Climate Change

"I knew it was going to go there"

Ah, the work of a troll! :)

Let me rephrase my post....

"I knew it was going to go there, at about the 12th reply" Then it became a runaway freight train. I did attempt to keep it from going there in the beginning but lost control, what the hell was I thinking? Should have titled OP "Odd weather" instead.

Trust me, if I planned for this to happen just to be a "Troll" I would have used the AP button like others have done.

The smile face was a hint as to not taking my remark too seriously or personally.

Every time this subject comes up it takes on a life of its own.

Yea well, guess I didn't put much forthought into what was going to happen, only been on CR4 for a year, lesson learned.

Should have titled OP "Odd weather" instead.

In addition to a better title, perhaps it would have been wise to leave out your religious belief that climate change is just a natural cycle (presumably meaning that you do not believe the preponderance of science on the issue, which indicates that it is a combination of causes we think of as "natural" and causes we think of as man made [as if man is not part of "nature" ] all influenced by some very complex positive and negative feedback loops).

Statements of religious and political beliefs frequently spark debate.

There has been nothing but climate change since the dust settled to form this planet. So unless the UNFCCC has purchased the phrase "climate change" as a registered trade mark, for the exclusive use of promoting the World Bank Group's carbon finance initiatives, climate change still means just that.

Since you brought up religion, I could bring up "The Scientific Method". It's used to shred research that lacks proper methodology and determine if data is reliable or valid. It's pretty cool!

But first I'm going to finish reading Chapter 6 of the World Development Report 2010 "Generating the Funding Needed for Mitigation and Adaptation". I've only read to the part where they say how they will collect 100's of billions each year, "Proposals for a nationally administered but globally levied carbon tax have the appeal that the tax base would be broad and the revenue flow fairly secure. The main drawback is that an internationally coordinated tax could impinge on the tax authority of sovereign governments."

That cuts to ther real agenda, how dare you!

Assuming "ther" means "their" and not "the"... who is "they" and who is funding them?

Since you brought up religion, I could bring up "The Scientific Method". It's used to shred research that lacks proper methodology and determine if data is reliable or valid. It's pretty cool!

We agree that the scientific method is the correct means for evaluating the causes of global warming. 90% of the scientists agree that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a central cause of the current rates of warming. The current atmospheric levels (395ppm) cannot be adequately explained without taking into account man's input.

But first I'm going to finish reading Chapter 6 ...
This is a straw man in the science vs anti-science argument. The science of AGW and the politics of carbon taxes etc. are entirely separate issues. The anti-science crowd often uses fear to coerce people into dismissing the science. I wonder if you have swallowed their arguments hook, line, and sinker, and reject science because it is saying things you don't want to hear. You haven't been watching Faux News perchance, have you?

I don't think it is a science vs. anti-science debate. I think it is a political debate and both sides freely use fear, half-truths, and lies to spread their agenda.

Science just gets caught in the middle of the firefight, but science is not pure as snow either. You need to consider where the money comes from sometimes.

Good statement. I just read an article about how industry experts, in the energy field, are automatically considered to be biased, but university professors are not. That is unless they have a business background. Professors are very dependent upon being accepted by their peers and superiors. It is a well known fact that professors lean hard left or are not around long. At least that is my belief, based on my experience.

As far as the science goes, I'm supposed to accept the reliability of data collected in the late 1800's, when two state of the art facilities can't agree on the average global temperatures a few years ago.

Scientist who disagree with the "results" of the AGW theories and models primarily have issues with their methodology. Climatologist admit they cannot account for every variable in their models. Is proof that we can negatively impact the climate also proof that we can control climate?

It is clearly indicated by isotopes that a large percentage of the CO₂ in the atmosphere is coming from fossil fuels (real science). It is also indicated, by ice cores, that high CO₂ levels follow global warming (real science). We are leaving an ice age or going into one depending on who is telling the story.

