On Native GroundTHE Nexus of Climate ...

On Native GroundTHE Nexus of Climate Change and War

There are 39 comments on the American Reporter story from Oct 4, 2011, titled On Native GroundTHE Nexus of Climate Change and War. In it, American Reporter reports that:

There is virtually no doubt that global warming exists. Aside from a few cranks and those heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry, the scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate is changing, and changing faster than ever before.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at American Reporter.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
I Had Sex WithSuperModels

Westland, MI

#1 Oct 6, 2011
CO2 levels were 10-20X higher for most of the last 600 million years.

Based on the expert testimony of our top climate morons scientists, we can be certain that all life forms were destroyed as quickly as they were created – because the weather was so extreme that no life could possibly survive. Sea levels must have been hundreds or thousands of feet higher than they are now, and hurricanes and tornadoes must have roared continuously across a drought and flood covered hot/cold landscape.
I Had Sex WithSuperModels

Westland, MI

#2 Oct 6, 2011
1921 : Earth Had A Fever

Record heat, drought, floods, famine, storms …. Romm’s head would explode. 1921 used to be the second hottest year in the US after 1934, but Hansen and USHCN fixed adjusted corrupted that a few years ago.
Alex

Newton Center, MA

#3 Oct 6, 2011
we don't have to go back that far, the Medieval era had warmer than today temps globally AND more CO2 than now- it was cuz of all those animal-driven Chariot/SUV's don't ya know
Alex

Newton Center, MA

#4 Oct 6, 2011
link redone- Nytimes.com/2011/10/04/science/earth/04climat...
----------
(Reuters)- A proposed solution to reverse the effects of global warming by spraying sulfate particles into Earth's stratosphere could make matters much worse, climate researchers said on Thursday. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/24/us-...

Your tax $$ at work-
US answer to global warming: smoke and giant space mirrors http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/ja...
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#5 Oct 17, 2011
Alex wrote:
we don't have to go back that far, the Medieval era had warmer than today temps globally AND more CO2 than now
Obviously a scientific illiterate. To raise global temperatures by 1C over the last century, GHG forcing has added about 1.6 w/m*m year after year. To postulate that some invisible cause added 166 w/m*m over a few years and then removed this huge influx of thermal energy defies the reason of ANY scientifically educated man.

While the MWP definitely existed over the years 950 AD to 1250 AD, the term is based on the climate change ONLY in Western Europe where it is clearly documented.

Studies have shown that this was created by a northward shift of warmer air from the more southern regions, causing an initial dramatic shift in temperatures which then slowly declined over the period of the term.

There are warming and cooling events over EVERY region caused by changes in how the equatorial warmth is shifted to the north by the temperature differential. But these shifts are only on WHERE the warmth is, not the total SUM of hte warmth.

You really need to read a few serious websites instead of the paranoid conspiracy and 'junk science' sites. We are in the age of reason and nothing happens without CAUSE. So until a cause for a sudden increase in global temperatures is found, there is NO basis for claiming a 'global MWP'.
Nohandle

Westland, MI

#6 Oct 17, 2011
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously a scientific illiterate. To raise global temperatures by 1C over the last century, GHG forcing has added about 1.6 w/m*m year after year. To postulate that some invisible cause added 166 w/m*m over a few years and then removed this huge influx of thermal energy defies the reason of ANY scientifically educated man.
While the MWP definitely existed over the years 950 AD to 1250 AD, the term is based on the climate change ONLY in Western Europe where it is clearly documented.
Studies have shown that this was created by a northward shift of warmer air from the more southern regions, causing an initial dramatic shift in temperatures which then slowly declined over the period of the term.
There are warming and cooling events over EVERY region caused by changes in how the equatorial warmth is shifted to the north by the temperature differential. But these shifts are only on WHERE the warmth is, not the total SUM of hte warmth.
You really need to read a few serious websites instead of the paranoid conspiracy and 'junk science' sites. We are in the age of reason and nothing happens without CAUSE. So until a cause for a sudden increase in global temperatures is found, there is NO basis for claiming a 'global MWP'.
Agreed...temps rising over the last 140 years...trouble is...it started rising before the influx of co2 from manmade activity.
Nohandle

