Glaciers in the Swiss Alps

[Mike Davis]

Q:
8 or more warming periods in the last 10 thousand years have been observed in historic records most of those periods were warmer for longer that we have experienced. Using the current Fairy tale king as supporting evidence and linking to Joe Romm's site are more evidence of your political advocacy. Climate Regression is about promoting suppression of human advancement by restricting abundant affordable energy. The theory is to control energy controls the populace. Your models failed so you need to get over it.

Actually keep on telling your fairy tales because most people grow out of believing in myths. However there are always exceptions such as yourself.

[Philip]

What was the forcing that caused those past temperatures and the time scale of the feedbacks?

The nature of the forcing isn't relevant to the argument. The timescale is 1000s of years, but all within the Holocene.

So can you unpick the argument or not?

[glenncz]

This all goes to character. The warmers keep telling us this warming is unprecedented. The warmers keep denying that the temperature changes we are experiencing happened in recent times. They deny the Medievil Warming Period, they deny that where we have Alaskan glaciers not, just "recently" there were enormous dense forests, just 3,000 years ago. They want to keep the public ignorant, and they are doing quite a good job of it. Of course, when Questioned, and faced with absolute evidence, they just say, this time is different, this time we know it is CO2 that is causing the warming. Even though the warming is very, very slight. And we know they are completely insane, because even if the AGW "theory" is completely true, they actually think that they passing a few laws or putting up a thousands of millions of windmills, that they can actually do something to have man stop emitting CO2. (actually I mean slow down CO2 emissions). They actually believe that by passing laws in the US that somehow they are going to affect world CO2 emissions. that is a completely insane theory. Of course, most of them, just care about the piece of the pie that is theirs by continuing this charade, their kickbacks in so many forms, but there are actually stupid people that think they can actually stop CO2 emissions from rising. I drove 4 hrs yesterday in heavily populated NJ/Pa and didn't see one electric car, but saw thousands of trucks and SUV's. The general population is stupid and easily led, but that only goes so far.

[questioner]

This all goes to character. The warmers keep telling us this warming is unprecedented. The warmers keep denying that the temperature changes we are experiencing happened in recent times. They deny the Medievil Warming Period, they deny that where we have Alaskan glaciers not, just "recently" there were enormous dense forests, just 3,000 years ago.

You are misrepresenting the case made in favor the the AGW theory. It is the rate of warming in the past 30 years that is unprecedented.
It is recognized that during the holocene period the earth has been warmer than today. The key point is the projections for the future due to an increases in GHG's.

They want to keep the public ignorant, and they are doing quite a good job of it. Of course, when Questioned, and faced with absolute evidence, they just say, this time is different, this time we know it is CO2 that is causing the warming. Even though the warming is very, very slight.

The general public will remain ignorant despite the best efforts to educate them. Reporting of the developments in scientific research is abysmal, and most people don't have the foggiest idea of how science is done. The basis of AGW theory is established physics that is over 150 years old. The percentage of climate scientists who accept this theory is about 97%. These are the most knowledgeable people in the world about this subject. I would argue that the deniers are the ones contributing to the ignorance.

And we know they are completely insane, because even if the AGW "theory" is completely true, they actually think that they passing a few laws or putting up a thousands of millions of windmills, that they can actually do something to have man stop emitting CO2. (actually I mean slow down CO2 emissions). They actually believe that by passing laws in the US that somehow they are going to affect world CO2 emissions. that is a completely insane theory. Of course, most of them, just care about the piece of the pie that is theirs by continuing this charade, their kickbacks in so many forms, but there are actually stupid people that think they can actually stop CO2 emissions from rising. I drove 4 hrs yesterday in heavily populated NJ/Pa and didn't see one electric car, but saw thousands of trucks and SUV's. The general population is stupid and easily led, but that only goes so far.

The ingenuity of man got us the gasoline powered auto, and the coal burning power plant. If provided with proper incentives, the ingenuity of man will find ways to use less polluting methods to provide electricity and transportation. To claim that this idea is insane seems rather backward to me. Pluggable hybrids are in development. With cap and trade, nuclear power will be the most economic way to provide baseload electrical power. with a bit of investment, homes can be made much more energy efficient. Settlement patterns can be altered to reduce energy consumption by transportation. The problem we face in taking action is the mentality of humans who are prone to ignore a problem that will primary occur in the future in favor that requires advance preparation that would make a unwanted changes in the present. It is not insane to try. It is criminal to do nothing and ignore the problem.

[Philip]

It is recognized that during the holocene period the earth has been warmer than today. The key point is the projections for the future due to an increases in GHG's.