My feeling is, we are screwing the planet by whatever means necessary to turn a profit. And yet more are standing by to profit from that fact. I despise coal fired steam plants as much as anyone. The devastation begins long before the emissions leave the stacks. That we permit a power generation system that considers forest, streams, and tillable land, overburden, frustrates me to no end. Should we allow a "non profit" organization to levy taxes here? How would sending our money away help us build cleaner power generation systems?

Actually, Chapter 6 has nothing to do with straw men, science, or politics. It is strictly financial. I just thought if they are going to funnel 100's of billions/year from developed countries (as punishment) into developing countries, (as incentives to reduce their carbon footprint through technology and population control) I was curious about how they were planning on doing it. Personally, I think we should clean up our act here at home, and lead the world by example. So far, we have not been a very good example.

I don't watch any news. I get all my data from CR4!

One good thing we have done is surpass Europe in reducing CO2 emissions, and other coal pollutants by replacing much of our coal burning with natural gas. Meanwhile we are exporting coal to Europe because they were slow to start fracking. Most nations in Europe now plan to frack, including Germany, Great Britain, Poland, Ukraine, Romania, and others. I think that France will be a tough sell because their nuclear interests are very powerful. Many French are trying to get it through though. Russia and Saudi Arabia still demonize it while planning to frack themselves.

Ouch! I just lost my witty, cleverly worded, insightful, and entertaining post I'd written in response to yours.

It said something like "I basically agree with most of what you are saying".

Thanks for the info on the news media, I can attest to the bias only so far as when the weather sirens go off, they are talking about the weather.

It is the attitude of many governments and leaders even parents.

^{Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.[3][4][5][6] These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.[7][A] - wikipedia}

^{The midwest has experianced a severe drought, while in Australia, they had to add a new color to their tempreture map because of the extreme heat.}

There is a lot of change of rain patterns in this part, but I am sure it has something to do with the Gulf war, since these rain patterns were very repeatative before the war.

As for the global warming...

There is no global warming at all. This was presented by Internationally renowned scientists(2) in a seminar and they presented many proofs.

The main motto behind this according to them is... cashing on.

I just heard all this, as the seminar was held at this oceanography institute that I work.

Gajanan Phadte

We are four degrees above normal lately. Have not had over two inches of snow all winter, at one time. It has all melted within a couple of days. Gradually getting bits of rain that has filled Lake Decatur after the drought, and is now letting the Sangamon River flow again. Aquifers are being replenished. A couple of months ago we had 50 mph. gusts that destroyed my greenhouse. We are known for very changeable weather. My wife grew up here, and misses the heavy snowfall. I was born in Michigan, but grew up in California, so I like mild winters. Maybe we can get the population to start moving back to the northern states. I doubt it though, due to air conditioning.

I see global climate cycles as something that has little to do with mankind's influence. Nature's forces are so much greater than ours. The best we can do is adapt to climate. I would like to see people stop developing low lying areas, so that the rest of us don't have to pay their rebuilding expenses. At least, they should be forced to buy insurance that will cover them if they want to take the chance.

Watch the historic ocean rise yourself, and check historic sea level photos. Don't trust government statistics by themselves.

There's an obvious reason that all port cities are built near water. Similarly, all ocean ports are very close to sea level in elevation.

The residences and most businesses do not need to put themselves in harms way, but I guess you are OK with paying for them to be rebuilt when the storms come. Then they don't even have generators to run the gas pumps. Foresight is helpful. You seem to prefer not to use it.

Where did you get all those assumptions! Do I need to tell you what happens when you assume?

Man, when I plant a seed, I plant a seed!!!! Thank you all for you comments, Even knowing they went where I didn't want them to go... The science of global warming climate change is debatable, I have a hard time believing we are totally at fault looking back at the history of this planet.

I think that we have pretty well flogged the issue of climate change to death in this post, while it was never the intent of the OP to bring this issue up. The original issue was extreme weather events.

I am sitting in my home in Massachusetts, on the eve of the "Blizzard of the Century" This storm, before it has even started, has been given more media hype than the Super Bowl, two to three feet of snow with gale force winds, etc, etc.