Westland, MI

#7 Oct 17, 2011
Over 70 percent of survey respondents agreed that the Earth’s temperature has risen steadily during the last century, including the last decade. Global temperatures indeed rose over the course of the last hundred years, but the rise was not steady. By most accounts, the Earth’s temperature rose about 0.6 degree Celsius (about 1 degree Fahrenheit) during the twentieth century;[111] and just as the climate has warmed and cooled throughout recorded history, temperatures fluctuated during the 1900s. A Science magazine article reports that two distinct periods of warming—from 1910 to 1945 and again since 1976—were separated by a period of very gradual cooling.[112] Thus, contrary to popular opinion, recent warming did not occur steadily. More recently, satellite data indicate that temperatures have not risen appreciably since 1998 and that temperatures have actually dropped since 2007.[113]
Mike Mulligan

Charlestown, MA

#8 Oct 17, 2011
The trouble is everyone trying to make big bucks over global warning...most of the shit they sell don't work and is terrible expensive and we can't afford it.
Nohandle

Westland, MI

#9 Oct 17, 2011
An important question, then, is whether the temperature swings of the twentieth century were atypical. Opinions range from those who feel the twentieth century’s temperature rise is atypically large to those who feel it was just another normal phase in a natural climate cycle. In their 2001 synthesis report, the IPCC stated that “the rate and duration of warming of the 20th century has been much greater than in any of the previous nine centuries.”[115] According to a report from the Australian government’s Department of the Environment and Heritage,“All reliable estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1000 to 2000 years confirm that the 20th century has been unusually warm.”[116] On the other hand, certain examinations of the geological record indicate that recent temperature changes are well within the range of natural variability.[117] A September 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature reports evidence that a natural, moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warming cycles (similar to the most recent warming cycle) since the last Ice Age.[118] A November 2007 paper examined the temperature records of eighteen locations over a 2,000-year period, concluding that the Medieval Warm Period (roughly the ninth through thirteenth centuries) was 0.3 degree Celsius warmer than the twentieth century.[119]
Nohandle

Westland, MI

#10 Oct 17, 2011
Our limited knowledge and understanding of the myriad intricacies of the Earth’s complex climate system make climate-change discussions necessarily inconclusive.123 “While most scientists agree that anthropogenic [man-made] global warming is a threat, they’re not certain about its scale or its timing or its precise consequences,” writes John Tierney in the New York Times.124 Until our collection of climate data becomes more uniform and reliable, and until our understanding of such data improves, many of our questions about the Earth’s climate will remain unanswered. Clearly, the Earth has warmed since the late nineteenth century, but the key is to judge such warming in historical context, continually refining our interpretation of varying climate data. Moreover, the important task for policymakers is to proceed with caution, in order to avoid implementing dramatic public-policy steps based upon an incomplete understanding of global-climate issues.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#11 Oct 20, 2011
Nohandle wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed...temps rising over the last 140 years.
Entirely accounted for by the forcings from the 200year solar cycle, the sulphate aerosols and the GHGs.
Nohandle wrote:
<quoted text>
..trouble is...it started rising before the influx of co2 from manmade activity.
That isn't a trouble, if you mean that the solar forcing from the 200 year cycle was stronger in the early years than the small accumulation of GHGs. However, the 200 year solar cycle is of small amplitude and is well on the downswing, while GHGs continue ot accumulate and continue to make a stronger and stronger greenhouse effect, totally swamping the small variations from the solar and aerosols.
Stardust

Westland, MI

#12 Oct 20, 2011
Speculation about the relationship between the cycles of the sun and the impact on earth's climate. No one knows. And that is a fact.
SpaceBlues

United States

#13 Oct 20, 2011
Stardust wrote:
Speculation about the relationship between the cycles of the sun and the impact on earth's climate. No one knows. And that is a fact.
No, not the way you put it. How about learning about this and that as the science progresses?

This came out today:
http://www.rdmag.com/News/2011/10/General-Sci...

See what you pick up from it.
Alex

Newton Center, MA

#14 Oct 20, 2011
The scientists at CERN are supposed to be tops in the world-

'CERN: Sun, not man, controls Earth’s climate' August 30, 2011
http://www.infowars.com/cern-sun-not-man-cont...

