Thread: Greenland Melting at Record Rates !! - In 1930

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

Does not matter what the numbers say

Well, some might take that position, but I think that numbers do matter. As does the geologic evidence of past geologic evidence of cooling and warming cycles, prior to the invention of all the items that current warming (or cooling) episodes can possibly be blamed on.

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

Because if the environment is showing effects of increased temperature - then that is the most accurate of all temperature indicators.

An indicator, sure, but hardly "accurate", and of what? The environment has been showing warming because of natural variability prior to your birth, the construction of the pyramids and mankind's invention of the wheel. The debate appears to center on how much of any current climate trend can be blamed on humans, versus all the other factors which caused past episodes of warming.

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

We have multiple upon multiple studies showing that there is a change in the biosphere of the planet in relation to changing temperatures

Of course. But they aren't required, because a single picture showing the presence of the glacial sheets in central park is good enough. Sugar Loaf rock in Staten Island is good enough for me. All this other bru-haha is a different question.

wisconsin_lg.jpg

Originally Posted by PeakProphet

Well, some might take that position, but I think that numbers do matter. As does the geologic evidence of past geologic evidence of cooling and warming cycles, prior to the invention of all the items that current warming (or cooling) episodes can possibly be blamed on.



An indicator, sure, but hardly "accurate", and of what? The environment has been showing warming because of natural variability prior to your birth, the construction of the pyramids and mankind's invention of the wheel. The debate appears to center on how much of any current climate trend can be blamed on humans, versus all the other factors which caused past episodes of warming.



Of course. But they aren't required, because a single picture showing the presence of the glacial sheets in central park is good enough. Sugar Loaf rock in Staten Island is good enough for me. All this other bru-haha is a different question.

wisconsin_lg.jpg

((((((((((((((((((((sigh)))))) )))))))))))))))))))
Didn't read my links did you? And by the looks of it did not really "get" my point - and that could have been my fault. So, I will try again.

Man can put whatever artificial numbers he likes or dislikes on global warming - but the real evidence is there in nature for all to see. Not only in retreating glaciers world wide

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012...6571328740495/

BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 8 (UPI) -- Earth's glaciers and ice caps outside of the regions of Greenland and Antarctica are shedding roughly 150 billion tons of ice annually, U.S. researchers say.

But in the changing ecology of the planet - an nowhere is this more visible than in alpine habitats
http://connectivityconservation.org/...ntains%201.pdf

It is difficult to see how alpine biomes can be part of the "great global warming conspiracy" than some would suggest is behind the science of climate change

As for the latest idiocy of "of course the climate has changed before" well DUH!! Yes it has. But find me a fossil record that shows change as rapid as what we are currently experiencing and I am betting that record will coincide with an extinction event - not a pleasant thing to have to live through.

But climate change is not really about losing an alpine frog or even a forest - it is about the impact on the agricultural sector. With climate change we are in for "droughts and flooding rains" which are predicted to be MORE severe than what we have been experiencing. Given that a huge proportion of my state went under water last year - and more was flood affected, and this after 10 years of the most severe recorded drought in history - well, the farmers are worried, and if you value the ability to put food on your table so should you be.

Google up "Texas drought" and see how many millions they are estimating that small impact is having on your economy. Sure drought might have happened anyway but would it have been as severe or as long lasting if man had not (*)(*)(*)(*)ed with the environment?

d

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

It is difficult to see how alpine biomes can be part of the "great global warming conspiracy" than some would suggest is behind the science of climate change

Science of climate change (in both directions) is well established. The models postulating hysterical scenarios are something else altogether. There is no doubt that the planet has warmed and ecosystems changed, in some cases quite profitably for the human race. For example, New York is quite an economic powerhouse, and if the planet had not warmed it would be difficult to create value in real estate if it were still under 1000' of ice.

Originally Posted by bowerbird

As for the latest idiocy of "of course the climate has changed before" well DUH!! Yes it has. But find me a fossil record that shows change as rapid as what we are currently experiencing and I am betting that record will coincide with an extinction event - not a pleasant thing to have to live through.

The fossil record does not contain the type of global daily temperature information available to climate modelers from the past decades. What is certain is that those parroting "record temperature change!!" are only talking about a record determined during the past 150 years or so (if that), and by NO means can it be claimed that widespread changes in temperature haven't occurred before. Unless you care to show your math on how 150 years out of the past 5,000,000 is statistically representative?

Originally Posted by bowerbird

Google up "Texas drought" and see how many millions they are estimating that small impact is having on your economy.
d

Google up CANADA and see how an entire country has profited by the most recent climate change. Or New York. While unidirectional claims of effect are interesting to an advocate, they have nothing to do with an honest look at the good and bad of a changing climate.

Originally Posted by PeakProphet

For example, New York is quite an economic powerhouse, and if the planet had not warmed it would be difficult to create value in real estate if it were still under 1000' of ice.