Yes, it will probably be a fierce and dangerous storm, but in my last 66 years in New England I have been through many "Nor-Easters" like this. and our history is filled with narratives of past great winter storms.

What has changed? The number of people that are effected by these events, and more importantly, the ability of our technology and social structure to deal with these events. We depend on our highways and transportation systems, and our energy systems. When they fail we are helpless.

I was raised in Ct., and used to enjoy these big winter events, as a kid. Now in NC, and major weather shifts are normal...........depends on where the jetstream is, and if the air is coming in from the north or the south.

As far as the climate change arguments; they go back to the birth of CR4. People that have a financial stake in AGW, should either recuse themselves from the conversations, or provide full disclosure before entering the fry fray.

People that have a financial stake in AGW, should either recuse themselves from the conversations, or provide full disclosure before entering the fry fray.

The oil, gas, and coal companies have the most obvious financial stakes in continuing to burn fuels like it's going out of style.

However, it is a very rare person in the US who does not benefit financially (in the short term) from all the things that lead to continuing to burn fossil fuels at a good clip: big cars provide big profits for Detroit and many other cities, big houses provide construction jobs and maintenance jobs, etc. Big agriculture burns fuel and cuts down trees, to make money selling food. Big beef throws out methane (more powerful than CO2 as a GHG) in addition to having the same issues as agriculture in general.

Everyone in my state benefits from burning coal because it produces cheap electricity. I doubt that there are many CR4 members who could make a convincing case that they do not benefit financially from the overall culture of putting more CO2 into the atmosphere.

I own stock in many companies that benefit from burning fossil fuels. On the other hand, at some point, I will be selling my little cars, but my market is as likely to be cheapskates/security hawks as tree huggers. The people who are most enthusiastic just like the way it looks, ironically.

So there is my disclosure.

Making disparaging remarks about what someone may, or may not, watch on TV, is one of the things that typically turn these threads into a mud fight. It's always helpful to recognize the source.

My brother just returned from his annual trip to India; three months. There is no trash removal, therefore, trash is swept into little piles and lit on fire. There are thousands of them, and they contain plastic, paper, leaves, etc., and they never truly burn, they just smolder.

Whether AGW is real or not, is irrelevant; to sit here on our American pedestal, ship ever increasing tons of coal to China, and say that little electric cars and CFL lighting is saving the planet, is utter and complete bullshit.

Making disparaging remarks about what someone may, or may not, watch on TV, is one of the things that typically turn these threads into a mud fight.

You'd have to show me the data. I think the mud fight results from different world views, differences in respect for science, differences in the degree to which people take things seriously, etc.

My brother just returned from his annual trip to India...

Long trip just to find conditions that exist all up and down Appalachia.

Whether AGW is real or not, is irrelevant...

I agree that CFLs and electric cars will not save the planet. However, the alternative, (which is occurring at an alarming rate in places like China and India), that being to Americanize the entire planet, with every person on earth aiming in the direction of using 8 times as much energy as they do now, is untenable, especially if that energy comes from burning carbon-based fuels.

For me, the issue is not "saving the planet" in the literal sense. The planet will do just fine without us. We have a very long history of raping the planet, and if it were not for the EPA, the Cuyahoga river would burst into flames more frequently now than in the past. Had there been effective legislation in place back when I was exposed to pounds of asbestos shards floating in the air my lungs would function better, and my father-in-law would not have died at age 62 of mesothelioma. It is about saving the people on the planet (as well as the other species: the Cuyahoga in pre-EPA days was devoid of fish). People are about as adaptable as dinosaurs, and several rungs down the ladder from cock roaches in that respect.

Comparing poverty in India to poverty in Appalachia is like comparing an eight course dinner to bowl of rice. Indians need clean, cheap fuel. They will be getting it, due to fracking. They can drive their Tatas and motorbikes, although they prefer larger cars, and most are doing well to get a bicycle. They will make their own decisions. Right now the gap between rich and poor in China and India is not even comparable to our gap. Our poor would be relatively rich in China or India. India is rich in culture, as is China. We lack many of the cultural nuances of older nations.

