44,000 years ago last time Canadian arctic this warm

[Grizzly Adams]

REALLY ???? Only a thousand years ago, there were Europeans farming in Greenland. Not gonna tell me it was colder then?

Grizz

[rugatika]

Why, it's almost like lying, but not quite. Warmest in 120,000 years hey? Hmmmm, I really wonder what happened 120,000 years ago.

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.[

Wow!! The arctic is warmer than at any point in the ice age or our current interglacial period. Amazing! I would never have guessed it. You mean to tell me that the Arctic isn't colder than it was during the ice age? Holy Smokes! So lets see...100,000 years of ice age, then 11,000 or so years of shrugging off the ice age and the breaking "scientific" news is that the warmest it's been is now AND that this is related to AGW.

Awesome. Thanks for the update.

When your wife of 20 years tells you she hasn't cheated on you in the last 5 years...you might want to investigate beyond the last 5 years.


Just some further info for those that really want to know the facts and why these "scientists" chose 120,000 years ago instead of 125,000 years ago for example.

Eemian refers to the previous interglacial period before the last ice age started and the Holocene of course is the current interglacial we are in.

The Eemian climate is believed to have been about as stable as that of the Holocene. Changes in the earth's orbital parameters from today (greater obliquity and eccentricity, and perihelion), known as the Milankovitch cycle, probably led to greater seasonal temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere, although global annual mean temperatures were probably similar to those of the Holocene. The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape (which is now tundra) in northern Norway well above the Arctic Circle at
71°10′21″N 25°47′40″E. Hardwood trees like hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland.

At the peak of the Eemian, the northern hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today. The Hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames.[1] Trees grew as far north as southern Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago instead of only as far north as Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec, and the prairie-forest boundary in the Great Plains of the United States lay further west — near Lubbock, Texas, instead of near Dallas, Texas, where the boundary now exists. The period closed as temperatures steadily fell to conditions cooler and drier than the present, with 468-year long aridity pulse in central Europe,[2] and by 114,000 years ago, a glacial period had returned.


This is how these UN freaks and their minions get gullible people to believe in their tripe. Sad.

[BlackHeart]

Im amazed ar the size of balls these climate scientists (Fortune tellers) have.

First you take 150 years of data, trim off all but the last 30, tweak the collection points without proper adjustment, create a modeling system on that data to show what you have already made the assumptions of, then tweak the data that you do have when it doesn't fit, tweak the model when that fails, come up with a new hypothesis "Ocean depth temperature storage (or such), to explain why your data and modeling tweaking still isn't working in real world temperture increases and things arent following your script. Then point to a few lonely things, without any substantiation, and say "See it supports our theory", but ignore all the many that contradict it.

And even better you do this in isolation of 3 million years of quite wide climate changes. And give no explanation as to why those changes occurred and what causes them.

In summary, they think (or hope $$$$) they can predict the future based on 150/3,000,000 (like drinking cool aid and determing the vintage) years data, but have no clue as to the past global and much larger climate events.

But more like a moth inventing electricity.

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

You guys are all wrong! Don't you read the Bible? The Earth is only 4,013 years old!

Seriously though, I got in a huge debate/fight with our deputy chief last night over this, he is 100% convinced that the earth is in it's infancy.

I didn't have the heart to call him (and every other religious zealot) an idiot, but........

actually it's 6000

[smartypants]

Originally Posted by avb3

Ever wonder what the 'CC' stands for in the IPCC? (Hint: climate change). It never was the IPGW. Guess what...it's been that way since it started in 1988.

Who told you otherwise?




This study is not a projection. It is in fact not tomorrow either. It is science. It's real. It doesn't guess at anything. It is looking as what happened in the past, and comparison to what is on the ground today, and is not projecting anything otherwise.

.....apparently you forgot about the 15 20 years when all the consensus media could utter was 'global warming'....then magically it was rebranded as CC. & who gives a sh*t about the IPCC?....you and dr'suki apparently, and maybe 'The Gore-acle'....the tragedy is that it's the 'Intergovernmental' panel & not something like the 'Atmospeheric Physics' panel....

The whole 'Cause' is based on projections...& apparently you're inacapable of delineating between speculation and science, not surprising....it's all part of the AGW cult....models before empirical data....belief instead of logic.

Btw the vast majority of the ice is in the Antarctic and that has been magically growing.....apparently at 30+ year highs in volume....what do your 'studies' say about that?...your fellow true-believer-cultists?.....fingers in ears as you sing 'lalalalalalal'???.

[greylynx]

And our school curriculum preaches the gospel according to Suzuki over and over.

Result: You have a bunch of mindless tards running about.

And then at university....

And no one really cares.

[smartypants]

Originally Posted by greylynx

And our school curriculum preaches the gospel according to Suzuki over and over.

Result: You have a bunch of mindless tards running about.

And then at university....

And no one really cares.