Since that has nothing to do whether rapid warming benefits New York _now_, I wonder why you bring it up. Ice sheets are not threatening New York for 50,000 years or so. At that time, your argument will have some validity, but it has no validity now.

The fossil record does not contain the type of global daily temperature information available to climate modelers from the past decades.

But we have an excellent climate record of the distant past. Your argument that we must know weather to know climate is absurd. You don't need to know the exact temp on June 13th a thousand years ago to know the climate at the time.

What is certain is that those parroting "record temperature change!!"

Do you also declare people parrot how the earth orbits the sun? What, in your opinion, turns a statement of fact into "parroting"?

are only talking about a record determined during the past 150 years or so (if that), and by NO means can it be claimed that widespread changes in temperature haven't occurred before.

Again, proxies. We know past climate, despite your incorrect insistence that we don't.

Unless you care to show your math on how 150 years out of the past 5,000,000 is statistically representative?

Being that climate isn't statistical noise, that's a senseless statement.

Google up CANADA and see how an entire country has profited by the most recent climate change.

I googled. Alberta is facing chronic droughts now. The forests are dying en masse from bark beetles. Is this the profit you speak of? Please be specific, being that you're the one claiming such wonderful climate-related benefits for Canada. Crop growth is much more dependent on soil and rainfall than temperature. No rain, no crops. There's little soil in northern Canada, just arctic bog on top of granite. Where are these wondrous benefits are going to show up?

The best climate is the climate that human civilization grew up with, being that infrastructure and population centers are designed around such a climate. Change is _not_ good. The earth is full, and you can't move entire populations. Handwaving "well, it will be better for some" is an immoral position. That is, unless you're volunteering to take in a displaced Bengali family.

Originally Posted by mamooth

Since that has nothing to do whether rapid warming benefits New York _now_, I wonder why you bring it up. Ice sheets are not threatening New York for 50,000 years or so. At that time, your argument will have some validity, but it has no validity now.

It does. Once upon a time, the world was colder. And humans profited handsomely by it warming. People objecting to warming are more fundamentally objecting to change, IMHO, not the warming itself.

Originally Posted by mamooth

But we have an excellent climate record of the distant past. Your argument that we must know weather to know climate is absurd. You don't need to know the exact temp on June 13th a thousand years ago to know the climate at the time.

Those pretending that "this spring is the warmest on record!!" always neglect to mention that "the record" is statistically insignificant, as far as knowing if the changes in the past 150 years mean ANYTHING, let alone anything significant.

Originally Posted by mamooth

Again, proxies. We know past climate, despite your incorrect insistence that we don't.

I didn't say that. I said that proxies aren't the same as daily global temperature readings in the modern era. But those proxies you mention certainly indicate that the past warmings pre-dated coal fired power plants. Of course, I don't need global daily temperature arguments to substantiate geologic knowledge, so the proxies work pretty well for showing the general nature of those past warmings. And coolings.

Originally Posted by mamooth

Being that climate isn't statistical noise, that's a senseless statement.

Thank you for substantiating my comment by not providing your calculation to the contrary. The reason WHY you can't is because my statement is correct.

Originally Posted by mamooth

I googled. Alberta is facing chronic droughts now. Where are these wondrous benefits are going to show up?

They already have. Without some global warming, Canada is a non-country. Warming took place, and EVERYTHING Canada is today is because of it. Advocates of more warming being the harbinger of death and destruction ignore the fact that humans tend to do better in warmer environments than cooler ones. Canada, and New York, being just two examples of how this has happened before.

Originally Posted by mamooth

The best climate is the climate that human civilization grew up with, being that infrastructure and population centers are designed around such a climate. Change is _not_ good. .

And now we see the truth. This idea, which I agree is ingrained in the human psyche, is the actual problem. It doesn't matter WHAT the change is, only that it is happening. Of course, it has always been happening, and those who have enjoyed less change, when faced with more, will bit*h, moan, whine, proclaim that "the science is settled!", and perform all manner of self flagellation to convince others to somehow stop said change, change their behavior to stop said change, and dream up whatever means are necessary to convince others of the righteousness of their cause.

Not because the world is warming, or cooling, but only because they believe something is changing.

I didn't read all the posts because it will just be a repete of the same stuff.

But here goes...the reason man is responsable for global warming can be found in one simple equation. That is the process called photosynthesis.

Plants take carbon out of the atmosphere and make food with the help of the sun. They give back O2 and make sugar

6CO2 + 6H2O...add light and the green stuff....and you get sugar C6 H12 O6 and 6 molecules of O2 are given off.

Plants also take this sugar and arrange it into cellulose. When cellulose gets real old it turns into coal and oil.

When man burns the coal and oil...cuts down the trees...this carbon has to go somewhere. It goes into the air we breathe. It also traps sunlight (in the form of short wave infrared radiation) in the atmosphere. This heats the earth like a greenhouse.

