Ice ages happened when CO2 levels were low and the global temperatures were low compared to today. We're seeing melt everywhere, also in Canada and Siberia which have a continental climate, not regulated by the Gulf Stream. There is just no way a new Ice Age can start under current conditions. It is more in line with other paleontological observations which noticed an ice-free world at high CO2 levels. 600 ppm: no extensive glaciation in the Antarctic. 2000 ppm:
I just have to share this with you... such a nice example of a stubborn scientists: http://www.iceagenow.com/Prepare_for_Ice_Age_Now_says_top_paleoclimatologist.htm Basically what's said here is, that first all the ice has to melt before a new ice age starts ... muhahaha :)
It's not a circle... and I bet you cannot answer it, because all you have are many little "facts", each of which may give or take 0.2 to 1.0 degrees celcius of warming or cooling, but when it comes to creating a consistent picture of future warming due to a CO2 you fail ... well I'll just answer the question for you. http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm This
http://www.arizonaenergy.org/Analysis/MakingSense/Water%20vapour--%20feedback%20or%20forcing.htm Ok one last time. You cannot isolate CO2 and claim it has no effect... there is a feedback on water vapor. You cannot separate those two. After that (and only after that!) you can think about cloud cover etcetera. Now... if levels of CO2 and H2O are high en
I'm not casually dismissive of other facts. I'm just saying that atm the global warming effect is too small and is masked or trading off with others climate factors. But physical modeling and paleontological evidence suggest that the warming effect will become very strong. And evidence also suggests that a mere 10 degree rise is already pretty catastrophic for large parts of the globe. And now I'm concluding that we're heading too
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1067" id="3416537"]That nutshell's the hysteria pretty well.[/quote] You are just part of the collective stupidity of mankind. As if antarctica is going to save us ... instead, it will drown us (my country at least) with 50 meters of water. Omg omg omg. I've shown you the math, do you deny that as well? Do you deny that it's an actual possibility that we'll reach 750 ppm by 2100 ?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/04/26/202588/is-450-ppm-or-less-politically-possible-part-0-the-alternative-is-humanitys-self-destruction/ It's interesting to read this article from 5 years ago... just before the global crisis. "If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the ne
I'm always amazed by politics. http://mining.about.com/od/Coal/a/Top-5-Coal-Fires-Hotspot.htm #5, a coal fire that's been going for 6,000 years ... amazing! And from this article, the title is amazing: http://intellectualventureslab.com/?p=11324 And the conclusion is also amazi
Don't sleep during daytime... that way, you require less sleep at night. Try to avoid sleeping during daytime as much as possible. I take naps during the day in weekends and sometimes I fall asleep for a few hours. Every time that happens, my night sleep is shorter than usual. Then the next day I'm really tired, want to sleep during the afternoon and if I do that, it just gets worse ... so try to limit your sleep during the day. Set 1 (or 2) alarm clocks to wake you up
Did I misunderstand you? I'm sorry... your quote applies to a scientific community as well. Someone claims something new. The community tries to disprove it because they don't believe it. More evidence builds up over the years. Finally (can take as long as 30 years) the evidence becomes very convincing and most scientists will change their mind, they will discard the things they've learned in favor of the new theories and observation. Some will never change th
[quote who="myfist0" reply="1055" id="3415459"]“The whole educational and professional training system is a very elaborate filter, which just weeds out people who are too independent, and who think for themselves, and who don't know how to be submissive, and so on -- because they're dysfunctional to the institutions.” [/quote] Yes, that's true. That's why it takes a scientific community so long to adopt new ideas. After all, the whole climate discus
[quote who="Ekko_Tek" reply="1053" id="3415201"]Chronicle detailing how a few scientists in the US were employed to cast doubt and challenge scientific consensus on tobacco dangers, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, and AGW.[/quote] Yes, that makes sense too. And that's exactly how conspiracy sites work. There are so many sites spreading nonsense, it's hard to find out what's real and what's not. That's a disadvantage of the internet, if
AHHHHHH.... FINALLY SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE !!!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17611404 And this is also amazing: http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2011/111201HuberGlaciation.html
[quote who="psychoak" reply="1049" id="3415029"]A known past climate extreme is simply gone from the record[/quote] It was reduced a little bit... and for all I know it's all within the noise bandwidth. I couldn't care less about that !! Psychoak, you're gambling with "our" future based on a shitload of nonsensical ideas and noisy shit. Now, if it were only your own future then I'd think "go to hell with it". But in this
Such things can only happen in the US. Oh wait... wasn't there this Italian seimologist who was investigated for not predicting an earthquake and causing the death of hundreds of people. And didn't China have this huge revolution in the 60s or so, where every scientists was deported to labor camps for "re-education" ? Look psychoak, when you've got data and you know it has artifcats in them, would you use th
[quote who="psychoak" reply="1039" id="3414779"]The question is why does the USHCN record, which covers the dust bowl era, not reflect the actual higher temperatures of historic record.[/quote] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ This is where they explain their procedure. It looks a bit scary at first sight, but if you consider what such temperature records are used for&nb
[quote who="psychoak" reply="1039" id="3414779"]It's nonsense. It's also completely unrelated to the stratospheric cooling, which stopped. In the mid 90's.[/quote] It doesn't matter that it's cooler and it's flat. The global warming of the troposphere is warmer has also been flat for the last 10 or 15 years. The point is, that the temperature change has opposite sign. This cannot be explained by solar intensity changes. That
Coming to think of it, the marble (or limestone) adds a lot of CaCo3 into the ocean. However, that's not an acid. Actually, the Ca atoms bond with the carbonates... http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/giving-geo-engineering-another-go-dumping-limestone-into-the-oceans-to-fight-acidification.html So, the opposit
[quote who="Ekko_Tek" reply="1025" id="3414559"]Why would I get excited over yet another expected result of being in an interglacial...[/quote] Because interglacials happen slowly over thousands of years. Normally, glaciers don't melt siginifantly in a few decades. At the moment things happen at a greatly accelerated rate. [quote who="psychoak" reply="1023" id="3414549"]- Rising sea level. Been happening for tens of thousands of years, won't switch into reverse un
[quote who="psychoak" reply="1021" id="3414497"]All of this hinges on the belief that the planet has warmed a degree over the last century despite the complete lack of any such occurrence.[/quote] Well... if you leave lots of data out then you might indeed reach that conclusion. Let's see which things you ignore... - Rising sea level. - Rising sea acidity. - Rising sea temperature. - Lowering thermosphere temperature. - Changes in th
Yeah well... it's pretty obvious that humans are responsible. Check the last line in this article: "there is also something about heat that is intrinsically bad for life." http://www.bitsofscience.org/triassic-heat-life-dead-zone-6327/ Perhaps we can learn something from this instead of going on like nothing is happening. This one is ki
This shows how we've broken a cooling trend of the last 4,000 years. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/
Yes, it probably will be used that way... I've found a nice editorial about the time-resolution of CO2 measurements. http://www.sepp.org/science-editorials.cfm?whichcat=Global%20Warming&whichsubcat=Ice%20Cores Or check figure 4 from this article http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/masson.p
Yes, temperatures in a narrow long valley, where air gets trapped and super-heated, is really representative of the rest of the world, especially the vast expanses of the oceans come in to mind ... and yes a 0.3 degree rise due to CO2 alone will make a next record almost a certainty ... very convincing indeed, can't wait to hear about the next record temperature ^^
Sins Forums