Australia suffers most extreme warming

Really??? Got evidence that climate does not change by itself??? Maybe those 5 million years of data is wrong??? Climate has remained the same until MAN came along and filled the sky with smoke stacks???

As stated believing that MAN has such influence on the planet is considerably bad and the fact somebody would like to say that climate has never changed before MAN is incredible and completely discredits their stance on climate change.

Climate has changed for millions of years, if somebody believes it is all up to MAN, then why can they not discredit the reality of climate change BEFORE man???

 

Why start in 1978? show us a graph starting in 1900. Ice increased in the arctic and antarctic last year, it is a fact. It is also a fact that the arctic has been almost ice free several times in the last hundred years.

Remember we were told by alarmist scientists that the arctic was going to be ice free by 2013 and the antarctic was going to continue melting. They got it wrong again. I have never seen such twisting and turning and excusing as we get from the alarmists, aaah um welllllll what we really meant.....

 

Well done BB, the explanation of last resort. It's what religous nuts use.

They climate has always changed. The industrial revolution only started a couple of hundred years ago so there must be many other factors that can change the climate. The climate has warmed and cooled in the past without any help from man.

So the climate has never changed before now?

 

Sure, just give NASA a call and let them know how to take the photo. You might just win an award for being the smartest man on the planet

 

Here are actual FACTS....and if anyone here knows how I post I will post REALITY as I am not governed by any specific ideology except that of using the Scientific Method.

FACT.....CO2 levels in our atmosphere are rising at an UNPRECEDENTED RATE and Antarctic Ice Core Samples supply us with these facts and here is something from the Antarctic Ice Core Data.

Trends

Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.

LINK....http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

That link is to the CDIAC....Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center and if anyone reading this thinks that the CDIAC is some organization run by a bunch of Tree Hugging Hippie Freaks.....THINK AGAIN!!!

Look at the bottom of the page of that link.....you will see that the CDIAC is part of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.....or basically the DOE's main site that produces WEAPONS GRADE NUCLEAR FUEL for the U.S. DOD's Nuclear Weapons Division.

FACT.....CO2 is just a beginning stage of the problem as a much bigger problem is when a certain high amount of parts per million of C02 exists in our atmosphere Global Warming commences and then METHANE stored in a Gelatinous state at the bottom of the oceans....at the bottom of Arctic Circle Lakes in Alaska, Canada and Norther Europe and Asia especially in the Permafrost of Siberia and Alaska and Canada BUBBLES UP TO THE SURFACE AND INTO OUR ATMOSPHERE AS METHANE GAS.

Methane will trap 72 times more heat than the carbon dioxide being emitted by Man into our atmosphere. Let me say that again......72 TIMES MORE HEAT THAN CO2.

LINK....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

FACT....Although it is true that the Earth's orbit around the Sun has a wobble to it that causes periods of Ice Ages and Global Warm Up's every so many tens of thousands of years.....the CO2 levels of these past Ice Ages and Global Warm Up's are well documented in how many parts of CO2 per Million in our atmosphere existed at these times in the past for over 800,000 years with a plus or minus for error of only 5%.

FACT..... The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 parts per million.

FACT....Ice Core Data measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.

FACT....At the current rate of 2 ppmv/year we will within 9 years see this increase to 4 to 7 ppmv/year due to the release of Methane that had been locked in permafrost and held at the bottom of lakes and oceans as Methane Gel.

FACT....Just like the movie DAY AFTER TOMORROW....although the movie is NOT a complete accurate representation of what runaway Global Warming will result in.....the movie is accurate in that Runaway Global Warming WILL...not can or might but WILL result in the stalling of the North Atlantic Currents Water Heat Exchange which will result in an ICE AGE.

AboveAlpha

 

Stop trying to miss represent what people are saying to forward your own agenda. It gets tired pretty fast

 

Just point him to read my above post.

It's data by the CDIAC which is part of the U.S. DOE's Office of Science is the data that convinced the Pentagon to develop a U.S. Navy Arctic Fleet to patrol the soon to be gone Arctic Ice Pack.

The report also CONFIRMS that over 800,000 years CO2 Levels have NEVER been as high as they are now as well CO2 Levels are increasing at a rate never before occurring in 800,000 years.

I would say that is 100% PROOF POSITIVE that current Global Warming is MAN MADE.

AboveAlpha

 

Its okay he will ignore it unless he can create an angle for an artificial "Gotcha moment"

 

s. Within the last two pages you have tried to show graphs that do not even span ONE decade and you are asking ME for more???

