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: 54
Latest Activity: on Wednesday

Reference/Research Sites

Discussion Forum

Temperature Anomaly Chart

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Plinius Aug 8. 1 Reply

From Climate Central, Temperature anomalies arranged by country from 1900 - 2016:Continue

Tags: Temperature Anomalies by Country

Odd results of Climate Change

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jul 2. 69 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

Cascading Failure Foreshadow

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Loren Miller Jun 21. 3 Replies

At the end of May, the media reported 300 fire hydrants were damaged across France, as locals tried to beat record high temperatures there.On June 3rd, in Iran’s Eastern Sistan region, …Continue

Tags: water and power fail during heat wave, cascading failures, electricity, water, Climate Destabilization

Comment Wall


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

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on December 15, 2016 at 1:05am

Don:  Yep.  They make pains to point out that the recent stuff is not peer reviewed. Wish they would make more of a distinction between which are and aren't, but nothing can be done.

I know about the ice core data.  Was pointing out that some periods when that ice was being made were times when the arctic had zero ice according to the model and confirmed by geological strata.

Zero ice, but without the CO2 / Methane levels.

Therefore while we are within parameters for natural phenomenon with elevated levels we are also a partial influence. 

It's ridiculous to say we can exist on this earth and *not* influence it. Anthropogenic change is a fact.

Ruth:  Your graph and Don's graph match up rather nicely :)

Comment by Donald L. Engel on December 14, 2016 at 4:15pm

Ruth, the Little Ice Age hit bottom around 1600, but it skidded along the bottom until between 1680 and 1700,  They were still ice skating on the Thames River in the early 1800s.  It was dropping into the lowest point from 1300 to 1600, but the ice age lasted from 1300 to about 1800. 

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on December 14, 2016 at 3:58pm

If the Denier in Chief did do away with White House press briefings, irony strikes, since they're the ones who gave him millions of dollars of free advertising.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on December 14, 2016 at 3:07pm

Donald, you said that, "...the climatologists have said that the global temperature has been rising at about 1.5 degrees C per century."

I don't know your source, but this makes no sense to me.

According to NASA, "In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age." Your rate of change implies that the Little Ice Age happened only a hundred years ago. It happened from 1300 to 1600.

NASA says that the global average surface temperature rose 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.1 to 1.6° F) between 1906 and 2005. That's 0.3°C in about a century, not 1.5°C, and most of that increase is in the last few years rather than being evenly distributed.

Just since we've had these discussions, we've seen the temperature jump from 0.85°C rise to this year's 1.2°C rise.

My impression is that you read an unreliable source which promotes fake news about climate change. New cherry-picked or misleading claims keep appearing. In the case of this claim, it seems the author's intent was to reassure readers that the current rate of rise isn't new or frightening.

Here's a NASA climate temperature graph till 2015, that I modified by putting in the predicted 1.2°C rise for 2016.

Doesn't the latest slope look steeper to you?

And no, it's not all from El Nino.

Comment by Donald L. Engel on December 14, 2016 at 3:01pm

Ceneck, you gave this URL in an entry lower on this page:

Did you read that report?  The author switched poles in the middle of the article.  He started talking about the Arctic losing ice, and then switched to the Antarctic and said the ice is growing, and not receding.  Then I read about the author, and it says he is a co-founder of the Tea Party.  That pretty much explains the trickery involved in his article.

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?


Members (54)



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


Latest Activity

Robert Lanktree commented on Little Name Atheist's group Atheist Ailurophiles
2 hours ago
Patricia posted songs
3 hours ago
Patricia commented on Richard C Brown's group learnerscoffeeshack
4 hours ago
Plinius commented on Richard C Brown's group learnerscoffeeshack
4 hours ago
Patricia replied to Vangelis's discussion Same Sex Marriage in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
5 hours ago
Plinius commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
5 hours ago
Plinius commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
5 hours ago
kathy: ky commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
6 hours ago

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service