Nature says global warming is real

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nordland/1.7470325

Hope you read Norwegian.

 

You know what's odd? If Finnmark has a timber industry, why does a google search of "Finnmark's timber industry" yield zero results? You'd think they'd want to advertise that at least a little bit.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclien...or.r_qf.&fp=7e094ceebe96508a&biw=1280&bih=878

 

Nordland isn't Finnmark.

 

Here is a photo from their most recent prospectus. Investors report timber yields have been slightly below their expectations

 

Because you are putting it all in quotes which is limiting your search.

 

Who said the climate wasn't changing? The climate has changed untold numbers of time in the last 4 Billion years. It's the reason that's in dispute.

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something cause the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? If you can't prove the latest warm period it's man made, then you can't rule out that the same process isn't happening again.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arcticdino/about.html

 

No, duh...That's because I'm not interested in tourism in Finnmark, or Finnmark's fishing industry, or the timber industry in Washington.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclien...or.r_qf.&fp=7e094ceebe96508a&biw=1280&bih=878

 

Can you point me in the direction of any AGW scientist who claim the only reason the planet is warming is because of man?

 

If you have evidence that that photo was taken in a "treeless area" due to CLIMATE CONDITIONS, (notice all the HARDWOODS in the surrounding area), instead of a COMPLETE LIE, please link it.

 

Total CO2 concentration: .000387. Humans responsible for ( AT MOST) .06 of that.

Do the math.

Then ask a chemist what effects 6% of .000387 atmospheric CO2 concentrations are having on...anything.

That would be about .00002322 atmospheric CO2 that humans are causing.

Prepare for laughter.

 

My evidence is the OP's article, which makes all those claims. If you want to prove the article is lying, you need to post your evidence to support that argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you calculate that yourself?

 

Ok. I call bullcrap. How is it that there are numerous deciduous trees surrounding the conifer ? It looks more like a shot of the TIMBERLINE, from ANYWHERE.

It certainly is NOT Norway, in the winter,and it certainly is NOT a "young tree".


Nope; I did not. But I'll play your game; I made that claim, so you have to prove it wrong, just like your asinine defense of the OP's obvious LIE.

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

 

Because that is the point of the article--there are "numerous deciduous trees" growing in areas they didn't grow before, and the timberline is rising up the arctic. What kind of picture would you expect them to use to support such a claim?

And you know this because...?

Geez, look at you all defensive. I'd just like to know where you got that information from.

 

"Where trees should not grow" Then how come there's fossilized trees up there ?

What Mother Nature is doing is laughing at you Climatistas.

 

And, lo and behold, here is a study from the Research Council of Norway, claiming that warming is not NEARLY AS SEVERE as the UN IPCC and it's willing dupes keep trying to claim:


Despite the recent politicized reporting from NOAA, NASA and the US Global Change Research Program (USGRCP), independent studies have provided clear contradictions to the hype and extremism.


The Research Council of Norway: Global warming less extreme than feared?
Policymakers are attempting to contain global warming at less than 2°C. New estimates from a Norwegian project on climate calculations indicate this target may be more attainable than many experts have feared.

Internationally renowned climate researcher Caroline Leck of Stockholm University has evaluated the Norwegian project and is enthusiastic.

“These results are truly sensational,” says Dr Leck. “If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate.”

GLOBAL warming is likely to be less extreme than claimed, researchers said yesterday. The most likely temperature rise will be 1.9C (3.4F) compared with the 3.5C predicted by the Intergovern(*)mental Panel on Climate Change.

The Norwegian study says earlier predictions were based on rapid warming in the Nineties. But Oslo University’s department of geosciences included data since 2000 when temperature rises “levelled off nearly completely”.

“In our project we have worked on finding out the overall effect of all known feedback mechanisms,” says project manager Terje Berntsen, who is a professor at the University of Oslo’s Department of Geosciences and a senior research fellow at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO).

“We used a method that enables us to view the entire earth as one giant ‘laboratory’ where humankind has been conducting a collective experiment through our emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, deforestation, and other activities that affect climate.


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread921541/pg1


And then , there's that BOGUS photo in the OP article....

 

Look at this graph
http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/activity/sunspot_history.html

And then look at these graphs. Look at the long term graphs, not the 1979 on graphs.

https://www.google.com/search?q=glo...JJIf32wWomYDAAg&ved=0CD8QsAQ&biw=1187&bih=565

The temperature has run very close to sunspot activity. End of rational discussion.

 

WTF???

They claim the story is from today.

They show a picture of a tree, that should be buried in snow, and claim global warming is real cause nature says so...

Just look at the picture if you dont believe me.



That picture aint from today, or anytime in the last 4 months....





.

 

Mankind has an impact but it isn't as big as most people stress. The Earth naturally goes through cycles of being warmer and being colder, so we are just caught right now in the middle of the cycle. Mankind may be affecting the cycle, like possibly speeding it up, but the Earth was going to warm eventually. Still, I agree with the general consensus that we do need to cut down on pollutants because it will build up and have detrimental affects. It doesn't have the biggest or most disastrous effect right now, but it very well could in the future.

 

The date is when the story was published, not when the picture was taken, and the season is irrelevent, as the area in question was once tundra, a place in which trees never grew, regardless of whether it was summer or winter.

I mean, I really want to understand what you're trying to claim. Are you claiming that this tree sprouted and grew to that size 6 months ago during one summer in the arctic and now it is dead because of increasing winter cold, but that they are covering up this fact by using an old picture? Or Is your claim that this picture isn't from the arctic at all, that it's really a picture of a tree from below the arctic timberline, and it is being used to falsely claim that what was once arctic tundra is now covered in trees?

Please...elaborate on your skepticism.

 

I hope so. Best to keep an eye on the situation continuously to ensure accuracy.

 

Oh Noes!!!! Global Warmage again!

I for one welcome the increased temperatures in the Northern places.... I was in London this week... OMFG... cold.

Go Global Warming Go!!!!

 

There’s plenty of reason why temperature fluctuates. The continents are constantly moving. This disrupts ocean currents and weather patterns over time. So really, comparing today with 200 million years ago is like comparing apples to oranges.

However, even 200 million year ago, no species was dumping CO2 in the atmosphere like humans have been doing the last century or chopping down forests like humans have. Do you really think there will not be any consequences because of this?

 

Do you really think that such "consequences" would be catastrophic?

Just because there is cyanide in apples doesn't mean I'm going to die if I eat apples.

 

Yes. We could easily make the human population extinct.

Whats worse, this could be avoided. Cars are a major problem for CO2...Instead of cars running on gas, we need hybrids running on Natural Gas and Electricity.

 

Care to prove that.