Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed

[d000hg]

You have to prove a causal link between higher CO2 and current warming, since warming IS known to happen naturally.

[IR35FanClub]

So when was there a spell when the climate was not changing and how long did it last? The issue is one of perspective

I don't do magic.

I think the issue is what is NORMAL. Not is it allowed to change at all. We've gone well outside of normal. And so scientists have tried to answer the questions how far outside of normal will we go? Will it be bad or is it ok. The answer seems to be it will make things worse for us, not better. Insurance rises, more wars, more deaths (though not as many in blighty as places where they don't have NHS), increased food costs. It won't mean the end of humanity, but more trouble. I think the biggest problems we're like to face is colder winters. Nothing impossible to deal with - as it will only be like living in central Europe, but it means we'll spend more on heating, 4x4s, and winter tyres etc.

One of my mates, who's a complete climate skeptic, had a dream where the Chinese invaded Scotland and build pipelines to get the fresh water out the lochs as their own water was running short. Considering the arugments we've had over climate change - it spooked him as a realisitic future scenario. I think it more likely they'd build a dam and some nuclear desalination plants though.

[ZARDOZ]

Whether climate change is man made or not, there is nothing wrong with cleaner fuels and a less poluted environment. So either way it's a win win.

[DodgyAgent]

I don't do magic.

I think the issue is what is NORMAL. Not is it allowed to change at all. We've gone well outside of normal. And so scientists have tried to answer the questions how far outside of normal will we go? Will it be bad or is it ok. The answer seems to be it will make things worse for us, not better. Insurance rises, more wars, more deaths (though not as many in blighty as places where they don't have NHS), increased food costs. It won't mean the end of humanity, but more trouble. I think the biggest problems we're like to face is colder winters. Nothing impossible to deal with - as it will only be like living in central Europe, but it means we'll spend more on heating, 4x4s, and winter tyres etc.

One of my mates, who's a complete climate skeptic, had a dream where the Chinese invaded Scotland and build pipelines to get the fresh water out the lochs as their own water was running short. Considering the arugments we've had over climate change - it spooked him as a realisitic future scenario. I think it more likely they'd build a dam and some nuclear desalination plants though.

We all know what the implications of extreme climate change are so you dont need to use the emotive cliches to support a point.
This is an example of how misleading this whole thing is. The words "climate change" is itself a cliche that is used to stir fear and most of us dissenters do not like to be manipulated in this way. We have always had and always will have "climate change" and it is not necessarily a bad thing.
Because we understand this and point it out we are regularly tarnished as "deniers"

It is this that drives controversy - the way that the so called problem is used to manipulate people (usually into parting with money)

It is not yet proven that the climate change is so bad it will cause any harm and it is not proven that man has caused it or that man can do anything about it.

[EternalOptimist]

There wer times in the past when co2 concentrations were 4 times higher than now, and it was cooler, so I dont know where the idea of normal comes from.
I have never heard anyone deny that the climate changes, it always has and it always will.

Of course, like most people, I have not read all the science, and even if I did I would noy understand most of it, so where to place my bet ?

I look at people I feel are trustworthy, people who dont use emotive or inflamatory language, people who dont stand to gain by spreading the scare stories, people who are not ideologically motivated.

I am afraid the cagw movement fails badly on all counts.

and this idea that the ice is melting due to a 1 degree rise in temperature from -40 to -39 ??

purleese, give us a break.

The ice may be getting a little scarcer, but why ? the jury is still out

[Mich the Tester]

I look at people I feel are trustworthy, people who dont use emotive or inflamatory language, people who dont stand to gain by spreading the scare stories, people who are not ideologically motivated.

Then I think you're probably hallucinating.

[BlasterBates]

It is not yet proven that the climate change is so bad it will cause any harm and it is not proven that man has caused it or that man can do anything about it.

+1

and those who are a bit older who watched those doomed laden science documentaries in the late 1980´s and early 1990´s about the consequences of global warming, remember that their predictions of what would happen in 20 years were bollox. The forests in Germany are still there and look as healthy as ever, we can still ski in the alps, and the villages are still habitable (they were saying the mountains would start to collapse, because all the forests would have died ).

Of course the alarmists have now changed their tune completely, now they´ve moved on from droughts and hot summers and are warning of cold winters. They´re just using natural cycles where we switch from warm and dry, to cold wet and snowy to scare people into thinking climate change is unnatural.

