Listen to this Podcast
More 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Sinkholes dot the landscape from Anchorage to Murmansk as surface soil layers thaw. Average Arctic temperatures have risen by 2 degrees Celsius in recent years, melting soil that had been frozen for millennia. And that means both mealtime for microbes—and bad news for climate change.
A new study from researchers at the U.S.'s National Snow and Ice Data Center suggests a permafrost thaw and subsequent microbial chowdown could add at least 126 gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere over the next 200 years. That's about half as much as humans have already added through burning fossil fuels over the last 200 years.
The frozen soils of the far north are already changing—from a tremendous storehouse of greenhouse gases to a tremendous source. That means any efforts aimed at limiting greenhouse gas concentrations will have to be even more stringent in reducing the burning of fossil fuels, clearing of forests and the like.
On the upside, thawed soils will allow shrubs and other plants to begin to march north, a process that is already happening, as well as the creation of new peatlands, which can store a lot of carbon. Their growth will likely counterbalance some of the increased emissions from melting permafrost.
But that balance will only last for a few decades, at best. And that makes cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions an even more pressing priority.
—David Biello
See what we're tweeting about
62 Comments
Add CommentNo, it means that the process of global warming is full or positive feedbacks that amplify the anthropogenic effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@enternewid: The point is that human activity is seriously affecting the natural climate cycle. And that "everyone" predicted global cooling and an impending ice age in the 70s is a zombie argument which was laid to rest a long time ago. http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@mememine69: got hyperbole? The only "copy and paste" clowns around here are the ones posting unfounded conspiracy theories from the blogosphere.
Enetneweild: Remember in the 70's everyone was crying global cooling and the coming ice age!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo I don't. I do recall that this is a fossil fuel industrial talking point that many a dupe falls for.
Enetneweild: Just shows the Earth goes thru cycles of warming and cooling with out mans help.
Let us try that logic: It just goes to show that forest fires happen with out man's help. Thus forest arson is impossible.
Bonzo Says: Oh goody another junk we are all doomed Article
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it junk Bonzo? How does this article fail rational scrutiny. Can you detail how? When can I expect your peer reviewed paper to paper?
Sigh.This: When can I expect your peer reviewed paper to paper?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould Say: When can I expect your peer reviewed paper?
So we should not listen to anything the christian church says since they once thought the earth was the center of the universe. Ok, you got a deal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince we seem once again to have an infestation of the Ignorati. Allow me to present some of the evidence for human induced global warming:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The stratosphere cooling while the troposphere warms. This is a direct falsification of the solar hypothesis. Increased solar activity should result in all of the layers of the warming. This is a prediction first made in 1967.
2. Nights warming faster than days. Again, another falsification of the Solar Hypothesis. This feature of AGW was predicted back in 1896.
3. The higher latitudes and particularly the Arctic region warming faster than the lower latitudes. This is again another falsification of the Solar Hypothesis. Think about this people: Where does a good portion of the Sun shine consistently reach the Earth? That is right the Tropics. While the lowering of the albedo (snow and ice melt) and the lack of water vapor in the Arctic means that CO2's effect will be most pronounced here. A prediction made in again in 1896.
4. The observed decline in the amount of infra red heat escaping out to space at the wave lengths that CO2 captures and re-emits it. A decades long decline observed by satellites since the 70's.
5. Another prediction made back in 1989 was that the thermosphere should shrink and contract. Once again a prediction made and recently observed.
There is more, but I think we got enough here to discuss.
I am happy to provide links for the peer reviewed science upon request.
"Permafrost Meltdown May Herald Climate Catastrophe"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure - and it happens time and again...
Ever wonder why the first few comments on any article that has anything to do with climate are always from deniers spouting the same old long debunked talking points?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is evidence that industry is paying people to do this. It is a sophisticated operation with each worker having up to 10 online personas.
The purpose is to make it look like there is much more widespread doubt than in reality, and to distract and redirect the (hijack) the thread.
For instance, this article is about permafrost. The first few comments have successfully diverted the discussion away from that topic and pulled it down into yet another useless discussion of long dead and buried denier talking points.
