« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

New evidence shows long term climate change very real

By: Joliphant (Diary)  |  July 12th, 2012 at 11:01 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Unfortunately for us its getting colder at least according to this study in Nature.

 

It turns out the warmest period in recent history isn’t the current age, but the Roman warm period 2000 years ago and that since then the globe has been cooling by half a degree Fahrenheit every 1000 years.  Well at least its a relief I won’t have to find a store selling parkas in Florida any time soon. It does beg the question just what were those evil Romans doing to warm the planet ? Did Caesar have an oil company and wear a cowboy hat ? Was Arminius trying to power Germany with coal ? Was the interstate highway system actually built by ancient Americans ?

While it may be fun to laugh at the fact that we have had people screaming that we are going to boil and go to a fiery death for the past 30 years, what isn’t funny is the fact that we have people in Washington operating on the rationale that we must act to save the climate. They can’t explain what we are saving the climate from or even why we wouldn’t want a somewhat warmer climate especially since it means a more productive and healthy world. It would be even funnier, if your food, electrical, and gasoline costs haven’t been sent soaring because it has been decided against all reasonable evidence that CO2 should be treated as a pollutant.

 

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • poorwilber

    The environmental movement, has been taken over by radical communists who see environmentalism as the means to attack free markets.

    Back in the early 70′s, global cooling was a concern, today warming. .. all evidence simply points the earth goes through climatic cycles of both cooling and warming.

    I would ask the next socialist (environmentalist) you see, if they would prefer cooling or warming. Cooling means shorter growing seasons restricting food production for growing populations. Warming means more arable land is available for agriculture, albeit with periods of draught.

    Now, since the enviromental “science” has been proven a fraud, they move to “climate change”, meaning that whatever man does causes climate change (cooling or warming). The arrogance of this movement to purport they can control the Earth’s temperature by environmental policy. Its economic liberty and free markets they wish to control, and that needs to be exposed at every opportunity.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      ease

      • Justin_Case

        N/T

    • edintexas

      “I would ask the next socialist (environmentalist) you see…”.

      He would answer that he would prefer cooling. These people are the latest iteration of Malthusians, believing the world is over-populated and starvation is an answer to that problem. The occasional drought which accompanies warming wouldn’t be sufficient for their beliefs.

    • edintexas

      I would strongly support him in the idea that our power generation should be converted to nuclear. Until we get there, we need to use our newly found abundance of natural gas and our 250 year + supply of coal.

  • Bill S

    When I saw the headline I thought you’d joined the tree hugger cult…

  • Joliphant

    Nt

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    t

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    to make informed conclusions on the issue of climate change. And if the Earth gets too warm, move inland. Too cold? Wear sweaters. And if Man really can change the climate, then by all means lets warm it up for the sake of the homeless, whose greatest cause of death is frostbite! Or we could re-locate them all to San Francisco and Ft Lauderdale?

  • rbdwiggins

    the debate over climate change has taken since the architects of the modern AGW movement and “Hide the Decline” were exposed by the whistleblower(s) at Hadley?

  • Dave_A

    Is that the ‘belief’ factor among the uneducated varies with the weather.

    Get an abnormally cool year, and if the Left starts talking about carbon-taxes and so on – you’ll get booed off the stage…

    However, the media is adept at convincing the people that ‘bad’ hot weather (hurricanes, or this year’s drought) are all due to CO2, not normal weather patterns…

    Of course, to believe that would mean that 25-ish years ago, when there were record-high summer temps & severe weather in Milwaukee (like they’re seeing again this year) was caused by global warming – but all the cooler summers since then were caused by WHAT exactly?

    Growing up in Milwaukee’s suburbs in the 80s, I remember regular severe weather events – heavy snow in the winter, tornado warnings in the summer (As a kid, you remember mom & dad herding you into the basement in the middle of the night), and regularly ‘very hot’ weather…

    The 90s were much cooler in the summer, warmer in the winter, and there was much less severe weather…

    So, what exactly did humans do to change the climate from the 80s to 90s?

    The answer, of course is NOTHING – it just changed on it’s own….

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    change as a political issue for the Left. Its only power now is to hurt the left via ridicule.

  • ntrepid

    See Joliphant and other familiar names and personalities in the linked Global Warming discussion from 2007?and check for consistency.

    Ahhh, the good old days.

    Ntrepid
    Proud Redstate Member since April 2006??

    (1) http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/ntrepid/2007/jan/26/my_struggle_part_1

  • From ME to You

    …(wait for it…)

    Chicago!

    Let Obama’s good buddy Rahm deal with it!

  • AndrewHyman

    This article in the journal Nature is interesting, and it has been widely discussed in the press. For example, see this article in the New Scentist:

    The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age.

    If human emissions of CO2 have prevented another ice age, that’s great. However, that means too much CO2 will make the Roman period very very cold by comparison.

