Recent heat spike unlike anything in 11,000 years

[monovillage]

While that gif is basically there to demonstrate a humorus point, what about the charts here?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

From your link.

NASA Official: James E. Hansen

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013...entist-arrested-again-in-white-house-protest/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/opinion/nocera-a-scientists-misguided-crusade.html?_r=0

Last Friday, at 3:40 p.m., the State Department released its “Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement” for the highly contentious Keystone XL pipeline, which Canada hopes to build to move its tar sands oil to refineries in the United States. In effect, the statement said there were no environmental impediments that would prevent President Obama from approving the pipeline. Two hours and 20 minutes later, I received a blast e-mail containing a statement by James Hansen, the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA — i.e., NASA’s chief climate scientist. “Keystone XL, if the public were to allow our well-oiled government to shepherd it into existence, would be the first step down the wrong road, perpetuating our addiction to dirty fossil fuels, moving to ever dirtier ones,” it began. After claiming that the carbon in the tar sands “exceeds that in all oil burned in human history,” Hansen’s statement concluded: “The public must demand that the government begin serving the public’s interest, not the fossil fuel industry’s interest.”

http://www.atinstitute.org/atis-horner-a-brief-summary-of-james-e-hansen’s-nasa-ethics-file/

Blue Planet Prize ($500,000), travel for Hansen and his wife to Tokyo, Japan, 2010
Dan David Prize ($500,000), travel to Paris, 2007
Sophie Prize ($100,000), Oslo Norway, travel for Hansen and his wife, 2010....................................

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2013/02/jim-hansen-arre.html

"NASA's top climate scientist and government official James Hansen was arrested Wednesday outside the White House -- at least the fourth arrest now for the scientist.

Thanks for the links to NASA , but why would any reasonable person believe them after what their head, James E. Hansen is doing? You get a pseudo eco-warrior like Hansen to fake up some charts? Who cares? The guys a nut case and everything he runs, touches or has influence over is in doubt.

 

[Sonikku]

Liberal propaganda is Liberal. The article can be debunked right off the bat by it's claim of weather 11,000 years ago. The world is only around 2000 years old, making such claims impossible.

 

[dmcowen674]

Liberal propaganda is Liberal. The article can be debunked right off the bat by it's claim of weather 11,000 years ago. The world is only around 2000 years old, making such claims impossible.

I thought it was 6000 years and Jesus was riding Dinosaurs?

 

[Cuda1447]

So... let's just say it does get much warmer. Climate change causes temperatures to go up. Sea levels rise some. Our landscape obviously shifts. Most of the ice on earth melts. Ok, then what? Obviously there will be some short term infrastructure/living changes that would be pretty dramatic. But wouldn't it really increase vegetation possibilities in Canada, Greenland, Nortern Europe and Russia?

 

[Lonbjerg]

So... let's just say it does get much warmer. Climate change causes temperatures to go up. Sea levels rise some. Our landscape obviously shifts. Most of the ice on earth melts. Ok, then what? Obviously there will be some short term infrastructure/living changes that would be pretty dramatic. But wouldn't it really increase vegetation possibilities in Canada, Greenland, Nortern Europe and Russia?

Climate has never been static.
Once Greenland had forests.
Once Antarticia was a lush jungle.
And 2/3's of Earth's history we had a warmer global temperature than now.

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/jurassic5.html

But I guess that woul be removing for "focus" from the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very limited chats (sub 15.000 years) that always is used in Global Warming.

And let me be clear...I am not refusing the increase in temperature...I'm just not attributing humans for the riase....but the natural cycle:

 

[Lonbjerg]

BTW, link to that chart...it's from CERN ^^

http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576


About the CLOUD project:
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/cloud

 

[nehalem256]

Climate has never been static.
Once Greenland had forests.
Once Antarticia was a lush jungle.
And 2/3's of Earth's history we had a warmer global temperature than now.