I was never told that. Maybe you got this claim from somewhere like Joannova. Denialist websites love making claims like this - it is called a "Straw man argument"

 

"'Coz it does" is not an alternative hypothesis for climate change. The climate, like your underpants, does not change by itself

 

Oh it is the typical MO - Most denialists dont realize the Antarctic sea ice has been expanding since 1945 - And tracked extensively since 1978. And that sea ice expansion is a symptom of warming in the region. Or that the alarmist scientists regarding the loss of Arctic ice was actually only one team - that was shouted down by other climatologists as being too extreme claim

 

You wonder why there is still this ignorant argument on the extent of human induced climate change. The complexities are well beyond the understanding of most posters here, but there are a few who want to continue along a blind path of support for particular allegiances that are frankly beyond stupidity! Of most importance is the consensus that numerous bodies and individual climatologists have in AGW! It is quite obvious that certain nincompoops will say anything to maintain their allegiances to individuals and their shallow causes! At least admit you don't know enough and allow yourself to be educated rather continual attempt to rebut everything on the basis of your silly allegiance to your political persuasion. Honestly, this is all it is! I don't think anyone wants climate change to be reality, but hey, you can continue to run the line of conspiracy theorists or believe massive corporations with most to lose from addressing the issue. If you believe 97% of climatologists are persuaded by certain interest I reckon you're lacking oxygen to the brain!
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

 

Lovely set of details there `as basic facts. Unfortunately the problem of the time frame still exists. My point of using the Thermohaline Ocean Circulation as evidence of what will occur and what is expected remains theory as previously pointed out actual observations are directly opposite of the theorised claims of what is occurring in this area. Scientist remain focused to discover what is really occurring in this area. IF you were unaware, the Thermohaline ocean currents appear to be already slowing which is against the current theory of what should occur due to measurements.

BUT as pointed out this demonstrates that all these governments are preparing to adapt to a changing climate. You equate that CO2 is the driving forces of Climate change yet nobody has actually established the point of correlation, it is simply assumed by the alignment of data. This question is as CO2 continues to rise why has climate appeared to have stalled??? (not say it will not continue for upward trend)

This however, does not detract from my point of what direction the climate is actually going in the long term. If we continue to simply use the data that agrees with our own personal or professional stance in this area the reality of what is occurring will be lost. As my point, that the far more concerning issue, is that over the 5 million year data clear and defined cooling trend can be observed. IS THIS GOING TO CONTINUE??? Should this miniscule event in the natural cycles even show any consequences in the entire scheme of things is for the better or the worse???

However, again nothing is proving that man can affect the climate and can change it in your basis of facts (as you see them). The first question of your facts is the correlation, but the second is HOW much of CO2 is manmade and how much is natural cycles??? Your basis of facts simply assumes such based on the time line you propose.

So again, the assumption that many governments are adapting to such events proves nothing of the validity of claims of what is causing the current trends in climate.

 

There has been abrupt climate change in the past - and it has always been associated with mass extinction

 

Okay...lets use this logic with wildfires and forest fires...Since wild fires and forest fires happened long before man walked upon the earth puny little man could not start fires with just one match considering the effect is too drastic for the cause to be man made.

Just because the climate changed before man (as forest fires) does not mean that man cannot have a drastic effect on climate.

 

Apparently climate is like underwear and does not change by itself... I was expecting far greater evidence of that claim than this retort.

No, my point still remains valid of what is really happening on this great big ball. Everybody assumes climate is changing (AS IT ALWAYS HAS) and many assume that it is manmade. Nobody has actually shown the evidence (because there really is none to date) but they discount the fact that over great period of time climate has been MUCH hotter than this day and age. The very fact that the planet has never returned to that previous temperature has been totally missed in this entire debate and the "SO CALLED SCIENCE". As many are out there trying to discover the answer to that question but are refused even the slightest support because it would may clearly demonstrate the fact that the current trend is nothing of man (or maybe all of man) has made their research difficult. The scare of something different been shown is something that scares the current theories.

Mass extinction has been associated by theory, but to this day nobody has shown this to be the reality. That is simply the easiest way to think of what has occurred, and due to the fact NO evidence of such can be found. THUS, making it the only theory to be believed. EVEN the time line cannot be found for these mass extinctions, simply making the thought of them being MASS extinctions a theory and not a known fact. So to assume that you can discount data of any nature to provide evidence of what is causing climate change and what is REALLY occurring is misrepresenting the truth of reality. THIS is the problem with this entire debate, the wish to discount anything that does not agree.

Alpha shows that FACTS (as he sees them) as being the proof of manmade global warming. BUT again the actual observations in several areas are showing his FACTS (as he sees them) are in question over the overall period. Time line has been set yet previously CO2 atmospheric measurements to the maxim of 5 million years have shown the levels to be far greater than today but less correlation (or better put less linear alignment) to the temperature and climate measurements. I will concede that these measurements are less accurate due to time evidence, but as valid as the science behind the current theories. So the fact that one would look back to 800,000 years for CO2 concentrations and NOT temperature is interesting. I do not deny the science of these measurements just the correlation as previously pointed out.

