Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

[mogandave]

Could you guys add something like for/against in your posts? Hard to see who's on which side with all the froth flying around.

I am for climate change. I would like to see really hot places get cooler, really cold places get get warmer, really dry places get wetter, and really wet places get drier...

[mogandave]

 
Which is exactly the reason I can't continue to indulge you, a small child could see that the ice did not melt for the first 90 years on that graph, you have no ability to interpret data and just pretend it shows something that you imagine it might. 

Ice won’t melt as long as it’s below zero.

One would expect the rate it’s melting to increase.

[mogandave]

You agree with 99% of climate scientists who say current climate change is due to human activity. You accept that under the current global economic system climate change is unstoppable.  Nothing has been done and nothing can be done.

1. Where does the 99% come from, is there a list?
2. What percentage of climate scientists get their grants and make their living substantiating climate change?
3. What percentage of climate scientists get their grants and make their living “denying” climate change?

In any event, what do you think can and should be done?

What are you ready to give up?

[Kieran00001]

27 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Ice won’t melt as long as it’s below zero.

One would expect the rate it’s melting to increase.

 

 

It can get up to 30C in the arctic.

[observer90210]

Just wait for some Benz's or BMW's of the hi-so's to get flodded under 45 cm of overflowing ditch water mixed with torrential rains....and things will drastically be taken in hand overnight !!

[mogandave]

 
It can get up to 30C in the arctic.

Ice can get up to 30C in the Arctic? News to me.

The entire ice changes temperature, not just the surface.

Once ice starts melting (or freezing) the state changes quickly.

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

Ice can get up to 30C in the Arctic? News to me.

The entire ice changes temperature, not just the surface.

Once ice starts melting (or freezing) the state changes quickly. 
 

 

 

You can see from this graph that the Little Ice Age was not only insignificant to sea ice levels but levels declined slightly over the period, there is nothing to suggest that the past 100 years of sea ice decline is linked to the Little Ice Age, the correlating events are the Industrial Revolution and the resultant increase in co2 levels.

 

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

Ice can get up to 30C in the Arctic? News to me.

The entire ice changes temperature, not just the surface.

Once ice starts melting (or freezing) the state changes quickly. 
 

 

 

You can see from this graph that the Little Ice Age was not only insignificant to sea ice levels but levels declined slightly over the period, there is nothing to suggest that the past 100 years of sea ice decline is linked to the Little Ice Age, the correlating events are the Industrial Revolution and the resultant increase in co2 levels.

 

[mogandave]

Again, given the properties of water/ice, one would expect the melting to accelerate once it starts.

[Kieran00001]

You might expect accelerated melting however that is not evidenced on the graph, look at it, the Little Ice Age ended in 1870, however sea ice continued to increase until 1960 before turning around and then steadily decreasing, why did it continue to increase until 1960?  Why has the melting not accelerated? 

 

You do know what accelerate means right?  Below is a line plotting acceleration, note the curve and note the straight line on the graph plotting sea ice loss, steady loss since 1960.

[canuckamuck]

I gotta call BS on that chart describing sea ice extent up to 1500 years ago. What crystal ball are they using to measure that? Medieval satellites were only covering small areas of Europe in those days. 

[Kieran00001]

20 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I gotta call BS on that chart describing sea ice extent up to 1500 years ago. What crystal ball are they using to measure that? Medieval satellites were only covering small areas of Europe in those days. 

 

The used three sets of data which were taken from tree rings, ice cores and lake sediment, there is a large degree of inaccuracy in this and that is noted in the shaded areas above and below the median line, an extra 5% for uncertainty was also added, and it still shows that sea ice levels are at a 1500 year low, however this is potentially only marginally lower than the low in 640AD, such is the level of inaccuracy.

[canuckamuck]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The used three sets of data which were taken from tree rings, ice cores and lake sediment, there is a large degree of inaccuracy in this and that is noted in the shaded areas above and below the median line, an extra 5% for uncertainty was also added, and it still shows that sea ice levels are at a 1500 year low, however this is potentially only marginally lower than the low in 640AD, such is the level of inaccuracy.

I forgot about all the trees and ice cores and lakes in the arctic ocean. LOL

[DrTuner]

48 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I gotta call BS on that chart describing sea ice extent up to 1500 years ago. What crystal ball are they using to measure that? Medieval satellites were only covering small areas of Europe in those days. 

The ice was heavy and the land under it is still rising, it could be as simple as checking the elevation/depth changes.

[Kieran00001]

17 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I forgot about all the trees and ice cores and lakes in the arctic ocean. LOL

 

We have been studyied the link between tree growth and average temps in modern times, we know the accuracy rates, below is the correlation between temp and growth made using modern data which I am sure you don't dispute.

