Climate Concerns

The "CLIMATE CONCERNS" group is dedicated to discussion regarding the topic of the ever present and serious issue of changes to our climate due to the introduction into the atmosphere of human induced effects which prove harmful to the environment and which eventually may prove destructive to our planet. 

Members: 53
Latest Activity: May 19

Reference/Research Sites

Discussion Forum

Odd results of Climate Change

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Apr 9. 68 Replies

Take an amusing quiz to learn about unexpected effects of Climate Change. After each multiple choice question, you see if you were right (and the right answer if you weren't).…Continue

Tags: odd effects of Climate Change

Coral Reef Doom

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Feb 10. 0 Replies

 ... the global coral bleaching and die off that began in 2014 may now be a practically permanent ocean feature of the presently destabilized world climate system.  [emphasis mine]…Continue

Tags: the end of coral reefs, global coral reef destruction

Missile Launchers Deployed against Water Keeper Protest

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jan 24. 1 Reply

5 Disturbing DAPL Developments You Need to KnowAvenger missile launchers are NOT equipment for…Continue

Tags: missile launchers to observe peaceful protest

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Climate Concerns to add comments!

Comment by Grinning Cat on December 14, 2016 at 2:25pm
Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on December 14, 2016 at 12:18pm
Scientists who produced the annual Arctic Report Card warned the situation was changing so quickly it was “outpacing our ability to understand and explain” what they were witnessing.

“The warmest temperature anomalies were centred on Alaska, Svalbard in the Atlantic sector and the central Arctic,” the report said.

Arctic temperatures have hit levels last seen a ridiculously long t...

Comment by Donald L. Engel on December 14, 2016 at 12:51am

"Cenek, the Vostok Ice Core Data graph is taken from the Antarctic, not the Arctic.  The Antarctic has never melted completely away in the last 420,000 years,  Some thing interesting for all of you:  google, "Scientists who have removed their names from the IPCC Report".

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on December 13, 2016 at 6:22pm

Don warmth estimates from prehistory are based on extrapolating from the partial pressure of greenhouse gasses.  

So if you accept the indirect measurements of prior temperatures you accept the climate model that permits it.

We can very accurately measure the amount of man made emissions. We can get a decent estimate of known natural emissions. We can fairly well measure how those gasses migrate through the atmosphere. We have a fairly good understanding of some of the carbon reuptake processes. 

Given all that, anthropogenic climate change is a good argument. 100% man caused? Not a chance. 0%?  Equally unlikely. 

I think there is real issue in assigning moral values to climate facts. As you are aware in the past the arctic ice cap have many times melted completely away.  The global temperature has been much hotter, and much colder. The sea levels have been much much higher, much much lower. 

There is no "Ought" in climate science, only "Is".

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on December 13, 2016 at 5:57pm

A bit off topic. Has anyone read the latest addendums?

Comment by Donald L. Engel on December 13, 2016 at 1:48pm

1, 2, and 4.  I don't see how anyone can say that man is contributing to this warming period until it goes way beyond what the previous 4 warming periods have reached.

In Ruth's entry of 21 hours ago, she presented the following quote, "2016's global average is expected to be 1.2°C above pre-industrial, despite our neutral El Nino status."  That is GREAT!!!  for the past 50 years or so, the climatologists have said that the global temperature has been rising at about 1.5 degrees C per century.  And now Ruth is saying it only rose 1.2 degrees in 125 years.  That means the rate of warming is slowing down!!  Now we don't have to worry any more.

Comment by Joan Denoo on December 13, 2016 at 12:25am

Donald, what does "OK" mean? Does it mean: 

1. OK, I, Donald, don't want to discuss this anymore? 

2. OK, You, Ruth, Joan and the others in this conversation don't answer my questions? 

3. OK, the upper 1% do not peddle min-misinformation about global change?

4. OK, humans were not here to cause the other climate changes so why do you believe humans played a part in this one?

5. OK, your concept is pure conjecture and I, Donald, need not waste any more time discussing this?

6. OK, you think you are right and I have nothing more to add?

7. OK, I get it, the evidence points to a faster rise in temperature, faster rise in CO2, and faster rise in glacier melt all over the world and humans do participate in global warming?

8. OK, none of the above. 

I'm sorry to pester you Donald, but do you believe global change is real or not?

Do you believe there is global change and humans participate in its creation? 

Do you believe there is no global change and humans do not participate in a faux climate change?

Comment by Donald L. Engel on December 12, 2016 at 4:40pm


Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on December 12, 2016 at 4:37pm

Donald, perhaps you misinterpreted the orange peaks inside the grey ovals. Those were margins of error. The black lines were the actual peaks.

Forcing in the previous warming periods was CO2 from volcanoes. I never said it was anybody's fault. I avoid blaming language in favor of talking about responsibility. "Fault" implies there's something wrong with a person, which isn't helpful. I try to avoid unthinking put downs of others.

It's interesting that you dismiss the model projections as pure conjecture. Climate models are the result of thousands of scientists and decades of work. Moreover, they tend to be conservatively biased because they only include trends that have happened long enough to me measured over significant time, quantified and cross checked with other methods. This means the models lag fast-moving climate changes by at least seven years.

Case in point, most models don't predict the Arctic to be ice free in September for 7 to 13 years. Right now the people at the Arctic Sea Ice Forum agree that what's happening NOW, wasn't predicted by the models. Have you looked at the Arctic data the last few weeks? The sea ice isn't freezing properly.

image source

Look at how much warmer it is than it should be in the Arctic and Greenland.

image source

The sky might not be falling, but the climate is destabilizing. Science helps us see with satellites. You can look at these sites yourself, watch it unfold day by day. It's scary, but it's real, Donald. Not misinformation peddled by the 1%.

Comment by Donald L. Engel on December 12, 2016 at 3:55pm

"Here's a similar chart which expands the last part, and adds the expected changes in temperature due to greenhouse gases."

Ruth, that is pure conjecture, and you didn't answer my question as to who was on this planet to cause the previous warming periods.  And, if there was no one here during that time, why is it man's fault this time?  And we are still NOT AS WARM AS THE LAST FOUR WARMING PERIODS!!!

The last chart you posted has warming periods that do not match up with the chart just below it.  The peaks in each chart differ from the peaks in the other chart as to which warming periods were warmer or cooler.

The sky is not falling!!


Members (53)



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service