....yes,the tragedy is the polluting of young minds with this 'Suki-science culitist drek....will take a long time to undo that, if ever......good case for home schoolin' right there.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by smartypants

.....apparently you forgot about the 15 20 years when all the consensus media could utter was 'global warming'....then magically it was rebranded as CC. & who gives a sh*t about the IPCC?....you and dr'suki apparently, and maybe 'The Gore-acle'....the tragedy is that it's the 'Intergovernmental' panel & not something like the 'Atmospeheric Physics' panel....

The whole 'Cause' is based on projections...& apparently you're inacapable of delineating between speculation and science, not surprising....it's all part of the AGW cult....models before empirical data....belief instead of logic.

Btw the vast majority of the ice is in the Antarctic and that has been magically growing.....apparently at 30+ year highs in volume....what do your 'studies' say about that?...your fellow true-believer-cultists?.....fingers in ears as you sing 'lalalalalalal'???.

So you agree that the Arctic ice is less?

BTW the Antarctic ice has increases in area, BUT decreased in volume. It is not as thick anymore.

Andrew Watts and crowd never do like telling the whole story.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

actually it's 6000

And there are many many on this board that believe that. Many of those want to do home schooling.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

actually it's 6000

Ha! I read that last night too, was just waiting

Forgot to add, anyone that believes in creationism please do not be offended at my uneducated agnostic remarks. I mean no offense. I am still undecided, questioning. I regret the religious zealot remark, sorry.

[smartypants]

Originally Posted by avb3

So you agree that the Arctic ice is less?

BTW the Antarctic ice has increases in area, BUT decreased in volume. It is not as thick anymore.

Andrew Watts and crowd never do like telling the whole story.

....tell me what the natural signal is in global climate?....temperature? ....ice levels?...all of it...it can't be done....so until you can prove the null hypothesis...all you have is speculation.....you can point to whatever you want but until you have the magic system of differential equations that accurately models climate vs anthropoegenic CO2 concentraions both historically and in the future all you have is rhetoric..does mother nature have a hand in your fantasy or is she exempt?....the climate cant change anymore?...we're in control are we?....150 years of data maybe the last 3rd is reliable & we understand the non-linear-chaotic system enough to make trillion dollar decisions?
......the cult is strong.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by nekred

Science cannot prove fact....

Science is accepted hypotheses until disproven by fact....

They are judging the age of the ice cap that is melting and finding the plants that are preserved under it....

Heck My backyrd does the same every spring to reveal dandelions....

There is so much guesswork involved and then gets touted as "fact"....

Does your backyard remain frozen over for centuries? Was your backyard considered to be a previously uninhabitable area? Your over simplifications are as ignorant as your understanding of science...

The fact is polar ice that has been around for a long time is melting and is revealing past life in areas.

What does this tell us?

It is very simple actually, obviously at one point the earth was warmer then it is now and then it got colder and now it is warming up again.

Man obviously didn't impact these previous climate changes and it is therefore pretty easy to see climate change will happen regardless of what we do. Man's affects now may be affecting climate but in reality we have absolutely no idea how and to what magnitude since we don't know what the natural climate change would be.

What man has to do is either figure out a way to control climate change or learn how to live with it. The first option is rather unlikely for quite some time so until then we better just learn to go with it.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Of course this thread is going to lead into all sorts of accusations of science not being right, the projections wrong, that models are wrong, etc. etc.

That part already is a given.

So... those whose mind is already set that global warming is not occurring this additional information means nothing.

For the rest of us this confirms that there are real changes happening.

http://m.livescience.com/40676-arcti...cord-high.html

Great point. It was colder 44000 years ago. Them dam diesel driving mammoths.

There are warm spots and cold spots. You could take a spot in Antarctica and show it is colder than ever. Still in the last 16 years it has not warmed. But wait... You folks say that doesn't count but 30 years is statistically valid. No one bought that now all of a sudden you pick 44000 years in an article to say we are warming. No one disputes the world warmed since the ice ages. Global warming is natural. So called massive increases in man made CO2 released in the last 16 years did nothing to warm the Earth... So now the panic sets in.

[220swifty]

Thermometers happened before the wheel!?

Who'da thunk it!

[great white whaler]

If earthlings don't smartin up' there wont be another 100 years for the humans or any other creature on this plantet ,,co2 emissions ,poluting of our fresh water supply ,we are domed its to late

[Ryry4]

We better figure out a way to plug all of the volcanos too. We all know they don't put any CO2 into the atmosphere.

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by avb3

Of course this thread is going to lead into all sorts of accusations of science not being right, the projections wrong, that models are wrong, etc. etc.

That part already is a given.

So... those whose mind is already set that global warming is not occurring this additional information means nothing.

For the rest of us this confirms that there are real changes happening.

http://m.livescience.com/40676-arcti...cord-high.html

I have an Idea that is why you post these thing repeatedly , You know you will stir up a hornets nest and then sit back and chuckle at the pot you love to stir

[great white whaler]

vocanos ,,,natural occurrence,,than along came humans

[TyreeUM]

apple is to orange as avb is to boberama...

