Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The climate always changes. It has for billions of years.
Can you tell me what happened to the glaciers that used to cover half the US? Did you know that Greenland was once....green, lush and fertile? Did you know they used to grow grapes in N England?
Do you really believe that the Earth is warmer today than it was when Greenland was green?
I have no doubt you believe it was called greenland because it once was. wow.
It was named as such so it would sound desireable, when it wasn't. Conversely Iceland was made to sound uninhabitable when it was the opposite.
Shouldn't you be starting another thread to praise Sarah or going for reform in election laws so W can run again?
As to climate changes the glaciers of North America took some 100,000+ years to recede. In my lifetime we have seen Antartica loose massive amounts of volume. Peru has had glaciers recede upwards of 1 mile / year. When the ice age glaciers receded they did not eliminate the ice caps.
In the last 50 years man has done what hasnt happened in the preceeding 1 million years. Peru is a country that might contribute 1/2 of % of the worlds greenhouse gases and yet they are on a plan to eliminate rain forest deforestation in 10 yrs, reduce emissions over the next 15 years and so on. They have seen the changes ina short run and realize their lifestyle is in jeopardy.
And this from what we deem a third world country. Seems we qualify for that status far better than those we label.... infant mortality on the rise, education on the decline, air quality eroding, and political IQ's approaching zero.
The crack pots are the AGW fanatics that can't answer even the most basic of questions...very similar to the AGW fanatics on this and other threads. The only facts they have are what they can regurgitate from the force-feeding of the fear mongers.
Please, tell me what happened to the glaciers that used to inhabit half of NA?
please tell me what part of humans accelerating the process you can't grasp. No one argues there are not cycles....but you need to wake up the fact that they are greatly impacted by human activity. But i know you wont because you think humans cause no harm.
Sarene...its no use in trying to be rational with the irrational
Odanny and others like him refuses to believe that GW is a hoax...the new deniers...
btw..odanny...regarding your comment...The earth is getting warmer and the results of this warming trend are obvious wherever you live...
yeah... its a scorcher here in Boston this morning 18 degrees ...could you please fedex me some suntan lotion...
another person who thinks where they live is the globe and that if there was global warming it would eliminate seasons. At least you understand what you deny
True believers are not thinkers. Belief is so much easier than thought. Holding opposing viewpoints doesn't even register with these folks. They see no contradiction. They're incapable of grasping the concept of hypocrisy.
Wow, you've let the cat out of the bag with THAT one!!! This is going to pull the rug right out from under the global warming crowd completely!!!
They receded as the current interglacial period was ushered in. This has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. That you even raise the question is a marker for your lack of comprehension.
All of it? Hmm...no. And the small part that briefly was green got that way because of regional variations in winds and ocean currents in the North Atlantic. This also has nothing to do with global warming.
As for "N England", what's with the big N??? You (and the other deniers) used to claim that grapes could not be grown today in just plain old England. What happened with that? Did it run into the fact that not only are grapes grown there today, but millions of bottles of wine are produced every year from the bounty of English and Welsh vineyards? So link us now to your source that had always said it was just "N England" that they were talking about.
Yes, it is, though Greenland itself is not. In fact, the earth is warmer now than it has been at any point for which any reasonable records or proxy-records have been found. This DOES have something to do with global warming.
They receded as the current interglacial period was ushered in. This has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. That you even raise the question is a marker for your lack of comprehension.
Complete hogwash, as usual. It is a FACT that the glaciers receded because of warming, natural warming, just like today.
My gosh, you and your ilk want to claim disaster based on 150 years of temperature history and flawed statistical models input with manipulated temperature data. This shows not just a lack of comprehension, but colossal ignorance of the fundamentals of Earth's history.
Quote:
All of it? Hmm...no. And the small part that briefly was green got that way because of regional variations in winds and ocean currents in the North Atlantic. This also has nothing to do with global warming.
The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.
From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter — the temperature range that the tree species prefer.
And then of course, they experienced another ice age or two, some more periods of warming and then along came Eric about a thousand years ago and found a lush, fertile, green paradise.
Quote:
As for "N England", what's with the big N??? You (and the other deniers) used to claim that grapes could not be grown today in just plain old England. What happened with that? Did it run into the fact that not only are grapes grown there today, but millions of bottles of wine are produced every year from the bounty of English and Welsh vineyards? So link us now to your source that had always said it was just "N England" that they were talking about.
I never claimed that. The FACT remains, that specific area used to be warm enough.
Quote:
Yes, it is, though Greenland itself is not. In fact, the earth is warmer now than it has been at any point for which any reasonable records or proxy-records have been found. This DOES have something to do with global warming.
Double hogwash. This claim, made consistently by the AGW fanatics flies in the face of what most people know about Earth's history - that is was much, much warmer and much, much cooler, they know that Canada used to be a tropical paradise, that NA was covered in glaciers and the yes, Greenland was once so warm that it was actually green.
No amount of fear mongering and denial can get around those inescapable facts.
I have no doubt you believe it was called greenland because it once was. wow.
It was named as such so it would sound desireable, when it wasn't. Conversely Iceland was made to sound uninhabitable when it was the opposite.
Shouldn't you be starting another thread to praise Sarah or going for reform in election laws so W can run again?
As to climate changes the glaciers of North America took some 100,000+ years to recede. In my lifetime we have seen Antartica loose massive amounts of volume. Peru has had glaciers recede upwards of 1 mile / year. When the ice age glaciers receded they did not eliminate the ice caps.
In the last 50 years man has done what hasnt happened in the preceeding 1 million years. Peru is a country that might contribute 1/2 of % of the worlds greenhouse gases and yet they are on a plan to eliminate rain forest deforestation in 10 yrs, reduce emissions over the next 15 years and so on. They have seen the changes ina short run and realize their lifestyle is in jeopardy.
And this from what we deem a third world country. Seems we qualify for that status far better than those we label.... infant mortality on the rise, education on the decline, air quality eroding, and political IQ's approaching zero.
as per usual when science and facts come along she disappears. It truly is pointless to even battle.
another person who thinks where they live is the globe and that if there was global warming it would eliminate seasons. At least you understand what you deny
Proud denier...
Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap.
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
As Richard North says: This is serial.
UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:
The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.
One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.
please tell me what part of humans accelerating the process you can't grasp. No one argues there are not cycles....but you need to wake up the fact that they are greatly impacted by human activity. But i know you wont because you think humans cause no harm.
What caused the accelerated warming in the past, when humans weren't a factor?
Can you tell me the optimum temperature of the Earth?
Show me the evidence that the .2 degree (OMfG, what a disaster, the temperature has risen a whole figgin .2 degrees in 150 years) rise in temperature is man-made. Not theories, not statistical models, but actual evidence.
So far, you've come up empty in answering any questions - why am I not surprised? Just take a peek at those videos of the Greenpeace activists, who have no thoughts on the matter except those that have been regurgitated from the "belief" system.
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap.
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
As Richard North says: This is serial.
UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:
The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.
One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.
wow i think sea levels just lowered and the glaciers re-froze sure glad thats over
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