BBHY, I agree, you have part of the picture, another part is that comments like the first few to this article are posted by "trolls" --people who like to post comments like those because it causes other posters to "bite" and respond to their posts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I think that as long as we respond to these "trolls" in an interesting and educated manner, as many have done so well, then the outcome is that people, who have been swayed by spacious arguments or are unsure about the issue, will be able to learn more about the issues from the quality of the arguments posted.
So even though the conversation, technically, often drifts of topic it still has value in my opinion.
CO2Pirate, a few points:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) The planet's climate has always varied
2) Human activity is affecting climate variation
You seem to be unhappy about how the media attaches climate variation "to each and every little thing that happens" and how some people then take it overboard. I don't like it either. Neither do I like bogus article titles or panic toned rhetoric, but nevertheless, point two is still valid.
A Response to CO2 Pirate Idiot Objections
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 Idiot Objection #1:If it rains - global warming.
Response 1: Increase temperatures means increased evaporation of water and thus precipitation.
CO2 Idiot Objection #2: If it doesn't rain - global warming.
Response to #2: Moving the jet stream further north as the Earth warms means that some places get more wet and others more dry. You would know this if you actually paid attention to what the scientist are actually saying and not you are being told they say.
CO2 Idiot Objection #3: If it snows - global warming.
Response #3: News Flash: More precipitation also mean more snow.
CO2 Idiot Objection #4: If it doesn't snow - global warming."
See response to Idiot Objection No.2
CO2 Idiot Objection #5: If its windy - global warming.
Response#5 : More energy in a system means stronger outputs.
CO2 Idiot Objection #6: If its calm - global warming.
Response#6: You just made that one up didn't you?
CO2 Idiot Objection #7 If its warm - global warming.
Response: Duh
CO2 Idiot Objection #8: If there are floods - global warming.
Response: See #3
CO2 Idiot Objection #9: If there is drought - global warming.
Response: See #2
CO2 Idiot Objection #10: If there are fires - global warming.
Response: Drought in forest does tend to make the more liable to burn.
So I think in short we can sign you off as another militant victim of fossil fuel propaganda.
The first ammendment of the US Constitution unfortunately gives americans the right to lie. Climate change deniers should note that the science is based on hard data. Deniers should also note that lieing is a crime in front of a Federal judge. When more republican politicians are challenged to give evidence of what they claim in court, the world will at last finally see real steps being taken to protect nature from current disasterous economic policy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the detailed reply to the impolite post by CO2Pirate. The deniers seem to think that scientists want global warming to happen, whereas in fact we would not wish the mess that will ensue on anyone, least of all our children and their children. Unfortunately the evidence is pretty convincing when you bother to look at it rather than read various advocacy web sites which exist to make a point rather than to educate. One day the evidence will end any doubt, even among those wishing it were not the case. We can expect increasingly inane assertions, and gradual coming around, such as has been seen in the creation-evolution debate.
Nicely Done.. but the "Ignorati" seem too well organized and quick to respond.. I suspect they are paid to sow their disinformation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also do NOt remember everyone crying about global cooling in the 70's. Because it didn't happen. A couple of scientitsts hypothesized about it and it got on the cover of one magazine. They later decided their hypothesis was wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow their have been thousands of studies done by all the top universities and many teams of scientitsts.
Al gore has reported on their studies, but he has not told any of them what to say.
1) The planet's climate has always varied
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrect.
2) Human activity is affecting climate variation
This is an assumption and is not supported by science or evidence.
Although I would have to agree that humans should be having an effect especially in the areas of land use changes, UHI etc... But these are local effects and have nothing to do with the AGW hypothesis and/or human GHG's / C02.
The issue is that of C02 driving temperature. This has been shown false at every single turn and is no longer supported by anything other than models, which by the way have an horrendous track record and for very good reason.
Also the AGW hypothesis rests solely on the hypothesis of positive feedback or climate sensitivity. Without this the entire AGW hypothesis collapses.
So the alarmists resort to the models as all science, proxies, physics and observation do not support either hypothesis.
Point 2 can only be considered if it has been validated - which it has not.
The only way to validate it would be to show the climate is being forced to operate outside of its normal and expected variance - this has not happened.
Climate is NOT changing outside of is expected variance as is constantly being touted by alarmists - it is well within normal and expected boundaries.