 

We have also studied the link between sea ice levels and average temperatures in modern times, we also know those accuracy rates, below is a graph plotting the correlation between temp change and sea ice levels using modern data which I am sure you also don't dispute.

 

There is nothing to suggest that tree growth did not directly correlate to average temperatures in the past and there is also nothing to suggest that sea ice levels did not directly correlate to average temperatures in the past, thus by measuring the distance between tree rings that were growing 1500 years ago we can calculate the level of sea ice at the same time.

 

A similar process is possible to achieve from lake sediment and ice cores, the study used these three sets of data and produced the graph I posted before.

[Kieran00001]

13 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

The ice was heavy and the land under it is still rising, it could be as simple as checking the elevation/depth changes.

 

Oh, the land under sea ice, got it, glad you're on board here.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We have been studyied the link between tree growth and average temps in modern times, we know the accuracy rates, below is the correlation between temp and growth made using modern data which I am sure you don't dispute.

 

We have also studied the link between sea ice levels and average temperatures in modern times, we also know those accuracy rates, below is a graph plotting the correlation between temp change and sea ice levels using modern data which I am sure you also don't dispute.

 

There is nothing to suggest that tree growth did not directly correlate to average temperatures in the past and there is also nothing to suggest that sea ice levels did not directly correlate to average temperatures in the past, thus by measuring the distance between tree rings that were growing 1500 years ago we can calculate the level of sea ice at the same time.

 

A similar process is possible to achieve from lake sediment and ice cores, the study used these three sets of data and produced the graph I posted before.

Sorry, but i disagree with sea ice levels being the only factor in average temperatures.

[mogandave]

You might expect accelerated melting however that is not evidenced on the graph, look at it, the Little Ice Age ended in 1870, however sea ice continued to increase until 1960 before turning around and then steadily decreasing, why did it continue to increase until 1960?  Why has the melting not accelerated? 
 
You do know what accelerate means right?  Below is a line plotting acceleration, note the curve and note the straight line on the graph plotting sea ice loss, steady loss since 1960.

I thought you said the melting has accelerated since 1960, is that not correct?

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry, but i disagree with sea ice levels being the only factor in average temperatures.

 

Normally they correlate.

 

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I thought you said the melting has accelerated since 1960, is that not correct?

 

 

It did through the 60's, but after that it maintained a steep steady decline, its all on the graph I posted, did you not even bother to look at it before posting your blind guesses?

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Normally they correlate.

 

Yes, but your graphic covers only 130 years, it would be interesting if it covered let's say the last 10.000 years.

[mogandave]

 
It did through the 60's, but after that it maintained a steep steady decline, its all on the graph I posted, did you not even bother to look at it before posting your blind guesses?

Does insulting people help your self-esteem?

[Kieran00001]

30 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, but your graphic covers only 130 years, it would be interesting if it covered let's say the last 10.000 years.

 

We were talking about the Little Ice Age and its relation to current sea ice melt. I previously posted a graph based on three measures, tree rings, lake sediment and ice cores, which plotted upper and lower estimates of sea ice levels over the past 1450 years to demonstrate that the Little Ice Age did not have much effect on sea ice levels and shows no correlation to the melting.  However, we do not have the actual measurements of the ice for that period, we only have proxy measures from which to estimate and these proxy methods were disputed by a poster.  I posted the above to demonstrate the accuracy of one of these proxy methods, tree ring spacing, in determining sea ice level. The studies of recent history show that this has been a reliable measure and does not show any reason why tree rings would not be an accurate measures for any period before that, just as long as you have plenty of tree rings to sample from the period in question, which we do.

[Kieran00001]

10 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Does insulting people help your self-esteem?

 

 

Well, you are not basing anything on any kind of science and instead just guessing, aren't you?

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We have been studyied the link between tree growth and average temps in modern times, we know the accuracy rates, below is the correlation between temp and growth made using modern data which I am sure you don't dispute.

 

We have also studied the link between sea ice levels and average temperatures in modern times, we also know those accuracy rates, below is a graph plotting the correlation between temp change and sea ice levels using modern data which I am sure you also don't dispute.

 

There is nothing to suggest that tree growth did not directly correlate to average temperatures in the past and there is also nothing to suggest that sea ice levels did not directly correlate to average temperatures in the past, thus by measuring the distance between tree rings that were growing 1500 years ago we can calculate the level of sea ice at the same time.

 

A similar process is possible to achieve from lake sediment and ice cores, the study used these three sets of data and produced the graph I posted before.

   I see you have data from CRU.  Is that the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia?  

[Kieran00001]

20 minutes ago, Catoni said:

   I see you have data from CRU.  Is that the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia?  

 

Yes, of Climategate fame, the outcome of which I am sure you remember.  The House of Commons Science and Tech Committee, ICCR, ISAP, Pen State Uni, USEPA and US Dept Commerce all independently scrutinised them and found no evidence of manipulation.  NASA, Berkeley Earth Project, UK MET office all compared their data and concurred with the results.  Then the Muir Russel report exonerated them.