[Spacecadet]

+1

and those who are a bit older who watched those doomed laden science documentaries in the late 1980´s and early 1990´s about the consequences of global warming, remember that their predictions of what would happen in 20 years were bollox. The forests in Germany are still there and look as healthy as ever, we can still ski in the alps, and the villages are still habitable (they were saying the mountains would start to collapse, because all the forests would have died ).

I thought we needed global warming to counteract the global freezing from the 70s

[IR35FanClub]

You have to prove a causal link between higher CO2 and current warming, since warming IS known to happen naturally.

The link between CO2 and global temperatures has been established since the early 1800's. The basic history goes something like this...

CO2 was discovered.
It was found to be a green house gas.
It was found that increasing the amount of C02 in "air" increases temperature.

The scientist have done thousands and thousands of experiments trying to show it's not CO2. And yet after all that they are left saying to us, sorry, we still think it's CO2. There's lots of other things going on, but what is driving global increases (as opposed to local solar based daytime heating changes) is the increase CO2 concentrations.

If you look at the numbers again...

CO2 used to stay between 260 and 280 ppm (not the 300 I thought). It's now at 370. (Scrub that it’s been a while since I looked, it’s now over 390ppm). That’s a 40% increase over natural variability. As mentioned earlier – we know it’s us emitting the CO2, it’s something like 30 billion tonnes a year IIRC. About 15 billion get mopped up by the oceans and a bit by plants. But the oceans are getting fuller, the tress are doing their best, and ice is melting.

If you wan to go to longer timescales - like 400,000 years including several ice age cycles it varies between 160-280. We're higher than at anytime since the dinosaurs were around. Is that not cause for alarm even on its own? I.e. we are carrying out a huge global experiment. As in, the scientists might be right or wrong, doesn't matter, no one can know for sure what the effect is. It's a bit like taking your car that was built for 130mph top speeds, fitting nitrous and a huge turbo and nothing else, (Like brakes) and saying lets see how fast this can go.

Are we waiting to see what happens when oceans give up and ice melts to go oh yes, the scientists were right. I’ve been paying close attention since about 2007 when Al Gores film came out, it had flaws but the point was – do you own research and trust no one. What I’ve found is the scientists are [understandably] cautious about making predictions. Which is another way of saying, whatever they predict, will happen sooner, and with more impacts that they agreed by consensus. Back in 2007 they were predicting artic sea ice might disappear sometime in future. Then about 3 years ago it was maybe by 2040, Now it.’s maybe by 2020. I wouldn’t be surprised if by 2015 there no sea ice on June 21st.

[DodgyAgent]

The link between CO2 and global temperatures has been established since the early 1800's. The basic history goes something like this...

CO2 was discovered.
It was found to be a green house gas.
It was found that increasing the amount of C02 in "air" increases temperature.

The scientist have done thousands and thousands of experiments trying to show it's not CO2. And yet after all that they are left saying to us, sorry, we still think it's CO2. There's lots of other things going on, but what is driving global increases (as opposed to local solar based daytime heating changes) is the increase CO2 concentrations.

If you look at the numbers again...

CO2 used to stay between 260 and 280 ppm (not the 300 I thought). It's now at 370. (Scrub that it’s been a while since I looked, it’s now over 390ppm). That’s a 40% increase over natural variability. As mentioned earlier – we know it’s us emitting the CO2, it’s something like 30 billion tonnes a year IIRC. About 15 billion get mopped up by the oceans and a bit by plants. But the oceans are getting fuller, the tress are doing their best, and ice is melting.

If you wan to go to longer timescales - like 400,000 years including several ice age cycles it varies between 160-280. We're higher than at anytime since the dinosaurs were around. Is that not cause for alarm even on its own? I.e. we are carrying out a huge global experiment. As in, the scientists might be right or wrong, doesn't matter, no one can know for sure what the effect is. It's a bit like taking your car that was built for 130mph top speeds, fitting nitrous and a huge turbo and nothing else, (Like brakes) and saying lets see how fast this can go.

Are we waiting to see what happens when oceans give up and ice melts to go oh yes, the scientists were right. I’ve been paying close attention since about 2007 when Al Gores film came out, it had flaws but the point was – do you own research and trust no one. What I’ve found is the scientists are [understandably] cautious about making predictions. Which is another way of saying, whatever they predict, will happen sooner, and with more impacts that they agreed by consensus. Back in 2007 they were predicting artic sea ice might disappear sometime in future. Then about 3 years ago it was maybe by 2040, Now it.’s maybe by 2020. I wouldn’t be surprised if by 2015 there no sea ice on June 21st.

So how do these compare with the numbers 5000 years ago?