But what reall bothers me is every summer here in the Northern Hem. is the Antartic ice is increasing B.S.

Of course it is increasing...it is winter down there!...but there is less and less of it from year to year.

Just think clearly about it.

And changing climate rarely helps farmers because they have adapted their methods to the climate and changes mess everything up.

You get early warm periods then frost...so you guess at planting.
You get early rains then dry... or visa versa.

Or worst yet... no rain.

And this thing about records...once upon a time these dudes broke the 4 min. mile and set a record.

When someone went even faster they set a new record....see how that works?

So...if 2012 set an ice melting record it would be logical to assume it is melting even faster than it did in the past....therefore a record.

Originally Posted by PeakProphet

It does. Once upon a time, the world was colder. And humans profited handsomely by it warming. People objecting to warming are more fundamentally objecting to change, IMHO, not the warming itself.

And if it was 120F in the winter, your train of logic would still conclude that more warming is better, because warming ended the ice age. You train of logic leads to absurd results, and is clearly totally absurd. A rational person would look at drawbacks and benefits of warming (as we do), instead of mindlessly declaring warming must always be good.

But those proxies you mention certainly indicate that the past warmings pre-dated coal fired power plants.

And we know the factors that caused those previous cycles to occur. None of those factors are at play now. Only one factor -- greenhouse gases -- explains the current observed warming. If your "side" could come up with a reason for the current warming that doesn't involve greenhouse gases, they'd get some respect. None have done so successfully, and only a bare few have tried and failed. Most, like you, prefer to simply handwave about magic mystery cycles that have no discernable cause.

Thank you for substantiating my comment by not providing your calculation to the contrary. The reason WHY you can't is because my statement is correct.

Your statement was dumb. It's like claiming that since that last car crash wasn't statistically representative of the previous history of the car, he didn't really get drunk and drive it into a telephone pole. I mean, how do we know the car didn't drive itself into a pole many times in the past?

We know the guy drove the car into the pole. We know greenhouse gases are increasing temps. We don't need a perfect history to see these things. We have the direct evidence now. We can see the outgoing IR radiation closing down in the greenhouse gas absorption bands. We measure the goesin/gousout heat imbalance. Greenhouse gases are causing warming, and we are putting the greenhouse gases there.

They already have. Without some global warming, Canada is a non-country. Warming took place, and EVERYTHING Canada is today is because of it.

And EVERYTHING is today because the world cooled down from a ball of magma, therefore all cooling is good!

Hey, it's your idiot argument, so you must accept it.

You directly stated Canada has benefited from _recent_ climate change. Keyword "recent". Your words, right above. I asked for evidence. From your lack of response, I will take it you have no such evidence.

Advocates of more warming being the harbinger of death and destruction ignore the fact that humans tend to do better in warmer environments than cooler ones.

Incorrect. Humans in northern europe did better, but northern europe is not the world. North Africa was once the breadbasket of Rome. Arabia was much more lush. Thriving civilizations existed in Africa, in southwestern north america. The world warmed, and those civilizations died. Warming helps some, hurts others. A rational person recognizes that, instead of blindly proclaiming that warming is always good.

It doesn't matter WHAT the change is, only that it is happening.

While I'm sure you enjoyed making up the peculiar stories about what I really believe, you should probably just allow me to tell you what I think. Much simpler, less guesswork involved.

So, let's get back to that point you worked so hard to evade. The infrastructure of human civilization is designed around the current climate. A changing climate would require mass migration, something impossible in the current fully occupied world and political climate. Canada is not going to open the doors to half of Bangledesh. You can't just handwave that away, being it involves a lot of death and trillions of dollars. Handwaving away such a thing is not rational or moral.

Being sane, moral and rational, I say those deaths and trillions of dollars wasted should be avoided if possible. Can you explain why you find my position to be irrational? Is it your contention that the deaths and trillions of dollars wasted is a desirable thing?

I also pointed out that it's immoral to advocate for warming, take the benefits of it, and then tell those who are screwed from it "Tough luck! It all evens out, so accept your fate!". I was taught to take responsiblity for my actions. Since you're pushing for warming, shouldn't you take responsibility for it? Accepting a refugee family would be one such method.

Originally Posted by politicalcenter

And changing climate rarely helps farmers because they have adapted their methods to the climate and changes mess everything up.

Of course it messes everything up. Farmers like certainty just as much as business does. And they have dealt with change before, and no matter how much they disliked it, they adapted before, and will do so again. My guess is, when faced with different conditions in the future, some will quit, and some will adapt and go on.

I think it's all a little overdone. I believe that it's true that we, as humans, increase the temperature of the earth, but our affect isn't significant. The earth gets warmer and cooler naturally due to effects beyond our control. I can't imagine that automobiles brought us out of the ice age.