're warmer & expanded in volume. The minor imputs of fresh water contribute little. Those folks standing ankle deep in LA and Miami probly wont care about the details...

Sean Finn,

I agree that just warmer water will expand and cause some Sea Level Rise. But remember, it doesn't take an ice sheet to to completely melt to makes oceans rise. All it takes is for it to slide into the ocean. That would cause immediate Sea Level Rise.

Finn,

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/08/melting-ice-and-sea-level-rise/

Some claim up to 500 ft. rise if all caps and glaciers go. Ankle deep in Miami won't cut it. Some claim 80 meters.

The Sahara is a desert because of global wind regimes resulting from differential heating of the earth's surface that result in extremely low rates of precipitation, not being deforested by humans.

likewise the Australian Deserts, the Mojave and the Gobi.

Won't it be a lot more plausible that it was form due to climate change?

It's been proven that the Sahara region was once a very fertile grassland - marine sediments have been found in just about every area. For an area this size to have become a desert, required a very abrupt change in the climate.

hs321, in fact the Sahara has been expanding due to constant encroachment by humans on its edges, cutting shrubbery for firewood... leading to more desert, etc. In Roman times, it was much smaller.

Regardless of whether climate change is man-enhanced or the natural ebb and flow of the planet, isn't it time to do what we can to make life bearable for the humans who must now live with it? This can include everything from having smaller families (yes, even those than can "afford" more children) to supporting drought-resistant agricultural methods to chipping in for solar powered lanterns and cookers, so that third world people don't have to chop wood for light and cooking. And where you can, take the bus!

Do you practice the cult of the electron? Do you live true to the religion of thermodynamics? Do you believe in the germ theory of disease?

No. Because whether you believe in them or not, they exist. They are readily observed, measured, well modeled and mostly predictable. Just like climate science.

Can we measure atmospheric temperatures, can we measure ocean temperature, can we measure sea ice thickness, can we measure glacial mass, can we measure ocean acidity, can we measure carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, can we measure gas concentrations in ice cores, can we measure species ranges?
Yes.

Can we form hypothesis to explain the trends we see in all those measurements? Yes. Have we tested those? Yes. Did "It's just natural variation explain the measured effects? No. Did "It's solar cycles explain them? No. Do "It's cosmic rays explain them?" No.

Did "Humans have forced an imbalance in the carbon cycle, explain them." So far, yes, better than any other explanation. Did it make testable predictions? Yes. Were those verified? Extensively.

Go to to skepticalscience dot com to get educated.

This is some of the difference between a belief and science. You can dismiss a belief. You can't change the fact that smallpox is a microbe and it will make you sick if you are exposed to it, no matter what you believe. You can't just dismiss the physics of a CO2 or CH4 molecule in the atmosphere.

On top of all this, every scientific institute and every national science adacemy has staked their scientific reputations on the IPCC interpretation of the science and the evidence of human caused global warming. They don't get funding for doing this. If anything they get smeared, attacked and haranged for stating that the science is sound.

So then what do we do about it. We recognize that the ecnomic rules today favor burning fossil fuels and offloading their cost to taxpayers and insurance companies. 2002-2008 the Fossil Fuel industry got $72 billion in credits & subsidies, while alternative energy got $29 Billion.

All products & services should include the cost of their disposal, recycling or treatment. Otherwise the costs are hidden and externalized to society. Consumers and businesses should be free to buy what they want, with all the true costs included. The fiction that fossil fuels cost less today is only true within an accounting model that hides much of the cost. Fix that and then let entreprenuerism and capitalism do what they do best.

What caused warming & cooling of the earth over the past million years? Couldn't that same UNEXPLAINED source be the same source for the "so-called" warming now?

Warming and cooling trends over the past million years have actually been explained fairly well. There are a number of variables involved, including long-term cycles in the Earth's orbit, but also naturally varying atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Try reading the excellent new book, The Goldilocks Planet by Zalasiewicz and Williams.