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: 55
Latest Activity: Jan 30

Reference/Research Sites

Discussion Forum

Reconstructing the Tunic from Lendbreen in Norway.

Started by Joan Denoo Jan 30. 0 Replies

Melting glacial ice in Norway revealed a tunic dating from AD 230 to AD 390.…Continue

Tags: to, 390, reconstruction, 230, AD

Odd results of Climate Change

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jan 3. 78 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

Arctic melting increases California drought

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

Remember the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge?...scientists have found that rapidly melting Arctic sea ice now threatens to diminish precipitation over California by as much as 15% within 20 to 30…Continue

Tags: Climate Change, California drought

Free Digital Content Hides Costs

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Dec 14, 2017. 0 Replies

Is the digital economy a systemic driver of carbon emissions? We're so easily tricked by seemingly free services.Indiana University professor Nathan Ensmenger, environmental historian of the…Continue

Tags: carbon footprint, externalized costs, hidden costs, outsourced costs

Comment Wall


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

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!!

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on December 12, 2016 at 3:37pm

Donald, I'd like reply to your earlier claims about the rate of temperature rise, and your question

Since man was not on this earth during those previous  peak periods , what caused them?  And why is it man's fault this time?
... the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years.


According to Robert Scribbler our current rate of temperature rise is 40 times what it was at the end of the last ice age.

2016's global average is expected to be 1.2°C above pre-industrial, despite our neutral El Nino status.


The end ice age rise was caused by volcanic CO2.

Fossil fuel carbon emissions are about 100 times that of volcanoes during any given year.

Add natural sources such as drought and wildfire to that.

We don't see the heat over land for a couple of decades, because 90% goes into the ocean.

We have the same greenhouse gases in our air now as during the Middle Miocene 15 million years ago, long before humans evolved. Those conditions are "baked in", kind of like when you put raw cake batter in the oven, set the temperature and walk away. If we felt the rise immediately, it would already be hot enough to topple civilization, i.e. 4°C rise.

These atmospheric concentrations are now roughly equivalent to the lower range CO2 levels of the Middle Miocene climate epoch of 14-16 million years ago. Meanwhile, atmospheric CO2 equivalent concentrations, which include other greenhouse gasses like methane, averaged 485 parts per million in 2015 and likely were around 490 parts per million during 2016. These CO2e values approach the upper Middle Miocene range.

During the Miocene of 14-16 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels, which had hovered around 400 parts per million for about 10 million years jumped higher due to volcanic activity. Global temperatures rose from about 2-3 C hotter than Holocene values to around 4 C hotter. Antarctic ice melted and seas which were around 60 feet higher than today lifted to around 130 feet above present day levels.

CO2e means carbon dioxide equivalent. It includes all of the other greenhouse gases like methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs, etc.


I should note that this time google searches for relevant data brought up an astonishing number of denier sites. It's getting harder and harder for people without degrees in science to locate scientific findings instead of lies. Without years of training, the misinformation websites are very had to distinguish.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on December 12, 2016 at 2:35pm

Donald, I reviewed your chart and accompanying posts.

You say now, "I posted a chart showing 420,000 years of climate history.  It shows that we are coming out of the last of 5 warming periods.  And while we are nearing the temperature peaks attained by the previous four warming periods.  We aren't there yet. "

It's difficult to see current temperature change in right side of your chart, given the scale.

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

The Medieval Warm Period temperature reconstruction varies according to the location sampled.

A number of studies that have attempted to produce very large spatial-scale reconstructions have come to the same conclusion: that medieval warmth was heterogeneous in terms of its precise timing and regional expression ...

The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times… [emphasis mine]

Northern Hemisphere Temperature Variability


Members (53)




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service