As you stated - climate varies, RWP, MWP, LIA and even recently the 1940's and 1970's are good examples of natural climate variations.
Ahhh - thank you for proving my point exactly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming CANNOT be the cause of all weather events, regardless of your complete misunderstanding and total ignorance of both science and climate.
If you are correct about all the points you raise then YOU HAVE SINGLE HANDEDLY INVALIDATED THE GLOBAL WARMING HYPOTHESIS by showing that its unfalsifiable.
It is clear you have no idea what you talking about.
If global warming can responsible for everything then global warming MUST be responsible for nothing.
I doubt you'll understand this - but you have just invalidated that in which you believe.
This is the level of stupidity and dogged blinding ignorance associate with alarmists.
Totally Ignorant and Blind!
@Co2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 Says: Global warming CANNOT be the cause of all weather events,..
Trent Says: Who told you it was? What you are not understanding is that the CO2 increases the likelihood of unpalatable events happening. Think about this. Does smoking cause all lung cancer? No. Does it increase your odds of catching the big C? You bet. It is the trends and probabilities that matter.
Now I think it is time for you to actually answer the evidence that has been presented on comment #10. Ignoring the evidence does not make it go away.
Now you do not have to answer this, but at least ask yourself this question: Have you heard of any that before? If not, why not?
Thank you Dubay for the kind words. I hope you are right about unjustified doubt being removed. I have a kid and I do not want his adult years having to deal with the consequence of his elders' stupidity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps this will sharpen your rather short memory:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko
Perhaps this will sharpen your rather short memory:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko
@Carlyle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd maybe this link will rectify that bit of propaganda you just posted up:
In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M&feature=related
Better music too.
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnlike you, I remember these times.
Also the following is interesting reading for those interested in balanced information, giving a history of attitudes & debates over the decades. Also showing some opportunists active today.
(Indeed, the global cooling trend of the 1950s and 1960s led to a minor global cooling hysteria in the 1970s. All that was more or less normal scientific debate, although the cooling hysteria had certain striking analogues to the present warming hysteria including books such as The Genesis Strategy by Stephen Schneider and Climate Change and World Affairs by Crispin Tickell--both authors are prominent in support of the present concerns as well--"explaining'' the problem and promoting international regulation). http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
The sad thing about this discussion is that oil dependency is a bad thing. This is what drives the anti-warmers to the extremes you see here. The emissions issue is just one piece of the problem. No global warming...so what? You cannot have our entire existence depending on a single commodity that we cannot supply for ourselves. Dialing down this dependency is essential. Aside from this, even if climate fluctuations happen on their own, is this reason to add additional carbon to the mix? In the end, all you have left here are birthers and creationists who think God is going to protect them. Smokers used to tell themselves that everything would be fine, and we know think of them as stupid. The same will be true on this warming issue, because we are in a tight spot whether we die from warming or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmen! Well put.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Carlye,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo your rebuttal is a Newsweek article from 1975. Who in the world thinks that Newsweek is scientific publication? That is a pretty low standard, even for you.
Interestingly enough this little bit of propaganda has been peddled so many times that it has become the subject of peer reviewed article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The authors of that paper surveyed the literature of the era and found that of the 71 papers published on the future state of the climate and what did they find?
"During the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers."
Page 1333
Hold it here. I can hear you saying that those seven papers were more influential than the 44 predicting warming. Well, one way of looking at such an assertion is to look at how many other peer reviewed papers cited the warming and cooling prediction articles. Here is what they found:
"The citation counts were from the publication date
through 1983 and are graphed on the year the article was published.The cooling papers received a total of 325 citations, neutral 424, and warming 2,043."
Page 1333 Figure 2.
So I hope all the lurkers can see that you are a dupe and a propagandist.
The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Consensus
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
The link is to a PDF download.
Global temp always changes first followed by changes in atmospheric gas concentrations. Historical data never deviates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo evaluate, simply plot both global temperature and global gas concentration on the same graph.
Global temp always changes first followed by changes in atmospheric gas concentrations. Historical data never deviates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo evaluate, simply plot both global temperature and global gas concentration on the same graph.
Weather melts the Northern perma annually.
Weather never melts the South pole.
Please get a grip.