'CERN Scientists Gagged On ‘Politically Incorrect’ Global Warming Data'
http://www.infowars.com/cern-scientists-gagge...

video- Solar Activity & Alignmment Role in Quakes, Weather And Animal Behavior
Nohandle

Westland, MI

#15 Oct 20, 2011
I can't recall any global-warming skeptic claiming that "urban heat islands" were causing global warming -- only that they were causing perceived global warming by surrounding established measuring stations. It takes little imagination to believe that a meteorological station that was located in a cow pasture and is now in a Wal-Mart parking lot is going to think the world has heated up. This strikes me as a dishonest effort to counter one argument by conclusively disproving another -- different -- argument.

The most significant contribution of heat islands to global warming statistics is their increasing proximity to measuring stations, many of which have been engulfed by growing urban areas.
Nohandle

Westland, MI

#16 Oct 20, 2011
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>No, not the way you put it. How about learning about this and that as the science progresses?
This came out today:
http://www.rdmag.com/News/2011/10/General-Sci...
See what you pick up from it.
My point has always been that we needed to learn more. Climate science is in it's infancy. There is more that we don't know than what we do know.
SpaceBlues

United States

#17 Oct 20, 2011
Nohandle wrote:
<quoted text>
My point has always been that we needed to learn more.
I agree that learning must go on. A generic comment.
Nohandle wrote:
<quoted text>
Climate science is in it's infancy.
Actually, I disagree. The science base is well-advanced because it's basically physics, chemistry, and biology. The brand new science results do not mean infancy but advancement.
If you want to compare with the LHC at CERN, there are many parallels such very large data sets, previously unknown regimes of physics, new insights, international cooperation, etc.
Nohandle wrote:
<quoted text>There is more that we don't know than what we do know.
True about everything, don't you agree? One gets humbler as one learns more and comprehends deeper.
SpaceBlues

United States

#18 Oct 20, 2011
Nohandle wrote:
I can't recall any global-warming skeptic claiming that "urban heat islands" were causing global warming -- only that they were causing perceived global warming by surrounding established measuring stations. It takes little imagination to believe that a meteorological station that was located in a cow pasture and is now in a Wal-Mart parking lot is going to think the world has heated up. This strikes me as a dishonest effort to counter one argument by conclusively disproving another -- different -- argument.
The most significant contribution of heat islands to global warming statistics is their increasing proximity to measuring stations, many of which have been engulfed by growing urban areas.
Here's a new study group, the Berkeley Group, confirming previous results and what you are bringing up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

And more. Have a good read.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#19 Oct 21, 2011
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:
While the MWP definitely existed over the years 950 AD to 1250 AD
Knowing how much you like to exaggerate, why do you always shorten the timeline of the MWP?
NoFactAllHype wrote:
the term is based on the climate change ONLY in Western Europe where it is clearly documented.
It's also fairly well 'clearly documented' in America.
Why isn't it 'clearly documented' in the southern hemisphere?
Oh yes, that's right, hardly anyone was there to document it, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Studies have shown that this was created by a northward shift of warmer air from the more southern regions, causing an initial dramatic shift in temperatures which then slowly declined over the period of the term.
What, "studies" and can you cite any?
What caused the, "northward shift of warmer air from the more southern regions?"
NoFactAllHype wrote:
So until a cause for a sudden increase in global temperatures is found, there is NO basis for claiming a 'global MWP'.
You've just made a good case for a global MWP, now you're saying there's no basis for it, make up your mind.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#20 Oct 21, 2011
"There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions."
Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Africa Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
White power (Aug '11) Mar '17 Samuel-7g-Jackson 2
Medicine for Africa' which can be made by ordi... (Aug '16) Mar '17 Ache 2
Can an African-American join an African tribe? Jan '17 Anonymous 1
Mama hawah women clinic (Dec '16) Dec '16 Anonymous 1
Do the Hausa's have slimmer features than other... (Dec '16) Dec '16 Anonymous 1
Zaragemca Top Experience (Apr '14) Aug '16 Gerry Zaragmca 3
News Cultural appropriation: when 'borrowing' become... (Jun '16) Jun '16 Oh No You Di-nt 1
More from around the web