the real "inconvenient truth"??????

[FarmRanger]

CP When people start making claims that are demonstrably false, other people get their backs up.

You said “Global warming is real.
Its man made. All the real scientists agree.
Their (they’re) not even debating it anymore, …
This is a 100% fact.”

The simplest google search shows that statement to be an outright lie. When anyone on agriville point out any inconvenient facts which poke holes in that lie you bully and namecall. You never debate anything that refutes gorzuki’s claims, we just get the same “big green” dogma and ad hominem arguments.

Real science involves a quest for the truth. If science eventually proves the gorzuki right, I’ll be the first to jump on their bandwagon. Contrary to what you’ve asserting though, the debate is far from over. Bullying people who disagree is the realm of tinpot dictators, not scientific discovery.

[silverback]

You asked us what it would take to prove that global warming is a fact and that it is man made.

So please provide sources for your "proof"/"facts".

Thank you.

[winwin]

Calm down cottenPicker;I'm way ahead of you.This climate thing has real potential for us true Socialists to control everything;everything you do,everywhere you go.Laws,regulations,prohibitions.Huge taxes!Huge government.Just think of the possibilities!

AND,dare I say it,maybe even RATIONING!And all under the control of people like you and I.Smarter than everyone else.More caring for them and their children than they are.

But no need to get angry and call names comrade,as you did 5 times in only one posting.We will get this power.We know what is best.We will get them to believe like we did when they trusted us with their wheat for 60 years.

[ianben]

All the real scientists agree.!!!!!!

Sure they all agree they need more FUNDING to stop this potentional disaster.

YOU have had BSE. Less than 200 people have died of this, very sad, but not the millions scientists predicted.

Science lead scare mongering cost cattle industry millions all over the world.

But guess what they still need funding for more research

Just remember these scientists have to eat and have families to support so they HAVE to have a problem to solve.

Global warming, bird flu, fatty foods, antibiotic resistant super bugs

Personally I fear the effects on us and our future in the reverse order.

I think we will be lucky to make it to global warming!!!

[AdamSmith]

Well cotton, here's 2 real scientists who don't agree! So I guess your incorrect when you say all real scientists agree.

Are Humans Driving Earth's Current Temperature Trend?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology 50: 899-910.
What was done
Noting that "identification and understanding of global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate is crucial for developing [an] adequate relationship between people and nature, and for developing and implementing a sound course of action aimed at survival and welfare of the human race," especially "in the light of present-day public debates on causes and ways of mitigation of the current global atmospheric warming," the authors "identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere."

What was learned
After providing quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of these major forces on earth's climate - not only here but in two earlier studies as well (Khilyuk and Chilingar (2003, 2004) - the two researchers from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles (USA) conclude that "the theory of currently observed global atmospheric warming as a result of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is a myth," and that it has "proved to be an enduring one."

What it means
The take-home message of Khilyuk and Chilingar's analysis, as they describe it, is that "any attempts to mitigate undesirable climatic changes using restrictive regulations are condemned to failure, because the global natural forces are at least 4-5 orders of magnitude greater than available human controls." What is more, they indicate that "application of these controls will lead to catastrophic economic consequences," noting that "since its inception in February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost about $50 billion supposedly averting about 0.0005°C of warming by the year 2050," and that "the Kyoto Protocol is a good example of how to achieve the minimum results with the maximum efforts (and sacrifices)." This being the case, they conclude that "attempts to alter the occurring global climatic changes have to be abandoned as meaningless and harmful," and that in their place the "moral and professional obligation of all responsible scientists and politicians is to minimize potential human misery resulting from oncoming global climatic change," hopefully by more immediate, rational and cost-effective means.

References
Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2003. Global warming: are we confusing cause and effect? Energy Sources 25: 357-370.

Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2004. Global warming and long-term changes: a progress report. Environmental Geology 46: 970-979.

Reviewed 29 November 2006

this article can be found athttp://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N48/C2.jsp

[AdamSmith]

http://www.worldclimatereport.com

Gee cotton, this scieticic study suggests that the earths temperature was warmer a thousand years ago than it was today.


October 17, 2006
Another Swipe at the Hockey Stick
Filed under: Temperature History, Paleo/Proxy —
We have covered the “Hockey Stick” controversy many times at World Climate Report, but an article appeared recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that further buries the “Hockey Stick” depiction of planetary temperature.