HOWEVER, my point to this entire issue has never been that there is a problem. My point is that MAN considers himself so integral to the issue that they can change what is occurring. THIS I BELIEVE IS A FALACY. Science has ALWAYS considered it to be greater than the reality of what it can achieve. As I have said before, we cannot even cure the common cold, how the hell do we think we can change the planet’s natural cycles. We assume that the planet is at its optimal climate but that assumes that man is the most prevalent species on this great big ball which to me is extremely arrogant of man.

BUT again why is it that the ALL these manmade climate change proponents rather tax the crap out of anybody they believe to be richer than others to distribute to the poorer in the name of climate change and not directly attack this problem??? In all the projected outcomes of these policies people want to point at (that I have seen) actually does NOTHING to reduce CO2 emissions. They abate them by buying trees and pretending that that is reduction. EVEN the science talks of NETT reductions of CO2, not simply the tree hugger solution of pretending they are reducing it by abating it and then producing MORE CO2 because they have a tree. This to me speaks Volumes to the science that is “SO CALLED COMPLETE” than it does to the reality of what is occurring and how to address it.

Anybody who wants to pretend they believe MAN is creating the problem SHOULD be behind any policy, any action or any scientific solution to actually reduce pollution regardless of cost. That is the one undeniable fact, they are not and would rather score political points than address the REAL situation.

 

Let us look to the fires is Australia that all these proponents wanted to use to sensationalise their stance on climate change while disregarding the lives of the people who were being affected by them.

In Australia, on the Greens ideals Fuel has been building up so when a fire takes it has considerable amount of fuel to build a fire to a point greater problem... Even the indigenous folk talk about clearing the fuel on occasions and how they are now refused such as it must be approved by the powers to be.

BUT these fires everybody looks to as being so great of an example of being a catastrophic outcome of Climate change was not (I REPEAT NOT) the biggest fires in Australia or even uncommon. The fact they occurred in a densely populated area than they usually occur and the fact they occur ALL the time in Australia is something to wonder how anybody could proclaim them to be anything of demonstration of Climate change. Fact is thirty years AGO I was involved with fighting a fire that threatened several townships over 20km fronts moving at greater speeds and finally clearing three times the amount of country than these latest events are great example. In the Kimble’s much greater fire events happen with greater regularity.

As in the flood events of Australia (used in similar fashion) the only demonstration that could be shown is that the damage cost of something such as this was greater while the event itself was of less catastrophe than many previous events.

So NO forest fires and flood events do not show that man can change climate, in fact as the events are far more common and not of the nature people purport them to be, they actually show that anybody who wants to use them to show anything of Global Warming are prepared to fabricate anything for support of their cause. This is WHY you will not see any emanate scientist come forward and discredit them to score points of these events. Attempt to use events as such is simply discredits that side of the debate and actually turns support away from finding the truth.

If you want to use logic, you have to account for ALL things not just what suites the agenda. I have no idea about the fires of US but I am willing to listen, BUT as Australia was used internationally during the events, I make statement.

 

The point was missed completely. Just because something can happen without man DOES NOT mean man can't cause something to happen.

 

Your counter point argument is illogical.

You contend that the data of the CDIAC which shows that we currently have the HIGHEST NUMBER OF PPMV AT 386 ppmv and rising at 2 ppmv every year and OVER THE PAST 800,000 YEARS....the highest level of CO2 and highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago.....you contend that this is not proof?!?

I mean....for 800,000 years average CO2 ppmv was about 190 to 200 ppmv....then after 800,000 years Human's enter the INDUSTRIAL AGE....with Millions upon Millions of Automobiles burning fossil fuels and Coal and Oil burning plants and Home Heating and every other type of Factory billowing out CO2 and now we have CO2 at 386 ppmv and rising at 2 ppmv every year and for the first time in perhaps up to 69 Million Years when an Asteroid hit the Earth near Cancun Mexico which resulted in the ELE....or Extinction Level Event that killed of the Dinosaurs....for the FIRST TIME SINCE THAT EVENT.....Gelatinous Methane sealed and stored in Permafrost, the bottom of all the Earth's Oceans, at the bottom of Arctic Circle Lakes....is encountering water and permafrost temps so high that this Methane Gel can no longer remain a solid and is BUBBLING OUT TO THE SURFACE AS METHANE GAS.....which holds heat 72 times greater in Earth's atmosphere than CO2!!!!!!

But despite all this you still contend their is no proof?!?

Current Global Warming is MAN MADE!!!

Even the Pentagon reports and Arctic Ocean Naval Carrier Group Deployment scheduling states within these DOD reports that current Global Warming is MAN MADE!!!

When the U.S. MILITARY and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE say's Global Warming is MAN MADE....the argument is OVER!!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Proof this entire situation is manmade??? YES. As previously the the temperature and climate have been far higher.

