Make up your minds!
Study of Greenland Ice Finds Rapid Change in Past Climate – NYTimes.com — More research that will be rejected in favor of the “man caused it” theories. The NY Times seems to have switched sides, though, so that could make a difference.
The scientists said their data showed that significantly warmer periods and significantly colder periods had occurred during the last interval between glacial epochs, about 115,000 to 135,000 years ago. They said they could not tell whether that meant similar changes were in store. Their findings were reported today in two papers in the journal Nature.
Previous studies had shown that there were abrupt changes in climate during glacial epochs, but the new results show that the same was true in the periods when glaciers had retreated. In one “catastrophic event” during the last interglacial period, the average temperature plunged 25 degrees Fahrenheit to ice-age levels for about 70 years, the scientists reported.
The authors said they did not have an explanation for the rapid shifts. They also said it was a mystery why the climate of the last 8,000 to 10,000 years had been “strangely stable.”
related link: Global Cooling predicted in the 1970’s
Dvorak’s observation that, if this was a real climate disaster, it wouldn’t be about “Cap and Trade” – it would only be “Cap”.
The fact that the politicians are not discussing “Cap only” indicates this situation is only about grabbing money and power from the peasents.
Oh no not another climate change post! Hey, it doesn’t matter if man caused it or not, is there anything we can do?
Obviously, only a prolonged period of strangely stable conditions could have left life on this planet evolve to where we are.
If we are on the verge of severe sudden climate change should we just keep on about our business until human society falls apart or do we prepare.
Regardless of the veracity of the human caused climate change model, doesn’t it make sense to push ahead with the research and implementation of cleaner energies and sustainable growth? Considering the considerable growth in energy demand and rapidly dwindling hydrocarbon reserves, I’d say so.
I don’t like the idea of the human race standing around like so many pasting cows, while the shitstorm of the millennium wipes us out. If a pattern of growing climate instability and or mean temperature change should present itself I would hope our leaders would have contingency plan.
Sooner or later the party’s gonna be over, so do we slam shots till it’s last call, or do we have a cup of coffee and try to sober up for that long drive to the next party?
Interesting to see that once someone airs a different opinion than the politically correct climate mantra, ‘Obamaforever’ goes berserk, characterizations like “anti-Climate Change Retards”, ‘fools” fly.
He also accuse someone for double postings. But when I read the posts here I wonder if the Obamaforever character also pops up under different names? The rhetoric and linguistics are too similar to be by chance. Why not do a check on IP addresses?
This barrage seems a little to well orchestrated. Just as well orchestrated as the rest of the news media on the issue.
What is Obamaforever afraid of? That the truth may differ from his perception of reality?
amodedoma, I hope you are very well off. If you live in a wealthy nation you just may lose your job, have to pay quadruple or more for your utilities (I hope you don’t live in a cold climate) You won’t be able to drive your car… you’ll have to buy a new one, but with no job that might be a problem… get the picture?
And for what? Allow temperature to climb, and reductions in energy use will occur naturally. The NW passage opening up will save 7000 kms each way for ships traveling between europe and asia. Have you ever seen how much carbon they spew out? The same dickheads that are going to ruin you are also against nuclear driven ships that pollute NOTHING. That is one example of thousands, where energy will be reduced because of global warming of a few degrees. For every piece of land that becomes less productive, another will become more productive.
If you want to worry, know this: the Moon’s orbit in slowing down the rotation rate of the Earth, at the rate of about 1 second every 2-3 years (correct me if I’m wrong, this isn’t my field).
Eventually, Earth days will last as long as the Moon’s orbit.
So, Obamaforever gets a few kicks in the head… not to worry, they couldn’t possibly do any more damage.
From: Obamaforever
To: Reader1 per #30
To: JimR per#29
Reader1, you add nothing to the discussion.
Please go away.
JimR, I never said you thought Alley was not a pro-Climate Change scientist. I said Hyph3n was correct (based on his references) that Alley was pro-Climate Change.
JimR, you confuse me!!!!!!!
Let us clear the air. Tell me where I am wrong:
1. You are a Climate Change skeptic.
2. You cite Richard B. Alley
3. You cite Alley’s work
4. Alley is a pro-Climate Change scientist
There is a disconnect. If you are a skeptic why cite Alley’s work. Alley’s data did not change Alley’s mind on Climate Change. So citing his work is very strange.
Maybe you can change Alley’s mind. Good luck on that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ignore my last post, I was confused!
From: Obamaforever
To: TTHor per #34
What TTHor is thinking right now: paranoid? Who’s paranoid? i TeLL yOu I ma noT paRAnoidddddddddddddd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think someone is under my bed. It is the MEDIA. That’s it. That’s it.
Obamaforever: re your assertions in post #38
1. You are a Climate Change skeptic.
— WRONG. I stated what I was skeptical about in post 29.
2. You cite Richard B. Alley
— So? He proved that there are natural rapid climate changes throughout earths history. it supports my position. Read post 29 for that.
3. You cite Alley’s work
— And you like to repeat yourself.
4. Alley is a pro-Climate Change scientist
— Is he really now? I think he might not like that description. The science he is behind is pro anthropomorphic forcing. Again, read post 29 for my take on that.
Like I said, all you can see is black and white with nothing in between. It could be a disease. You should get that examined.
25 Obamaforever, 27.Hyph3n
I don’t know if repetition is going to help if you don’t read but…
“A December 2009 analysis of a 2004 report from data ending 2000:”
“The data is from: Richard B. Alley”
I put quotes around the paragraphs taken from the link so as to properly not infer I wrote it, and it was the right move because now you have made it clear you have no intention to look at the link.
Science is science. So much the better if the data is from one of your champions. Now look at the graphs… on the link… as in read what’s on the linked page… and tell me how you come to any other conclusion. This should be good.