For over a century, climatologists have collected evidence of the existence of substantial variations in the temperature of the Earth since the end of the last major ice age 10,000 years ago (Figure 1). Evidence from throughout the planet shows that 1,000 years ago, the Earth (or at least the Northern Hemisphere) was in the “Medieval Warm Period”. However, approximately 450 years ago, the Earth plunged into the “Little Ice Age” during a time when the Sun had very few sunspots, and its output had decreased. Fortunately, the luminosity of the Sun increased, and by 1900, the Earth was clearly rebounding from hundreds of years of cold temperatures.


Figure 1. Global temperature reconstruction for the past 10,000 years.

As we look at Figure 1, there is nothing unusual about the warming of the 20th century; in fact, the warming is unimpressive compared to other events in the last 10,000 years. However, five years ago, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report featuring a new plot of the Northern Hemisphere’s temperature over the past 1,000 years (Figure 2). The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age vanished, and now the warming of the past 100 years looked completely unlike anything observed for 1,000 years. The IPCC plot looked like a hockey stick, and scientists have been fighting about the shape of the curve since the day the IPCC released the report. Congressional hearings have been held, reports have been written about how the hockey stick was determined, accusations have flown back and forth about errors in various analyses, data sets seem to have vanished, and on and on. Nonetheless, the “Hockey Stick” has its fan base (of course, it was featured in the Gore film), and the IPCC leaders appear ready to defend the “Stick” to the grave. However, the paleoclimate literature is full of articles clearly documenting the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The real gems in this literature are those reporting results away from Eurasia and/or the mid-to-high latitudes of North America.


Figure 2. IPCC Northern Hemispheric temperature reconstruction for the past 1,000 years.

The latest evidence comes from lake sediments in the Venezuelan high Andes. A team of scientists from the United States, Venezuela, and Spain write in their opening paragraph “During the past millennium, significant climatic fluctuations have occurred. Prominent among these is the Little Ice Age (LIA), recognized in historical records and documented in proxy climate records from many locations. Although the LIA was a significant global event, its causes and regional differences in the timing and climatic response remain unclear.” That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the “Hockey Stick” preferred by the global warming crusade.

Paleoclimatologists are very clever at finding environmental signals and remnants that record long-term variations in local, regional, hemispheric, and even global climate. The Polissar et al. team who did the work in Venezuela note that “Tropical glaciers respond rapidly to precipitation and temperature variations and, hence, are faithful recorders of climatic variability.” Obviously, the glaciers of the past need to leave something behind that tells us of their existence and in some ways preserves the story of their climatic history.

In the case of Venezuelan glaciers, the team reported “The presence of glaciers in the L. Mucubajý´ watershed increased the flux of inorganic sediment to the lake, producing a continuous lake-sediment record of glacier activity.” At a nearby site “the flux of inorganic sediment to the lake increases during wet periods, producing a distinctive signature in the sediments that contrasts with drier periods.” Furthermore, they found that “Increased catchment glacierization enhances clastic sedimentation in proglacial lakes, leading to higher concentrations of fine-grained magnetic minerals that can be identified visually by color changes and quantified by magnetic susceptibility (MS) measurements.”

Polissar et al. also analyzed pollen spores from nearby sites that preserve hard evidence of past changes in vegetation. They used accelerator mass-spectrometry radiocarbon analyses to put dates on the lake sediments, they used some mathematical wizardry to determine some key environmental variables from the past, and they put the entire story together about the Little Ice Age (LIA) and 1,500 years of past climate in Venezuela.

Data from the lake sediments “and pollen estimates indicate that during the LIA the Venezuelan Andes were both cooler (-3.2°C) and wetter ( 208 mm yr-1, 22%) than present.” They analyzed solar radiation data and concluded “The data presented here suggest that solar activity has exerted a strong influence on century-scale tropical climate variability during the late Holocene, modulating both precipitation and temperature.”

If one looks at the environmental variables they collected over the past 1,500 years, the Little Ice Age stands out clearly; the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago stands out as well! Defenders of the “Hockey Stick” argue that the Little Ice Age was some local phenomena that occurred in Europe and possibly in North America. The tropical Andes of Venezuela is hardly a mid-to-high latitude location of the Northern Hemisphere, and yet, the Little Ice Age shows up clearly in the lake sediments from that equatorial setting.