CornStove,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you think it is called permafrost? It isn't called permafrost if it melts annually. What we are seeing is that what was thought to be relatively permanent some decades or centuries ago is proving to be less so.
Deniers in general,
Please, do us all a favor and look up a few things before you post:
a) Planck's Law - regarding the distribution of frequencies emitted by bodies related to their temperature.
b) Stefan-Boltzmann - closely related to Planck's and related to how much energy is emitted by a bodies as a function of their temperature.
c) Beer-Lambert - pertaining to how much energy is absorbed as a function of the density of the medium.
d) The absorbency spectra of CO2.
In addition, you might look up the mean emission altitude for radiative energy leaving the earth, relate that to the increasing density of CO2, and follow up with something called a lapse rate (Adiabatic or environmental will do for conceptual purposes.)
Because, if you add those up, you will see that it really isn't a matter of debate that more CO2 will lead to a higher energy content of the earth's biosphere. Actually, feel free to debate it, but start by showing which of the above is fundamentally misunderstood by the vast majority of climate researchers.
Regarding your earlier comment, yes, CO2 acted is an feedback during Milankovitch cycles. The differences in energy input caused directly by those cycles was not enough to account for the wide swings in temperature that are part of the record you are referring to. To infer that CO2 can not be a driving factor now because it was a feedback in the past is a logical fallacy.
By all accounts, we are at or near a point where CO2 is both a driving factor and its own feedback.
Carlyle, if we sound more desperate, it is because the evidence is mounting that the natural feedbacks are accelerating. If you smelled smoke in a building and the smell was getting stronger, but most others were ignoring you, how would you react to that? You don't have the option of leaving the building.
@Cornstoves,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe CO2 lags temperature myth is debunked here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
So who in the world thinks this rag is a scientific journal. It was when I started subscribing to it in 1961. I stopped subscribing in the 1980s when it started publishing trash like UFOs. The article I posted gave links to peer reviewed material that you dismiss because it is not your flavour. well here is another link that will not be to your flavour. Doubt you will understand the significance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(I’d been wondering if any of the computed trends since 2001 would reach 0.2C/decade during the past El Nino. As we all know, they did not. Naturally, we can’t know with certainty what will happen during the upcoming El Nino, particularly as rumor has it, the sun “woke up”.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/
For those who like to see more data, the January value is compared to all data since 1980 below:
Studies show that permafrost is a very deep phenomenon. In Britain during the last ice age permafrost reached some 600 feet underground. In the Polar regions ice shelves are kilometers deep and permafrost must be very deep too. So current melting may not be just a superficial phenomenon, but the start of a long term climatic readjustment, as ground temperatures are linked to average climate temeperatures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd Carlye tries for a distraction on post #36. Please not that Carlye has refused to address the debunking of They Predicted the Coming Ice Age in the 70's lie.
As to temperature trends? I will simply point the lurkers to World Meteorological Organization:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_904_en.html
"Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C above the 1961-1990 average, 0.03°C above the 2000-09 average and the highest value ever recorded for a 10-year period. Recent warming has been especially strong in Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of the Arctic; the Saharan/Arabian, East African, Central Asian and Greenland/Arctic Canada sub-regions have all had 2001-10 temperatures 1.2 to 1.4°C above the long-term average, and 0.7°C to 0.9°C warmer than any previous decade."
I think it is patently clear here that Carlyle and friends have no interests in the reality of what is happening to the globe.
Yes, you can always find experts with a different take on the data. Just as you can find fake data being used.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou made no comment on two of your AGW heroes writing books on a pending ice age back in the 70s I notice.
There has been global warming since the last ice age. One of the fascinating things is that though CO2 levels continue to increase, the rate of temperature increase is significantly less than the AGW experts were predicting a few years ago. In fact it is an insignificant blip on the historic data line which is smoothed over centuries. Also much of the data they were using was from cherry picked sites for direct evidence like temp readings or indirect data like tree rings. Those who chose to ignore the fakery exposed in the email scandal prove they are incapable of seeing any flaws in the AGW theory. Like believers in reincarnation, they are faith based, not rigorous science based.
Once again I ask, why do you not support the increased use of nuclear power if you truly base your arguments on science? It would not only reduce the emission of CO2 but the genuine nasties from fossil fuel burning, including much greater radiation contamination than from nuclear.