    Like I’ve said before at RedState, we ought to immediately convert all of our electricity generation to non-CO2 emitting sources like nuclear. Playing Russian Roulette with our planet is no better than Russian Roulette with abortion. The day we have absolute certainty about what an unborn child thinks and feels is just as remote as the day we know with absolute certainty what the precise effects of CO2 are. But in both instances we know what damage we MIGHT be doing, and we ought to stop. IMHO.

  • gekster

    Just how much of our armosphere is made up of CO2.

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    running Huckabee for VP.

    In other words, S>T>U>P>I>D> In spades.

  • Joliphant

    You need to take the answer with a grain of salt.

    If you recall it was our same friends the trees that gave us the hockey stick and told us the Roman period wasn’t warmer.

    I suspect climatologists 2000 years from now will conclude hiring Hansen to measure global temperature caused it to go up and his retirement caused it to drop.

  • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

    “Stop what?”

    The argument seems to be just how much difference do additional CO2 and other factors make? Is it significant enough to even try to do anything about it? If so, what do we do? How invasive does the government get? What do we have to “give up?” Where do we prioritize it on the scale of poverty, health, terrorist attacks, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.

    Until the first question is answered (how much difference does it make?), it makes little sense to worry much about the others, and it certainly doesn’t make sense to destroy modern civilization to ward off a threat that may not be real.

    Maybe I missed it, but what is the biggest emitter of CO2 on Earth?

  • AndrewHyman

    Air is mainly consists of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon.. The remaining gases are the trace gases, including greenhouse gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 390 ppm over the last century and a half. By comparison with 390 ppm of carbon dioxide, there’s only .07 ppm of ozone, and yet ozone also plays a critical role in screening ultraviolet radiation.

  • earlgrey

    that same question. It was the standard man (or even better indoor composting environmentalist) on the street question. No one knew, and I forgot. Needless to say the answers were very far from what the actual figure is.

  • gekster

    0.0387% by volume.
    That comes out to $.0387 out of a $1,000 bill.
    It is in all practicality a non factore.
    Plants need CO2, humans exhale CO2, and in all of the research on carbon emitions, no one ever counts the valcanoes that can emit more CO2 in one day then all of the SUV’s in one year.
    You have bought into the hype,
    hook, line, and leftist ideologic sinker.

  • AndrewHyman

    .0387% rounds off to .0390% which is exactly what I said (390 parts per million).

    If plants need CO2, it is obviously not an I significant part of the atmosphere.

    Ozone is a much smaller percentage of the atmosphere, yet no one disputes that it us hugely important for humans.

    I don’t suppose that an eight-week unborn child has much volume compared to an adult, yet it is hardly an insignificant human being.

    If you politicize climate change like you’re doing, it will be equally as screwed up as the abortion controversy. I am not a leftist nut. I despise Roe v. Wade as an act of judicial dictatorship, and want it overturned. I support slashing federal programs and sending them to the states, so that’s one reason I support Romney. Don’t call me a leftist just because I try to look at issues objectively.

  • gekster

    And your last paragraph has nothing to do with the issue you brought up.
    That in it’s self is a leftist tactic.

    We don’t have a problem with CO2, asides from the crap that the leftists spew out, and those who buy into it, as you have clearly done.

    And my grandson who is nine had a pretty good point on this.
    He asked me if the CO2 traps the heat fom the sun that bounces off the earth, why doesn’t it block the heat from the sun in the first place.

    And you didn’t address the issue of the effect of volcanoes, which no one counts in thier studies, which in it’s self adds to CO2 in the atmosphere by a much larger margin than anything man could..
    But leftists don’t count that.

  • garfieldjl

    Good grief, while the left is correct that CO2 is a green house gas, and no it doesn’t reflect heat back out into space gekster, there is an interesting property the left doesn’t point out.

    Part of the reason we have life on the Earth to begin with is because of the green house effect. It’s why the night side of the planet is not well below freezing every night on the equator!

    I think both sides have politicized the issue and enough is enough!

    Yes too much CO2 can be disasterous, but there is a much simpler solution then what the idiots on the left are suggesting.

    Instead of running around screaming about CO2 production, since in case liberals hadn’t noticed every time we exhale we produce CO2, how about people plant some trees.

    Heck, some factories have front lawns that they plant trees in. If every liberal would plant 1 tree in their yard that would go a long way to reducing the CO2 content.

    Instead of flying around in jets to rail on the rest of us for having a car to go to work, how about they start practicing what they preach, then we might take what they have to say seriously.

  • AndrewHyman

    Here’s how I’d explain it to a nine-year-old grandchild. People can hear stuff in a certain range of sounds but not in other ranges, which is why dogs can hear a lot of stuff that humans don’t hear. It’s the same way with light. Different kinds of light have different wavelengths, and we can only see some of it. The light with slightly shorter wavelengths than visible light is called “ultraviolet”, and the light with slightly longer wavelength than visible light is called “infrared”. A lot of the light from the Sun comes to the Earth’s surface as visible light. Carbon dioxide doesn’t get in the way. When the visible light hits the Earth’s surface, the surface warms up, and emits infrared light that we can’t see. Much of the infrared light from the Earth’s surface goes out into space, but carbon dioxide gets in the way of infrared light, unlike the incoming visible light. The carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light, and then the carbon dioxide emits infrared light in all directions, so some of the infrared light from the Earth’s surface gets sent back toward the Earth’s surface. And that’s my understanding of how the greenhouse effect works. The more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the more infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface gets sent back to the earth’s surface, even though the incoming visible light from the Sun is not affected by the carbon dioxide.

