Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: It Is Interesting

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 27, 2012, 7:28 p.m. EST by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

At least, I certainly find it so. There is a certain dread fascination, in watching the Arctic Ice Cap thin. I am reasonably sure that by the end of this decade, between 2018 and 2021 - the arctic ice will be no more than a memory. The polar bear will, in all probability, not be far behind - unless chance and evolution permit their adaptation to the new environment that is most definitely just around the corner.

In his article, Global Warming's Terrifying New Math ; Bill McKibben closed by noting that humanity is now leaving the Holocene Epoch, a period between ice ages that has been generally warm and relatively stable, meteorologically speaking.

We are on the cusp of geologic history.

There is no doubt, we are also facing the worst man made crisis that either man, or this planet, has ever seen. Given the events of the 20th century, that may seem to some, as not only remarkable and provocative, but far fetched.

Yet I say, consider carefully. In 2007 the estimate of ice loss was revised, to reflect the changes that by that point were already outpacing best estimates. The loss of Arctic ice was projected to be 40% by 2050. Yet only five years later, Arctic ice loss had exceeded the previous record and out paced every single climate model in use.

My own best guess is that most of these previous projections did not, perhaps could not, incorporate data indicating that carbon dioxide has not been as high as it is today, in fifteen million years.

Fifteen Million Years.

What was the planet like, fifteen million years ago?

"global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,"

For a little perspective - California projects a sea level rise by 2100 of about five feet. North Carolina projects a sea level rise of about one meter - yet opposition to the projection itself has been such that it has been revised backward to 15 inches - and this despite all the scientific evidence indicating the rate of Global Warming is outpacing all best estimates.

The rapid loss of ice in the Arctic, outpacing current best estimates, creates a cascade of revisions throughout the field of both science and urban planning. None of them seem prepared to consider the possibility of global seas 70 or 100 feet higher than they are today. Though land based ice - like Greenland or Antarctica - may have certain advantages and so last longer than the Arctic Ice Cap, never the less, it seems we have already produced enough carbon dioxide to ensure that this land based ice does melt, and there is absolutely no certainty that it will melt with anything like a uniform progressive nature. Some of it, perhaps much of it, will most likely melt all at once. Suddenly and without warning.

When might this take place? No one yet has a guess based on scientific data - but I would bet by 2050, if not much sooner, we will see coastal communities worldwide abandoned like the fabled Atlantis.

As George Monbiot says, There are no comparisons to be made.

And so here we are, indeed, at the end of the Holocene. It is ending. It is ending because we made it end. We produced the carbon dioxide that elevated the planet's temperature, it will most certainly continue to elevate, and it is as if this were our deliberate intent - to journey back fifteen million years in time.

Pull up a chair I say. Sit back and relax. The fireworks should be spectacular.

174 Comments

174 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

I have been meaning to comment on your thread but it is so depressing.
I don't think that we are on the cusp. We are already in deep. Ah, damn, great post.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Hey GF.

I suppose it really is kinda depressing. Maybe that's why I focus on the coming demise of the repeliccan party. It seems to be one way of keeping things . . . positive . . .

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

They aren't demising (yelp, made it up) fast enough.

The bitches lied until they couldn't.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

Nice! :D

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Hard to imagine, isn't it?

  • I wanna be ah free market capitalist!

Just wait till it hits them - that I plan to turn the demise of the repeliccan party into a capitalist venture . . . a for profit enterprise!

haha!

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

interesting

thanks for the links

what do you want . . .

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I wanted to bring the word "anthropocene" to your attention. That is all.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

It is highly relevant documentation that the end of the Holocene isn't some crackpot idea espoused by McKibbens and no one else. It serves to place the entire debate over global warming into some geologic perspective, which highlights both the unique nature of this current event, and the dire warning that goes with it.

Given that, perhaps my previous crack was unfair.

Global Warming is the single most pressing issue facing humanity today.

Curbing the influence of Wall Street on Congress, and the influence of money in general on our political system, unregulated campaign donations, lobbyists - addressing these issues are the only way to create the political climate where practical measures can even be discussed - let alone implemented, to address Global Warming.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Higher than normal temperatures in one country, a melting ice cap here and a glacier there do not represent the total effect of global warming. Sea level rise is the better gauge to use. It has risen steadily over the last century, but only one foot. Sea level rise over the last 25,000 years? 400 feet. The planet has been warming for thousands of years without our assistance.

Global warming yes. At rates high enough to extinguish life? No.

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

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Isn't this the perfect slight of hand? Keep our eyes fixed on future calamities rather than the present calamity of increasing political and economic corruption?

Nope, not at all.

What this means is that the solutions to Global Warming begin by curbing the influence of Wall Street on Congress.

are both issues that will curb the influence of Wall Street on Congress.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Zen, we could go back and forth on this for weeks and it won't change either of our opinions. If there aren't significant changes in global sea level in the next ten years, the theory of global warming will have been proven false.

I already contribute little Co2 as it is, so I won't be lowering my consumption of resources anyway. But if you are correct, do you think there is a chance that the people of the world would reduce their consumption enough to make any difference? A world economy based on ever increasing growth?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

there may or may not be significant changes in the rate of sea level rise in the next ten years - either way, my opinion is that the Arctic Ice Cap will be gone in 5-10 years.

Whether it is or isn't won't do anything to disprove global warming. The only way to disprove global warming is for global average temps to stop rising.

As far as the economy goes - Inside Job makes the case that we must change economic theory - as it is taught as well as practiced and implemented.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

You can't have global temperature rise with out a corresponding rise in sea level. When the ice melts on land and flows into the sea, the sea level must rise.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

no shit - you just figure that out?

Here -

.

there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting.

Global sea level rose by about 120 m during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilised between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century. The instrumental record of modern sea level change shows evidence for onset of sea level rise during the 19th century. Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 mm yr−1.

Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm yr−1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades.

.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Based on what? The video doesn't make a single link between GW and human causation.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

based on what I've read it appears that we could stop putting co2 into the atmosphere tomorrow - and we'll still loose the ice caps

.

  • 2 degrees Celcius

Some context: So far, we've raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.) Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target. "Any number much above one degree involves a gamble," writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, "and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up."

  • 565 gigatons

Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. ("Reasonable," in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.)

This idea of a global "carbon budget" emerged about a decade ago, as scientists began to calculate how much oil, coal and gas could still safely be burned. Since we've increased the Earth's temperature by 0.8 degrees so far, we're currently less than halfway to the target. But, in fact, computer models calculate that even if we stopped increasing CO2 now, the temperature would likely still rise another 0.8 degrees, as previously released carbon continues to overheat the atmosphere. That means we're already three-quarters of the way to the two-degree target.

  • 2795 Gigatons

This number is the scariest of all – one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.

.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719#ixzz24PgfJZZV

.

and we haven't even started to do anything to curb our consumption of fossil fuels.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

We'll lose ice caps just like they have been lost before throughout the cycles of earth's history. And then it will cool and they'll come back, just like they have in cycles throughout earth's history. Nothing that is happening right now on this planet is "new" to earth-we're just freaking out because it's NEW to us.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

well yeah - that's the whole point.