Population control should be their first goal IMHO, but they will have to figure that out.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/population/#maps http://www.overpopulation.org/India.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1900

Comparing poverty in India to poverty in Appalachia is like comparing an eight course dinner to bowl of rice.
I agree. Kramarat seemed to be dissing India, as if our environmental practices are pristine by comparison. Perhaps he was trying to make some other point.

I wasn't dissing India. This type of 24/7 burning goes on around the world.

I hate stupid, politically motivated hypocrisy. This includes green agenda items like CFL's, banning incandescents, ethanol, cap and trade schemes, etc. All of which are offered up as a way to reduce global warming, and are swallowed hook, line and sinker by the useful idiots.............while we simultaneously are shipping record amounts of coal to places like China, ( who now makes all of our precious CFL's), and at the same time, wag our finger at them to clean up their act, and whine because their pollution is drifting to the US.

It's complete insanity.

Whether AGW is real or not, virtually everything associated with it, is about money, power, and politics. Nothing is being, or will be, done to make any significant impact on it, if it is real. Halting or reversing human CO2 output is impossible.........even if we switch to natural gas; which is going to become huge, but it also releases CO2.

So my suggestion would be to relax and follow the science, but put an end to scare mongers like Al Gore, that are purely interested in monetary gain; and demand that our government stop imposing draconian regulations on US business, while signing agreements to increase coal exports to China, with the other hand. These people are snakes and liars.

I happen to have a relatively tiny carbon footprint, but because my reasons for conservation don't align with the religion of saving the planet from AGW, I am dismissed as the enemy. This too, is BS, and I'm tired of it.

You are exactly right. Bad weather has always been with us, but we are more urban and spoiled than ever. I live a few miles from where about a twenty year old Abraham Lincoln and his family lived on the Sangamon River in a small cabin. They had just moved from Southern Indiana, and hit a bad winter. Some around here died. They had to hole up for the whole winter, which was not uncommon in those days. In the Spring his parents went further south in Illinois, and young Ave took his canoe to New Salem, just nortwest of Springfield.

What I am saying is that we need to adapt to weather, and not think that we can always hop in the car and have business as usual.

It is not just that these weather events happen, as they always have happened. It is that we hear about them immediately, as they are happening, with all the exaggerated drama that the media can create. It's no wonder we feel that the world is going to Hell in a hand basket!

In the last 40 years there has been a marked change in upstate NY known as the Tug Hill Plateau. Winter winds were primarily from the ENE drawing moist air off Lake Ontario, rising up and cooling on the Plateau. A snow of 8-24 inches was not uncommon.In the last years there has been a decrease in frequency of proper winds and a resulant lessining of snow. I have also noticed a change in the warm/cool phases of the year. The time frame is about the same, four months hot, four months cold with a transition time between, but, warm is two-three weeks earlier, with a comparible shift in the cold. February is no longer a time of 15-20 below zero weeks. We used to ski at Thanksgiving. Ski slopes are now hoping to open for Christmas. Oneida Lake has not seen 24" of ice on it for a lot of years. All because Al Gore invented Global Warming. Seriously, the plot of land I live on is on the North Shore of ancient Lake Iroquois, formed when the last glacier blocked the St Lawrence Valley. That melted around 15,000 yrs ago. I think we are still coming out of that ice age. There are occasional minor earthquakes felt, caused by the decompression of the Canadian Shield as the ice melts.

My favorite references on coal pollution: http://www.worldwatch.org/syThe main concern for environmentalists worldwide should be to cut the use of coal, especially in antiquated plants. Here are the top ten coal burners: http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/what-are-the-top-10-coal-burning-countries-on-the-planet-whos-1.html

It is possible for the whole world to drastically cut coal burning and benefit the health of all. Coal pollution travels around the world. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html

stem/files/184_natural_gas_FINAL.pdf
http://green.autoblog.com/2013/01/23/scientists-sound-alarm-on-soots-effect-on-global-warming/

"Paradise second highest in U.S. toxic power plant emissions" for 2011. They were number one for most of my life. And this was probably measured during the day when the scrubbers were running. It was common knowledge that they turned them off at night.

