1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years

Actually, that's what everybody who knows anything about this topic is saying. Only the duped and bamboozled denier cultists, filled with propaganda, misinformation, pseudo-science and lies, are in denial about this fact.

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]​

​

​

The main conclusions of the IPCC Working Group I on global warming were the following:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]​

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11]


***

 

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something cause the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? Since we know without speculation that the above warming existed without fossil fuels being burned, what do ya think Don, dinosaur farts or solar activity?

 

LOLOL!

You're quoting from some ancient material. Nothing new in almost 7 years? Cut off that funding.

 

If it gets warms will people be able to grow pineapples in Canada?

 

Everyone knows that natural factors, like orbital cycles or massive vulcanism, were responsible for climate changes in the past. So what? What does that have to do with the fact that it is human activities that have raised the levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, by 40% over the pre-industrial levels that had stayed fairly constant within a limited range for several million years? This large increase in carbon dioxide levels is what is causing the current abrupt warming trend. The world scientific community is in agreement on this. Only those duped by the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign foolishly imagine otherwise.

 

But but but, it's been a really cold winter here! [/idiot right winger mode]

 

Well, you go ahead and lose sleep about this (*)(*)(*)(*). Meanwhile i just got a new jeep grand cherokee and its beautiful? I got the V8, not because i need the extra power over the V6 but because I WANTED IT!!! I know this means i will be spewing more co2 from my tailpipe for no reason but hey.... Im not worried about the whole "global warming" thing since this thing has an AC system that could turn this car into a rolling meat locker. The only problem with AC is that i like fresh air too so i often have to roll down my window to get some when the ac is on. Doing that makes the car hotter inside though, so i have to turn the AC to full to compensate.....

 

Your own source contradicts your claim. You stated that "the entire world scientific community affirms the reality of AGW" yet your source lists members of the scientific community who DO NOT "affirm the reality of AGW."

Furthermore, your source also states that a majority of scientists who do believe that climate change is human induced also think that the warming will only have little to none or moderate effects opposed to the catastrophic effects that are usually bandied about.

 

So those things just went away? The best thing you can do if you really believe man is causing anything is to stop deforestation around the world. An area the size of Poland is cleared of the carbon sink trees every year. Ya better get busy!

 

The US has done its bit.

When is everybody else gonna chip in?

 

At creating climate change? Well China and India are also massive contributors also.

 

The US has met its Kyoto goal.

Nobody else is even close. When is the rest of the world gonna do its bit?

 

Well, MITT ROMNEY did say that global warming was real and man-made....

so I guess Mitt was proven right.

 

When does the rest of the world meet its Kyoto goals?

Should the US care if nobody else does?

 

It is so silly to lie about what others said when the words are still posted earlier in the thread. Quote me accurately or get busted for lying, dude. I said in post #20: "the fact that virtually the entire world scientific community affirms the reality of AGW". Do you even understand the meaning of the word "virtually"?

virtually
Dictionary.com
vir·tu·al·ly - adverb
for the most part; almost wholly; just about

virtually — adv
in effect though not in fact; practically; nearly

And, just to emphasize it again, No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points

Another lie, and a pretty bald-faced one at that.

What the scientists actually are saying very clearly is this:

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Association for the Advancement of Science, as the world's largest general scientific society, adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible.

Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be. The growing torrent of information presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change. It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the challenge. We owe this to future generations.


The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[59]


In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[54]

 

ORLY? So you didn't type this?

Or this?

I just don't see any reason to overstate the case as you have done. You have taken your beliefs nearly to the level of a religion where you get visibly offended when the veracity of your claims are challenged in any way.

How is it a lie? I got those stats directly from the source you quoted. You should actually read what you post before calling people liars.

"Catastrophic effects in 50-100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger"

That's FROM YOUR SOURCE saying that 57% (aka MOST) a majority of scientists who do believe that climate change is human induced also think that the warming will only have little to none or moderate effects opposed to the catastrophic effects.

I'll refrain from calling YOU a liar and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were just ignorant of the information contained in your own source material. You're welcome.