Concerning the seventies, much denial is going on. Those of us who lived in the seventies will clearly recall that there was a widespread discussion about an impending ice age. I recall a group of Danish researchers on TV who used the argument in a very obvious effort to increase their grants. This was in no way a propaganda stunt by the oil companies. In fact it was one reason why many found it hard to believe around 1990 when the opposite message rather suddenly began to reach the public. On the other hand what people said before is not a relevant argument in the current situation, either pro or con. It is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the data available today and the best theoretical explanation of it. Unfortunately the so called sceptics do not appear to be winning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle Says: Yes, you can always find experts with a different take on the data. Just as you can find fake data being used.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: False equivalence argument. It is patently clear that the pseudoskeptics have continually lied, distorted, and cherry picked the science. You do not find anything resembling such behavior in the real scientific community.
Carlyle Says: You made no comment on two of your AGW heroes writing books on a pending ice age back in the 70s I notice.
Trent Says: That is because you have not said anything about them. Further, I am going to ask you if you have actually read them or you are only parroting what you have been told like a good little dupe that you are.
What is most telling here is that you have not addressed that survey of the scientific literature that era. A survey that is a direct refutation of that particular set of lies. What is the matter? Exxon-Mobil got your tongue?
"There has been global warming since the last ice age."
False: Say hello to the Little Ice Age:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/resource1000.html
And then give a hearty hello to The Mid-Holocene "Warm Period"
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
Are you finished with your meet and greet with the facts? Good. Now please attention to what is coming next. Saying that we are warming because we are coming out of the Last Ice Age or the Little Ice Age explains nothing. It provides no mechanism for how the warming happens. It also fails to explain all those indicators of where human induced global warming.
So I said nothing about them? Perhaps you are in such a rush to discredit posts by those who attempt to bring balance to the debate that you do not bother to read them. Revisit post No. 28. ( The Genesis Strategy by Stephen Schneider and Climate Change and World Affairs by Crispin Tickell--both authors are prominent in support of the present concerns as well--"explaining'' the problem and promoting international regulation). They both predicted a catastrophic ice age was just around the corner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, the psychopaths from the heritage foundation are out in full force for this article. Still you would think that with all the funding they get from the fossil fuel industry they could come up with something more original than, "it happened naturally in the past therefore it must be natural now." That is just all kinds of stupid. Of course what do you expect from people who think science is just a conspiracy to steal their money. It is true what they say about insane asylums, that there is more out than in. Too bad though that we couldn't just put all these delusional deniers out on some small island somewhere and let them sink or swim on the strength of their logic. Instead they act as the anchor dragging us all under. Sad thing is that they are the ones who, when everything goes to hell, will say, "I warned you, I told you the climate was a changin but no one would listen." Until then we can watch and be amazed by the incredible depths to which they will sink their moral character in order to stuff their pockets and shill for corporate america.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother confirmation of my point. Balanced debate not permitted by the AGW hijackers. They would burn non beleivers at the stake given the chance. The fall from the pulpit will be terrible. Repent & we shall forgive you :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Carlyel,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle: So I said nothing about them?
Trent: Yes. All you have done is cite authors and work. Like I said earlier: Did you read them or are you parroting what others are telling you?
I have read neither of these works. Yet, I can see that Tickell's book is online. Perhaps you can make a case using this sole book. Actually you can't because it is the peer reviewed literature where we find what the scientist are actually saying.
http://www.crispintickell.com/page77.html
Then again, it might be fun arguing with someone so deluded. So go ahead give it a shot. We both have access to this work.
Now let it be noted that you still have not responded to the peer review literature survey.
Oh you mean you do not put any store by any author like perhaps Al Gore. What about the IPCC fraudulent claims. Peer review in their case means fraudsters reviewing fraudsters. How does that generate credibility. Einstein by the way was a lowly patents clerk. He had no peers really. Darwin was condemned by most of his peers as have been numerous other outstanding thinkers. With AGW it is a case of pick your peers & join the gravy train. By the way I read many reports about the supposed imminent ice age back in the 70s & paid about as much attention to them as I did to the famous preacher of the day, Billy Graham or the alarmists of today. All fleecing the flock. Nothing much has changed in all those years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere you go. Not peer reviewed? The poor man is dead now at 65. Died last year. Does not alter the fact that he made a handsome living by going with the flow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI keep asking this question and keep not answering. Here try again.