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by great white whaler

vocanos ,,,natural occurrence,,than along came humans

Are you saying humans aren't a natural occurrence?

[great white whaler]

yes

[79ford]

it was two degrees this morning.... cold out, so much for climate change. uuuuuuuh derrrrrrrr huck huck yuk yuk

[rugatika]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/...l-warm-period/

[avb3]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

I have an Idea that is why you post these thing repeatedly , You know you will stir up a hornets nest and then sit back and chuckle at the pot you love to stir

What you forget or probably don't know is that I used to be one of those climate change deniers. So what changed my mind? Looking at the science slowly over a long time convinced me that climate change was real. Perhaps if enough of these real studies, which are not projections, surface and are read by others, they may start seeing a change in their perspective also.

Now as far as that Al Gore thing is concerned, he is as much as a hypocrite as Suzuki. I can't stand either one of them.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 79ford

it was two degrees this morning.... cold out, so much for climate change. uuuuuuuh derrrrrrrr huck huck yuk yuk

Once again confusing weather with climate?

It was an unseasonably hot 97 degrees down in Florida this past week.

So, which one is indicative of climate?

[smartypants]

Originally Posted by avb3

Now as far as that Al Gore thing is concerned, he is as much as a hypocrite as Suzuki. I can't stand either one of them.

No, I think a picture of Dr 'Suki has a special place in your wallet and you hide an Al Gore scrapbook under your bed.

[nekred]

I love how the statement... scientists believe that.....becomes scientific fact...

A scientist looks at a single black sheep in Scotland....

The scientist would say... well according to the evidence I believe that all sheep in Scotland are black..... Then go look at 10 other sheep that are white and say that all sheep in Scotland are black except for a few anomolies where based on 11 sheep in a square mile this would then mean than 10 out of 6 million black sheep in Scotland are white. then the scientist goes to get a Govt. grant based on the use of black wool vs. white wool and the potential economic benefits plus the environmental benefits of not having to dye wool black for black wool garments...So they get 2 million to conduct a study, they spend 2.8 million on specialised equipment and another 500,000 on slary for their staff to study the black sheep and then reapply for an extension because of cost overuns.... and this stretches for years with people debating the subject of black sheep and no eveidence is ever produced...

Meanwhile the shepherd looks at all the touble caused when an educated person can't tell the difference between his sheep and his black border collie.

And that folks is how we come to belive in global climate change...

Climat change is a fact... petrified forests in the aleution islands... continental drift, the earth is in a constant stae of flux and always ends up evolving, changing adapating, At one point it had no oxygen.

As for the creatin vs. evolution theory here is how I look at it... if the universe and earth was created by an all-powerful being I am sure that it could be created in its current form with all our memories intact. How do we know everything was not done last night and our memories adjusted? Was Adam created as an adult or a baby?

Hmmmm.... Or in absence of a time frame... maybe the all powerful being allowed natural processes to work and create things over time....

In terms of a time frame, if you actually look at the chronology of history it is based on assumptions and not fact....

So much of scientific fact is based o n assumption....

Since I do have a Science Degree I guess I could be scientist. The first thoing I learned was to question everything. The point of university is not knowlege or learning but to replace and empty mind with an open one.

I could use all sorts of big words, and have oodles of knwolege that I enjoy having such as the names of all the plants, trees, indicator plant species, birds etc. We even had a project where we had to recognise bird calls and identify many species of birds in North America. There is a lot of knowlege and we have to remember the Earth is always in a state of flux and one day another life form will evolve to replace us....

We need to worry more about our population explosion more than global climate change. But that is self regulating too. As time goes on and population density increases aerosol transmission of different pathogens becomes easier and these adapt faster than our ability to deal with them.

[tri777]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

actually it's 6000

Where do you magicians come up with these numbers..?

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by avb3

What you forget or probably don't know is that I used to be one of those climate change deniers. So what changed my mind? Looking at the science slowly over a long time convinced me that climate change was real. Perhaps if enough of these real studies, which are not projections, surface and are read by others, they may start seeing a change in their perspective also.

Now as far as that Al Gore thing is concerned, he is as much as a hypocrite as Suzuki. I can't stand either one of them.

Not really the issue . Denier or crusader I still say you only have one purpose in the repeated posts. But that is fine , stir away . .Everyone has their own way of entertaining themselves

[Peter Gill]

the Antarctic ice has increases in area, BUT decreased in volume. It is not as thick anymore.

Your scientific basis for this claim is what?

http://www.awi.de/fileadmin/user_upl...et_Meereis.pdf
If you don't read German, quick summary: Even if there are no large area long-term measurements of sea ice thickness in the Antarctic, we conclude from various studies that the total volume of the Antarctic sea ice has grown over the last years.