Fortunately for all you are wrong.
How can I say this with certainty? Because you and I know very well that the past records are NOT able to accurately meassure the timeframe in which changes occur especially in term of 100 year periods of time. So when you claim unprecedented, you have no way of knowing whether it is unprecedented or not. In fact, for at least the temperature, the data LOUDLY speaks against this change being unprecedented or unusual.
You disagree? Do you really want to tell me how you assume no diffusion in ice core samples in order to be able to get accurate yearly data?
How about just explaining this to me. You claim the 0.8 degree increase over the last 100 years is unprecedented and exceedingly fast. From 1910 to 1940, the temps increased by 0.5 in 30 years. Funny how the 0.5 degrees in 30 years is natural yet not seen in the surrogate records previously. Why? Because as I said, the past surrogate records are NOT able to be used in the manner you are using them.
Fact is that you are a climate "scientist". YOU KNOW THIS. You want to whine about people who are not climate scientists spreading what you consider to be lies, while you pull this crap???
PATHETIC!!!
The "deniers" are doing good work. At the very least they make it obvious that the science is not "settled" and therefore when people figure out that you warmers were scare-mongering and lying, it won't cause them to disbelieve all of science.
It is the suddenness of the CO2 rise that is of concern. There is no time in the past when it rose so fast. So although there are past climate changes, and also past CO2 changes, none as been so sudden. And it is just starting. 200 years is nothing in the life of the Earth. If you project the recent rise a few hundred years into the future, it is positively ALARMING how high it will get so soon! Even if it has no effect on temperature it is still alarming to change the chemistry of the air so much so fast. We may not know exactly what the effects will be but only a fool would assume there will be no bad effect; especially when we caused (are still causing) it and can stop it. So we would like to do something about it *before* it gets so bad. It is a lot smarter to nip it in the bud before things get out of hand. Smart people do that. Not so smart people wait until it is too late. The trouble is that humans have such a short life span that anything that takes over 100 years to happen doesn't seem to bother people. But our descendants in a few hundred years will curse us if we see the CO2 increase, ignore it, and keep spewing out more and more like there is no tomorrow.
"Climate Changers also want us to believe that the CO2 we're generating is somehow doing more destruction than all Ice Ages put together."
- I think that you, a global warming denier, are the first one to say that. Congratulations.
"And yet we're also supposed to believe that Climate Change is only recent."
- It is true that the climate has changed many times in the past. What's different this time is that, in geologic time, it's very rapid. And it's going to affect where we're able to live and grow our food. And, we're causing it by adding more CO2 to our atmosphere than has been the case for millions of years. Far longer than humans have walked on this planet. That's not to say that it's never been higher -- it has. But people have never had to deal with it at the level it is today, never mind higher.
"Secondly, we're supposed to believe that Climate Change is a greater threat than any terrorist group on the face of Planet Earth."
If we consider how many people on this earth will be affected, then yes, global warming may well be a greater threat than any terrorist group.
"That's the kicker. The Climate Changers want us to believe that somehow, Climate Change is more of a threat than Terrorist groups who would love nothing more than to blow up millions of human beings with a nuclear weapon."
- One would hope that terrorists don't get a nuclear weapon. That would be bad. And there are people working on that problem. There are many problems that people in different places face. It wouldn't be helpful to identify one problem and have everyone work on it, and ignore everything else. All of them should be addressed, by the people most appropriate to do each one. We choose to address climate change.
"Our little children are given Climate Change homework every week, because it's such a terrible threat to Planet Earth and that we should worship Planet Earth, forcing Climate Change projects on our little children."
- Got any proof of that? No, because it's not true. No school does climate change homework every week. When you just make such crap up, do you really expect anyone to believe anything you say?
There is some research to show that our children are being brainwashed with the climate alarmist propaganda.
The subject might be expected to pop up in science but it also occurs in English, geography, history and foreign language lessons. http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2...
The "unprecedented" word is seldom if ever justified when talking about the current climate in my experience. Maybe the sun is hotter now than ever (could it be the sun!?) but everything else seems to have happened before and faster. Antarcticice says: "... denier (sic) pretend this [sea level rise] has been happening since the last ice age ended but that is quite simply not true." and then posts a graph showing that sea level rise has been happening since the last ice age ended. It also shows how it was much faster in the past.
The Younger Dryas warming rate was much faster than now: " ... central Greenland temperatures increased by 7°C or more in a few decades (Johnsen et al., 1992; Grootes et al., 1993; Severinghaus et al., 1998)." http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/0...
We have had extreme weather in the past. See the video. It claims that central Germany had 1 metre of hail in one day. Rivers froze, trees blackened and grapes exploded. Everyone "knew" it was due to witchcraft so they executed nearly 4,500 people as a direct result. Now we are much more sensible, aren't we? Now Exxon did it with help from Charles and David - not witches after all!
Raisin Cane: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/54...
Note how the warming was also partially due to GHG forcing. I have never seen anyone claim that early century warming was due chiefly to natural variability yet you claim we are the ones lying. If you want to read the full article posted above you can view it on Google Scholar. The paper states that early 20th century warming was a consequence of GHG forcing, internal variability as well as increasing external forcings. The most recent warming is mainly due to GHG forcing. If you want to call others liars, pathetic, and so on I would suggest you base your argument on what the opposing side is saying and not what you think they are saying.
Raisin Caine –
>>You disagree? Do you really want to tell me how you assume no diffusion in ice core samples in order to be able to get accurate yearly data?<<
No one makes that assumption, you lying swine. Annual resolution is limited to specific conditions as well as temporally, with resolution decreasing as greater depths.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...