I have read neither of these works. Yet, I can see that Tickell's book is online. Perhaps you can make a case using this sole book. Actually you can't because it is the peer reviewed literature where we find what the scientist are actually saying.
Going to answer or not?
Carlyle Says: Not peer reviewed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: That is right. Popular science books are not peer reviewed. So when are you going to start citing pages to support your assertions regarding Tickell's book? We both have access to the book.
Carlyle Says: Einstein by the way was a lowly patents clerk. He had no peers really.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Yet, he still published his works in peer reviewed journals.
Carlyle Says: Bye way I read many reports about the supposed imminent ice age back in the 70s & paid about as much attention to them as I did to the famous preacher of the day, Billy Graham or the alarmists of today.
Trent Says: The above is not an answer to the survey.
"Brainwashed by the church of Al Gore"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, it is evident that you have no scientifically relevant or useful commentary to to add to an intelligent discussion. Calling people stupid is not an argument, and actually supports the point of my post quite well.
The hypothesis about a coming ice age did appear in a paper int he 70's. It was based on an analysis of the variations, known as Milankovitch Cycles, in the Earth's orbit. The weekly newsstand magazines left out the part about it coming in 10 to 15 thousand years because that's not going to sell a lot of magazines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat papaer had nothing at all to do with the currently occurring climate changes.
Satellites in space have directly measured the decrease in infrared radiation coming from the Earth, at exactly the wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2. Instrument have measured the increase in atmospheric CO2,a and the isotope analysis proves that the increased CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels. Sorry deniers, but there is nothing else that can explain these factors other than anthropogenic global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe thawing permafrost indicates that the warning about strong positive feedbacks have considerable merit.
Deniers should try this experiment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake two containers of air, and shine a heat lamp on them. The same kind of lamp the fast food restaurants use to keep the french fries warm.
The air heats up. Now, add CO2 to one container. That one gets hotter. Please note that the container does no get hotter first, in anticipation of Co2 being added.
Don't trust scientists? You can perform this experiment yourself, in your own home. Think science is unpredictable? You can perform this experiment 1000 times and get the same result 1000 times. Think climate science is all based on computer modeling? You don't need any computers, statistics, or urban heat islands. The CO2 int he bottle doesn't care how much you hate liberals, or hate taxes, or hate science, or hate Al Gore. CO2 doesn't care what was written in magazine articles in the 70's. It is going to absorb infrared heat energy. This is a basic physical property of CO2 that has been well known for 200 years. There is no known mechanism that can prevent CO2 from absorbing infrared heat energy.
See how it works for yourself with this video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394168.stm
Don't you just love the way the response to my first post contains:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) An ad hominem attack
2) Absolutely no scientific rebuttal
3) a litany of long debunked denier talking points
4) further attempts to hijack the thread
So, that's pretty much exactly what I was saying that they are doing. And their so-called "rebuttal" is to continue doing the same thing, serving only to support my points!
BBHY: And their so-called "rebuttal" is to continue doing the same thing, serving only to support my points!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly. They are not exactly the most imaginative bunch are they? Same long debunked arguments. Same rhetoric and even sometimes exactly the same sentences.
CO2Pirate,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it is a given man can affect climate. Especially knowing we can do things like kill everything on the planet with nuclear fallout.
I also think climate variation is distracting from the major issue of our toxic product, and less toxic, product wastefulness, and their pollution of our environment.
And we can do so much, we can be so efficient
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like how YOU and other "believers" like to attempt to belittle and tell deniers how wrong they are - yet none of you EVER do this with statements of science or evidence.
Believing in something DOES NOT make it true.
Global warming has been PROVEN by physics, scientific evidence and observations including ALL PROXIES to be complete and utter NONSENSE.
Nothing you believe and nothing you can say can undo the science that has already shown these FACTS - they are undeniable and irrefutable.
Show me WHERE in the scientific literature does it state that the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) hypothesis has been validated via empirical evidence.
Show me just one paper that can refute normal climatic variations for ANY climatic events or trends.