It's not only new to us, we are the main cause

not to mention

Climate Change, Mass Migration and the Military Response

by Paul J. Smith

Paul Smith is an associate professor of national security affairs at the United States Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. His latest book is The Terrorism Ahead: Confronting Transnational Violence in the Twenty-First Century (M.E. Sharpe, 2007).

Abstract: The displacement of thousands of U.S. Gulf Coast residents in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is emblematic of a human migration chal- lenge that will likely become more severe in the years and decades ahead. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that climate change will manifest in dramatic ways-extreme weather events, droughts, heat waves, increased cyclone (hurricane, typhoon) activity, sea level rise, etc.-and some of these effects may induce large scale human migration, both within and among countries. The increasing trend of environmental migrants is clashing with widespread anti-immigrant sentiment in both developed and developing countries around the world. Some countries are describing migration-and particularly unauthorized international migration-as a ‘‘security threat’’ and are turning to military forces to deter or manage the human flows, a trend that is likely to grow.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Yes of course. Because the earth just suddenly up and stopped doing what it has done for hundreds of millions of years. Dead stopped. Until WE restarted it. And you can prove that.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you again?

wtf?

so - let me ask you a question - if everyone in the world, and I do mean, everyone, stopped by your house just to shit on the lawn, would it stink?

Or not?

I say it would, and the reason I say it would is simply because aesthetically, I find shit to be rather stinky.

Aesthetically, you don't care for the science of Global Warming. That's alright. You don't have to. You have every right to your opinion. Each of us has an opinion.

Just like an asshole.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I care for science and truth. And the crap that gets published by the fanatic Global Warming accusers does BOTH a huge disservice.

Your postings, just like the rantings of nutjobs like McKibben, are hurting the cause because people WILL actually check what you say and all it takes is once or twice of finding you to be wrong and they stop believing EVERYTHING you say.

Be consistent. Be factual. And for crying out loud-be a grown up.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

McKibben - a nutjob

o.KAy . . . .

I guess it's really threatening to hear McKibbon claim

That . . . we're already three-quarters of the way [to the] two-degree target.

over the average 1950 baseline temp, and that:

the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. . . . [is] Five times higher.

Calling McKibbon a fanatic tells a lot more about your own perspective than it does about him, or his interpretation of the facts. I haven't seen anything indicating he is wrong - in fact, it seems that every couple of years there is some new revelation indicating that the IPCC report is woefully optimistic.

Further - SourceWatch indicates that Goldman Sux has tremendous investment in coal - which provides significant support to his contention that between the fossil fuel industry, and the banking sector, we are already committed to burning 5 times more fossil fuel than reasonable if we intend to stay below a 2 degree C increase in temp over the 1950 baseline.

You are clearly a denier - in the process of denying you are a denier.

I don't like liars.

go away.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

The 1950 baseline temperature-

Why 1950? What makes the temps in 1950 the "baseline"? Of what? Over what time frame?

Unless you'd like to propose an argument where the Earth's hundreds of millions of years old cycle SUDDENLY stopped and had gone into full neutral prior to the industrial era AND offered up proof to back up that theory-here are the FACTS:

Based on earth's known patterns, earth today was in a cooling trend before we got here, and is STILL in a cool trend that fluctuated up a degree and down a degree before we got here, and that trend has always eventually become a WARMING trend.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But we all agree that we ought to cut back on pollution. So what's wrong with implementing national policies to do just that.?

People should cut back on pollution so certainly we shouldforce our govt to do the same.

No subsidies for pollution corps, and incentives to freen companies.

Whats wrong with that?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Aren't we doing that?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well bully for you. As I said though whether you are a denier or an acceptor it is time to get serious & ramp up our pollution cut back.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Not like we need to. We must ramp up our pollution cut backs by 100 fold.

Time to get serious and stop argueing about the science. Even if you are a climate change denier, you must agree that we MUST cut back on pollution.

We must!!

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I'm not a climate change denier. I'm a climate change acceptor.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

more denial - this time attempting to obscure the relationship between co2 and rising temps we see today - and the fact that we are indeed responsible for this latest warming trend.

And we are not in a cool trend any more. That is quite evident

from your own damn link

I guess you can't make sense of that either - so lemme see if I can be of some small assistance.

For clarity, you posted a link to a graph, further down on this page, here

In that comment, you posted this link:

In this link is a graph, one going back 542 Million years in geologic time. On it are placed the temps given the best evidence from the geologic record.

Note Carefully:

  1. this is the full resolution of that graph

  2. it uses a baseline temp, marked as 0C on the far left

  3. The graph is not exactly linear in terms of time - on the right side of the graph time is represented in much more detail than it is on the left

  4. The Holocene era is represented on the far right, and the first ~ 8 thousand years of that era are marked as Climactic Optimum?

  5. Note the very end of the Holocene - which we are now leaving - See where current temps are on the far right margin, then scroll left and compare with the high range of temps during the Pleistocene, and then with the Pliocene.

We are entering entirely new territory for the Human Species - civilization has never seen these kinds of temps - and we certainly cannot willynilly relocate the bread basket of the nation on some whim

But relocate it certainly will.

And all of your obstinate whining is really quite irritating.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I'm so glad you understand the graph-

And we agree-the Human Species-civilization has never seen these kinds of temps before. But the PLANET HAS. The PLANET has seen temperatures a hell of a low higher and a hell of a lot lower than the human race has and all of those crazy, abrupt, violent changes resulted in what you believe was a "pristine-perfect-NORMAL climate" before we showed up to ruin it all.

But let's look at what the PLANET demonstrates as it's NORMAL. It's NORMAL or MEDIAN or AVERAGE is NOTHING NEAR where we want to place OUR concept of normal. If we do that, Zen Dog, based on the chart-tell me what the EARTH's NORMAL median temperature is relative to the current temperature?????

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

basically your argument is that the human species is but one small blip on the overall scale of geologic time, and the planet has in the past done just fine without us, it therefore will do just fine without us in the future.

While that may be true, it remains an argument I cannot accept, in that to do so is to simply throw one's hands up in the air and accept the demise of the species.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

No. Stop trying to speak for me.

I'm saying that we don't know as much about this planet and it's climate as we can or should, and that it might very well NOT do what machines filled with incorrect data SAY it will do at all. Either way-the idea that we can control this planet (not saying we can't or shouldn't control ourselves) is egotistical and insane.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I really don't care - it won't change the fact that the industrial revolution occurred during the Holocene, and in essence, helped bring the Holocene to an end.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Did you think the Holocene period was just going to keep on plugging away on some gentle, non changing way? That it never would have ended if it weren't for those meddling kids???

At least you finally admitted that you really don't care about the facts.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Considering all of the carbon put into the atmosphere over the last century, I was surprised to find that global sea level rise did not also rise at a corresponding exponential rate.

According to scientists, sea level rise over the last 25,000 years averaged 1.6 feet per century. It now averages 1 foot per century, well within normal rate of change. Moderate global warming has been occurring for thousands of years without human assistance.

Excessive rise in global temperature must be accompanied by excessive rise in sea level. You can't have one without the other.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

This graph illustrates temps from past 150,000 years with co2 correlation

This graph illustrates temps from past 400,000 years with co2 correlation

Graph of record high v. record low temps

My point is that in looking at the individual graphs each one shows something rather dramatic - the co2/temp graphs each illustrate that increasing temps follow behind increased co2. The also show that co2 is already way higher than it has been in 400,000 years. Temps have not yet breached the previous 400,000 year record high, but we will. Soon. Dramatically.