But allow me to spoon feed starting with: Big natural fluctuations of temperatures. Greenland warm during time of the Vikings.
RBG
From: Obamaforever
To: JimR per #41
Hmmmm, I am not confused anymore, but you are.
I suggest you contact Dr. Alley so he can unconfused you.
Your postings make little sense. You post on matters that you do not understand.
From: Obamaforever
To: RBG
I suggest that you and Dr. Alley get together and talk about his data. He will tell you about the data and he will tell you why he is still a pro-Climate Change scientist. Maybe you can change his mind. You seem to think that you have a better understanding of his data then Dr. Alley.
Oh, yes! I am sure you can tell Dr.Alley a thing or two!!!!!!!!!!
Volcanoes, for example, certainly cause rapid climate change because they spew lots of crap into the atmosphere.
It’s just bizarre to me that people like John can’t also believe that humanity spewing massive amounts of crap into the atmosphere can’t also cause climate change.
But here is the huge difference — volcanoes are infrequent but modern human emission is relentless.
From: Obamaforever
To: GregAllen per #45
Good post.
Here is some more information on volcanoes:
INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:
Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 exceeds the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times.
The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.
This is for #12 Inuit power
Guess the Inuit will be freezing their butts of tonight….Cancel those refrigerators.
Ice Crystals
-31 °C
Observed at:
Resolute Airport
Date:
9:00 PM CST Saturday 12 December 2009
*
Condition:
Ice Crystals
Pressure:
102.3 kPa
Tendency:
falling
Visibility:
0.4 km
*
Temperature:
-30.6°C
Dewpoint:
-34.9°C
Humidity:
66 %
Wind:
N 55 gust 71 km/h
Wind Chill:
-51
*
Re Obamaforever… you are way out of your league here. How old are you? 10?
If you can’t understand the simple notion that that naturally occurring climate changes have been far more powerful in the past… as scientifically proven, but barely acknowledged by ‘anthropomorphic forcing of climate change’ pundits… and if you can’t see the hypocrisy starting with Michael Mann’s discredited “hockey stick” graph that purposely omits the medieval warming period so that the hockey stick will appear…. and continuing through to scientists executing data deception through email correspondence, then I suggest you STFU and let someone else provide the opposing argument. You are looking pretty damn ignorant right about now.
I’m out of here for now, but anyone who cares to be enlightened (your lips aren’t crazy-glued to the ass of the IPCC) I’ll leave you with this enlightening info.
For the last time.. It’s all the internet’s fault. Shut it down!
I forwarded this article to John. It was contained in the NYTimes timeline of climate “voodoo”, er change.
I think it is still VERY pertinent.
“The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it’s working”
Wait, wait, John…! I thought there was no climate change happening *at all*?
Oh, that’s right — that was *last* year’s libertarian certainty…
But I’m sure you’ve got it absolutely right *this* time…
Wow Aunor. You get hated everywhere you go. It’s truly amazing.
Mr Dvorak you are climate change DENIER! Hang your head in shame, don’t you realise ‘The science is in’ and that ‘Everyone agrees’. Look, lets be clear climate change is man made, Al Gore would not lie!
Obamaforever: You belittle people by calling them names, hardly ever back your arguments by facts, and make false claims consistently. The only thing you ever do is to make an appeal to authority, which with proof has shown that the authority that you appeal to have consistently screwed up and is untrustworthy. Not by mere human error/fault, but by specific planned manipulation of data.. “the science is true”, balls.
Follow the money trail
Quick question:
In the history of science, how many times have non-scientists correctly challenged the prevailing scientific consensus?
Another way to ask it: Of all the instances in which non-scientists have challenged scientific consensus on an issue — and there are thousands of such cases, obviously — has the objection ever proven to be correct?
Rhetorical questions, obviously. Even Dvorak and his minions know what the number is — zero — yet with a straight face they insist that *this* time the non-experts have accomplished something absolutely unique in history! As ever…
Hannibal was able to get his elephants across the alps because the climate at the time was at least as mild or milder than now. At the time the Romans barely acknowledged the need to heat homes by setting up little charcoal braziers on the coldest days.
The making of wine in Briton has been recorded several times when the climate warmed only to vanish as the climate cooled.
During the little ice age Iceland was completely surrounded by sea ice for at least one extremely harsh winter and this is one time frame that the Global Warming crowd seem to have been messing with data because what happened didn’t fit their model nor did the Medieval Optimum which was a warm period. They also don’t like recent temps as recorded outside our urban zones which act as heat islands and such.
The trillion dollar question is how much of the warming that occurred is due to human produced CO2 and how much would have happened anyway.
I think one study had CO2 levels matching up with estimated temperature changes during Roman times which was nice until somebody pointed out that the CO2 levels went up after it was warmer and down after it was cooler rather than the other way around.
It was suggested CO2 levels may have been following ups and downs in human population numbers. When it was warm you had more people burning fuel and clearing land and when it was cool you had a human die off and more forest cover.
I don’t know.
I do know that the “experts” admit that nothing the US can do will reduce CO2 levels as long as the rest of the world burns fuel.
You don’t want factories? They do along with the jobs and higher standards of living that comes with those jobs.
If Cap and Trade is meant to reduce local air pollution and make one segment of the population rich at the expense of others it will do that.
If Cap and Trade was meant to save the world from CO2 it is expected to have no meaningful impact.
#50 – Two in the head –
Thanks for the link. Hopefully John and others will actually bother to read through it… although I doubt it.
People that latch on to a couple of misinterpreted phrases in a couple of emails as evidence of a grand global conspiracy will not easily accept historical or scientific evidence that proves their beliefs wrong or historically baseless.
MIT debate, worth a watch: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
#6
Successful troll is successful.
Cursor_