Evidence of Viking barley farms in Greenland 800 yrs ago when Climate was warmer.
Science boys. Put on your critical thinking caps. Don’t let Occasio-Cortez be the source of your information. You can’t grow barley in Greenland today because the Climate is too cold. But they did 800 years ago.
Climate has always been in flux, but we have only been measuring since the 1870’s (and poorly and anecdotallly at that until 40 years ago).
The belief of anthropogenic Climate Change has become a religion to an atheistic Left, who despite believing that they are more enlightened, have become the very radical religious zealots that they claim to despise. They wish to push their religion on others, and many even propose penalties for those “deniers” who don’t openly accept their pagan god. An overemphasis on temp observations from a very short modern period which would inevitably record a swing one way or another without appreciating the overall longer term cycles has allowed these zealots to claim false confirmation of their beliefs.
Before you try to rationalize this article, read the whole thing because it explains away many of the desperate critiques from the Left that are sure to come.
And this all comes because like Brett Kavanaugh, Vikings like beer. They like beer! Dilly! Dilly!
Link: http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland
Replies to: Evidence of Viking barley farms in Greenland 800 yrs ago when Climate was warmer.
Here are some true statements:
1) Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas - I challenge you to find a single scientist who disputes this.
2) The concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has more than doubled since the start of the industrial revolution - Ice cores allow for this to be measured with great precision for thousands of years. I challenge you to find a single scientist who believes this is from some natural process and not man-made.
3) The concentration continues to increase right this second - Measurements on Mauna Loa confirm this every time they are made
4) Carbon Dioxide is very persistent in the atmosphere, it takes up to 200 years for it to be removed via natural processes.
Any reasonable person would conclude that the earth will continue to warm relative to whatever baseline "natural" process is happening because of this. The only question is by how much.
Any reasonable person would conclude that it makes sense for us to investigate ways to mitigate these impacts in order to avoid extremely expensive worst-case outcomes (rapid melting of the Antarctic ice sheets, coastal inundation, etc).
An unreasonable person would dismiss all this as some leftist religion and draw the line at any mitigation process that costs more than $0.01.
Your statements have nothing to do this new fact found in Greenland.
Actually your statements even have nothing to do with Global warming because you unconsciously assume something and jump too big. But I am glad you mention ice core data. The ice cores from Antarctica reveal that CO2 lags temperature at the end of ice age by 800 years, i.e. temperature change is cause and CO2 change is the consequence during this period. I hope this ice core data revelation can make you re-think your hidden assumption.
BTW, your 2nd statement has been challenged. that is, both natural and anthropogenic emissions have been increasing for over 50 years, not just anthropogenic emissions only.
Are you contending that the current increase in CO2 is a lagged effect from the last Ice Age?
...Which ended about 10,000 years ago? I hope not, because that would be really dumb.
And who cares about whether Vikings were able to grow (or import?) corn in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period? The whole point of Baron’s post was to deny the need for any concern - at all - that we might be setting ourselves up for difficult problems in the future. Go right ahead and console yourself with the belief that there is some sort of magical and undiscovered natural CO2 sink that will solve all our problems. It’s a free country, and this issue certainly demonstrates the lengths to which people are willing to go, on both sides, to justify their beliefs.
Climate skeptic's thinking isn't linear single variable causal determinism. Alarmists tend to think
that way. I just used one discovery from ice core to challenge your hidden assumption: CO2-> temperature, which seems to be such a strong belief that you don't have to speak it out.
I think it is because you fell into alarmists' very deceiving trap: using 19th century physics to hide complex climate issues. Yes, CO2 is greenhouse. but its warming effect is very limited. If double CO2 emission from begining of industry revolution to the end of this century (300 years period), as stated in 3th IPCC report, it will only increase temperature 1.1 C by the end of 21th century. This is just 19th century physics that treat earth as a simple object, not as a complex system. There is no controversy here, everybody agree. So, if you argue based on this part of non-controversy science, then alarmist already lost. 1.1C increased temperature is not a big deal to earth.
What skeptic and alarmist disagree is feedbacks caused by this 1.1 C. The feedback issue is beyond of 19th century physics that your statements are about. That's why I said your statements actually have nothing to do with actual issues of global warming.