The third graph illustrates that drama by examining the correlation between what is expected on an annual basis in terms of record highs and record lows - about an even split annually. 1950 closely resembles that expectation. 2009 represents a significant departure from that expectation, while 2010, 2011, and 2012 each eclipse the previous year in its departure from the expectation. More record high temps than record low temps.

The last link provides a confirmation window - expect the Greenland ice sheet to completely thaw next year. When it did so this year it fell within the once in 150 year cycle - if it happens again next year this represents a departure from the norm.

Also watch for more glacial retreat.

Sea temps and air temps - both separate issues - will I expect work to reduce the Greenland ice sheet.

See ya next summer.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The greenismything website should be called BSismything.

"On July 8, NASA satellites recorded that 40% of Greenland’s ice sheet had melted. On July 12, that number had jumped to 97%."

http://greenismything.com/tag/climate-change/

Here is the true Nasa wording from their website.

"Measurements from three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet had undergone thawing at or near the surface. In just a few days, the melting had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

We must never accept supposedly true information without fact checking, especially when it conforms to our own internal bias. That bias is what allows the crap to bypass our critical thinking filters and pollute our minds.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Yup, poor choice of word there when it said melted. Yet you have not refuted the facts presented in that article. Whether you go with the NASA phraseology or greenismything, it still remains a one in 150 year event.

And it is also true that sea temp has an impact on ice calving, not on overall thaw. Air temp is the significant component with the overall thaw.

Whether the ice sheet thaws again next year or not, the ice itself will continue its retreat. Something like 90% of glaciers worldwide have been in retreat for something like 30 years - or more.

When you examine today's global average temp, and today's co2 ppm concentration in the atmosphere, in context of the data over the last 150,000 or 400,000 years, it seems quite clear -

We are likely to see the Greenland ice sheet thaw again next year.

It's likely to be gone completely in the next one to three decades - that's my guess.

Look at the co2 level, then look at the temp. Examine it over the course of the last 150,000 or 400,000 years.

What other conclusion can you arrive at? None.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

When I look at the relatively constant rise in sea level I come to one conclusion. A very gradually warming planet. Not a quickly warming one.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

When were the last nine hottest years on record?

Where it the greatest amount of temperature change occurring?

What does the science say about potential warming in northern latitudes?

.

Did you get that?

.

.

And that projected time scale, going out to 2100 - is probably a woefully understated projection - return again to Gibbons article in the Rolling Stone:

which clearly makes the case that all of the scientific projections are based on completely unwarranted optimism.

Where is the ice located that will have the greatest impact on sealevel?

Antarctica and Greenland.

WTFU

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

According to NASA, the earth warmed by less than one degree in the last century. Consistent with gradual global warming.

Svalbard is not the planet. Because one area on the earth is warming faster does not mean the entire earth is.

The earth has survived great extemes in climate change in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Sure the earth has survived. That isn't the issue.

The survival of civilization is the issue. You may live to see the mass migration of humanity - if you have kids then certainly they will. It will not be pretty.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I'm more concerned with global warring than global warming.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Climate Change, Mass Migration and the Military Response

by Paul J. Smith

Paul Smith is an associate professor of national security affairs at the United States Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. His latest book is The Terrorism Ahead: Confronting Transnational Violence in the Twenty-First Century (M.E. Sharpe, 2007).

Abstract: The displacement of thousands of U.S. Gulf Coast residents in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is emblematic of a human migration chal- lenge that will likely become more severe in the years and decades ahead. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that climate change will manifest in dramatic ways-extreme weather events, droughts, heat waves, increased cyclone (hurricane, typhoon) activity, sea level rise, etc.-and some of these effects may induce large scale human migration, both within and among countries. The increasing trend of environmental migrants is clashing with widespread anti-immigrant sentiment in both developed and developing countries around the world. Some countries are describing migration-and particularly unauthorized international migration-as a ‘‘security threat’’ and are turning to military forces to deter or manage the human flows, a trend that is likely to grow.

.

this does not take into account massive water or food shortages and the ensuing chaos that will result.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Isn't this the perfect slight of hand? Keep our eyes fixed on future calamities rather than the present calamity of increasing political and economic corruption?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Now put YOUR graphs inside the context of THIS one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

According to the overall Earth temp record, we live in one of the COLDEST periods of time this planet has ever experienced. In between glacial periods the Earth ALWAYS warms up.

Something I find significant is that the temperatures have NOT risen as much as they SHOULD, according to the computer models, if CO2 increases are what drives temperature changes. My 1st question is:

Does MAN MADE CO2-the kind they can measure because of it's different isotopes-cause the same amount of "warming/reflection/absorption" as "natural" CO2 isotopes do? Because if it does NOT-that affects the whole global warming argument in a HUGE manner.

My second question then is:

Would they tell us the truth about that difference or not?

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

According to overall Earth temp record.... Yes Betsy, during the Hadean it was so hot that rock was molten. Some of that heat energy remains, but that has little to do with now. From the article below...." Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses.".... There is no reason to believe there would be a difference in heat absorption......... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Yes, but C14 isotopes are radioactive- In order to reach stability, these must give off, or emit, the excess energy or mass.

And the mass of something definitely affects its rate of heat absorption.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

wtf?

yesbut, yesbut, yesbut

look at your own graph - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png/800px-All_palaeotemps.png

Current temps are running into territory they haven't seen in 20 million years

All the graphs I posted clearly indicate that temps follow behind the rise or decline in co2, and currently co2 is off the charts. Temps will soon follow.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

First, many scientific studies have been done that show C02 increases in the past have LAGGED behind temperature increases, so I find it odd that you posted a graph that shows otherwise.

Second the chart you used shows no sources either, so it's contents are suspect to me.

Third, the graph I posted shows the temperatures being this high OFTEN between now and 20 millions years ago. Each time the temperature line is ABOVE the 0 degree line and falls close to the 1 degree line, it's "close to our current temperatures".

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Yes it has - for an 800 year period in a 5000 year cycle - referred to as the glacial termination, or terminus.

These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Don't worry - the graphs are good.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I'm sorry, but I can't just take the word of a crusty old man who likes to call people assholes when they point out errors in his arguments and makes broad sweeping generalizations as "the truth" simply because he says his graphs are good.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

error? What error? You haven't pointed out a single error yet - all you have done is cast doubt with half baked assertions and poorly worded responses designed to cast fog -

you haven't posted anything of substance, let alone fact. You are a right wing shill attempting to secure the interests of the banking and fossil fuel industry.

And doing a poor job I might add.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

What do you call the links I've posted to scientific reports-facts? YOU post links to articles written by alarmists who skew facts that are filled with "half baked assertions"! You just posted a half baked assertion that I am a right wing shill attempting to secure the interests of the banking and fossil fuel industry! That isn't a fact at all.

