Global Warming? are humans to blame?

unfortunately true Leo
Yet the worst of the effects will be felt in that far north where what few roads they have are mostly built on frozen earth. Ground that is fast melting off, which means that economical transportation to many rural areas of the north will be a significant issue in the very near future. Tundra is almost bottomless mush once it melts. One reason the Russian army waited till winter to launch its major offensives in WW2. The ground would be frozen and the tanks could move.

If you look at the rate of change it becomes apparent why we should all be joining in on the cry for sanity. It took something like 150 years to raise the temps 1°C, or from about 1800 to about 1950. It took about 60 years to raise them another 1°C. which given the rate of increase in greenhouse gasses it would stand to reason that the next 1°C increase will only take 24 years or by about 2035 and another buy about 2045. and another by about 2050.

So you can easily see that when worst case scenarios are exceeded by the actual data the potential for "Rapid" Global Climate Shift is very very real.

what the Russians are banking on is that we curb warming in time for it to most benefit them. However the window of opportunity is so small and the effort to curtail any effective legislation impacting the oil and gas industry so huge, that its highly unlikely the Russians or anyone for that mater will benefit. Reason is that the same 4°C we're going to see in 2045 that only took us 245 years to induce has occurred before. Last time tho it took about 1,000,000 years to happen tho and it was caused by a basalt flow called the Siberian Trap event. That 4°C increase that took place over that 1,000,000 years triggered the release of organic carbons over about a 40,000 year period of time. which rose temps another ~6°C. which killed off everything down to about 2lbs and was so significant it became the marker for the Permian Triassic epoch division

We are well on the road to induce that same 4°C temp increase by 2045, or 245 years after we seriously started burning fossil fuels. 1,000,000 divided by 245 = 4,082 times faster than the event that killed off everything down to 2lbs

and the organic carbon IE CH4 has already increased by 150% over the last few years.

So you tell me why we shouldn't be worried, cause thems the facts, like it or not. Granted I extrapolated the number for that last 2°C rise but its really simple and all you have to do is look at the GHG emissions and the conclusion is inescapable.

by the way, I was recently discussing the issues of this organic carbon with Kevin T and a few of the other contributing editors of the IPCC and they refer to this organic C release as the wild card. In the past it took a 4°C increase over x time to trigger a release. but we've shortened x by a whopping 4,082 times, so there is likely to be a faster reaction in the organic carbon, but there's really no telling. Except that CH4, an organic carbon, has increased by 150% over just the last few years. So its possible ( fingers crossed ) that the organics have already begun to release, and the snow ball is rolling.

 

Maybe that's a good example of self-limitation.
Vast tracts of the tundra will be difficult to exploit quickly.

The world's human population seems to have gone through a very narrow bottle-neck about 75000 years ago.
It will most likely go through another one again. I'm not sure which one (or more) of the riders of the Apocalypse will cause it next time.
Maybe all of them acting in concert.

 

everything under 2lbs died, and the atmospheric chemistry changes that caused it are exactly the same as whats happening today, but whats happening today is happening at a rate about 4000 times faster.

This isn't going to be a bottle neck. its going to be extinction

 

Humans didn't cause it.

 

Humans most definitely caused it

virtually "ALL" the excess CO2 in the atmosphere can be "DIRECTLY" attributed to the burning of fossil fuels


there is absolutely no scientific evidence to the contrary

 

That is as real as virtual reality. Fiction.

 

the essence of denial is to simply ignore reality and your certainly ignoring this reality Hoyt.

There is absolutely no doubt where the excess CO2 came from thats been building up in the atmosphere since the advent of the industrial revolution.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

 

Being a non-religious guy, I find those riders pretty funny:



The guy with the scale just doesn't seem to threaten me. Maybe if he tramples me with the horse or something.

The bow and arrow guy is a tough customer, but if I just stay indoors or below deck...

The two sword guys mean business, I suppose, but I have a few guns.

Then, of course, I also have a car, so I can just leave.

 

Boston will be doubtless aware of the putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and predicts the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle.

Well, here are a series of failed experiments. The EU delusion and Kyoto will now expire together. The Euro is a failed currency & will soon be extinct. CAGW was a conspiracy between a small group of second rate climatists and politicians to extract money from natural cycles of planetary warming & cooling.

No amount of context can possibly exonerate the CRU gang from some of the damning expressions and contrivances that appear repeatedly in the new Climategate ll emails. More so than the 2009 batch, these emails make clear the close collaboration between the leading IPCC scientists and environmental advocacy groups, government agencies, and partisan journalists.

When the EU’s economic and monetary affairs commissioner, Olli Rehn, last week said that there were “only 10 days” left to save the Euro, and even the EU itself, from disintegration, a distinct historical echo came to mind. In October 2009, just before the UN’s climate conference in Copenhagen, Gordon Brown was reported as saying that there were “fewer than 50 days” left to save the planet from global warming.

http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros...ate-20-a-sequel-as-ugly-as-the-ooriginal.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-EU-dream-and-Kyoto-will-expire-together.html

 

Two books that explain how we've been manipulated.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scared-Deat...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322990874&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/19...E&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=51471022&pf_rd_i=507846

 

oh please are we really going to revisit the East Anglia fake controversy thing again.

East Anglia was cleared in multiple investigations.

for about the tenth time lets all read the details of how the lies spread by the thieves who stole a mountain of e mails have been debunked

If you actually go to the web site they list multiple investigations and there outcomes

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

eventually, maybe, if we can leave off the phony accusations and stuff about some failed experiments, we can actually discuss the science behind what has become THE most widely accepted theory (97% consensus is the highest consensus view of any scientific theory. ) in science. Among people who actually study the issue, climate scientists.

 

A bunch of radicals saying a bunch of liars are exonerated does not make the liars exonerated.

 

Radicals ? hold on there Hoyt.

The credentials of the folks involved are pretty damn impressive. However it might be considered "radical" for you to, refuse to admit CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or maybe even a tad "radical" to suggest that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is somehow not caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Or that somehow GHG and temp increases are not connected. It becomes pretty obvious who the "radical" is around here.

 

interesting stuff in the news today about the "radical" rise in fossil fuels emissions

http://news.yahoo.com/fossil-fuel-emissions-unbraked-financial-crisis-180711409.html

 

Look up "radical", Boston. It is a reference to politics and tactics, not to academic credentials.