Thank you, Eli Bachmann
(no message)
Welcome again, Jim Alarmist. I said this stuff 5 years ago, but never expect you to understand it.
There are no words for the inaneness of your post.
(no message)
No word please. words lie. Math doesn't. CO2 emitted by man is easy to get, increased CO2 in air
can be observed and measured from Mauna Loa. They are not equal. Actually a huge difference between them. It means natural process take care of most CO2 emitted by man.
Unlike your words, math doesn't lie. So, please don't say anything.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
(no message)
the question is; What to do about it?
get rid of humans
I like it, good start Hank
(no message)
I used to work with a guy who believed that. He wanted to get rid of a third of all humans.
Nice solution. He stopped short of explaining to me how he would achieve this goal...he wasn't that stupid.
He now runs a major corporation...very successful guy. Amazing, no?
Nature will take care of it.
When we become too plentiful, nature will thin the heard, in her own way.
It is a multi-systemic issue.
Posted at 5:26 pm on Feb 9, 2019
Not sure anything can be done until China decides to do it.
Regarding CO2...it looks like humans picked a bad time to start smoking. The world was already high and about to fall.
If you look at what your CO2 graph actually looks like now
And don’t get nervous, I think there is something wrong with you. Seriously.
Did you intentionally remove where it is now? Look at second graph on this link.
Link: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
I didn't disagree with you. Also, the image isn't edited; its wikimedia
First, the title of my post just indicated that the US is no longer the primary country which is driving CO2 up. Ever been to a city of 20 million in Asia? You can barely breathe. They've got hundreds of millions of 2-cycle scooters pumping CO2 into the air every day, and their factory regulations are not as strong as ours. I oppose a regime that tries to solve the spike you show by regulating us more than them, because it will not solve the spike and it will just sacrifice our country for theirs, and I don't think that is a long term good for the world. What is your solution?
Then, I said that humans picked a bad time to start smoking...meaning, we started generating CO2 at the top of the CO2 cycle...and, if going higher is bad, we picked a bad time to drive it higher. Granted, that is because we had to be warm for that to even start happening, so it was inevitable that that happen, I thing. But, my statement by itself did not challenge your post at all. It just lamented reality.
Also, I removed nothing. I pulled an image from wikipedia which shows the cyclic nature of the situation. As far as the NASA graph (which omits the bottom half of the graph to make it more persuasive in a misleading way...just sayin'), I can only hope that the spike is because we changed how we measure CO2 exactly precisely when the spike happens (from ice cores to direct measurement). But, if that is not the reason, there could be a problem. Of course, when we run out of oil in 50 years (a blip in the timeline), the spike will likely disappear over the next few hundred years (as it always has in the past), and we may even return to the natural cycle, which would totally suck because it would get pretty damned cold. Humanity flourishes at the top of the spike, not the bottom. Obviously, though, like any species, we have a goldilocks zone, and going too far outside that zone, on the top or bottom, can't be good. We'll just have to adapt, but I think long term change is the only long term constant.
I don’t disagree but you only see the negatives. What about the increase in human quality of life
Should we deny the third world access to cheap energy that produces electricity that they never had, warmth and transportation? Don’t they deserve a better quality of life? Or is it only for western more advanced nations. There is a humane and economic aspect associated with increased CO2 emissions. We got ours, fuck the developing world?
Who said anything about denying them power?
(no message)
Just let them all come here. That is their right, after all.
(no message)
Surprise, surprise.
(no message)
Excellent post.
Most concise and effective argument made on this topic on this Board.
Not if you were living in Africa or some other third world nation.
(no message)
Yes. The people beyond the wall love typhoons and tsunamis.
(no message)
So we caused that but they shouldn’t enjoy a better standard of living. You are the definition of
a liberal progressive asshole. We got AC, two cars, vacation homes, airplanes, SUV’s, but fuck those guys let’s make energy costs higher so we can cool the planet. You are an arrogant hypocrite. These people want electricity, food, transportation, etc but you deem it a global problem so fuck them, put up solar panels. Are you serious. How do you look in the mirror. These countries don’t have fresh water plants. But you get pissed when your cable doesn’t work and you can’t watch NatGeo.
A remarkable post.
The sad thing is, there are many who think and speak as you do
Take America back 100 years and where would this country be without fossil fuels?