Where did your graphs come from?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

That would seem technically true (mass affecting heat absorption) but we are dealing with a very small fraction of a very small fraction. {! trillionth} in the case of C14.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Yes and you are saying that a "very small fraction of a very small fraction" is driving the majority of our climate. I think it's important to examine those fractions don't you?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

I don't know If I did a good job of making my point. The C12/C14 ratio is used to determine the age of origin of the carbon. The so called "fossil" carbon has a very slightly higher % of C14. It is still mostly C12. Also, the difference in mass is only a 12-13 ratio, (approx}.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Actually, there is no C14 left in the carbon that comes from the burning of fossil fuels. It decayed long before we found it and used it as fuel.

Which is why the argument that we can measure the isotopes in the atmosphere right now, and determine that the increasing levels of C12 and C13 prove that the additional C02 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels. (ie levels of C14 are NOT increasing )

But then neither are temperatures like they should. Since NONE of the earth's warming prior to 1880 can be blamed on fossil fuel burning, it must have contained higher than current ratios of C14 to C12 and 13...right?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Actually, I didn't get that right. It is the C12/C13 ratio that is significant. (so much for relying on my memory) It is explained here.... http://www.skepticalscience.com/Paper_Archives_Reveal_Pollutions_History.html

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

How do we control our destiny?

We Vote!

Who are the science deniers working for the 1%'s Big Polluters?

Republicons!

Here's an idea, Vote out science deniers who work for the 1%'s Big Polluters.

This November 6th, take a little control of your destiny.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Funny...not all of the science deniers are Republican.

Not all of the people working for the 1% Big Polluters are Republican.

Still want to vote them ALL out...or just the ones who aren't Democrats?

[-] 0 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

The vast majority are Rs. But you just like to focus on exceptions, it's called PETTIFOGGING, and it's an old R strategy to muddy up issues. That's your thing.

I'm all for getting rid of DINOs, too. If we get rid of Cons of all persuasions we can make more progress on our energy and pollution problems, which we urgently need to do. There ain't no rapture folks!

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I deal in facts. You're the muddy one around here....the word pettifogger applies to lawyers.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

There you go again... Recrimination (I know you are but what am I?), and Pettifogging your own pettifogging ("the word applies to lawyers" ~ which is false)... you say you "deal in facts," but you just can't keep from Bullshitting. Notice the change in subject, Evasion! What a piece of work.

Here's an idea, Vote out science deniers who work for the 1%'s Big Polluters.

This November 6th, take a little control of your destiny.

Here's how: http://www.gottavote.org/en/?choose-state=true

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Hey hey hey your not supposed to point that out, your supposed to want the rep 1% out but leave the dem 1% alone

[-] 2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I know, I know...

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1268) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Polar bears will move south and breed with other kinds of bears. They already do.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

I have an idea, why don't we er on the side of safety and self-preservation??

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1268) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Of course. I don't listen to the scientists on either side. Common sense say's you should love and respect mother nature without being a fanatic either way. If a major climate shift did happen we're all in it together.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

And pollution is bad!

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

That would not be such a bad idea. The thing is, the fossil fuel industry is already in possession of five times more oil and coal than we can safely burn, and there are banking interests that are invested in the burning . . .

Not to mention that the math behind those calculations depends on a stipulation that we've only increased temps by .6 C - which is probably inaccurate. If we stabilized CO2 where it is now, it seems likely we would still find that within the decade, perhaps two, the average temp goes over 5c.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

The point is we get tangled in specifics, and the opposition pettifogs.

Remember the crying "Native American" in the 60's anti-pollution PSAs?? People got it, and then we did something about it. We instituted Earth Day, environmentalism and the EPA. We knew fossil fuel was a dead-end, we sought alternatives and we built energy saving geodesic homes, cleaned up streams, rivers and lakes and solar panels were installed on the WH!

Yes, Big Oil/Fossil wants to milk every last dime out of the grandfathered industry that they possibly can, at any/all costs to us.

[There is a reason that the largely Big Oil/Fossil-funded film industry did not award There Will Be Blood with an Oscar.]

Re-engage K.I.S.S.! Pollution Bad! Peeps don't get 5c - C02 stipulations - .6 C calculations - average temp goes over 5c. And the bastards know it!

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Keep It Simple Stupid

That is a great idea.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

It's not new, but like many effective tools at our disposal, it is neglected.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Except that the anti pollution campaign dealt with something every day people could see and change easily. Picking up trash and putting it in a garbage can is EASY and SIMPLE.

Changing the entire dynamic that drives the ENERGY used on this planet is NOT simple and NOT easy. Any average person who has had basic Jr. High chemistry knows that CO2 isn't a pollutant-it's a natural component of the atmosphere and everything that lives on this planet. And every one knows we need energy to do what we do every day.

It isn't simple. And neither are people.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://climate-connections.org/2012/07/24/three-responses-to-bill-mckibbens-new-article-global-warmings-terrifying-new-math/

Read some responses BY leading global activists to McKibben's article. It brings up some salient points-

*we start developing bio-fuels-we start killing off biological ecosystems. Every form of "energy" we could possibly "harness" on this planet-water, wind, fossils etc-involves the manipulation-change in those systems! We want the "big money" going green-and yet if they really are all about money and power-what prevents them from destroying our environment in some other way? THINK people.

*FEAR and DOOM do not motivate people to change. Giving them vast enormous numbers and telling them that what "we've already got planned is going to kill us all" doesn't make people think "OH MY GOD!!! WE MUST STOP THIS!!!!" because what you are already telling them is "NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, WE'RE ALREADY SCREWED". It creates a sense of hopelessness which results in LESS action, not more.

*even the people involved in the "green movements" and the "save the planet" groups cannot get their act together enough to agree on anything!!!

*the more hysterical and overdramatic people like McKibben become, the LESS people want to listen to him OR his message.

BECAUSE it is the earth we are talking about here, AND human beings have (according to your point of view) have already screwed it up to almost the point of no return-IF...and I mean IF there's even a chance that we can turn this around, we're going to get like ONE shot at it and it's going to HAVE to have EVERYONE on board in order to pull it off. SO-

isn't the most intelligent course of action to STOP offending and insulting everyone you possibly can, and STOP screaming that SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE-and start spending all that energy on finding and helping to develop that ONE SHOT answer and then promoting that answer to everyone in a positive and precise way?

Case in point-30 years of doing it YOUR WAY hasn't changed a damn thing. Insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expect different results.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"30 years of doing it your way"? nope haven't been purueing a green path for 30 years.

And there is one thing all greentech/save the earth people agree on.

Cut back pollution, Everyone!

That is the one shot best effort. If every individual did we could make great progress towards cutting pollution.

And of course I support every govt cutting pollution as well. The people as a group can create much pressure to cut pollution on massive scales eventually and before you know it the planet will start cleaning itself up.

We can all agree on that no?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

"30 years of doing it your way"? nope haven't been purueing a green path for 30 years."

Was responding to WSMITH's comment in which he talked about a specific time frame "Remember the crying "Native American" in the 60's anti-pollution PSAs?? People got it, and then we did something about it. We instituted Earth Day, environmentalism and the EPA."

Those things happened in the 1970's-30ish years ago.

"Cutting pollution on massive scales eventually" is a time frame that seems completely unacceptable to ZenDog and the climate alarmists he continues to refer to.

No one here is saying we don't agree on cutting pollution.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

There have been efforts for 30 years but we can't say 30 years of doing it your way", because while efforts have been made our way has not been adopted.