The “Hockey Stick” must be harder to defend given these latest results.

Reference:

Polissar, P.J. , M. B. Abbott, A. P. Wolfe, M. Bezada, V. Rull, and R. S. Bradley. 2006. Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 8937-8942.

By the way have you ever heard of "Vinland"?

Of Grass and G****s
In Greenlanders' Saga Leif Eriksson is said to have named 'Vinland' for the rich southern land because of g****s he found growing there. This makes it unlikely that L'Anse aux Meadows could have been the Vinland of the sagas, because g****s have never grown in Newfoundland. Their current northern range is northern Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and southern Quebec. Even in the warmer climate of one thousand years ago they never grew in Newfoundland or eastern Quebec. However, g****s do grow in the same sort of climate as butternut trees, and one of the most surprising discoveries at L'Anse aux Meadows were butternuts and pieces of carved butternut wood. Ocean currents could not have carried butternuts or driftwood from these areas to northern Newfoundland, and the nuts are too large to have been carried by birds. They must have been brought back to L'Anse aux Meadows by Vikings explorers, and those same explorers would have also encountered wild g****s.

I will draw your attention to "Even in the warmer climate of one thousand years ago..."

Got this one wrong too, "The earth is warmer than it has been in 650,000 years."

[winwin]

Cotten won't be back Mr Smith,now that youve started up with the evidence to the contrary.So I will speak for us.

Its not about evidence or argument.It is about BELIEF.We need to be able to use the power of the state to impose our belief on everyone,like a state religion kinda thing.

Cotten told me on another thread he'd bet me a thousand bucks that most enviros are'nt even religious.That is my point-this for them has BECOME their religion.Complete with fear,guilt,preaching and preachers,an unrefutable after life and, ala AlGore;the sale of 'indulgences'like the old catholic church when it had the monopoly.

So, we Commie crusaders have to have somewhere to go since for us God is dead and the board is dying.

[cottonpicken]

Google ross ice shelf.

[AdamSmith]

Here's the fearmongers proof.

An alarmist headline and a reporters spin.

The Biggest Ice Shelf Could Collapse at Any Time

The Ross Ice Shelf on the Antarctica is the largest ice shelf (ice floating over open ocean) worldwide, several hundred meters thick and covering a surface roughly equal to that of France.

Recent research showed that this giant could break off from Antarctica without warning causing a dramatic rise in sea levels. Analysis of ice cores achieved by drilling the shelf will detail three million years of climate history, at the same time revealing clues as to what may happen in the future. Analysis of sea-floor cores near Scott Base points that the Ross Ice Shelf had broken in the past, at times, suddenly. A 83m core offers climate records spanning about 500,000 years.

The results of the sediments analysis reveal how this huge ice shelf could react faced to global warming. "If the past is any indication of the future, then the ice shelf will collapse," said Dr. Tim Naish, a sedimentologist with the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences of New Zealand.

"If the ice shelf goes, then what about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet? What we've learnt from the Antarctic Peninsula is when once buttressing ice sheets go, the glaciers feeding them move faster and that's the thing that isn't so cheery."

Antarctica's ice keeps 90 % of the world's fresh water, with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet storing about 30 million cubic km. Scientists believe that Ross Ice Shelf collapse would rise sea levels between 5 to 17 m. "We're really getting everything we've dreamed of. What we're getting is a pretty detailed history of the ice shelf," he said. "You go from full glacial conditions to open ocean conditions very abruptly. It doesn't surprise us that much that the transition was dramatic."

The Larsen Ice Shelf collapse in 2002 had already proved that ice shelf can desintegrate "extremely quickly".

“Once dating of the sample was completed, researchers would be able to look at what the ice shelf was doing during periods when scientists knew from other evidence that it was 2degC to 4degC warmer than today,” said Naish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now for something completly different... a calm and responsible approach to reporting complex geological news.