From the link, you can see on the map the where devastation begins. The places that look like scars in the earth, are old strip mines, before reclamation laws. Some have filled with water. It may look like a land of lakes, but don't bother bringing your fishing pole. You won't have to zoom out very far. If it looks brown it is probably a strip mine. I don't think you will see a village called Paradise as the article stated. I've never seen it, so as far as I know, John Prine correctly stated "Peabody Coal Company hauled it away."

No matter how many votes a politician is trying to garner, do not believe them. There is no such thing as "clean coal".

Do you really think that data, measurements and observations will change the mind of anyone not a scientist. Every time this debate comes up one camp loudly proclaims that nothing is proven while the other camp produces one study after another supporting the existence of AGW. Along the way claims of profit margins will be hurled by both sides. Occasionally a believer will "trick" a denier into identifying some possible study that will persuade a denier to be a believer. All to often that study has already been done. But when the denier is presented the results then for one reason or another the results are deemed flawed. On rare occasions the denier will even deny that they accepted the study would change their mind.

First I would like to say that I rated europium's post a GA also because it is an excellent presentation. But I do have issues with your statement, "Do you really think that data, measurements and observations will change the mind of anyone not a scientist."

I think it is an incorrect assumption that, scientist "believe", and if they are not a scientist then this is "just pictures with squiggly lines" as K Fry said and they will not believe. It is actually quite the opposite.

The "not a scientist" is much more likely to believe "squiggly lines", be influence by marketing of data such as presenting choice time periods, fail to see other trends in the data that cast doubt on the interpreted results such as sea levels rising and ice retreating, believe the data is reliable and valid simply because it is called "data", and they lack the knowledge, skill, and ability to recreate the same results from the raw data. The "not a scientist" beliefs are insignificant and meaningless. (until they vote, or effect political decisions)

In contrast, the scientist is required to remain skeptical, look for flaws in methodology, question every possible variable, verify the reliability and validity of the data, recreate the results and then temper their "beliefs" with the knowledge that every facet of the experiment is plagued with margins of error.

You are very unlikely to find a true scientist that would look at graphs and "believe" without questions, explanations, further analysis, and replicated experiments. They would likely want to see the raw data.

"Oh, I see, first a thermometer was dropped into the water, then a bucket of water was pulled up and measured with a thermometer, then you took readings from the ships cooling system intake, then buoys, and now by satellite. Now I see here that you have adjusted some of the data by ten degrees to compensate for the heat of the engine room. How did you come up with ten degrees?"

This is the way a real scientist thinks. If they don't question, verify, and analyze, they are not a scientist, they are a climatologist! A scientist could read this with an open mind, a climatologist could not. (Uh Oh, now I'm stereotyping too!)

I realize that sarcasm is tricky to grasp from the "off the cuff" text you'll find on any user community web site but you should be alert to the possibility. The comment you dislike was meant as pure sarcasm of the counter arguments I've heard repeatedly from the AGW deniers here at CR4. Repeatedly I hear deniers loudly proclaim that the statistics and graphs do not prove AGW. Statistics and graphing correlation techniques cannot prove anything. My sarcasm was to highlight the futility of presenting any peer reviewed results here about AGW. Most will not listen. Many will endlessly repeat their unsubstantiated beliefs like Benedictine monks in chant. The very few willing to engage in a true skeptical analysis forget the outcome and return to their original view. I personally walked an individual through an analysis of the Seuss effect on C14 dating proving that our fossil fuel combustion is raising the CO2 levels on this planet. They ultimately agreed with my analysis. A few months later this same individual reverted to claiming our emissions make no difference in CO2 levels.