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/jurassic5.html

But I guess that woul be removing for "focus" from the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very limited chats (sub 15.000 years) that always is used in Global Warming.

And let me be clear...I am not refusing the increase in temperature...I'm just not attributing humans for the riase....but the natural cycle:

Actually the 11,000 year figure is very important(and isn't odd that 11,000 was picked instead of a nice round number like 10,000). Go back even another 1,000 years and interesting things start happening

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

The Younger Dryas saw a rapid return to glacial conditions in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12.9–11.5 ka BP,[6] in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding interstadial deglaciation. It has been believed that the transitions each occurred over a period of a decade or so,[7] but the onset may have been faster.[8] Thermally fractionated nitrogen and argon isotope data from Greenland ice core GISP2 indicate that the summit of Greenland was approximately 15 °C (27 °F) colder during the Younger Dryas[7] than today. In the UK, coleopteran fossil evidence (from beetles) suggests that mean annual temperature dropped to approximately 5 °C (41 °F),[9] and periglacial conditions prevailed in lowland areas, while icefields and glaciers formed in upland areas.[10] Nothing of the size, extent, or rapidity of this period of abrupt climate change has been experienced since

The Earth's climate has changed faster even without Man-Made greenhouse gases.

 

[Lonbjerg]

The Earth's climate has changed faster even without Man-Made greenhouse gases.

I know...that is why I luagh at Al gore and his followers...they point to data...but ONLY recent data...like 0.01% of the combiend data.

I look at ALL the data...and don't ignore it....just because it dosn't "fit" in "agenda"...

And why I find it funny that people try to fight the universe...nothing we will do, will stop the rise in temperature...so instead of figthing windmills...we should prepare for the change.

Oh yeah..and 12.500 years ago, my place was COVERED in ice...that the temperature rose back then was NOT a bad thing.....even if it killed the mammoth...(like the polarbear today)...it's the way of the natural order.

 

[Paratus]

I know...that is why I luagh at Al gore and his followers...they point to data...but ONLY recent data...like 0.01% of the combiend data.

I look at ALL the data...and don't ignore it....just because it dosn't "fit" in "agenda"...

And why I find it funny that people try to fight the universe...nothing we will do, will stop the rise in temperature...so instead of figthing windmills...we should prepare for the change.

Oh yeah..and 12.500 years ago, my place was COVERED in ice...that the temperature rose back then was NOT a bad thing.....even if it killed the mammoth...(like the polarbear today)...it's the way of the natural order.

Here's the problem with your statement. Changes in physical systems have physical causes, that are quantifiable and measurable.

Simply stating the Sky Fairy did it, as you basically are, is not science. So if you would like to hypothesize where the extra 100TW is coming from be my guest.

It's not from the sun. And that increase in CO2 in the last 150 years had to come from somewhere.

PS Because Al Gore is not a legit answer either.

 

[Paratus]

From your link.


http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013...entist-arrested-again-in-white-house-protest/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/opinion/nocera-a-scientists-misguided-crusade.html?_r=0


http://www.atinstitute.org/atis-horner-a-brief-summary-of-james-e-hansen’s-nasa-ethics-file/


http://nasawatch.com/archives/2013/02/jim-hansen-arre.html


Thanks for the links to NASA , but why would any reasonable person believe them after what their head, James E. Hansen is doing? You get a pseudo eco-warrior like Hansen to fake up some charts? Who cares? The guys a nut case and everything he runs, touches or has influence over is in doubt.

Come on mono. This is simply a crap load of data showing warming which basically everyone understands is happening and no one except deniers should find controversial.

Do you disbelieve gravity because Newton practiced alchemy, (not the skyrim kind 😉 )?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Here's the problem with your statement. Changes in physical systems have physical causes, that are quantifiable and measurable.

Simply stating the Sky Fairy did it, as you basically are, is not science. So if you would like to hypothesize where the extra 100TW is coming from be my guest.

It's not from the sun. And that increase in CO2 in the last 150 years had to come from somewhere.