Well that is great, your assuming the theory of astaroid collision on the earth resulting in mass extinction is a given when it remains a theory and still undecided by the science. You do realise the planet has been far warmer than it is today??? Do you know the theorised climate during the periods that dinasours roamed the planet???

When you expound theories as fact,(as you see them) and the given science of actual observations place that given events and outcome show that the given facts (as you see them) are actually different from the proclaimed theories then YES, I do contend their is no proof. As many things you have provided, you miss the very point that your contention of facts (as you see them) are based entirely on the premise that their is direct corrolation of CO2 to rising temperatures that rate CO2 being the driving force of temperature. A contention that has been serverally challanged and discounted by the Manmade global warming crowd because if the outcome is different to the given, their entire theory is false.

So when military people (forgive if I am wrong) whose major roll on this planet is to kill the enemy of their nation states that they believe something is this or that (regardless of what you want them to address) then the issue is solved??? Well as far as I am concerned, that simply discredits the entire issue of climate change to the lowest I have ever come across. The man with the gun said that money is his, so argument over...

The very thing I love about this debate is the very fact you will not be able to find one scientific paper, one person with any credentials to claim exactly what you say they are saying. None of these professionals proclaim MANMADE CLOBAL WARMING, they all say it is likely or possibly or contributing or some other vague term that does not categorically claim what you are doing here. Fact is they know they cannot prove it, but HEY the men who are trained to fight come out and say something they have NO credibility on, is something you agree with ARGUMENT OVER...

Sorry big fail... as to your statement of answering scientifically, I am sure that saying the military says something so it is true is extremely poor.

 

No, it does not. BUT just because something happens that is of such catastrophic events as not seen or experienced by majority of people, does that mean MAN must be causing it??? Does it mean these events have never happened before??? Does it mean man has such influence on the globe that he can change anything he wants???

Your point is so insular and does not represent the reality of the events past and present because again it assumes much of the past that is ignored because people do not see them. Again as I see the scientist of the past and present explain how they believe things are working they actually have a belief that MAN is far more influential then he really is. As nature continues to demonstrate MAN is not as important to the planet as he believes with his arrogant belief he can move mountains with a simple thought. Science is great, it assists in finding out what is happening, but when science struggles to align its theories and hypothesis with reality, one must question the science which apparently is not to be questioned.

 

Garry the thing is, it is not that the Earth is warming, no one is debating that - we are moving out of a glacial episode, and have some way to go. It is the speed of the warming that is concerning

 

Yes that is true but to attribute the speed of warming to anything without knowing what is natural or not is pure speculation. The fact that the climate is changing is not in doubt but the factors attributing that change are.

As pointed out the hypothesis of the Thermohaline Currents shows that the science is so far from being final that anybody suggesting that it is needs to be educated on what science is. The very fact that the scientist admit that their current observations in this area are so different to the hypothesis and theories that it needs much further studies and better methods of observation to find exactly what is occurring. BUT the IPCC decides that the previous theories (which are admittedly wrong) Make up part of the evidence of what is occurring. This action by the IPCC definitely demonstrates the selective nature of the IPCC as they include the oceanic currents but do not admit the failure of the theory to explain the anomalies of the observations.

 

Yes I am well aware that Temps on this Planet were higher when the Dinosaurs roamed but as well there existed a much higher sea level and the continents existed in much different shapes and above water total area of land masses was much less than today.

When that Asteroid hit....and that is no longer a theory as they have taken core samples from the impact site under the ocean near the Yucatan and as well at the sedimentary depth all over the planet that was specific to 69 Millions years ago is a layer of carbonized dust, micro diamonds and IRIDIUM.

Iridium is extremely rare on Earth an is present in Meteorites and Asteroids as well the Micro Diamonds and Carbonized Dust Layer indicates a MASSIVE ASTEROID IMPACT.

You knowledge of sch things is EXTREMELY LACKING so please tone down your rhetoric.

AboveAlpha

 

So that detail should be excluded from the climatic studies because??? Do you mean to suggest that the theory of the Astariod colliding with this planet is the answer to all??? The fact of what you say about higher sea levels and higher temperatures you do not question why they are less now??? You are just assuming this is abnormal because that is the current form??? I find it strange that you know these things yet allow it to be excluded from the climate science because some theory has decided that some outside force has made such great difference to the planet biosphere from a theory which to this day remains as a study rather than fact.

The asteroid hitting the planet was never in question as there have been several impacts on the planet in the past and as far as science is concerned the earth is due for another. BUT the impact of said strike is in question, that is to say that the theory of past events have not been settled and are still being studied. So you assumption that the asteroid hit the planet so the events theorised are confirmed is (well to put it politely) extremely naïve.

That is interesting coming from somebody who thinks the military are the deciders of what science is right and wrong. Interesting that the defence forces are the people who decide what climate is doing and how it is to affect the planet...