Thread: Even the WSJ Admits that Polar Ice is Melting

I don't know of anyone who denies that the climate is ever changing. I think that the discussion revolves around how much man has to do with the change and whether taxation can stop it. It seems that whatever issue arises in the world today, some believe that redistribution of wealth is the solution. That is what many Conservatives disagree with.

BTW, that was one of the more rational article I have read on the subject in quite some time.

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

I don't know of anyone who denies that the climate is ever changing. I think that the discussion revolves around how much man has to do with the change and whether taxation can stop it. It seems that whatever issue arises in the world today, some believe that redistribution of wealth is the solution. That is what many Conservatives disagree with.

BTW, that was one of the more rational article I have read on the subject in quite some time.

So oldman, if co2 is indeed the cause, and the science says it is, WHAT is the solution? What should we do if co2 is indeed the driver of this? I have never seen a solution from you guys because you just deny the science. But if the science is correct, what solutions do you offer?

Unsure what that solution is but punishment taxing to change behavior appears to be the most harmful to our already harmed decreasing middle class and increasing lower class. What we really need to do is be honest about realistic solutions vs. just political motivation by further unleashing agencies like the EPA. It might start skipping some of the nonsense we have to digest along the way. Like "clean coal" for example that are basically lies.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

What should we do if co2 is indeed the driver of this? I have never seen a solution from you guys because you just deny the science. But if the science is correct, what solutions do you offer?

Originally Posted by Sluggo

punishment taxing to change behavior appears to be the most harmful to our already harmed decreasing middle class ... What we really need to do is be honest about realistic solutions vs. just political motivation...

Assuming for the moment that global warming is a significant problem and that anthropomorphic CO2 is the primary culprit... The CATO Institute had a great article a few years back that gave several ideas to reduce CO2 without undercutting our economy. The two I remember are adding iron filings to an area of the Pacific that is essentially devoid of nutrients and thus 'not doing its part' towards absorbing atmospheric CO2 and shifting it to the sea floor via algae growth and death, and requiring commercial aircraft to fly higher and 'run richer' so that they essentially create an upper-atmosphere 'sunshade' to reflect heat away before it reaches earth's surface. (There were others, but I don't recall what and the specific article didn't come up in a google search.) But since the real purpose of 'global warming solutions' is to increase political power and/or personal profit, such non-disruptive solutions are tossed aside in favor of ethanol requirements, carbon-credit-trading, gutting the coal industry, and the like...

I'm not sure where such sensible approaches compare, but looking at the 'solutions' currently on the table, "Just deal with it" appears to be the best route to go:
What to Do about Climate Change | Indur Goklany | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis
Adapting to Climate Change Is Less Costly than Spending Trillions on Emission Targets | Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar | Cato Institute: Commentary

I am tired of going round the maypole on this one.

Fact

Greenland was once mainly farming. Very little ice except in the most northern region. This was true up to about 1300 AD. Mini Ice Age then if I remember right.

The science for C02 is still not settled about whether it is a trailing or leading indicator of warming.

We are coming out of an ice age and not even between the middle of the cycles.

Mars has shown similar warming patterns as the Earth.

I have spent many an hour posting this in other threads with scientific peer reviewed journals that support this.

Climates change.

We have only had 20 years or so of measurements to study the size of the Arctic and Antarctic ice.

The Earth has had millions of years to cycle through these changes.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

I am tired of going round the maypole on this one.

Did you ever stop and ask yourself why?

Fact

Greenland was once mainly farming. Very little ice except in the most northern region. This was true up to about 1300 AD. Mini Ice Age then if I remember right.

The last time Greenland's ice sheet was significantly small than today was 120,000 years ago during MIS-5e. Just 24,000 years ago it covered 40% more area than it did today.

The science for C02 is still not settled about whether it is a trailing or leading indicator of warming.

Even global warming critics don't dispute that CO2 is a climate forcing agent, not a climate feedback agent like water vapor.

We are coming out of an ice age and not even between the middle of the cycles.

Interglacials typically last for about 15,000 years. We're 11,000 years into the current interglacial which is well past the half-way point.

Mars has shown similar warming patterns as the Earth.

There is no decernable trend in Mars' temperature and it's climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not CO2.

Originally Posted by Cleisthenes

Did you ever stop and ask yourself why?

The Liberal agenda is control of everything. ACW is a red herring used to try and rest more control of people.

The last time Greenland's ice sheet was significantly small than today was 120,000 years ago during MIS-5e. Just 24,000 years ago it covered 40% more area than it did today.

Educate yourself

The Fate of Greenland's Vikings

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/...uring_mwp.html

Discover Magazine: The latest in science and technology news, blogs and articles - The Greenland Viking Mystery

There is a start...

Even global warming critics don't dispute that CO2 is a climate forcing agent, not a climate feedback agent like water vapor.


Interglacials typically last for about 15,000 years. We're 11,000 years into the current interglacial which is well past the half-way point.


There is no decernable trend in Mars' temperature and it's climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not CO2.

This is the maypole.

I post link after link after link supporting what I said that you say is not true. Where are your links?

I am tired of the same thing over and over. I post you liberal tree hugging idiots say it aint so and don't support your assertions.

National Geographic good enough.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report | Heartlander Magazine

As for Ice Ages... might want to check your facts.

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interglacials are not settled either. There is evidence they can last 28,000 years.

How long will our interglacial be?