There is not one credible shred of valid scientific evidence, proxy, observation or other that supports AGW - other than imaginary models.
Obviously YOU don't read the scientific literature and neither do any of your fellow "believers" because it quite clearly states these FACTS in no uncertain terms.
Maybe you should educate your self a little on the realities of empirical science and evidence.
CO2 Pirate and company. I read the entire article, the thread, and have to say, I think no one is trying to tell you that the denying science is wrong or that deniers are wrong or bad or anything. Its just that there is a lot of literature (mostly peer-reviewed by people like me who undergo a lot of scrutiny all the time) that is exploring and testing thousands of different factors that all lead to a conclusion, not thee conclusion, but a conclusion, that human beings are affecting the climate in a way that can only be considered potentially inhospitable for the species alive now. This isnt personal. This isnt about politics or economics or trying to take jobs away. This is about trying to do right by our kids and on and on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts unfortunate that we have to criticize one another, but then I think that has more to do with the stress of being alive at a pretty historic epoch like the one we are in. All self-flattery aside, its this 10 year period where I believe, and it is a belief - an act of faith folks in the science - that we have some serious innovation to work on to reverse and greatly slow down our contributions to the carbon balances.
If the microbial systems in the tundra are to begin digesting the copious amounts of organic matter in a serious way annually and basically farting as a consequence, we are in deep and very dark trouble. This isnt based on models or analogs or dreams in a lab. This is based on a CO2 detector sitting at the surface of the soil and watching the numbers change over the course of the day as microbes respire and digest materials. In the frozen state, they dont break down. In a thawed state, they rot. Look no further than the chicken in your freezer. If you put it on your counter for a few days its gonna turn moldy in no time. Now imagine that on an Earth scale. Dude, thats gonna stink.
And one more thing: This is exponential. As the tundra decomposes and passes gas, that gas, some of it methane, will trap more heat which will increase temperatures, which will then speed up the process. For every 10 degrees added, biological processes tend to double. Now you can fight over whether or not we kicked off the "clean out the freezer" party or not. But at the end of the day, no matter what, this is really really bad news.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Co2 Pirate,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...yet none of you EVER do this with statements of science or evidence."
That evidence has been presented. Matter of fact, in this very thread, comment #7 gives a list of the human finger print for global warming. That you and your fellow ideologues fail to address this evidence is testimony to your belligerent ignorance, not the weakness of the science.
CO2Pirate,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Climate is NOT changing outside of is expected variance as is constantly being touted by alarmists - it is well within normal and expected boundaries"
Two problems, first, even if it was the case that "Climate is NOT changing outside of is expected variance", when we don't have evidence we cannot conclude there is Not... , we can only conclude we have not found evidence, this extends to the idea of whether man is affecting climate change or not, second, climate can change can occur within its "expected boundaries", ie man can affect rates of change or direction of change within historical variance boundaries for example.
One thing these comments reveal is the considerable degree of confusion that reigns among American people. Yet the facts are quite clear. Scientists are not 'Atheists', as there is no God to be against. Secondly, Scientists have aquired a vast body of data concerning the basis of science. Non-scientists base their arguments on superstitious beliefs and polemic. It is clear which side is the most convincing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe thawing of a thin layer of frozen Arctic soils will not exacerbate global warming. This is because global warming is caused by oxygen depletion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming is not caused by CO2 because CO2 already absorbs as many photons as it can. Similarly, methane absorbs photons that are already totally absorbed by water vapor, and so methane cannot cause any global warming.
Oxygen disperses sunlight because it is efficient in scattering photons (oxygen is a paramagnetic gas). An ice age will begin again when oxygen returns to its normal concentration, I believe.
1492;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comments agree with my perception. I hope you will post the links you mentioned. Are the naysayers not convinced that global warming is anthropocentric in denial or do they think it's just a natural 'cycle'. With the weather like it is now, July 2012, I think a few will cease being in denial.
@DMMZ56,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything I said can be found here: Empirically observed fingerprints of anthropogenic global warming:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirically-observed-fingerprints-of-anthropogenic-global-warming.html
That one page has the links to all the peer reviewed science. I just tried linking individually each piece of science and got reject by the spam filter.