Maybe no one disagrees with cutting pollution but even that has not been adopted by everyone. When we stop fighting about everything we can start, once we start we can expand our pollution cutting efforts.

Why fight about whether the planet is warming or if the climate is changing? We all agree with a course of action that would address these possibilities and definitely addresses the pollution we've created everywhere.

Peace

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

RW-Big$-GOP tired, old, stinky talking points! A perfect example of their tactic of pettifogging an issue.

There is no "ONE SHOT" solution to our energy-pollution problems. But ONE sure fire solution of many is to STOP POLLUTING!!

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

A perfect example of the insulting, fingerpointing, and assumptions that prevents society from coming together to solve the problem.

CO2 is not pollution.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Lies are POLLUTION!

Recrimination is a form of lying.

Pollution is the problem!

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/24/back-to-the-future-paradise-lost-or-paradise-regained/

"In June, a NASA climate study announced that the warm middle Miocene era, about 16 million years ago, had carbon dioxide levels of 400 to 600 parts per million."

(That 200ppm difference seems like it should be pretty SIGNIFICANT since all the alarmists are screaming about a 100 ppm increase....and we're just barely getting close to 400......)

Sounds like heaven to me....what is it that drives people to scream HELL IS COMING?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

what is it that drives people to scream HELL IS COMING?

It isn't. I think you should take your hard earned savings, and go buy some property, in North Carolina. Beach front property.

That way when the sea comes arisin' you'll have a great view!

Yes, thanks for confirming what I already said - co2 was at 400ppm 15 Million years ago. And the planet was much much warmer. The sea level was 70 to 120 feet higher.

Back in 1959 it was at 315.98 ppm.

That's much closer to 280 than it is 400, isn't it?

So . . . what? you expect the ice to melt in the Arctic overnight?

Well - on a geologic scale - maybe it is

[-] 0 points by HeatherL (-30) 1 year ago

In the last 100 years the Earth's temp has risen one degree. Help us God it is getting hot down here bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

LoL!

Heather.Hurl

You are such an idiot.

think about it - a five degree fluctuation over tens of thousands of years

versus

a one degree temperature rise in one hundred years

It may not sound like much - but think about the time scale we are talking.

Wait - never mind.

I've a house I wanna flip - just because it was underwater once already doesn't mean anything, does it?

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Stop calling people idiots and then demonstrating that you're the idiot.

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp

"The National Academy of Sciences--the board of scientists established by Congress in 1863 to advise the federal government on scientific matters--compiled a comprehensive report in 2002 entitled, Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. The 244-page report, which contains over 500 references, was written by a team of 59 of the top researchers in climate, and represents the most authoritative source of information about abrupt climate change available. Most of the material that follows was taken from this report."

"Ocean and lake sediment data from places such as California, Venezuela, and Antarctica have confirmed that these sudden climate changes affected not just Greenland, but the entire world. During the past 110,000 years, there have been at least 20 such abrupt climate changes. Only one period of stable climate has existed during the past 110,000 years--the 11,000 years of modern climate (the "Holocene" era). "Normal" climate for Earth is the climate of sudden extreme jumps--like a light switch flicking on and off. "

"As seen in Figure 1, the ice core record showed frequent sudden warmings and coolings of 15°F (8°C) or more. Many of these changes happened in less than 10 years. In one case 11,600 years ago, when Earth emerged from the final phase of the most recent ice age (an event called the Younger Dryas), the Greenland ice core data showed that a 15°F (8°C) warming occurred in less than a decade, accompanied by a doubling of snow accumulation in 3 years. Most of this doubling occurred in a single year."

Summary-in 2002, 59 of the worlds TOP scientists produced a 244 page report using 500 references that concluded that-

This era in history-the 11,000 years of modern climate, is ABNORMAL. Sudden, extreme jumps-often occurring in 10 years or LESS constitute the majority of Earth's history.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

ompiled a comprehensive report in 2002 entitled,

You know what? I'm not even going to read the rest of your nonsense. And do you know why?

Because I happen to be well aware that under the regime of BUSHITE actual science got the fucking boot.

Should I provide links to back up that statement? I mean, I thought it was common knowledge, but I can go find some if you need

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You're saying that the National Academy of Sciences and the 59 scientists that compiled the report AND the 500 references used in it are ALL LIES???? How about their 2012 report (is THIS regime also giving actual science the F..ing boot?) http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/04/02/1116014109

"Hence, it is argued that even for greenhouse warming, abrupt climate transitions similar to those in the last glacial time are unlikely to occur as the Bering Strait remains open."

Maybe being a bitter, nasty, pessimist is all you know how to be and you simply can't let the FACTS take away your mission in life. Provide all the links you want to. Clearly you're going to believe what you want to no matter what.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

.

  1. your link won't open anything - it is possible it's my browser - I've been having issues

  2. It is unclear what your quote is referring to - you tend to lend a great deal of ambiguity to your quotes in general, and this is a fine example.

  3. I've watched this debate for the last 15 years - in 1998 over 40 island nations appeared before the U.N. begging for the world body to address the issue of Global Warming because even back then it was clear to them

    • the seas were rising.
  4. Once the Arctic Ice Cap is gone no one knows how fast the seas will rise, or how long it will take to stabilize carbon emissions, much less begin reducing them.

  5. I've worked outside all my life. I live in Vermont. Last winter I plowed my entire route 1.5 times. A normal year means I plow between 15 and 20 times. There has only been one normal year since I started plowing snow.

  6. I tend to get short tempered with idiots who cannot simply look outside their own window and note the environmental changes that are clearly taking place.

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

If there's only been "one normal year" since you started plowing, wouldn't that make that one year the "abnormal year" of all your plowing years?

That's the problem you and I are having. In order to determine what kind of snowfall is "normal" or "average" for the area currently known as Vermont, we have to look at the entire history of that area for as far back as we can-NOT just as far back as YOU can remember. The last 200 years of time in the history of Vermont, and this planet, is a mere blink of time in its overall history.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'm over 50 - my memory isn't that bad.

From Nasa

The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.

.

Do you know what denial is? I only ask because you are so deep in it I'm afraid you'll drown . . . .

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Let's see if you grasp it this time....

What has been "normal" during your lifetime, or even your parents and grandparents lifetimes....is NOT what has been "normal" on this planet during IT'S lifetime.

Or are you in denial about that?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Are you hard of reading?

From Nasa

The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.

.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Clearly you don't read anything I've posted. "Modern temperature measurements" began to be taken in 1880. = 132 years ago.

That 132 year period constitutes what percentage of the Earth's climate history that we now have evidence of? How does the climate SINCE mankind has been capable of affecting it compare to the REST of Earth's climate history?

You may WANT to believe that the earth's climate has NEVER, EVER seen such drastic temperature increases as it has in the past 100 years-a whopping .92 degree F increase.

Scientific evidence SAYS differently. The ice core data alone SHOWS that increases (and decreases in temperatures) have occurred far more RAPIDLY than the modern one AND risen by far greater degrees than .92 degrees!!! In at least one case in less than 10 Years the temperature rose 15 degrees!!!

DENY all the evidence you want.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I've read some of what you have posted, I've even followed a couple of the links. No doubt, I've learned to take what you say with a liberal dose of salt . . .