You also do not understand scientists and the role of peer review. You are correct that a scientist will be skeptical. A scientist is also a very busy person. A many year long reviewed analysis on any effect will not be automatically dismissed because the scientist has not seen the raw data. Often the raw data volume is so large that this is impossible. Instead the reputation of the concurrent reviewers weighs very heavily on the validity of the measurement and analysis. This is why the source of an analysis and what reviewers are co-authoring becomes so important.

Sorry I didn't catch the sarcasm, I should "lighten up" a little!

You state that a climatologist is not a scientist.

Do you then class climatologists with astrologists? Hieroscopists? Scatologists?

I realize that some of your statements may have been tongue-in-cheek, but you do seem to be rounding up your post with a pretty damning assertion. I have the feeling that a few climatologists (and university departments) may have issue with you.

What say you?

That was my version of sarcasm, hence the full teeth smiley face () and the self-depreciating bit about me, stereotyping.

I would not class them with astrologists, that would be cruel. I'll have to look those other two up, but they sound scary.

I would have to say climatologist are vegetarian......

"Climate Meteorologists: This type of meteorologist looks at long-term weather patterns and data to help predict future climate trends and past climate data."

Evidently, this occupational title was condensed, for a title less "meteor".

Now I'm sorry I looked them up.

A really excellent summary, for which I have rewarded you with the coveted GA.

Unfortunately, interpreting this requires a sense for numbers and statistics. Someone with a scientific bent can glance over the charts you've provided and come away convinced. For someone without a scientific bent, these are just pictures with squiggly lines.

In countries where people are well-educated in math and science, all this is well-accepted (with, for example, 79% of the people in Europe accepting the information in your post.) In countries where people do poorly in math and science (such as in the US), this is not well-accepted (with 51% rejecting your post).

But of course it goes beyond innumeracy. If a single large US oil company has 22,000 times the revenue of The Union of Concerned Scientists, then you can be sure that the voice of the oil industry will drown out the voice of scientists.

So, 100-120 year graphs, prove man made global warming?

Should we throw away the pesky larger graphs?

I'm not an expert, I'm just wondering.

What drove the spikes in CO2 before people did?

http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/the-crux-of-the-global-warming-fraud-temperature-increase-causes-co2-level-increase-1400

What drove the spikes in CO2 before people did?

Dinosaurs eating broccoli maybe.

"What drove the spikes in CO2 before people did?"

Natural causes evidently, but note that the average value of those spikes remains more-or-less constant until you throw in the cumulative effect of thousands of power plants, millions of vehicles and billions of people. The amplitude of that last spike far exceeds the average and even of its most extreme outliers. These data don't prove anything, but they do strongly - very strongly - suggest that our influence on this planet's climate is by no means trivial.

Each trend, taken in isolation, is not conclusive of anything, really. But when taken together, they clearly point to Something that is causing this planet to heat up, whatever the cause. Understanding that cause may provide insights as to what can be done about it, if anything. Ignoring it is probably the worst thing we could do. Politicizing it isn't far behind.

Were these graphs instead of various measurements of my car's engine temperature, fuel consumption, emissions and so forth, would it be reasonable for me to chalk them all up to a fluke, or would it be wiser to look into what may be causing them on the assumption that they may be predictors of serious problems in the future?

Would it be helpful for me to argue with my mechanic that my use of the car is causing these problems (almost surely), or speculate that my car has done this before (I bought it used) and so this is sure to be nothing more than Natural Causes and so I shouldn't be concerned, or to do or say anything else save actually fixing the car?

Given that I live a considerable distance out in the country, I depend on my car to get around. I depend on it to get me back and forth to work, to take me to the store to buy food, to go to appointments and so forth. I don't have a second car, and so it behooves me to keep the one I have in top condition.

Likewise with my planet: It's the only one I have. If it dies, I'm screwed.

Luddites will not believe in any graphs. Graphs are the work of the Devil.

No doubt; nor is there any doubt that man is driving CO2 levels up.

But, as the video and the graphs in my last link show, there has never been a correlation between CO2 and temperature rise. It doesn't seem right to snip the last 100 years from graphs that go back 650,000, and call it indisputable proof that humans are causing warming.