So , what you are saying is : "I am too lazy to bother reading about the science , therefore it is wrong"
The creationist argument
Love the jack nicholson quote
YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH
Where do you get these crazy ideas?
I understand the point you’re making but you’ve overlooked a very important aspect – magnitude.
Yes the climate has changed in the past, and indeed those changes have been much more significant than anything we’ve experienced in recent decades. But what about the rate of change?
An ice-age cycle lasts for 95,000 years of which about 83,000 years is cooling and 12,000 years is warming (the warming is much quicker because feedback mechanisms amplify the rate of warming). The last ice-age ended some 10,000 years ago after a period in which the Earth warmed by 7°C. The magnitude of warming that ended the ice-age (more correctly it’s called a period of glaciation) was 1°C every 1,700 years – this is by far the most pronounced natural warming cycle there is.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Fil...
By contrast, if the warming in recent decades were to continue for 1,700 years then Earth would warm by 21.6°C.
In simple terms, recent warming is 22 times greater than anything that can be attributed to any long-term natural cycle.
Also bear in mind – the last ice-age has ended, the current natural phase should be a cooling one as we move toward the next ice-age. 10,000 years of natural cooling has been wiped out by 30 years of unnatural warming.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Fil...
You talked about the Industrial Revolution. For millions of years prior to the IR there was little change in the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, varying between 180 and 290 parts per million by volume (ppmv). In the 200 years since the IR the level of greenhouse gases has increased to 402ppmv.
If we compare what’s happening now with the most pronounced periods of natural CO2 production, we find that levels are increasing some 200 times faster than any natural cycle can produce. Currently CO2 levels are increasing by about 2ppmv per year, this compares to 100ppmv per 10,000 years (0.01ppmv)
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Fil...
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Fil...
Ice-ages, along with other natural cycles are just that – they’re natural and they’re cyclical. They have positive and negative phases which balance each other out. The human contribution to climate change is one way only – we add more and more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and remove none of them.
Measured as a CO2 equivalence then we’re adding 49 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere each year (34.5Gt of CO2 and 14.5Gt of CO2e). Natural variations are almost balanced – numerous processes release CO2 into the atmosphere and the same ones absorb it back again. Left to nature there would be very little year-on-year change, but 49 billion tonnes of human CO2e makes a huge difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycl...
There was the ice age. There were floods. There were pestilences. There was the bubonic plague. There were fires, floods, hurricanes, melting glaciers that could have killed sea life on both poles, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. There have been obvious indications of very high temperature warmings across Planet Earth dating back for many centuries. Not to mention the great Ice Age period. For the history of Planet Earth, these things have happened in cycles. But you see, the Industrial Revolution only happened 2 centuries ago. That's only 200 years. Out of all of human history. And we're producing a lot and using a lot of oil and other harmful chemicals that the Climate Changers are warning us about. And the Climate Changers also want us to believe that the CO2 we're generating is somehow doing more destruction than all Ice Ages put together. And yet we're also supposed to believe that Climate Change is only recent. Secondly, we're supposed to believe that Climate Change is a greater threat than any terrorist group on the face of Planet Earth. That's the kicker. The Climate Changers want us to believe that somehow, Climate Change is more of a threat than Terrorist groups who would love nothing more than to blow up millions of human beings with a nuclear weapon. Our little children are given Climate Change homework every week, because it's such a terrible threat to Planet Earth and that we should worship Planet Earth, forcing Climate Change projects on our little children. Why?
You have the feel of a recently dusted off troll account, but here goes anyway..
You talk of past (natural) climate change like the ice ages, these have a cause and part of that cause is a rise in CO2, triggered by a shift in the Earth tilt to the Sun, which in turn triggers a rise in CO2 and the planet warms. This cycle of glacial shifts has been going on for ~2.5 million years.
It is not a fast process CO2 rise takes thousands of years and glacial retreat thousands more, but here's the problem for deniers, in those shifts CO2 rises ~100ppm the effect is slow as the amount is small but it has a long time for the effect to cause the change which is usually a rise of ~8c over 12-15 thousand years. Look at what is happening now and CO2 has risen 120ppm in ~150 years and by current estimates will reach at least a further 170ppm by the end of the century.
That is far more and far faster CO2 rise than any of the natural glacial shifts of the last 2.5 million years, even the current 399ppm is higher than any level seen in the last 800,000 years, soon it will be higher than any level seen since the glacial cycle started 2.5 million years ago.
I don't think you can really compare terroist threats to climate change, but even a nuclear weapon explosion does not affect more than a region point, climate is going to affect the entire planet, we already heve sea level rise, denier pretend this has been happening since the last ice age ended but that is quite simply not true.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...
the current rate is 3 times the level of rise of 7 thousand years ago, that is not a continuation but something new. Natural climate change has happened throughout the planets history and many of those changes are linked to changes in CO2 levels, it rose and the planet warmed, it fell and the planet cooled we are now producing CO2 at a rate that dwarfs volcanic emission of CO2 (one of the natural sources) we produce ~100x the amount current volcanic activity does, yet laughably denier try to blame volcanoes, when their not trying blame the Sun or Cosmic rays or Al Gore or communists or governments or scientists.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/arch...
Yet the Sun has not increased in activity even as we have warmed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-...
"When is the Climate Change indoctrination going to stop?"
translation, "I don't like science, make it stop"
Those that dispute Darwins theory act in much the same way, they, like deniers live in a fantasy world, where they invent little counter theories on napkins and try to pretend it's science, denial has had a good run over the last decade but even as deniers claimed "it's cooling" we kept having warmer years, deniers still try to claim it has cooled since 1998, despite the fact 1998 is now the third warmest year and in the next few years looks set to drop even further.
sophisticated point. research in yahoo. that will can help!