    Regarding volcanoes, my understanding is that volcanoes on land (i.e. excluding underwater volcanoes) emit an average of 65 million metric tons of CO2 per year. That’s much less than 1% of present levels of human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide.

    See Stanley N. Williams, Stephen J. Schaefer, Marta Lucia Calvache V., and Dina Lopez, ?Global carbon dioxide emission to the atmosphere by volcanoes,? Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (Journal of The Geochemical Society and The Meteoritical Society); Vol. 56, Issue No. 4 (April 1992 [1992-04]), pp. 1765-1770.

  • gekster

    You’re on the leftist bandwagon also, arn’t you.

  • gekster

    1. My grandkid is smarter than you, he can see the real facts.
    2. 19,000 volcanoes are going off each year, the majority undersea.

    And where did you get the statictic on volcanoe emisions.

  • gekster

    /nt/

  • AndrewHyman

    The source about volcanoes is at the end of my last comment (article by Stanley Williams et al.). I’m sure your grandson is smarter than me. But even a genius can’t do much if he isn’t given some accurate facts to work with. I’ll go luck fir some info for you about underwater volcanoes.

  • AndrewHyman

    The source about volcanoes is at the end of my last comment (article by Stanley Williams et al.). I’m sure your grandson is smarter than me. But even a genius can’t do much if he isn’t given some accurate facts to work with. I’ll go look for some info for you about underwater volcanoes.

  • gekster

    And it doesn’t detuor from the faact that you have bought into the left wing hype.
    No further discussion is neaded.

  • AndrewHyman

    Okay, I won’t waste my time. Cheers. :-)

  • Filibuster Keaton

    I can’t believe this is still permitted here. If people are going to be insulted, could it at least please be literate? It makes Red State look Stone Age. Ugh.

  • gekster

    garfield never should have inserted himslf into a conversation he was not initialy involved in.
    And his points were not relevent.

  • barleycorn

    I really think anyone can comment on a thread regardless of whether its near the top or at the bottom.

    I’m sorry to hear about your grandson.

  • gekster

    I was just not in a mind to deal with garfield and his,
    let’s just say, ‘opinions’.
    I have dealt with him before, and I was not in the mood this time.
    I will admit mybad.

    And please don’t be concerned about my grandson, he is quite ok.
    (I don’t see where you got that from, but thanks for the concern)

  • Dave_A

    The really, absolutely INSANE notion about the entire ‘Climate Change’ theory…

    Is that it took 200 years to ‘build up’ to this supposed coming-warming-catastrophe…

    But we can stop it if we just reduce our C02 output.

    Logically, if it took 200 years to build up this supposedly excessive amount of CO2, it would take a similarly huge amount of time for ‘stopping emissions’ to have ANY effect.

    Further, AGW doom-sayers ignore that AGW at it’s worst, most over-hyped, Al-Gore-BS-level is only really ‘doom’ for the 3rd-world…

    Nations like the US stand to benefit from potential global-warming on a national level, and with our advanced technologies & wealth, can easily mitigate any of the theoretical effects for LESS MONEY than the cost of reducing emissions.

    Plus, actions like building seawalls or irrigation canals don’t require us to change our lifestyle one bit… Sure, they cost money… But not as much money as the radical, life-altering solution the Libs propose.

  • Joliphant

    But I can’t help but think he came here to proselytize. He was never willing to entertain the ideas that man made warming might be beneficial, might not be happening or that you need some serious reality checks before changing the world over to a command economy on the advice “impartial” experts.

    I’d really love to see what he would come up with in reply to this. Because according to the study we need to do three times what we have done so far to get us back up to the Roman numbers.

  • renny

    believe extreme cooling and warming are due to slight shifts in the earth’s axis and we surely have no bearing on the earth’s tilt, no matter how many cars or power plants or mouthy pundits we have.

  • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

    “realclimate.org” by a retired astronomer at Lowell Observatory. He said it was the straight stuff, no politics or bias, so I looked it up. Here is a quote from the site in reference to a long-ago preview of An Inconvenient Truth:

    It is an inspiring film, and is decidedly non-partisan in its outlook (though there are a few subtle references to the Bush administration?s lack of leadership on this and other environmental issues).

    True, it is a movie review, not a scientific article, but it shows the perceptions of its authors. If An Inconvenient Truth is considered to be “decidedly non-partisan in its outlook,” why should I expect anything of substance on the site to be better at discerning fact from fantasy?

    I’ll look for references to the Nature article. Hah!

  • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

    (^;^)