CO2

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

CO2 is a trailing indicator of temperature

So the science is NOT SETTLED and therefore suspect. Yes I agree that it could be either side but I am more likely to believe a geologist than a Climatologist as far as historical records are concerned.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Educate yourself

The Fate of Greenland's Vikings

Vikings During the Medieval Warm Period - Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilizations: The Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age

Discover Magazine: The latest in science and technology news, blogs and articles - The Greenland Viking Mystery

There is a start...

Maybe you should read your links before you post them. Nowhere in these does it suggest that "Greenland was once mainly farming" with "very little ice except in the most northern region." These Viking settlements were "along the island's grassy southwestern coast that stretches in a fjord-indented ribbon between the glaciers and the sea." While these areas are certainly much colder than they were 1,000 years ago, they are also still glacier free.

This is the maypole.

I post link after link after link supporting what I said that you say is not true. Where are your links?

I am tired of the same thing over and over. I post you liberal tree hugging idiots say it aint so and don't support your assertions.

Your post made several assertions without a single link so do be upset when someone responds in kind.

But since you asked:

The last time Greenland's ice sheet was significantly small than today was 120,000 years ago during MIS-5e. Just 24,000 years ago it covered 40% more area than it did today.

ScienceDirect.com - Quaternary Science Reviews - History of the Greenland Ice Sheet: paleoclimatic insights

Even global warming critics don't dispute that CO2 is a climate forcing agent, not a climate feedback agent like water vapor.

Global Warming and Radiative Forcing

There is no decernable trend in Mars' temperature and it's climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not CO2.

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/F...05JE002485.pdf

Originally Posted by Cleisthenes

The last time Greenland's ice sheet was significantly small than today was 120,000 years ago during MIS-5e. Just 24,000 years ago it covered 40% more area than it did today.

So, when Greenland was actually green, it had more ice than today?

Originally Posted by Cleisthenes

There is no decernable trend in Mars' temperature and it's climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not CO2.

Based on what, comparisons between pictures taken from the 1970's Viking Infrared Thermal Mapper and the recent Global Surveyor Thermal Emission Spectrometer pictures? Models (of which we know the current ones are shit).

By the way, what percentage of the atmosphere of Mars is CO2?

Originally Posted by Cleisthenes

Maybe you should read your links before you post them. Nowhere in these does it suggest that "Greenland was once mainly farming" with "very little ice except in the most northern region." These Viking settlements were "along the island's grassy southwestern coast that stretches in a fjord-indented ribbon between the glaciers and the sea." While these areas are certainly much colder than they were 1,000 years ago, they are also still glacier free.


Your post made several assertions without a single link so do be upset when someone responds in kind.

But since you asked:

ScienceDirect.com - Quaternary Science Reviews - History of the Greenland Ice Sheet: paleoclimatic insights

Global Warming and Radiative Forcing

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/F...05JE002485.pdf

So the science ISNT Settled or written in granite. Since there are scientists on both sides of the argument.

We both produce communities that say one or the other.

BTW You didn't have any refutation against the possibility an interglacial could be 28,000 years and considering we are about 11K from the last peak it is possible we are still swinging warm and not at the middle yet.

From your first article on the Ice sheet.

The paleoclimatic record does not yet strongly constrain how rapidly a major shrinkage or nearly complete loss of the ice sheet could occur. The evidence suggests nearly total ice-sheet loss may result from warming of more than a few degrees above mean 20th century values, but this threshold is poorly defined

Sounds like they are NOT sure.

Your second article deals with Radiative Forcing and only gives a nod to CO2 it is NOT on CO2. The Articles I posted either say that it MAY not be a leading factor or show that it could be either. No one KNOWS for sure right now. We have what between 100-200 years of information about global climate change and most of that has come in the last 20-30 years. You really think that 30 years is enough of a sampling to determine eons of change?

As for Mars, I guess NASA doesn't know what they are talking about nor does National Geographic?

Additionally your article does NOT refute that the Sun may be affecting Mars temperatures just CO2.

My Maypole comment again is about how in other threads I have put up these and similar links many times. No one who support ACW has yet to prove that the science is settled nor have they refuted what I am presenting. You are just in a long line of people and the maypole goes round and round.

Too bad you have comprehension problems.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

So oldman, if co2 is indeed the cause, and the science says it is, WHAT is the solution? What should we do if co2 is indeed the driver of this? I have never seen a solution from you guys because you just deny the science. But if the science is correct, what solutions do you offer?

There are many extremely respectable scientists who question CO2 being the cause.

Either way, I propose we adapt.

Originally Posted by Whipple

There are many extremely respectable scientists who question CO2 being the cause.

Either way, I propose we adapt.

I propose we have no choice but to adapt. Assuming the so-called consensus is correct.

Originally Posted by Whipple

There are many extremely respectable scientists who question CO2 being the cause.

Either way, I propose we adapt.

But what if we just adapt, and once the warming reaches a certain level, we get the ice age? Isn't the warming up only a thing that occurs before the ice age? And there is no way we can adapt to the ice age and not lose billions of lives. Ice ages are much worse than sea level rise of global warming. We can't grow all of our food in the gulf of mexico! Or in the deserts of the southwest. Our grain belt would be GONE.

So, if there are respectable scientists who question that higher levels of co2 creates a warming of the globe, give me one name so I can see for myself. I just cannot comprehend the science as not factually knowing WHAT higher levels of co2 yield. That would be like a physicist negating that you would not have to lead mars by X amount in order to hit it with the payload. Is the effects of co2, the levels still not agreed upon? And if so, WHY? I find it quite ludicrous.