Here's a neat site that scientifically exposes the fallacy of AGW.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

People cannot correlate data. Only the Devil correlates data.

The Devil made this correlation using over one million temperature readings and atmospheric CO2 levels.

I respect Tcmtech's attitude more than the deniers. Global warming will certainly aid many locations as it devastates others. I cannot remember the anthropologist's name but he stated that one of the cornerstones of civilization is mitigating the damage from our own waste.

Did you ever wonder where Greenland got its name?

Well, accoring to Wikipedia, Erik the Red landed there, and "After finding it and settling there, he named it Grœnland (translated as "Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers." The link gives references.

One should also consider how little green the shores had to be for a Scandinavian Viking to call it green.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland Scientists who probed 2 km (1.2 mi) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said that the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants, and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could not have existed in Greenland any later than 2.4 million years ago. These DNA samples suggest that the temperature probably reached 10 °C (50 °F) in the summer and −17 °C (1.4 °F) in the winter. They also indicate that during the last interglacial period, 130,000-116,000 years ago, when local temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.^[48]

and: http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10986-bbc-backs-down-on-climate-change-forced-to-delete-david-attenboroughs-alarmist-warming-claims-from-final-show-of-africa-series?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climatechangedispatch%2FnkcO+%28Climate+Change+Dispatch+news%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail

What a long meandering thread this has become. Should we now explore how dormant human DNA sequences help us explore human evolution? How about we discuss how spiders have been portrayed by different musicians over the ages, from tarantellas to "Boris the Spider".

I know I'll go back to the beginning. Friday to Saturday's blizzard dumped 30+ inches of snow on my house. My street still has not been cleared by the town. The power pole feeding my house has snapped in two. Power, heat and communications can disappear at anytime. My only path out because of the downed power lines is up a slushy steep hill around an abandoned car. Today an inch of rain turned everything into deep slush that will freeze solid tonight. Thursday should be another snow storm. It's winters like this that I long for a New England or Wisconsin winter where road crews and drivers knew how to handle winter weather. The rapid but incomplete thaw freeze cycling is such a bother, too.

Why does the devil combine volcanic activity with human CO2 levels to reach his conclusions, which he claims are likely, not proven?

A couple of things the devil has proven, is that CO2 levels are up, and that we are in the midst of a natural warming cycle. Kudos!

Duh, because human and volcanic CO2 in the atmosphere will have the same effect. You can't tell one molecule from another.

Are you deliberately acting dumb now?

I don't have to act.

I got it now. CO2 levels are up due to some combination of human and volcanic activity, we are in a historically natural warming cycle, (as per the ice core samples), therefore, humans are warming the planet.

Neat stuff!!!

Who said what was "indisputable proof?" And someone's been snipping graphs?! Why, of all the nerve!!

And all those links there in my post? They're not working either? That paleoclimate link? Did they snip that too?

Your charts are a fine representation of what's been going on for the last couple hundred years; and they look pretty scary, until you look at the data that has come from the ice core samples that cover hundreds of thousands of years.

When put in context, one has to realize that the earth has had a natural ebb and flow of both CO2 levels and temperature, that predates the industrial revolution, by far. We are in one of those warming cycles now.

I also don't care for the term "concerned scientists". I prefer objective science. "Concern" indicates that the scientists now have an emotional stake in the game...........flawed data is sure to follow.

As a brief aside: Am I the only one that has to wait forever for these pages to load?

The longer the thread, the longer it takes. It's painful.

Me too. To get the "right" picture, it's important to completely ignore the data from the ice core samples.

But don't worry, change is coming. The EPA uses a graph that covers a whopping 30 year period. Public comment opened on Friday, before this begins to be implemented.

Maybe some Chinese language courses are in order.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/pdfs/EPA-climate-change-adaptation-plan-final-for-public-comment-2-7-13.pdf

Worry not fellas. This will be the last gasp for the naysayers, and it will be ignored.

