Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: It Is Interesting

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 27, 2012, 7:28 p.m. EST by ZenDogTroll (13032) 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

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

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

[Removed]

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

[Removed]

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

[Removed]

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

[Removed]

[Removed]

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

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

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years ago

Aren't we doing that?

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

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

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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?????

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years 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.

[Removed]

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

[Removed]

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

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

[Removed]

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

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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".

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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 GirlFriday (17435) 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

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

The bitches lied until they couldn't.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Nice! :D

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

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

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1429) from Cornelius, OR 2 years 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) 2 years 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 podman73 (-652) 2 years 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) 2 years ago

I know, I know...

[-] -1 points by WSmith (1429) from Cornelius, OR 2 years 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) 2 years ago

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

[-] -1 points by WSmith (1429) from Cornelius, OR 2 years 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 WSmith (1429) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

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

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years 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.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1429) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

And pollution is bad!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1429) from Cornelius, OR 2 years 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!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1429) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

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

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1429) from Cornelius, OR 2 years 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) 2 years ago

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

CO2 is not pollution.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1429) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Lies are POLLUTION!

Recrimination is a form of lying.

Pollution is the problem!

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by HeatherL (-30) 2 years ago

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

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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) 2 years 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.

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

Which link?

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

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

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

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

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by WSmith (1429) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

K.I.S.S.!!

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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!!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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) 2 years 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 2 years 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) 2 years 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.

[Removed]

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

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

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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) 2 years 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"

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

They could all use a good washing anyway.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

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

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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 (2929) 2 years 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

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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."

[Removed]

[Removed]

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

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

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

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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 Builder (4202) 2 years 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) 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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????

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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."

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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!

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

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

[-] -2 points by HeatherL (-30) 2 years 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) 2 years 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."

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years 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.

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by HeatherL (-30) 2 years 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 (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Why the violence? Take a pill.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

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