ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

So you're telling us the world's second-largest ice sheet isn't really there? It's a figment of our imagination?

I'm not sure where to start with that one. I think I'll just drop it, and head off to bed..... no sense even getting started with you.

 

Yep, there was melting of the surface. It sounds just as though it might be summertime in Greenland.
It is going to be a cold winter, especially in Greenland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18978483

 

Major Businesses Prepare to Deal with Climate Change

 

They did not eat wood only leaves and only a few ate that. The rest ate anything else including their children.

There was no grass in those days either. I know the movies show there was but grass came much later. Probably from space.

Jurassic Park was modern day territory with rejuvenated dinosours.

The fact that the world was very different means that statistically it is 100% probable that it will be equally as different in the future.

In fact it would be juvenile to think it wont. The world could end this afternoon from nuclear mistake, accident or plain politically or religious recklessness.

However lets not dwell on this and lets argue about the sea----hey Mc Donalds has a special on.

Humans will die of stupidity. You know when a rabbit freezes in the headlight --well humans do it too, right now actually,--- all staring towards Syria wondering what to do as Iran arms itself.

Remember when we all stared towards Germany watching Hitler and his speeches,-- we stood and watched as his fists banged on the table harder. Oh what shall we do!!!

 

GDP Cannot Capture the Economics of Climate Change

 

I'm just describing what I watched out the window for 30minutes, maybe what you have been told to believe is in the north??

 

Starkly beautiful photograph. I've borrowed it for my Desktop image.

 

July 28, 2012, 11:55 pm
‘Converted’ Skeptic: Humans Driving Recent Warming
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Richard Muller, a cantankerous but creative physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, who once derided climate change research, then dove in with his own reconstruction of terrestrial temperature changes and confirmed substantial warming, has now concluded that recent warming is “almost entirely” human caused.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/converted-skeptic-humans-driving-recent-warming/

 

Ocean study reveals carbon not sinking

See also...

 

"What I've been told to believe?!?" Oh please.....

I get the distinct impression you're hinting I'm some sort of gullible idiot, who'll believe anything some tree hugging global warming alarmist tells me. Next you'll be commenting I've been 'told to believe' there's a group of huge freshwater lakes between Canada and the US, and I've been 'told to believe' there's an isthmus connecting the two American continents. Who know... you may even mention I've 'been told to believe' there's an even bigger ice sheet covering the Antarctic.

Spending half an hour flying in a line over one piece of Greenland hardly qualifies you as an expert on its geology, you know. Maybe you were flying over part of the twenty percent of Greenland that isn't covered by the Ice Sheet? Maybe there are mountains ranges tall enough to stick up out of the Sheet? Or.... well, let's not go there.

 

To expand on this a little, the study that Muller headed was funded by the Koch brothers. They apparently believed that since he was a 'skeptic,' he would produce results that backed up his bias and theirs. Unfortunately for them, an honest skeptic isn't the same thing as a denier.

Muller's widely misinterpreted stance had been that the theory of global warming wasn't necessarily wrong; it simply wasn't supported by enough reliable evidence. He didn't trust earlier analyses of the available data.

So Muller founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study in 2010 to do the job right. His team of statisticians, physicists and climate experts conducted an exhaustive analysis of 200 years of global temperature data, running 1.6 billion temperature reports from 39,000 recording stations through a complex process that filtered out questionable data and averaged the rest.

In doing so, he shot down some of the favorite arguments of deniers.

1. 'It's just urban warming; measurements from paved and concreted city stations have skewed the statistics.' The BEST study found negligible differences in the pattern of temperature increases between rural and urban station measurements.

2. 'It's all just part of the normal 1,500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle.' But D-O events resulted in a redistribution of the Earth's temperatures; the overall temperature worldwide didn't increase. Not to mention they normally happen during ice ages, not between them.

3. 'It's just due to Bond events.' Those supposedly do happen in between ice ages, but the changes are so small and hard to measure that many scientists doubt there's really a measurable pattern.

4. 'It's all just a mistake, based on incomplete data.' The BEST team analyzed 1.6 billion temperature reports, going back to 1800. No other study has analyzed data before 1855. See argument number 5.

5. 'Of course the BEST team got the same results as earlier studies; they just analyzed the same data.' Wrong. The BEST researchers used more than five times as much data as prior studies. They also looked at subsets of data that excluded all data analyzed previously.

As Muller said, "Our analysis from 1800 to 1855 obviously uses new data sets, since no other group has ever published results prior to 1855. From 1855 onwards, we have now done the work that I described above using the 77 percent of the stations unused by the other groups."

6. "Climate change/global warming is real, but we don't know the causes and we don't know the consequences.' This is a classic head-in-the-sand argument. Folks who advance it will never be satisfied, no matter what evidence they're shown. If one of their arguments is answered they'll simply move on and raise another one.... in spite of the fact that normally they move in a circle, eventually getting back to the beginning and raising the original arguments again, as though they're brand new.

 

Study Predicts a Bleak Future for Many Birds

Will Climate Change Trip Up Punctual Songbirds?

 

Yes, that's always been my position.

Muller's analysis is causing me to re-evaluate my skepticism because it does look like a very thorough study and the data are available for review, unlike most previous studies.

Of course it doesn't affect my other conclusions WRT current attempts at mitigation, which are going to achieve nothing substantive. Most especially Australia's carbon tax...

PDW

 

Even if we are warmer there is no proof man caused it. The sun, I repeat, the sun, once more, the sun did it.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy

'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."'

 

Below is a partial quote of the interview, as given by your link.

Here is a more complete version of the whole interview:
http://thegwpf.org/the-climate-reco...licy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html

My take is that they were having a rational discussion about the very real problems of how to reduce CO2 emissions and how to build a non-carbon world economy. These are extremely important and relevant questions. I fail to see what the big hullabaloo is -- and to be sure, there are tons of "skeptical" websites that have pickup up on this incomplete quote.

Here is a final quote by Ottmar Edenhofer in the interview.