Afterwards, we begin to enter environmental lockdown in the US. Needless to say, this is being done quietly; you won't find it on the evening news.

It doesn't seem right to snip the last 100 years from graphs that go back 650,000, and call it indisputable proof that humans are causing warming.

Yes that would not be right.

And, of course, no one has done that here, nor has any reputable scientist done so.

Where did you come up with this bit of gibberish? Who made that claim? Did you make this up to try to make it appear that climatologists are nut cases? Please produce a link to a study that claims such a thing. "Indisputable proof" ? Get real.

I'm making the assumption that you can read the line at the bottom of the graphs that says YEAR. Most of the graphs cover a timespan that covers no more than a couple hundred years, some of them, much less. I believe they speak for themselves.

The graphs that come from the ice core samples present hundreds of thousands of years, and therefore, present a much more accurate data set in terms of historic temperatures and CO2 levels.

Please don't hesitate to ask, if you have any more questions. I'm here to help.

I'm making the assumption that you can read the line at the bottom of the graphs that says YEAR.

I don't find endless sarcasm helpful. If you are doing it just to make me think you're belligerent, it is working. If you think I shrink away from belligerent bullies, you'd be wrong.

Again, you have missed the point entirely. Scientists, thoughtful people, and people with a sincere interest in science do not speak or write of "indisputable proof" regarding climate change or anything else.

There is no "indisputable proof" of gravitational effect, the strong force, the weak force, evolution, the general theory of relativity, etc. etc.

Please don't hesitate to ask, if you have any more questions.

Why would I ask? You rarely answer, and so far I don't have any indication that you could come up with anything other than the same worn out arguments that have been presented time and time again by the anti-science crowd.

I asked the question "Where did you come up with this bit of gibberish? Who made that claim?"

You provided no answer at all. Was it Europium. No -- the record is right here, in black and white. Was it Michael Mann? No he did not offer indisputable proof. Was it the Union of Concerned Scientists, or NASA or NOAA? No. Was it one of the hundreds of scientific organizations that support the IPCC findings? No.

Unless you can prove otherwise, the only person implying that "someone" has claimed "indisputable proof" is you.

So you make this garbage up to discredit scientists, I gather. You hope (I can only guess) that others, who do not realize that you are lying, will say "Gosh, so those evil scientist are saying that there is indisputable proof that global warming is caused by humans. Those scientists must be idiots, because that is just not very scientific."

Given that I know and like scientists, I am not going to let your nonsense flood CR4 without pointing out the errors and lies.

Europium said it all. Thanks. I'm unsubscribing.

Another interesting story from Fox News. Funny I didn't hear about this from the lame stream media:http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming/

From Gannett:http://www.rgj.com/article/20130212/OPED02/302120028/Data-show-drought-report-incorrect

Of course you didn't. Read it again. Fox is more interested in discrediting the IPCC than they are of giving the facts to the public. No where does Fox explain that the difference is within the error bars of the prediction.

You don't like to see both sides of an argument, and that is not a good trait for scientists. I study both sides, and draw my own conclusions.

Here are some more of my saved stories on climate change:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vHU2hHXebxpvExT7srNNnX-VM7Qn9Ak_ZmdKCIcUti8/edit

No, I prefer and stride to see both sides of any argument. When an advocate of any side refuses or is incapable of understanding the message of the other side then the rebuttal that advocate makes is likely not a pertinent rebuttal.

I think you meant to say strive.

The effect of warmism on economies, especially in poor nations:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1072431

Supression of free speech: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/343610

I had a public administration professor who banned the West Covina, California paper from our references. That was in the 70s.

I think it would be fun to have one of these debates, where we agree beforehand to switch sides on the argument.

It sounds counterproductive, but if a person is in the position of having to do the research and present arguments that are counter to what they believe, it can be a very enlightening experience.

I want to be on the side of the plants and trees, on the debate as to whether or not CO₂ is a pollutant!

That's not fair! They don't get an opinion.

Plants and trees love CO2, and couldn't live without it!