I just watched a show about the mini Ice Age that started around 1300...It said that contrary to what I was taught in school, that Greenland was actually a beautiful Green Island until Glaciers covered it again. In school I was taught it was called Greenland to get others to come...Wonder how much other BS I was taught in school. So it seems there was less Ice 1000 years ago than there is today....Guess we are still warming to earlier levels?

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

I just watched a show about the mini Ice Age that started around 1300...It said that contrary to what I was taught in school, that Greenland was actually a beautiful Green Island until Glaciers covered it again. In school I was taught it was called Greenland to get others to come...Wonder how much other BS I was taught in school. ... ...Guess we are still warming to earlier levels?

Oh... There are lots of "lies to children" 'over-simplifications' taught at school and shown on TV as though it was the gospel unchanging Truth.

(Why are TV presentations dumbed down so far?)

Some people seem to cling to that for life...

Meanwhile, ideas can change and we should never stop learning!

Greenland has had glaciers across most of its land mass for many thousands of years. During a period of colonisation, the shores were green and gave settlers there a harsh but liveable life. I think the naming of "Greenland" rather than "Iceland" or "Whiteland" was indeed to give new hope for a better life and to entice new settlers over to build up numbers.

And then the settlers perished or moved on elsewhere as the clilmate shifted ever so very slightly to push them into starvation.


If you go back far enough, to the point where the major land masses were themselves in different positions, indeed Greenland was very lush and green. Except that at that time, our atmosphere was very different, Greenland was not where it is today, and we were not on the planet either...

Greenland is quickly losing it's glaciers, removing many thousands of years old ice...


We are here in the here and now, after enjoying a few thousands years of stable climate. Unfortunately, we're forcing the present climate ever more quickly and further into unknown regions of instability. Something this planet has not seen before.

Quite a big experiment on a planet-wide scale.

Reckless? Unbelievable? Just look at the plot of CO2 concentration...

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

No surprises here:

2010 sets new temperature records

Temperatures reached record levels in several regions during 2010, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says, confirming the year is likely to be among the warmest three on record. ...

The global average temperature was 0.58C above the average for 1961-90 according to Nasa, while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) put the figure at 0.54 above. ...

CRU's Professor Phil Jones - one of the scientists at the centre of the "ClimateGate" issue earlier in the year - cautioned that annual temperatures were not a good indicator of the progression of global warming as driven by greenhouse gas emissions.

"Year-to-year variability is dominated by features such as the NAO and El Nino," he told BBC News.

"But if you want to look at the underlying trend, you need to look at the decadal timescale, and that's when you detect the anthropogenic influence.

"In terms of looking at recent years, 1998 was the most anomalous - the remaining top 10 warmest years in the series have all occurred since 2000." ...


So... Some places 5 deg C higher than ever before. Here in the UK we've been a little cooler (hope the Gulf Stream isn't being stopped already!).

People can scoff that just +0.5 deg C is of any significance... What they have no comprehension of is that half a degree is an average across the globe across the year. What it indicates is the amount of energy in the weather systems... From the average temperature rise, we get ever more extreme weather and the weather patterns quickly shift around to spoil how and where life lives. It affects ALL life.

The colonisation of Greenland was wiped out by a fractional change in average temperature in the northern hemisphere. There was a climate shift between the north and south so overall, there was no planet-wide cooling. Yet, there was just a very small shift... And people died out.



How big a shift have we already pushed?

This is one issue that is not going to go away...


It's our only planet.
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I don't think people have even the slightest clue as to what affects the weather..But it does help the real cause...Carbon – the Currency of a New World Order



"The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather around 800-1300 AD, during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. The Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north.
LINK

"The climate at this time was very warm, much warmer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "Greenland" was given to the country, not just as wishful thinking, but because it was a climatic fact at that time. The mild climatic period was fairly short-lived in geologic terms - by about 1200 AD, the ever-increasing cold was making life extremely difficult, and some years no supply ships were able to reach Greenland through the ice-choked seas. During this period, Norway had assumed responsibility for supplying the Norse settlers in Greenland, but as the climate worsened it became a very difficult task.
LINK