It’s easy now after America has become the worlds largest economy due to fossil fuels. But now it’s not acceptable. So let’s make the rest of the developing world do what we tell them and not what we did to grow our wealth a century ago. Yes I posted that. Imagine the world without fossil fuels? I would imagine you would be sleeping tonight in front of a fire with a candle burning. Huh?
Are you on meth???
No one other than you equates mitigating climate change as necessarily making life worse for the Third World.
I have spent plenty of time in the bush in Third World nations in Africa and Asia. So save your pontificating for all your smacked ass golf buddies at your country club.
The world can do a much better job mitigating man's impact upon climate change while building a better quality of life for Third World people.
They are not mutually exclusive objectives.
Lighten up, btw. Go find some Palm Beach cougars to take the edge off a tad.
That's pretty funny.
A: We may have fewer typhoons and tsunamis over the next several thousand years, but you have to keep your current standard of living for you and your kids.
B: Burn as many fires, and drive as many 2-cycle scooters as you want to get to better jobs to improve the quality of life for your kids, but we may have more tsunamis and typhoons over the next few thousand years.
We know which option you would pick for them.
But which option do you really think they would take?
I'm not saying which is the right decision for the world in the end. Your decision might be. But, let's not pretend that citizens of the Third World are on your side. They are not. You have to further disinfranchise them to effect the kind of change you want...and that means people will die in the short term due to political decisions.
Make Greenland great again...and that's good for America how?
So in 100 years Florida and all cities on the east coast will be gone, causing millions of Americans will be displaced, but don't worry there will be farming in Greenland.
We better hope the Canada has open borders at that time.
There is no scenario in which climate change is a net positive for America.
So in 100 years the sea will rise here in FL 14 feet? That will give me beachfront property. My
Grandchildren will thank me. But the entire state won’t be under water like it was when the Seminole nation was destroying everything with Dune Buggy’s some 3000 years ago.
I think you have sped up the clock there a little my friend. What I find laughable is you believe if we stop all CO2 it would matter. You have no science proving that.
A solid Blue State!! About time!
(no message)
There is science proving that if we don't stop increasing CO2, temps will keep rising
Is it reversible or is that cat already out of the bag? You are correct I don't know.
But I do know that when someone is bleeding to death, if we stop the blood loss, they might make it. But sometimes we are too late and they still die, doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying.
Yet here is scientific fact which flies in the face of what you have been told. Remember ATL,
That in order to get a populace to give up it’s freedoms such as air travel, cars, and wealth, a fear has to be used and a zealotry has to be instilled.
Use critical thinking rather than relying blindly on others. Hear all sides of a scientific debate that was quite atypically shut down. Follow the money. You can at least now certainly see as you have stated that you do not know if the extreme measures proposed will work. In fact, you don’t even know that they are necessary.
This recent finding is not the only evidence. It is everywhere. The history of the Great Lakes limnology evidence also supports the evidence that Climate Change and(warming) has been going on for the past 5000 years which wasn’t related to man. The lakes presently contain about 3x the volume that they did back then due to this without any CO2 increase.
This is hard because you have been so deeply and consistently told otherwise by your sources.
Let’s see if you use critical thinking - why would anyone want to give up
Our conveniences and luxuries?
We wouldn’t, is the answer
None of your post makes sense.
I don’t understand the climate change people the real immediate problem is Plastics
It’s right before our eyes it’s destroying the planet. It’s in our landfills in our oceans on our beaches. Where is the uproar against plastic. We could stop that now. I would march with you and Gore. Don’t understand why the environmental movement is silent on this global curse. And unlike fossil fuels, plastics are with us forever.
Indeed. Pollution control is what should unite us, not a faux political religion governed by zealots
(no message)
So I take it you are opposed to Trump's rollback of the Clean Water Act?
(no message)
Yes I am, in fact. I am out of town until tomorrow night so I'll gladly answer the
Rest of these posts tomorrow Monday
Suffice it to say that the definitive link of causality between anthropogenic greenhouse gases (Iggle forgot to mention methane etc) and the climate cycle has NOT been scientifically proven. It is assumed, yet clearly evidence exists that the process is more complex than they thought. They can't prove it, they can't prove they can improve it, and they really don't know that even if they could impact the process if it might not cause an even worse problem.