[Catoni]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We were talking about the Little Ice Age and its relation to current sea ice melt. I previously posted a graph based on three measures, tree rings, lake sediment and ice cores, which plotted upper and lower estimates of sea ice levels over the past 1450 years to demonstrate that the Little Ice Age did not have much effect on sea ice levels and shows no correlation to the melting.  However, we do not have the actual measurements of the ice for that period, we only have proxy measures from which to estimate and these proxy methods were disputed by a poster.  I posted the above to demonstrate the accuracy of one of these proxy methods, tree ring spacing, in determining sea ice level. The studies of recent history show that this has been a reliable measure and does not show any reason why tree rings would not be an accurate measures for any period before that, just as long as you have plenty of tree rings to sample from the period in question, which we do.

".... the Little Ice Age did not have much effect on sea ice levels..."     

           Maybe not on sea level.....  but it sure had a great effect on expansion of sea ice....

 

           It had enough effect to interfere with trade and movement between Norway, Iceland and the western and eastern Greenland colonies.  

So what happened to the Vikings in Greenland? By the year 1300 AD more than 3,000 colonists lived on 300 farms scattered along the west coast of Greenland. Around 1200 AD drift ice forced ships further south to reach the settlements! on the south west coast alongside Canada. In the 1300’s Bardsson wrote:

“From Snefelsness in Iceland, to Greenland, the shortest way: two days and three nights. Sailing due west. In the sea there are reefs called Gunbiernershier. That was the old route, but now the ice is come from the north, so close to the reefs that none can sail by the old route without risking his life.”

By 1500 AD Pope Alexander VI complained that no bishop had been able to visit Greenland for 80 years on account of the ice.

  "It has been reported to us that in the diocese of Gardar in Greenland, situated at the confines of the known world, the inhabitants, because of the scarcity of bread, wine and oil, live for the most part on dried fish and milk products. Wherefore because of the difficulty of passing through such immense quantities of ice, and likewise because of the poverty of the land, and the scant means of living, ships rarely visit its shores. We have learned in fact that no vessel has touched there in the past eighty years, and that if a voyage be made at all, it must be in the month of  August, when the ice has broken up.

     On this account, during eighty years, no bishop or priest has resided peronally among those people, and by reason of this, we are informed that many who were formally Catholics have forgotten the faith of their baptism, and that no memory of the Christian religion is found, except a corporal (the sacred goblet or plate used for consecrating the "host") which is shown to the people once a year, and on which it is said the last priest who officiated there, consecrated the body of Christ a hundred years ago."

 

 

His Greenland congregation was already long dead! The graves and ruins show that the cold and lack of nourishment turned the average Greenlander from their 5’7″ to a severely crippled, twisted and diseased dwarf like 5′ by 1400 AD.  The last written record of the Greenlandic Norse, was a wedding in September 1408, at Hvalsey Church, Gardar, in the Greenland Eastern Norse Settlment.  

 

     The cold "Little Ice Age" made it impossible to continue. 

The Medieval Warm Period had ended about 1250.......  

 

The Iceland Vikings fared little better as its population shrunk from 80,000 around 1100 AD to 38,000 by 1850 AD at the end of the “Little Ice Age”!

         By the time Columbus set sail in 1492 AD, Greenland was “dead” and Iceland was struggling to survive.

 

 Life does better in warmer times......   not colder times....   The Little Ice Age ended approx. 1850........  and we've warmed a degree or two since then....   nice....  and another degree or two would be just fine..   

[Catoni]

12 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Yes, of Climategate fame, the outcome of which I am sure you remember.  The House of Commons Science and Tech Committee, ICCR, ISAP, Pen State Uni, USEPA and US Dept Commerce all independently scrutinised them and found no evidence of manipulation.  NASA, Berkeley Earth Project, UK MET office all compared their data and concurred with the results.  Then the Muir Russel report exonerated them.

  All loaded "investigations"....  kind of like the accused bank robber having a jury consisting of all his pals.

I've read a lot of the emails......   WOW ! !    Sure covered some of their tracks with email deleting....  

 

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]> 
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]> 
Date: Wed Mar 31 09:09:04 2004 
Mike, 
... Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. 
Cheers 
Phil 

 

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]> 
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]> 
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004 

Mike, 
... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! 
Cheers 
Phil 

 

Phil Jones wrote to Mike Mann in 2008: 
Mike, 
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise... Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise... 
Cheers 
Phil 

 

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)     “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

 

“Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

 

 

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

 

         Just a taste....  there's lots more of course.  It's all online....   no way to hide it now...  

 

  Nice ....huh ? ? ?   LOL       

[Kieran00001]

14 minutes ago, Catoni said:

".... the Little Ice Age did not have much effect on sea ice levels..."     