January 8, 2007
Antarctic Ice Shelf Melt: Remember the Holocene!
Filed under: Polar, Antarctic —
The recent climate change literature contains a great deal of evidence in support of the idea that the high latitudes will experience the greatest atmospheric warming. One of the most rapidly warming regions is the Antarctic Peninsula, and it is no surprise that warming here shortens the spatial and temporal extents of snow cover, glaciers, and sea ice. Ice shelves are not immune from the effects of warming, and rather dramatic ice shelf recession has occurred over periods as short as days and weeks as apparent thresholds in the drivers of melt are surpassed. The break-up of the Larsen-B ice shelf of the Antarctic Peninsula in 2002 received a great deal of worldwide attention, as it was believed that the Larsen-B had remained intact for thousands of years. The volume of glacial melt has prompted some climate change alarmists to push the panic button on global sea level rise. At the front of this crowd is Al Gore, who loves to show images and video footage of falling glacial ice and computer generated representations of inundated coastal areas while claiming that the recent global warming is unprecedented. Such images are meant to generate shock, fear, and a desire to place blame. There is little doubt that warming has indeed occurred across parts of Antarctica over the last few decades. However, let’s consider the possibility that a significant portion of the warming may be natural, and that regions, such as the Antarctic Peninsula, are likely to have experienced as warm or warmer conditions in their climate history, before human emission of greenhouse gases.


Earlier this year in an article in Quaternary Science Reviews, Carole Pudsey of the British Antarctic Survey and three of her colleagues reported on their investigation of the Holocene history of the northern Larsen Ice Shelf of the Antarctic Peninsula. Their work, “Ice shelf history from petrographic foraminiferal evidence, Northeast Antarctic Peninsula,” aimed at determining if the recent retreat of the ice shelf is unique to the current climate or if it has previously occurred on a millennial time scale. Pudsey and her colleagues explain that small ice shelves and their associated glaciers are possible indicators of climate and oceanographic change during the Holocene. They further note that ice cores from the Antarctic Peninsula extend back only a few hundred years and their temperature records do not match each other or instrumental records. The researchers conclude that the environmental record for the Holocene must be obtained from sediments on the continental shelf. Most importantly, Pudsey and her colleagues note that small Antarctic ice shelves have varied due to natural climate forcing during the Holocene, “which suggests that the recent decay may not result entirely from anthropogenic climate perturbations.”

Pudsey et al. obtained sediment cores from the area of the former Larsen-A ice shelf and the nearby continental shelf to provide a detailed Holocene record of the presence or absence of ice shelves. Their data indicate “widespread ice shelf breakup in the mid-Holocene”, which was in accord with earlier findings (Pudsey and Evans 2001) of an adjacent ice shelf receding during the same period but followed by a colder climate that allowed the shelf to re-form. Pudsey and her colleagues note that the breakup and subsequent re-formation likely took centuries to complete. They therefore note that “the maximum ice shelf limit may date only from the Little Ice Age.” The researchers also examined benthic foraminifera for evidence of the presence or absence of the ice shelf and found a “deglaciation signal in Prince Gustav Channel” that further suggested the occurrence of a mid-Holocene ice shelf breakup and the clear indication of a “mid-Holocene warm period.”

The work of Carole Pudsey and her colleagues contributes to a growing body of literature that makes clear the idea that the greatest extent of the Larsen ice shelf during the current interglacial period occurred only a few hundred years ago. The ice shelves that have recently disintegrated were likely created at about that same time, meaning that previously they did not exist. The recurring conclusion is that the recent global warming may not be unprecedented, and that a significant portion of the warming may be natural.

The message here is that although images of glacial disintegration are alarming, events such as these may have happened with or without human contributions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Quite possibly, hundreds of years from now humans may be hearing about ice shelf growth on the Antarctic Peninsula and questioning what it is that their society has done to cause such a climate “anomaly.”

References:

Pudsey, C.J., Murray, J.W., Appleby, P., and Evans, J. 2006. Ice shelf history from
petrographic foraminiferal evidence, Northeast Antarctic Peninsula. Quaternary Science Reviews, 25, 2357-2379.

Pudsey, C.J. and Evans, J. 2001. First survey of Antarctic sub-ice shelf sediments reveals
mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat. Geology, 29, 787-790.


come on cotton surely you can do better than this?

[TOM4CWB]

AdamSmith,

As we cycle back into global cooling... we both know they will blame it on human activity... the same a global warming. Hence the need to change to "climate change" instead of global warming!