PS Because Al Gore is not a legit answer either.

You call CLOUD a "SKy Fairy"? LOL

Read my links, I have no interest in people ignoring research...especially not reseach done at CERN.

 

[Paratus]

You call CLOUD a "SKy Fairy"? LOL

Read my links, I have no interest in people ignoring research...especially not reseach done at CERN.

Fair enough.

I read both links and they're doing good work. I don't see them saying that all climate variability is described by GCR. Quite the contrary.

The question of whether - and to what extent - the climate is influenced by solar/cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of anthropogenic climate change

GCR is another factor like the solar cycle that influences the long term climate. No where in their presentation did they say CO2 has no part to play.

I think you're reading more into their potential findings the what they've found yet.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Fair enough.

I read both links and they're doing good work. I don't see them saying that all climate variability is described by GCR. Quite the contrary.



GCR is another factor like the solar cycle that influences the long term climate. No where in their presentation did they say CO2 has no part to play.

I think you're reading more into their potential findings the what they've found yet.

And since we don't have all the facts yet, it seems appropirate to hold back a verdict...unlike what is happening today:
People look for data confirming that humans are the reason...objectivity is dead in this regard...and resembeles religion on a scary scale.

And ALL current climate models fails at pre-historic data....hence I reject them, as their predictions fails...you know...the science way.

 

[Paratus]

And since we don't have all the facts yet, it seems appropirate to hold back a verdict...unlike what is happening today:
People look for data confirming that humans are the reason...objectivity is dead in this regard...and resembeles religion on a scary scale.

And ALL current climate models fails at pre-historic data....hence I reject them, as their predictions fails...you know...the science way.

I agree that not all the facts are in. But where we're weak on facts is mostly in how the climate will respond to rising temperatures. How long will the oceans continue to act as heat sinks, GCR, etc.

However this doesn't change CO2's role in climate variability. More CO2 is positive modifier for warming regardless of GCR or solar flux.

So while you say we shouldn't draw conclusions before the data is in wouldn't that also apply to your statement here:

And why I find it funny that people try to fight the universe...nothing we will do, will stop the rise in temperature...so instead of figthing windmills...we should prepare for the change.

I'm also not that interested in historical models except where they inform us on the phenomena that drive climate change.

I think you'd agree that we're much more able to accurately measure the variables that drive climate change now than estimating what they were in the past.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I agree that not all the facts are in. But where we're weak on facts is mostly in how the climate will respond to rising temperatures. How long will the oceans continue to act as heat sinks, GCR, etc.

However this doesn't change CO2's role in climate variability. More CO2 is positive modifier for warming regardless of GCR or solar flux.

So while you say we shouldn't draw conclusions before the data is in wouldn't that also apply to your statement here:

We are leaving an iceage...logic does apply.

 

[Paratus]

We are leaving an iceage...logic does apply.

Not quite getting your point. Maybe it's supposed to be obvious burning not following.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Not quite getting your point. Maybe it's supposed to be obvious burning not following.

What happens when you leave an iceage period?

And what is the NORMAL global tempature if we look at hte...lets say...last 500 million years?

Higher or lower than tody? ^^

 

[raildogg]

I know...that is why I luagh at Al gore and his followers...they point to data...but ONLY recent data...like 0.01% of the combiend data.

I look at ALL the data...and don't ignore it....just because it dosn't "fit" in "agenda"...

And why I find it funny that people try to fight the universe...nothing we will do, will stop the rise in temperature...so instead of figthing windmills...we should prepare for the change.

Oh yeah..and 12.500 years ago, my place was COVERED in ice...that the temperature rose back then was NOT a bad thing.....even if it killed the mammoth...(like the polarbear today)...it's the way of the natural order.

Humans don't know what "natural order" is. If they did, the world's condition would not be what it is today. Humans have no regard for anything but their own personal ambition and that is destroying everything they are touching.