           Maybe not on sea level.....  but it sure had a great effect on expansion of sea ice....

 

           It had enough effect to interfere with trade and movement between Norway, Iceland and the western and eastern Greenland colonies.  

So what happened to the Vikings in Greenland? By the year 1300 AD more than 3,000 colonists lived on 300 farms scattered along the west coast of Greenland. Around 1200 AD drift ice forced ships further south to reach the settlements! on the south west coast alongside Canada. In the 1300’s Bardsson wrote:

“From Snefelsness in Iceland, to Greenland, the shortest way: two days and three nights. Sailing due west. In the sea there are reefs called Gunbiernershier. That was the old route, but now the ice is come from the north, so close to the reefs that none can sail by the old route without risking his life.”

By 1500 AD Pope Alexander VI complained that no bishop had been able to visit Greenland for 80 years on account of the ice.

  "It has been reported to us that in the diocese of Gardar in Greenland, situated at the confines of the known world, the inhabitants, because of the scarcity of bread, wine and oil, live for the most part on dried fish and milk products. Wherefore because of the difficulty of passing through such immense quantities of ice, and likewise because of the poverty of the land, and the scant means of living, ships rarely visit its shores. We have learned in fact that no vessel has touched there in the past eighty years, and that if a voyage be made at all, it must be in the month of  August, when the ice has broken up.

     On this account, during eighty years, no bishop or priest has resided peronally among those people, and by reason of this, we are informed that many who were formally Catholics have forgotten the faith of their baptism, and that no memory of the Christian religion is found, except a corporal (the consecrated bread "host") which is shown to the people once a year, and on which it is said the last priest who officiated there, consecrated the body of Christ a hundred years ago."

 

 

His Greenland congregation was already long dead! The graves and ruins show that the cold and lack of nourishment turned the average Greenlander from their 5’7″ to a severely crippled, twisted and diseased dwarf like 5′ by 1400 AD.  The last written record of the Greenlandic Norse, was a wedding in September 1408, at Hvalsey Church, Gardar, in the Greenland Eastern Norse Settlment.  

 

     The cold "Little Ice Age" made it impossible to continue. 

The Medieval Warm Period had ended about 1250.......  

 

The Iceland Vikings fared little better as its population shrunk from 80,000 around 1100 AD to 38,000 by 1850 AD at the end of the “Little Ice Age”!

         By the time Columbus set sail in 1492 AD, Greenland was “dead” and Iceland was struggling to survive.

 

 Life does better in warmer times......   not colder times....   The Little Ice Age ended approx. 1850........  and we've warmed a degree or two since then....   nice....  and another degree or two would be just fine..   

Quote

".... the Little Ice Age did not have much effect on sea ice levels..."     

           Maybe not on sea level.....  but it sure had a great effect on expansion of sea ice....

 

 

No, that's the thing, it didn't as a whole, it wasn't a global event, it happened sporadically in different parts of the world at different times, the sea ice as a whole was not massively effected, in fact it shrank in overall size for the first half of it. 

 

Quote

Life does better in warmer times......  not colder times....  The Little Ice Age ended approx. 1850........ and we've warmed a degree or two since then....  nice.... and another degree or two would be just fine..

Another degree or two wouldn't be that big a deal, we would survive.  The worry is that normally co2 concentrations correlate to temperatures, which at the moment they do not, should the co2 continue to rise and the temperature increase until it again correlates, then we would not be talking a degree or two,  we would be talking over 10 degrees, which would be catastrophic.  It can be assumed that they will correlate again in the future, what is not known is whether that will take 100 years or 100,000, and the reason we don't know is because we have never seen them so far from correlating in the past 65 million years, we simply have nothing to base that on other than the fact that the last time they got this far apart the dinosaurs died out.

[Kieran00001]

13 minutes ago, Catoni said:

  All loaded "investigations"....  kind of like the accused bank robber having a jury consisting of all his pals.

I've read a lot of the emails......   WOW ! !    Sure covered some of their tracks with email deleting....  

 

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]> 
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]> 
Date: Wed Mar 31 09:09:04 2004 
Mike, 
... Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. 
Cheers 
Phil 

 

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]> 
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]> 
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004 

Mike, 
... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! 
Cheers 
Phil 

 

Phil Jones wrote to Mike Mann in 2008: 
Mike, 
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise... Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise... 
Cheers 
Phil 

 

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)     “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

 

“Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

 

 

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

 

         Just a taste....  there's lots more of course.  It's all online....   no way to hide it now...  

 

  Nice ....huh ? ? ?   LOL       

 

 

You think any of that means that the investigations were illegitimate?  Really?  You think three countries conspired and successfully corrupted not only their government agencies but also independent agencies and universities?  How many people do you think they would have to have paid off to achieve that?