There has not been the ability to study the cycles of CO2 and methane and the cycles of other factors until recently, and they simply are making educated guesses and then proposing massive interventions and taxes because it conveniently falls within their political plans.
I believe it is foolish to act with such little grasp of consequences and such high cost to everyone as well as their own best estimates showing that the impact of their culture changing plan is insignificant.
As an aside, I am also certain that most countries will abuse the financial support given to them - yet another problem that cannot yet be policed properly yet they want the money taken from us to be doled out nonetheless. And remember, the MIT study had to assume cooperation by countries with the plan that would at best cause 0.4 degrees improvement over the next 100 years.
Having a view on pollution/plastics has nothing to do with the highest level of water quality in US.
Rollbacks may make sense if the standards are too stiff about things that aren't as harmful as we might have thought in the past. A rollback may be tolerable...that is a separate issue to discuss from pollution generally. Having a view on pollution (or "plastics") has nothing to do with the highest level of water quality in the US.
The problems we see in the United States water supply are not in the places that might be affected by a rollback--the places that have the purest water. The problems we see in the United States are the places which cannot comply with the standards. We need major investment in places that have bad water. Focusing on the targeted standard is less effective than focusing on getting the worst places compliant with a higher percent of the standard.
Strangely, almost all US water, even the bad stuff, is better than water in almost every other country.
The point........................................................................................you
You can argue his point...but it’s that climate change is occurring regardless of man’s intervention.
The climate can change naturally....
It can also change due to CO2 emissions, which is what is happening now.
Guess we shouldn't try to put out massive wildfires, b/c those can happen naturally too?
You seem to be getting it now.
Though there actually is an argument that certain wildfires shouldn’t be extinguished because they are part of the cycle of forest regeneration.
We are intervening specifically due to impact on humans.
I do not disagree that human activity impacts many things and the effect can be negative.
(BTW, eliminating the east coast cities may be an incentive for some. )
We need to start building a great and beautiful wall a hundred miles in from the East Coast.
(no message)
Both Straw Man and False Dichotomy fallacies in the same post. You’re being a “Bitter Clinger”
your pseudo religion.
It’s a natural cycle that we can’t change and thus shouldn’t use to justify taxes. In fact, if we
did ever succeed in changing it, we would likely screw ourselves royally as a species all so that you could keep your precious status quo for your own personal lifetime at the expense of all.
The MIT estimated that if every aspect of the Paris Accord was in full global compliance, we could have a best case scenario of a 0.4 degree F less of a rise in 100 years which is insignificant.
In the meantime, if you nudge this natural cycle balance even slightly, you could find yourself with either greater warming or worse yet, a harsher rebound Ice Age.
Even if you could change the climate, there isn’t nearly enough evidence to make an informed decision on whether it is safe and prudent to do so. You could also move the cities for far lease than what I being proposed.
It is as ever in our world. Adapt or die.
Is ocean acidification natural also?
How about the hole in the ozone layer that is now closing due to the fact we stopped emitting cfc's?
That humans can cause massive changes to the global environment is an undisputed fact.
Implicitly Include in these cycles is increased/decreased salinity. Ozone is pollution issue.....
...do not mix apples and oranges. I am fully on board with the critical pollution problems that we have. Those are real, tangible, and unquestionably anthropogenic. They can also be controlled.
See the difference? You’d be surprised at what a tree hugger I am. But you have to distinguish the real from the political religious zealotry.
Please explain this graph
To deny that CO2 emissions are contributing to warming temperatures is to deny a statistically significant correlation.
Two things can indeed occur simultaneously and not be causal or impactful in degrees of significance
Also, data needs to be sourced carefully when people’s religion is involved. I have no idea where this data came from, so first it would need to be verified. If this is done, then we are faced with a graph of data on one hand, and absolute evidence of previous warming climate on the other where CO2 was not elevated. This would logically mean that CO2 is not a driving force (at least of significance) in the cycle since it happened to a greater degree 800 years ago without the CO2 increase.
My overall point is that there is certainly not enough information clearly available to make the moves that the pseudo religious zealots want to make.
I am all for moving to a cleaner environment. I am pro nuclear energy. I like the idea of electric cars - but from a pollution standpoint since that is what evidence clearly supports.
Data is from NOAA
(no message)