It wouldn't surprise me to find that global average mean temp has on occasion deviated from the norm by a significant amount in a short time span - as is clearly suggested by volcanic activity

Beyond that I have no idea what your point is, you seem to type in hysterical sentence fragments that leave your point obscure at best.

The planet is warming, carbon dioxide is responsible, humans have released tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution, and in consequence, by 2020, we are likely to see an Ice Out in the Arctic.

Whether and to what degree warming feedback loops begin at that point to produce significant deterioration of land based ice at a rate far faster than present, remains to be seen.

As I said in the forum post, my expectation is that by 2050, there will be a mass migration of humanity like nothing this planet has ever seen, and that due entirely to the rising of the sea.

That will be chaos.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

By an "ice out" in the Arctic...do you mean no ice in the Arctic at all? Year round?

Massive migration due to what? Sea levels rising? Good thing all that newly exposed real estate in Greenland will be available then huh?

Edited-10/1 Again, if ALL of the sea ice melts in the Arctic-it will not cause sea levels to rise because sea ice has already displaced it's own volume in the current water it floats in.

If we're talking about LAND ice melt....then you'll have to provide some evidence supporting the land ice you're talking about melting.

[+] -4 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Awww sweetie-you are so gullible, and so eager to be misled if it makes you look correct.

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/145-union-of-concerned-scientists

Try reading real scientific findings instead of activist propaganda for a while.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

That is a real good source you have there. I like that.

Ever hear of SourceWatch?

.

ActivistCash.com is a web site affiliated with the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. ActivistCash.com was launched in November 2001. For more, see the SourceWatch article on A visit to the ActivistCash.com web site.

ActivistCash.com was created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Based in Washington, DC, Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains.

.

you need to put the crack pipe down. You are way too high.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

K.I.S.S.!!

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

So-you prove again, that going directly to the SCIENCE, the actual studies, and the data itself is the only way ANY of us can find the TRUTH. HOW?By pretending that a left leaning, progressive website with an agenda (Source watch) is any more credible or impartial than a right leaning conservative one. Thank you!!

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

You sound like a desperate right wing fring.ette What are you even doing here?

Is SourceWatch lying about ActivistCash? Or is that the entire problem you have with SourceWatch - they tell the truth?

umm, jeez, lemme guess . . . .

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Respond to the scientific report from the NAS-and whether that report and what it said is WRONG or not-by offering proof that it was incorrect or we're done on this issue. SourceWatch said NOTHING-ZERO about the science in that report nor the scientists that did it being incorrect.

Got anything else?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

There will not be enough proof for you before the Vermont ski industry is gone.

You must be stupid.

Go away.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

The link you post is a hit piece from a lobbying group on the UCS called Center for Consumer Freedom. Who you think your foolin' Betsy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10136

I don't know which link you are talking about. But here is a link to the detailed report I referenced at the beginning of this particular argument. Zen declared it false from the outset simply because Bush was in office when it was published.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-98) from New Hope, PA 1 day ago Awww sweetie-you are so gullible, and so eager to be misled if it makes you look correct. http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/145-union-of-concerned-scientists Try reading real scientific findings instead of activist propaganda for a while. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Which link?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

This one; http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/145-union-of-concerned-scientists.

copied from the bottom of the page;

Copyright © 2012 Center for Consumer Freedom. All rights reserved.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Moved previous reply down here for coherency....

You mean my Link to a hit piece from one lobbying group about another lobbying group called the UCS and their hit piece on the Bush administration? which was Zendog's sole response to a detailed scientific report done by the NAS? Yeah....I know. Its stupid to rely on lobbying groups or biased agendas over scientific fact isn't it? :)

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

reply to;http://phys.org/news172072921.html....Interesting. It might help to know that at the 200 million yr mark CO2 was at 4-5 times the present, so at 34 million, we are down to 2 times (approx) current. You note it states the Antarctic "began" to form at that level, which would tend to indicate it might also end at that level. Or to put it another way, ti was not able to even begin to form until CO2 dropped to that point. The decrease from 200 million years was not thought to be perfectly smooth, but that seems to have been the trend, http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

And yet look at the temperature trends of the planet going back almost 600 million years. You have to put our current "historical reference" into context with the rest of history. For the past 10 thousand years temperatures have risen, and then fallen, and then started to rise again.

The Antarctic froze for the first time roughly 34 million years ago, then it THAWED, then it froze again. Man didn't cause that to happen.

Now if you take the right side of the graph and push it back up against the left side until the 0 is approximately where the 5 million year mark is, you can see that we are currently WELL within the "trend" for that ten million year period.

On the graph you'll notice HUGE temperature fluctuations between 15 and 500 thousand years ago-HUGE climate changes-also not human caused. The last ten thousand years has been a RARE period of time that has hovered near the "climatic optimum" which is a "cooler" trend than almost every other period in time prior to it.

Technically we're part of a "cooling trend" that started 50 million years ago-not 200. And if you smash the right hand side of the graph all the way over to the left so that the 0 meets the 50 million year mark line you'd see a steep rise followed by a sheer drop almost to where we are now. And looking at the pattern set by the remainder of the left side of the graph....the cycles established PROVE that the temperature will rise again, and fall again, on this planet whether we are here to affect those changes or not.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

repl to; We have ....My mistake. 200 million.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

reply to; so does water vapor...;I don't think we can say,or assume, the only cause in the past was CO2, but we do have a sequence of facts now. CO2 retains heat-we are releasing a significant amount beyond what would naturally be released-oceans are acidifying, average surface temps are trending up. (though not rising year over year in every case) The CO2 levels have shown a gradual decline over the last 200,000,000 years till the industrial age.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://phys.org/news172072921.html

34 million years ago, according to this, CO2 was at 760 ppm when the earth "experienced a mysterious cooling trend".

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

We have a CO2 data record for "the last 200,000,000 million years"?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Reply to; In particular...;It's true. There have been such occurrences. Here's the thing. We can fairly well track the probable causes for those occurrences. We can also determine that percentages of CO2 are from natural causes and which are from man made sources by isotope analysis. We also know CO2 causes the atmosphere to retain heat. The Earth may heat on it's own, but it is probably unwise to exacerbate the process.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

So does water vapor and methane etc. None of the changes prior to 200 years ago contain any man made isotopes AND in many cases the CO2 levels are NOT what they should be if CO2 is supposed to be the cause.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Reply to Lol!!!..Do you want me to read the book before I answer or do you want to raise some specific point. I'm aware that the Earth has gone through changes. I've studied geology and chemistry.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://www.global-adventures.us/2012/06/22/russian-arctic-climate-intervals/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120621151506.htm

In particular I'm referencing rapid, extreme temperature fluctuations and climate changes being the norm on this planet instead of a Human induced anomaly.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Yes, one is a group of actual scientists, the other, corporate polluters looking out for their bottom line, Absolute equivalence.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Lol!!! You think all of the "members of UCS" are scientists????

But let's get back on track http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10136

Is this actual science or not?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

He contorted himself into supporting corporate lobbying in Washington a few days ago in one of those attempts, and in an attempt to refute anything that I say. It was funny.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

LoL!

and this coming from the contortionist extraordinaire

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

The thing is, he won't stay on task. Instead of refuting the science or the report I referenced from the NAS, he used propaganda directed at BUSH...(not the science OR the report) as if how Bush may or may not have handled the science ESTABLISHED in that report somehow nullifies or discredits the science or the report itself! Even the Union of Concerned Scientists (who aren't even all scientists) weren't stupid enough to suggest such a thing!