The Western world is the pioneer in destroying nature and that is spreading everywhere else too. I doubt ancient China or ancient India would have disregarded their environment thousands of years ago. Today, these countries and the rest are all after Western style modernism. It is interesting to watch these countries throw away their own traditions to adopt the tradition of someone else.

 

[PowerYoga]

I doubt ancient China or ancient India would have disregarded their environment thousands of years ago. Today, these countries and the rest are all after Western style modernism. It is interesting to watch these countries throw away their own traditions to adopt the tradition of someone else.

uh, what.

Don't know about India, but ancient china had little to no regulations about what forests you can chop down or not (except for royal hunting grounds). Poor people always did whatever they could to earn money, including chopping down trees wherever to turn into lumber. Regulations were carried out marginally by district and not everyone respected it. The only reason the forests are still there is because they can't chop them down fast enough with axes.

 

[raildogg]

uh, what.

Don't know about India, but ancient china had little to no regulations about what forests you can chop down or not (except for royal hunting grounds). Poor people always did whatever they could to earn money, including chopping down trees wherever to turn into lumber. Regulations were carried out marginally by district and not everyone respected it. The only reason the forests are still there is because they can't chop them down fast enough with axes.

The point is the desire to achieve Westernization is behind India and China's supposed "success." Whatever that term implies. It means many things, such as human values and everything associated with non-material-ness, has been totally forgotten. I know in India that the education system is largely based on the UK's style though I cannot comment on China. The main point is, to put it crudely, that humans always want more and more and therefore they can never live in peace with nature. I'm using the Western culture as an example since it seems to be destroying the world at a faster pace than anyone else - it's too bad the rest of the world seems to be adapting it.

 

[nehalem256]

The point is the desire to achieve Westernization is behind India and China's supposed "success." Whatever that term implies. It means many things, such as human values and everything associated with non-material-ness, has been totally forgotten. I know in India that the education system is largely based on the UK's style though I cannot comment on China. The main point is, to put it crudely, that humans always want more and more and therefore they can never live in peace with nature. I'm using the Western culture as an example since it seems to be destroying the world at a faster pace than anyone else - it's too bad the rest of the world seems to be adapting it.

So basically you hate western civilization.

The irony of you posting that from your western civilization create computer is not lost on me.

 

[PowerYoga]

The point is the desire to achieve Westernization is behind India and China's supposed "success." Whatever that term implies. It means many things, such as human values and everything associated with non-material-ness, has been totally forgotten. I know in India that the education system is largely based on the UK's style though I cannot comment on China. The main point is, to put it crudely, that humans always want more and more and therefore they can never live in peace with nature. I'm using the Western culture as an example since it seems to be destroying the world at a faster pace than anyone else - it's too bad the rest of the world seems to be adapting it.

I'm just going to say no to the rabble of words you have typed here since it's clear you're a hipster hippie wannabe.

 

[monovillage]

Come on mono. <snipped the crap

He's a criminal, a hack, a eco-extremist shill and a fucking nut case and yet you expect us to believe in the data he and the department he runs come out with? Yeah, i'm gonna trust that guy and all the petty little assholes that work for him.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Humans don't know what "natural order" is. If they did, the world's condition would not be what it is today. Humans have no regard for anything but their own personal ambition and that is destroying everything they are touching.

The Western world is the pioneer in destroying nature and that is spreading everywhere else too. I doubt ancient China or ancient India would have disregarded their environment thousands of years ago. Today, these countries and the rest are all after Western style modernism. It is interesting to watch these countries throw away their own traditions to adopt the tradition of someone else.

Oh yes we do...you seem to think animals don't influence their habbits...that is false.

Go live in cave if you truely believe that...I dare you.

 

[raildogg]

So basically you hate western civilization.

The irony of you posting that from your western civilization create computer is not lost on me.

Well I have to function and earn an income. I did not say I hate Western civilization. All that was mentioned was that it is destroying the world faster and that other countries want to adapt to it. Enjoy your computer buddy.