Hitler vs AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming, ala "Man-made climate change")

A Hitler Rant. This time Hitler learns the truth about the Yamal Tree-Ring data that has helped promote the "AGW environmentalist religion" via the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph ...See: http://wattsupwiththat.com and: http://www.behindthebox.com.au/showthread.php?t=38673 for more information. :)

[Edit] Folk not from Oz who are wondering "who is Penny Wong ?" see: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/minister/wong.aspx and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Wong ... She is Australia's "Minister for Climate Change and Water" and a "rusted on" believer in AGW. Apparently she also prefers the, ummm, intimate companionship of her own gender ...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• AGW
• hockey
• stick
• wattsupwiththat
• climate
• change
• CRU
• climategate
• gore
• briffa
• mann
• jones
• mcintyre
• copenhagen

[IngeniousEpithet]

@12stringsforme

...the science clearly states that ice/snow is far more reflective of solar radiation than open water. Open water, by itself, is NOT a trigger for glaciation. Open water ABSORBS radiation and re-radiates it slowly as long-wave radiation which is then trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we've increased atmospheric CO2 from 180ppm to almost 300ppm in roughly a century. It's not difficult to imagine the consequences, and the deep atmospheric physics/science backs it up.

[12stringsforme]

@IngeniousEpithet Bryson (A History of Nearly Everything) states that open Arctic waters are the trigger for new glaciation-open ocean/heavy snowfall/higher reflectivity/colder northern hemisphere. That is a counter argument to the point of arctic ice cover.

Other researchers have found rapid 6 or 8 degree changes in the geologic record not keyed to C02 (Eocene? don't recall), so again, I do not buy this doomsday scenario you paint.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@12stringsforme

As for the Ordivician link... yeah, that's weird, it doesn't work when you copy/paste it (and delete the spaces I inserted) but if you search for the link on google and click it, it works. Strange, but use google and find it that way, there should only be a couple results.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@12stringsforme

The problem isn't the current level of CO2 versus times extremely far in the past, the problem is CO2 versus relatively recent history/climates/solar irradiance and ESPECIALLY the extreme rapidity with which it has risen due to human emissions. CO2 rises have been a JOLT, which has caused a JOLT in global temps, which then causes a JOLT in global climate, which causes a JOLT in weather/ecosystems/habitats/et­c. It's pretty common sense when you look at it.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@12stringsforme

CO2 is absolutely CENTRAL to the greenhouse effect, and the sun is absolutely CENTRAL to overall climate/temperatures. However, they AFFECT each other. Think of the SUN as the main temp/climate knob with CO2 being the fine-tuner- when the sun's irradiance increases/decreased by even a little bit, it can render increases/decreases in CO2 either weak or strong (concerning sensitivity). Then feedbacks (like methane/water vapor releases) are the FINER tuning knobs to global temps.

[12stringsforme]

@IngeniousEpithet Yet we had intervals of glaciation, global tropical conditions, no link to C02 concentration then as now. The Ordivician link below doesn't work. I can't see why today's (historically low) C02 should give rise to any sort of catastrophe as you suggest.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@ClownFight

We were supposed to be underwater right now?? NO WRONG.

The droughts/famines?? THEY ARE OCCURRING IN RECORD NUMBERS!!! Do you NOT read the news or any reports of these things??

Why did Tim Flannery do that? Not even sure if that's true, but it's irrelevant, I don't know or care, why dont you ask him?

The IPCC is not a joke, but you deniers keep repeating that lie often enough that it becomes this religious chant for you. The IPCC is solid and sound, your bullshit isn't.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@12stringsforme

And HERE is an in-depth analysis of the Ordovician period and how high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 existed alongside high glaciation. There were a multitude of factors (i.e. lower solar luminosity, higher albedo, Earth's rotation/orbit, etc.) which allowed colder climate/glaciation during that time (and likely prior):

" whoi.edu /science/MCG/people/ppoussart/­publications/paleo_99. pdf "

Increased CO2 currently has a much more substantial effect upon global temps.

[IngeniousEpithet]

@12stringsforme

When the sun was young, it was at 70% its current luminosity. Since then it has steadily risen over time. The Cambrian period had a solar luminosity that was around 6% less than today, the Ordovician period came after where luminosity was around 4.5% less. This was over 400 MILLION YEARS AGO in the Sun/Earth's history. Here is a simple timeline for ya:

" solarb.msfc.nasa. gov/science/timeline "

[12stringsforme]

@IngeniousEpithet I don't know why you keep using uppercase letters. What do you know of astrophysics? Do stars wander off the main sequence that quickly? No. They stay stable for billions of years. Look up "solar variation" on Wikipedia . . . talks about all kind of cyclic variation, but not a goddamn thing about long term cumulative change. Show me some backup for your claim that irradiance was lower in, say, the Permian as compared to today. I've never seen anything saying so.