"At that time, the inner regions of the long fjords where the settlements where located were very different from today. Excavations show that there were considerable birch woods with trees up to 4 to 6 meters high in the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords, the central area of the Eastern settlement, and the hills were grown with grass and willow brushes. This was due to the medieval climate optimum. The Norse soon changed the vegetation by cutting down the trees to use as building material and for heating and by extensive sheep and goat grazing during summer and winter. The climate in Greenland was much warmer during the first centuries of settlement but became increasingly colder in the 14th and 15th centuries with the approaching period of colder weather known as the Little Ice Age."
LINK

The Medieval Warm Period coincides with the Vikings' settlement of Greenland, Iceland and possibly North America. Farmsteads with dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and goats were prevalent in Iceland and along the southern coast of Greenland. Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production. On the other hand, agriculture steadily declined at higher latitudes during the Little Ice Age, while mortality rates and famines increased. By 1500, settlements in Greenland had vanished and the inhabitants of Iceland were struggling to survive. "

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

With Europe experiencing the coldest November on record and freeze warnings deep into South Florida, it seems that global warming can't arrive soon enough to suit us all.

You know, if you go to the Shawnee forest in Southern Illinois (here in the USA) you can see the terminal moraines where the glaciers's stopped. A good part of North America was covered in ice maybe a mile thick. I wonder what caused the Earth to warm up back then and melt the glaciers--must have been the campfires of all the Cro-magnons and Neanderthals.

What do you think ??

With Europe experiencing the coldest November on record and freeze warnings deep into South Florida, it seems that global warming can't arrive soon enough to suit us all.

You know, if you go to the Shawnee forest in Southern Illinois (here in the USA) you can see the terminal moraines where the glaciers's stopped. A good part of North America was covered in ice maybe a mile thick. I wonder what caused the Earth to warm up back then and melt the glaciers--must have been the campfires of all the Cro-magnons and Neanderthals.

What do you think ??

I think you should look it up from reliable sources and explain it to us. (Daddio-style?... ;-) )

Note that the world was very different for the last ice age... We wouldn't be living like we are today back then.

Also, you of all people should understand the difference between weather (the stuff that happens on a daily basis, with great variability) as compared to climate (what happens on average, and hasn't changed much for a few thousand years... Until recently.).

The present "cold snap" for some of the northern hemisphere is no real surprise. Most of the weather records have been broken repeatedly in the last few years.

Strangely... The climate simulations show that weather systems get more extreme and erratic as global warming progresses until the weather systems flip over to a new stable pattern.

The question is how quickly and what new pattern...

Regardless, the change will be painful and expensive.

Even more strangely, we are driving that ever more quickly... Man really is a new force in the weather systems...


Just one example:

Are we freezing because of global warming?


[edit]
And two examples to show typical reporting:

Cancun climate change summit: glaciers increasing despite climate change

Glaciers have grown in western Norway, New Zealand’s South Island, parts of Asia and the Tierra del Fuego in South America.

However, overall ice and snow on mountains has been retreating since the industrial age, according to scientists from around the world.

In some regions, it is very likely that glaciers will largely disappear...



Glaciers in Southern South America and Alaska Melting Faster than those in Europe

... a clear general trend of melting glaciers linked to a warming climate and perhaps other impacts, such as the deposit of soot, reducing the reflection of heat back into space", says UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner. "This report underlines a global trend, observed over many decades now in some parts of the globe, which has short and long-term implications for considerable numbers of people in terms of water supplies and vulnerability".

"Without doubt the main driving force behind the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers and formation of the catastrophic Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs) is warming due to climate change. The risk to lives and livelihoods...

... It is time for governments and the international to step up action on cutting emissions and supporting adaptation. This meeting in Cancun is the next opportunity to fast track a response," Mr. Steiner added.
[/edit]


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

This is the reason I swore off posting to climate threads Link . And these people want to tell us what's wrong with the earth science?

---

This is the reason I swore off posting to climate threads...

Yup. Anthony Watts seems to be doing very nicely with his site thank you very much...

He's certainly keeping it 'fresh'...