Distracting and introducing irrelevant issues is propaganda 101 whether he's engaging in it on purpose or not.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

The funny thing is, I look out my window every day and witness the environmental changes that take place every day. The temperature fluctuates a good 40 degrees every day. At least 4 to times a year the climate changes dramatically. I love living where the climate changes, a lot.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I can't agree with you on that. I live on the front lines. I live on a tiny island that's a foot above the high tide line that's on land that is projected to be underwater before my mortgage is paid off.

I do agree with you about ZenDog though.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I'm sorry to hear that. Truly. Millions of people live on top of natural fault lines that are predicted to crush them all like bugs sooner rather than later. Living on a planet such as Earth comes with inherent risks. We're learning more about those risks all the time. Some people want to believe that this planet was stable and unchanging before we started to mess it up because they also want to believe that if we just put things back like we found them, everything will be stable and predictable once more.

But we're learning that the idea of a stable, gentle, predictable world is irrational. We're learning that the world is ever changing, wild, and more prone to rapid upheaval than stable gentleness. That scares the hell out of some people to the point that they will do anything they can to put blame on humanity, as if humans are any more controllable than the sphere they evolved on.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Some people want to believe that this planet was stable and unchanging before we started to mess it up

I never said that - nor did I ever say anything like it.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So then extreme climate change is normal & we are overdue for that change?

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

"Normal" climate for Earth is the climate of sudden extreme jumps--like a light switch flicking on and off. "

According to the experts.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

And we are overdue?

Are you suggesting we can't do anything about it.? Seems to be beyond our power. Are you familiar with the experts who claim we can improve climate conditions if we cut back pollution?

Do you support cutting back pollution?

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Improving climate conditions....define that from your perspective. Then tell me how the "experts" define an "improved climate condition". Do you/they believe that climate conditions were perfect or optimal to all living things, including human beings prior to the Industrial Revolution? Were the climate conditions better or worse when the seas were lower? Or when there was more ice? Or during the years that dinosaurs ruled? What if we cut back pollution and end up making the world colder? WHO gets to decide what the climate SHOULD be and how far do we go in trying to control it?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Maybe we could manage the climate so we can avoid these record breaking droughts that are gonna create starvation and increase food costs.

Do you support cutting back on pollution?

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Maybe?

Doesn't look like we have to-the models were wrong-again

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/news/Parchedsoilsleadtomorestorms_2012_49.html

Pollution? Yes. CO2 is not pollution. It is required for life on this planet to exist in the first place.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well if we can all agree to cut back on pollution that is all we need to do.

Whatta ya say? Can we agree on that?

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

We can and should cut back on pollution. I agree. But that doesn't mean a thing the next time this planet's systems change on their own. Except maybe we'll have a crystal clear view and front row seats.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well if we could just cut back enough so that the kids in my urban neighborhood suffer less from the asthma brought on by all the suburbanites & truck deliveries idling exhaust into our air.

Maybe that don't matter to non city folk but we are more sensitive to the pollution we create.

Just cut back pollution. Thats all we gotta do. We don't have to argue. We don't have to fight. There should be no discussion of geological history, patterns, science, scientists.

Please. Pollution bad! Stop burning stuff! Simple! Everything else will take care of itself.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

N0-CO2 was BETWEEN 400 and 600 ppm.

Why move? I can just stay the hell where I am and let the ocean come to me!!!!!

"Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands"

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

that's right - and the polar ice cap will be gone by the end of the decade.

then there will be nothing to moderate temps for the land based ice sheets.

Methane released from the permafrost (which isn't perma any more) will trap heat **ten times more efficiently than co2.

temps continue going up.

Ice sheets continue shrinking. Sea level rise increases from 4mm /year to

. . . .

who the fuck knows.

ByBy FLA

ByBy NYC

New Orleans, much of Bangladesh, most, if not all island nations.

You may actually live to see the mass of environmental refugees.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

They could all use a good washing anyway.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

At the apex - it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Loss of sea ice doesn't cause the oceans to rise any more that the melting ice in my Pepsi right now causes the liquid level in the glass to rise.

Key points-CO2 levels match the past-temperatures do not. Sea levels do not match (ours are lower), and we have TONS of ice in Greenland and Antarctica.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (2044) 1 year ago

lots of sea ice melting into a salt water ocean causes the gulf stream to quit flowing and then no warm air will flow up north (we're talking about an Arctic freeze in the entire northern hemisphere then) brrr... i hate being cold but i hate it even more when the worlds largest farmlands freeze over and we lose the ability to make food. the sea will be the least of our concerns

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

LOL!

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

He seems to think such a scenario is funny.

Maybe he's unaware that: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/

"Once considered incredible, the notion that climate can change rapidly is becoming respectable. In a 2003 report, Robert Gagosian cites "rapidly advancing evidence [from, e.g., tree rings and ice cores] that Earth's climate has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past." For example, as the world warmed at the end of the last ice age about 13,000 years ago, melting ice sheets appear to have triggered a sudden halt in the Conveyor, throwing the world back into a 1,300 year period of ice-age-like conditions called the "Younger Dryas."

Will it happen again? Researchers are scrambling to find out."

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you better hope so

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report

"During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."

.

NASA: Study Finds Ancient Warming Greened Antarctica

PASADENA, Calif. — A new university-led study with NASA participation finds ancient Antarctica was much warmer and wetter than previously suspected. The climate was suitable to support substantial vegetation — including stunted trees — along the edges of the frozen continent.

The team of scientists involved in the study, published online June 17 in Nature Geoscience, was led by Sarah J. Feakins of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and included researchers from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge.

.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Sustained for how long? 6 million years?

What caused the CO2 increase back then? Can't blame it on humans.

Since you can't blame the Industrial Age for the ice that has covered Antarctica for thousands of years...what caused it?

Is Bill McKibben aware that the warm period between glacial eras ALWAYS ends? Is he aware that some scientists now believe that human CO2 just might prevent us from entering the next ice age so soon? Is that a bad thing in your opinion?

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120329142020.htm

Here's a newer study for you to consider..

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

that article confirms the correlation between rising co2 and rising temps - something you disputed here

From your link:

.

Carbon Dioxide Was Hidden in the Ocean During Last Ice Age

Around 20,000 years ago, the atmospheric CO2 concentration during the last Ice Age was distinctly lower than in the following warm period. Measurements from Antarctic ice cores showed this already two decades ago. An international team of glaciologists thereafter looked even further back in time. The climate researchers found that this close connection between carbon dioxide and temperature has existed over the past 800,000 years: with low CO2 concentrations during the Ice Ages and higher CO2 values during warm periods. Now they tried to answer also the question as to where the carbon dioxide was hidden during the Ice Ages and how it got back into the atmosphere at their ends.

.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Yes. And the rising CO2 after the last ice age came from where? Not humans.....think hard......from warming ocean waters...which went into the air, and trapped more heat...which warmed the oceans more...

