'1600 years of Ice melting in 25 years is a bad omen'

by designs 165 Replies latest social current

• 

  besty

  Noted on this thread that many denier arguments are morphing from "its not happening" towards "we can't stop it":

  "Its a natural cycle"

  "We humans are too puny to affect climate"

  "China needs to stop it"

  etc. From my 6 years worth of posting on this subject people progress (or not) down the following path:

  1 - its not happening

  2 - it is happening, but it's not us causing it

  3 - it is happening, it is us causing it, its a good thing

  4 - it is happening, it is us causing it, its not as bad as they predict

  5 - it is happening, it us causing it, its as bad as they predict, but we can't do anything about it

  The following topics are rarely addressed:

  1 - Why human originated CO2 emmissions are not causing warming, if it is accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

  2 - Why any poster denying the consensus is better qualified than the 98% of climate scientists who agree with the majority opinion that human caused climate change is a fact, similar to evolution and gravity. (putting the deniers in the Flat Earth Club)

  3 - The role of deep ocean warming and its relative importance to land surface temperature (may as well throw in some discussion on ocean acidification as well)
• 

  StoneWall

  besty said in number 2 above:

  2 - Why any poster denying the consensus is better qualified than the 98% of climate scientists who agree with the majority opinion that human caused climate change is a fact, similar to evolution and gravity. (putting the deniers in the Flat Earth Club)

  Where did you get the 98% of climate scientists in the above statement? Was looking for a link or quote etc. Thanks
• 

  moshe

  Cutting down the rain forests to supply, chopsticks, newsprint, Kleenex , Charmin and buidling material is a grave threat to our climate, but nobody is willing to give up their disposable paper products in order to save those forests. It's hard to make money with glacial ice.
• 

  LisaRose

  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

  The above link shows the many scientic organizations that agree climate change is real and temperatures are rising. I am certainly no scientist, but this is very convincing evidence to me.

  International academies: Joint statement
  "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world's climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
• 

  besty

  Where did you get the 98% of climate scientists in the above statement? Was looking for a link or quote etc. Thanks

  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2009EO030002/asset/eost16685.pdf?v=1&t=hf9ye33p&s=cb092d13c7877ef09df98c9cfaf3b296bf6af50b

  Do you see where the burden of proof lies?

  If you don't accept the 98% consensus view and you have a testable hypothesis that will stand up to peer review, then you you are well on the way to becoming the most famous scientist of this generation.

  Otherwise you are just a denier with a keyboard.
• 

  cantleave

  Cutting down the rain forests to supply, chopsticks, newsprint, Kleenex , Charmin and buidling material is a grave threat to our climate, but nobody is willing to give up their disposable paper products in order to save those forests. It's hard to make money with glacial ice.

  Actually rain forests are not the source of timber for these products. These consumables are usually manufatcured from softwoods grown on plantations (with their own envoronmental impacts).

  One toilet tissue brand boasts that it plants three new trees for every one it uses in production. Most people don't realise that this environmentally disastrous since it results in often ecologically diverse habitats being planted over with non-indigenous softwoods transforming them into ecologically lifeless moncultures.
• 

  tootired2care

  Perhaps the 98% need to do a more effective job of explaining how the temperature rose and much of the ice melted 125,000 years ago when humans were not even material in that process, and then explain why changes on the earth always must be perceived as a problem that mankind has to do something about.
• 

  QC

  We all have time... let's see what happens. Reality is great at settling things.
• 

  designs

  'we all have time'- That seems to be one of the contested issues since large centralized populations overtax their environments and subsequently alter those environments.
• 

  besty

  Perhaps the 98% need to do a more effective job of explaining how the temperature rose and much of the ice melted 125,000 years ago when humans were not even material in that process,

  Why global climate changes is well documented science - it responds to the dominant effect of the day - eg solar activity, volcanoes, greenhouse gases. And various combinations of these factors can be analysed using physical evidence such as icecores to deduce past climate conditions. Positive feedback loops can then cause runaway changes in climate without additional inputs.

  Today science can clearly define a human fingerprint in atmospheric CO2 concentrations - burning billions of years of carbon deposits in a few hundred years might give you a clue.

  We are now the dominant climate effect - and an alternative hypotheses that stands up to peer review will make you rich and famous beyond your dreams.

  The burden of proof is yours - maybe start with explaining why increasing CO2 is not causing a warming planet? <coz that piece of science is only 150 years old>