One latest clanger on there:

WUWT: Just Enough Information to Mislead

... Second, the yellow lines showing a downward resumption on the right side are based on - well, actually, on no data points whatever...


This article gives a very interesting and plausible explanation for the strange farce that seems to have developed between the general public, the media, and science:

Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?

... Why is it that deniers choose to deny climate change? The overwhelming evidence is in support of anthropogenic climate change being real. But the opposition to the science is fierce! In fact, it seems that the more we understand about climate and it's relationship with CO2, the more fierce the opposition becomes. Shouldn't this be the opposite? Shouldn't the science being more and more sure produce more acceptance of the issue? Apparently not. I believe this counter intuitive result is embodied in one of the fiercest deniers on the planet. Anthony Watts. He claims to drive an electric car because it costs less. But he also has a 10 kw photovoltaic array on his roof which...


Rather interestingly curious stuff.

Meanwhile, we still cook our planet all the faster...


It's our only planet,

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

This is the reason I swore off posting to climate threads...

Yup. Anthony Watts seems to be doing very nicely with his site thank you very much...

He's certainly keeping it 'fresh'...

One latest clanger on there:

WUWT: Just Enough Information to Mislead

... Second, the yellow lines showing a downward resumption on the right side are based on - well, actually, on no data points whatever...


This article gives a very interesting and plausible explanation for the strange farce that seems to have developed between the general public, the media, and science:

Why does Anthony Watts drive an electric car?

... Why is it that deniers choose to deny climate change? The overwhelming evidence is in support of anthropogenic climate change being real. But the opposition to the science is fierce! In fact, it seems that the more we understand about climate and it's relationship with CO2, the more fierce the opposition becomes. Shouldn't this be the opposite? Shouldn't the science being more and more sure produce more acceptance of the issue? Apparently not. I believe this counter intuitive result is embodied in one of the fiercest deniers on the planet. Anthony Watts. He claims to drive an electric car because it costs less. But he also has a 10 kw photovoltaic array on his roof which...


Rather interestingly curious stuff.

Meanwhile, we still cook our planet all the faster...


It's our only planet,

Regards,
Martin

You still don't get it. I saw these same people 40 years ago. They were the ones protesting Atomic power and because of them we have nice safe COAL power plants providing much of our power in the United States. It should make you wonder what they have wrong this time!

---

Here's one for Martin:

Here's lookin at you kid:



and:



Touche

It's 30-love

But your serve

Bill

very nice now someone will think penguins are an arctic species

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

very nice now someone will think penguins are an arctic species

Who cares! Such a 'minor detail' will be completely lost upon the climate deniers.

Excellent stuff, best giggle all day! Especially for the penguin!!! (Shame about the roasted penguin...)

:-)

Thanks for that!

Cheers,
Martin


ps: Why are there no penguins up north?...

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

You Know,

It's so hard to be eloquent in agreement. You should try it sometime or other.


Daddio

You Know,

It's so hard to be eloquent in agreement. You should try it sometime or other.

Hey!

You know I'm only in agreement with the comic portrayal. I'm still giggling at the death defying penguin with cymbals!!! Beautiful.


But... How do we know that polar bears want mp3 players and BBQ-ed penguin?


It's still our only one planet!

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

For the latest debate:

Cancún climate change summit: The deal LIVE

Negotiators have reached a deal at the UN climate talks in Cancún. Read full reaction here







Cancún climate change summit: Deal is reached

• Deal commits all major economies to greenhouse gas cuts
• Greenpeace - Cancun saved process but not yet the climate







What exactly is the climate?

... At least that's the way it's usually described. The truth is actually a tiny bit more complex because climate also encompasses variability – for example, the frequency of extreme weather events.

The distinction between weather and climate is an important one. For example...


It's ALL our only one planet.
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

This is the reason I swore off posting to climate threads Link . And these people want to tell us what's wrong with the earth science?

All this suggests is that there is something woefully wrong with science education today and understanding of science in the general population.

Fortunately the politicians are taking their advice from actual scientists when it comes to policy, not from petition holders in the street.