 

AWWWW somebody tweaked livefree again. I see giant type responses.


Hey livefree.

giant type doesn't make you right.

snicker.....

 

Once that happens it will be to late, and the 9/11 memorial will be under 10 feet of water, as will almost every coastal area in the world.

 

They need to start buying carbon credits from US! No checks, gold bullion only.

 

I simply can't appreciate your faith in those whose very careers depend on Global Warming. The "Global Warming" fear insures they are paid top dollar for their research due to the sense of urgency. But, who said the climate wasn't changing? The climate has changed untold numbers of time in the last 4 Billion years. It's the reason that's in dispute.

There were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. The fossilized remains of both don't lie. Something cause the Earth to warm to that extent, man didn't exist and the fossils for oil were still walking around and growing from the ground. So what caused the Earth to warm that much? Since we know without speculation that the above warming existed without fossil fuels being burned due to the fossils being found there, the burden of proof is on the scientists to prove that the burning fossil materials is fueling the warming. So far none of them that I know of has put their careers on the line by stating an absolute YES, burning fossil fuels is causing the latest warming trend. Please spare me the zippty doo da about exact science. We know through indisputable fact that there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the vegetation to support them between 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole about 60 Million years ago. If you can't prove the latest warm period it's man made, then you can't rule out that the same process isn't happening again.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/arcticdino/about.html

 

The world scientific community is in agreement of the causes and dangers of the current abrupt warming trend. I did not say they were in unanimous agreement, although it is true that the world's climate scientists are in nearly unanimous agreement on AGW.

But, I'm not "overstating the case" at all. There actually is an unusually strong level of agreement in the world scientific community on the reality and dangers of AGW. Only anti-science deniers think that scientific consensus is meaningless or deny that it is real. Show me even one major national or international scientific organization that refutes the consensus on AGW.

LOLOLOLOLOL.....typical denier cult tactic - 'cherry pick your quotes and use only partial quotes' - here the whole quote from the wiki article.

"In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found that as of 2007 97% agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believe human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50-100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger, and 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[105][106]"

So you take a few hundred randomly selected meteorologists or geologists back in 2007 and fraudulently extrapolate that into a majority of all scientists ("a majority of scientists"). LOLOLOL. You tell me I need to read the material I'm posting but you pretty obviously didn't read (or manage to comprehend) the rest of that section of the wiki article that you pulled that quote from. How could you miss this?

"A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement."

Meteorologists and geologists are the part of the scientific community that is most likely to be confused or in denial about AGW. That is because, although there are many fine and well educated meteorologists, whose position on AGW is expressed in the statement of American Meteorological Society on AGW, there are many meteorologists who are uneducated in modern climate science and who are basically just weather readers who have no in-depth knowledge of actual climate science and no more actual understanding of the consequences of AGW than the guy next to them who reads the sports reports. Many geologists have close ties to the fossil fuel industry and are self blinded by their economic self interests.

You seem determined to ignore the actual scientific statements from all of the scientists who actually work in climate related fields of study, some of which I just posted. Like this statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society:

"The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible."

 

If there is all this agreement, how is it the US is the only nation to meet its goal?

Might everyone else be a closet skeptic?

 

"LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL"...what are you...twelve?

The "ice that took 1,600 years to form" , is melting, and exposing plants from 6,000 years ago....or did you NOT READ THE ARTICLE in the OP?

WHat is the "ideal mean temperature" , and the "correct amount of ice cover"?

 

And visions of sugar plums are dancing in your head.

The "ice that took 1,600 years to form" , is melting, and exposing plants from 6,000 years ago....or did you NOT READ THE ARTICLE in the OP?

When was LONG ISLAND underwater in the past 6,000 years.

ONCE AGAIN, why can the Warmist Cabonista "Climate Masters" NOT answer these questions?


WHat is the "ideal mean temperature" , and the "correct amount of ice cover"?

 

Again, your source simply restates what I've already claimed. It's telling that you immediately label anyone that checks your claims as a "cultist" and a "denier". I'll stop short of labeling you as a fanatic (just short).