You see, the earth had an established pattern of having HIGHER CO2 concentrations AND higher temperatures-as well as LOWER Co2 levels and lower temperatures before human beings ever began to affect the climate.

Do you know anything about feedback loops-especially natural ones?

P.S. the link to the word "here" simply goes to elf3's post for me....

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

the link works for me.

What you are ignoring is that co2 in ppm has not been as high as it is today, in 15 Million Years.

And back then it was 5 to 10 degrees warming.

Sure there have been cycles.

And we created a new one.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

And yet this "new one" has yet to produce the same conditions that existed 15 millions years ago. Why is that?

Now, if the Co2 was "locked" in the ocean because it was cold, how did the CO2 get OUT of the ocean....to cause the warming required to release the CO2????

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

face the facts - it took time to build up the ice sheets. CO2 levels had been relatively stable at about 170 to 270 ppm -

perhaps you will find this fact interesting:

.

So between deep freeze and thaw we've been between 180 ppm and 280 ppm, with a 5C global temp change.

And we've seen a 1C degree change in only 100 years. We're way above 280ppm now, at 392.41, and in 1959 it was at 315.98

.

Carbon dioxide was the big driver that ended the last Ice Age, according to a new study of ice core data from around the world.

About 10,000-20,000 years ago, Earth started to emerge from a quarter million years of deep freeze as the terrestrial ice sheet rolled back and warmer temperatures prevailed.

. . . .

"CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age and it took about 10,000 years to do it," says Shakun.

"Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase in CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond."

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Again...WHERE did the CO2 that "brought the world out of the last ice age" come from? From melting ICE. Why did the ice start melting? Because of the orbital shift of the planet that boosted sunlight!

"Shakun and colleagues theorise that orbital shift boosted sunlight that warmed the northern hemisphere between 21,500 and 19,000 years ago, causing some of its icesheet to melt and spill gigatonnes of chilly freshwater into the North Atlantic.

The big gush had a dampening effect on the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, a well-known 'conveyor belt' of current by which warm water travels northwards on the surface of the Atlantic before cooling and returning southwards at depth.

When the current braked, warm water began to build up in the southern Atlantic, where it swiftly started to warm up Antarctica and the Southern Ocean.

Warming the south in turn shifted the wind and melted sea ice, releasing some of the vast amounts of CO2 that had been absorbed by the ocean and stored in its depths, according to their hypothesis."

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

what? you think the answer to that question will solve Global Warming?

We're at 392.41 ppm co2 now. It hasn't been that high in 15 million years.

Once the Artic Ice is gone, you might just as well bend over baby

  • and kiss your ass good by.
[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

"Many other writers on paleoclimate also use the term “paradise” to describe climate in the distant past. For example, in a history of evolution for younger readers, science writer Sara Stein paints the Eocene of 50 million years ago as follows:

“The world that all the little brown furry things [mammals] inherited from the dinosaurs was paradise. [emphasis added] The climate was so mild that redwoods, unable now to live much further north than California’s pleasant coast, grew in Alaska, Greenland, Sweden, and Siberia. There was no ice in the Arctic. Palm trees grew as far north as 50 degrees latitude, roughly the boundary between the United States and Canada. Below that subtropical zone—that was similar to Florida’s landscape today—was a broad band of tropical rain forest.”[10]

You bend over and kiss YOUR ass goodbye-I'll be cutting coconuts out of trees that in the past would not grow in my yard and having a mai tai in my hammock instead of shoveling snow! I'll toast one in your honor!

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

are you high?

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I think people who burn natural things and like to inhale the toxic fumes produced are destroying our planet.....hahahahahahahahahahaha

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Shadz found this video that might clear up some issues for you. The sound file comes good about the 3.13 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVIl3CcmgzE

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You see, I'm not doubting anything the film says. At all. In fact that film establishes that what we're sucking out of the ocean and burning is stuff that lived and died a long time ago from some other form of extinction. Not man caused. I have never disputed the correlation between CO2 and temperatures. But correlation isn't causation to any scientist.

[-] -2 points by HeatherL (-30) 1 year ago

It is interesting!!!!!! Ever since climategate broke open, ole Al baby stopped construction on mansion number 5. Shame on the hackers that got into all of the phony climate scientist mail and exposed them for what they really are "dirtbags"

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/07/warmth_and_carbon_decoupled_miocene/

WOW...The more we study, the more we learn....

"Today CO2 stands at 390 parts per million, well up on Miocene levels, and yet the planet - and in particular its oceans, engines of the climate - are significantly cooler. This wasn't known until now, as it is only recently that the team led by Jonathan P LaRiviere of UC Santa Cruz have looked into the matter. A statement from San Francisco State uni, where another of the scientists works, explains the methods used:

They used an organic compound called unsaturated alkenone as their "fossil thermometers." The compound is produced by tiny phytoplankton and preserved in cores of ocean sediment drawn from the mid-latitude Pacific Ocean basin. Ratios of the compound preserve a record of the water temperature in which the plankton lived.

The results of the study show that "sea surface temperatures were significantly warmer than today", according to San Francisco State University geosciences prof Petra Dekens. The Nature paper, indeed, states that in the boffins' opinion oceanic temperature and atmospheric carbon levels - generally considered to be firmly connected in today's climate science - were "decoupled".

"It's a surprising finding, given our understanding that climate and carbon dioxide are strongly coupled to each other," LaRiviere says."

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

that confirms what I've been saying. The temperature is only going to go up - on an average basis.

You really don't get it, do ya?

We're like an ant on a picnic table, basking in the shade of an ice cube - one that is melting.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Can you read???? "And yet the planet, and in particular its oceans-engines of the climate-ARE SIGNIFICANTLY COOLER" (temperatures STOPPED going up even though CO2 levels continued to increase-WHY?????)

The current TEMPERATURES are not as high as they SHOULD BE if CO2 is what drives the climate!!!! It says that OCEANS are the ENGINES of the climate!!! It "DECOUPLES" the connection between oceanic temperatures and atmospheric carbon levels!!!

YOU don't get it. You WANT to believe that we are ants basking in the shade of some rare, precious, beautiful, little ice cube when we are really just the lucky ants that get to enjoy the warmth between freaking ICEBERGS.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Comparatively little is known about the climate of the late Miocene (~12–5 Myr ago), an interval with pCO2 values of only 200–350  parts per million by volume but nearly ice-free conditions in the Northern Hemisphere and warmer-than-modern temperatures on the continents.

What that apparently means is that once the temps go up, the co2/temp correlation diverges slightly - over the geologic time scale, with co2 levels dropping faster than the temps themselves.

From NASA

"Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature," Lacis said.

The study ties in to the geologic record in which carbon dioxide levels have oscillated between approximately 180 parts per million during ice ages, and about 280 parts per million during warmer interglacial periods. To provide perspective to the nearly 1 C (1.8 F) increase in global temperature over the past century, it is estimated that the global mean temperature difference between the extremes of the ice age and interglacial periods is only about 5 C (9 F).

"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."

[+] -4 points by HeatherL (-30) 1 year ago

We will have to hang ole Al Gore up there by his nutsack so he can monitor it. Global warming goons

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1268) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Why the violence? Take a pill.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20423) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Joined today? You must be Betsy's twin.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Don't feed trolls, just vote that crap down. When I stinkled that it had a 1 vote.