Of course your post shows just how easy it would be for climate change deniers to confuse the general public with pseudo-science. Sadly most people don't understand how science works or anything about the peer review process. 10 minutes watching Fox News will show you that.

---

Reality Internet Personality

You still don't get it. I saw these same people 40 years ago. They were the ones protesting Atomic power and because of them we have nice safe COAL power plants providing much of our power in the United States. It should make you wonder what they have wrong this time!

Atomic power has just turned out to be the lesser of two evils. The events of Chernobyl should convince you of that. The arguments against Atomic power have not gone away, although these days the power plants are much safer than they were 40 years ago.

Lucky for us there wasn't a huge pro-CFC lobby with a vested interest in making CFCs or we'd have a massive epidemic of skin cancer right now.

I don't suppose you remember the days when you could get your children's feet X-Rayed in shoe stores? That was before scientist discovered the risk of X-Rays.
Or the days when even Doctors smoked? The list goes on.

Would you still be insisting that you get your children's feet X-Rayed to see what size their feet are? Or do you accept that science has shown us that this really isn't a good idea? I am not sure whether you cherry pick what science you want to believe or not. Your philosophy doesn't seem to make sense to me.

It has been shown that around nuclear power stations there are clusters of childhood leukaemia. Who would want that on their doorstep? Of course when faced with the disastrous effects of global warming where many more children will die of famine, war, disease and extreme weather events it does seem the lesser of two evils.

I just wish the human race were mature enough to work together to make sure that we didn't have to make this choice. Unfortunately the the powerful oil lobby has created huge confusion on this issue in exactly the same way the tobacco industry did.

---

Reality Internet Personality

It has been shown that around nuclear power stations there are clusters of childhood leukaemia. Who would want that on their doorstep?

Does anyone know why? Did anyone check to see if the cluster existed before the power plant was built? Does the cluster stop if the plant is decommissioned and fuel removed? It is the building materials in the plant? Are the workers perhaps bringing something home on them? Is it because the city they are in was all built at the same time with materials from the same contaminated supplier?

These questions haven't been answered.

---

It has been shown that around nuclear power stations there are clusters of childhood leukaemia. Who would want that on their doorstep?

Does anyone know why? Did anyone check to see if the cluster existed before the power plant was built? Does the cluster stop if the plant is decommissioned and fuel removed? It is the building materials in the plant? Are the workers perhaps bringing something home on them? Is it because the city they are in was all built at the same time with materials from the same contaminated supplier?

These questions haven't been answered.

All good questions, and if the answers are found to the problem you would hope that people would act on that information. It would be terrible if a pro-nuclear lobby paid for reports that contradicted what the general scientific consensus was and muddied the issue so much that nothing was done. That would be a crazy and deplorable state of affairs.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Does anyone know why? Did anyone check to see if the cluster existed before the power plant was built? Does the cluster stop if the plant is decommissioned and fuel removed? It is the building materials in the plant? Are the workers perhaps bringing something home on them? Is it because the city they are in was all built at the same time with materials from the same contaminated supplier?

These questions haven't been answered.

All still very questionable...

The numbers are small enough that (for the examples in the UK at least) just one genetic defect in one family can skew the numbers.

Most plausible is that the cancer clusters are a result of the intense construction activity and the influx of many workers from afar.

Another factor is that the nuclear plant workers are intensively monitored and screened for everything and anything... Hence ailments are found that normally go unreported.

There's a new recent buzz in the scientific press about mineral fibres found in some building materials and road/ballast gravel having a similar effect to that of asbestos... And leading to cancer.

My own observations are that there is unfortunately the same sort of silliness goes on for any powerplant as goes on with the oil and chemical industries. However, oil, gas and chemicals do not suffer anything like the same scrutiny and they literally get away with murder, to both people and the environment.


I'm in favour of taking advantage of nuclear power. HOWEVER, the plant must be designed to be INTRINSICALLY safe... Plants can be designed to be passively fail-safe. Unfortunately, higher performance operation so far relies upon active 'safety systems' that then gamble on at least something working with a multiple-redundant set of active systems...

The question is whether an intrinsically safe system is cost effective...


It's our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)