But the projections depend on amplification by positive feedbacks and those feedbacks are independent of the cause of the initial warming. Therefore, if you expect a catastrophe due to feedbacks resulting from GHG warming, then you need to explain why a catastrophe did not arise during earlier Holocene warming. Can you provide such an explanation?

[Mike Davis]

Q:
You have done it again. You are repeating some propaganda that is little better than a lie. The warming we are experiencing now, rather the warming rate experienced between 1975 and 1998 was about average or below average of previous warming trends experienced during the last 10 K years.
Your projections for the future are not based on verifiable observational data but SWAGs.
The ingenuity of man has already provided better means of providing energy for human use. Sadly the environmentalists could not profit from allowing this to happen so we do not have better sources of energy. The necessary funding was diverted to research "IF" humans cause climate change or rather to manufacture proof of a human footprint in global climate. Then to exaggerate the impact of that footprint. A footprint on sand is more obvious than a footprint on rock or water. However the footprint on sand soon washes or blows away through natural processes just like mans footprint on climate. So Q if you want to reduce the human footprint on climate you only need to reduce the human population to the mid 1800 levels or below as that was when the temperature may have started rising.

[questioner]

It is recognized that during the holocene period the earth has been warmer than today. The key point is the projections for the future due to an increases in GHG's.

But the projections depend on amplification by positive feedbacks and those feedbacks are independent of the cause of the initial warming. Therefore, if you expect a catastrophe due to feedbacks resulting from GHG warming, then you need to explain why a catastrophe did not arise during earlier Holocene warming. Can you provide such an explanation?

The range of the global temperature oscillations is about 3C -6C.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/en ... ural-cycle

It is thought that the forcing during these Milankovich cycles is 3.4W/M2.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/enviro ... tch-cycles
This is comparable to what we have today, but we are starting from a warmer base than the bottom of an ice age.

Second, did you ever hear of the great flood? There are towns under water in the Black sea as a result of it today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28 ... ars_ago.29

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/crs-blacksea.html

Relatively shallow submerged areas around portions of the Black Sea are proving to be of considerable interest for both marine geologists and archaeologists. Several years ago, submerged in tens of feet of water, freshwater shells were discovered and reported by scientists conducting underwater research around the Black Sea (Ross and Degens, 1974). More recently, discoveries have been made of what appear to be the remains of human habitation in almost one hundred feet of water. Several uniformitarian scientists are now claiming that the flooding of the Black Sea several thousand years ago provided the basis of the Flood myth of Genesis as well as that of many other cultures (McInnis, 1998; Ryan and Pitman, 1998). How does this discovery fit with Scripture, and is this the Flood of Genesis?


Climate Change is believed to be what caused the migration of humans from Africa.
http://www.geotimes.org/dec07/article.h ... ation.html

So there were huge changes in life for mankind as a result, at a time when there was a much smaller population and a lot of open land to go to when things were bad in your current home. This is not the case today.

[Mike Davis]

Q:
That is "Hilarious". I saw your graph and just now stopped laughing enough to type a comment. I have to go now because to laughter is hurting my side!

[questioner]

Q:
That is "Hilarious". I saw your graph and just now stopped laughing enough to type a comment. I have to go now because to laughter is hurting my side!

More trash talk.

[Mike Davis]

Q:
Other than your comical graph and your misinterpretation of historic events. This is getting close to what we have been telling you except for the warming as we are close to the MWP maybe, but the plants tell us no. The flood was something like 200 meters which probably covered more than a few cities as a large portion of humanity tends to live on deltas and near the ocean. The Great Lakes did not exist before the retreat of the last glaciation and what is the Ohio River flowed north through what is now Canada. The current river drainage systems in the US were created by the melt water from the massive glacier. The is evidence of ice dams breaking and flooding large regions. If a similar situation happened today everyone within 3 miles or more of the Mississippi,Missouri,Ohio rivers and their head waters would be wiped out overnight or however long it takes water moving at + 600 miles an hour to destroy the land between the northern Rockies and the mouth of the Mississippi. I drove through a small region of Idaho in the 70s after an earthen dam gave way. It was 1976. It was the Teton dam that collapsed on July 5th and I observed the aftermath in October.
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~idfremon/flood.htm
Read that and multiply the amount of water and the destruction a thousand fold.
As for the warming related to the movement of humans from Africa to inhabit the rest of the globe. The warming allowed the expansion and the establishment of an agrarian society which evolved into our current manifestation of so called civilization.
Interesting that you bring up evidence of natural climate shifts as proof of human caused climate change.