Global Warming Apostasy!

[AzariLoveIran]

[Colonel Sun]

[the glowing carp]

[Colonel Sun]

[the glowing carp]

If this was such a damning expose of grand conspiracy why wait 2 years?

[Colonel Sun]

[Colonel Sun]

So let me see if I understand this. The industrialized world is expected to deconstruct their economies based on the work of this gang?

[the glowing carp]

[the glowing carp]

[the glowing carp]

Meanwhile Science slowly marches on:



Nature | Letter


Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years

Christophe Kinnard,
Christian M. Zdanowicz,
David A. Fisher,
Elisabeth Isaksson,
Anne de Vernal
& Lonnie G. Thompson

Affiliations
Contributions
Corresponding author

Nature
479,
509–512
(24 November 2011)
doi:10.1038/nature10581

Received
24 December 2010
Accepted
21 September 2011
Published online
23 November 2011


Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres less than it was in the late twentieth century, with important consequences for the climate, the ocean and traditional lifestyles in the Arctic. Although observations show a more or less continuous decline for the past four or five decades, there are few long-term records with which to assess natural sea ice variability. Until now, the question of whether or not current trends are potentially anomalous5 has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years.

Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.

[Colonel Sun]

Why 1,450 years? Why not 3,197 years?

[Sparky]

[the glowing carp]

[the glowing carp]

[Colonel Sun]

[Colonel Sun]

[noddy]

[the glowing carp]

There is no need for modelling anymore, you can see the change happening real time, Adelaide has transformed into a Tropical climate zone.

[noddy]

not many people argue that the climate doesnt change or isnt changing, however the anthropological climate change argument with its associated cultural and political requirements based on modeling is the suspicious bit...

how to seperate those that have cultural and political agendas from those that "care" for their environment ?

one clue is found in those that make a religion out of the models....

[the glowing carp]

Climate doesn't normally change this quickly.

As for motives and agendas, the data speaks loudest.

Find me one person that says modelling is infallible and you have a case.

[noddy]

id say if your prepared to introduce new taxes and restructure society based on these models then you dont consider them fallible...

[the glowing carp]

Modelling is only part of the case for action.

Basic Physics is the fundamental premise: CO2 = Greenhouse gas: only the lunatics argue this --> more Greenhouse gas = more Greenhouse effect: only the lunatics argue this.

Modelling is a side issue shifted to the center by the CCE.

[crashtech]

There is some evidence that humans had nearly been wiped out by a volcanic winter. I've never read anything about the same happening during an excessively warm period. So while I acknowledge the possibility of anthropogenic climate change (obviously very mild at this point), the claims that it will result in some mass die-off or extinction level event have always seemed rather hysterical to me. In fact, it is entirely possible that a warmer planet overall might save our asses during the next super eruption.

[the glowing carp]

Considering you can drive a boat through the middle of the Arctic in Summer due to the ice being so thin I'd say things are not that mild, add to this 1300000000000 tonnes of Methane starting to release I'd say one would have to be slightly nuts not to be alarmed. It's not the warming itself that causes extinction, it's the secondary effects that are the extinction level events, 'Methane burp' is one example, another is rapid Isostatic rebound causing increased Volcanic activity as measured in Greenland.

There is a good chance very few humans will be around for the next super-eruption, low orbit is my plan, hopefully I can industrialise two nano-tech designs I have to get my ticket.

[crashtech]

I can accept the fact that you might categorize me as "slightly nuts." Taking into account the beliefs you consider "normal," I would not have it any other way.

Mainly I just want to interject my opinion into this thread once in a while, to show you that someone can hold a different opinion than you without necessarily being a "denier" (a term which always strikes me as having religious overtones).