The Climate Change is a Pattern and NOT a Human Consequence
Posted on Mar 10, 2010 | Comments 11
Here is the visual graphic & data behind the latest battle over climate change.
As far from the truth as it may seem, the climate changes including the melting of the icecaps from the Earth’s poles can actually be caused by a certain pattern that is actually ruling the history of the planet.
(Click on the Image for Full View.)
A compared study conducted by UK Met Hadley Center on the arctic ice has concluded that the increase and decrease in the arctic surface is the result of a pattern in the Earth’s climate history which from time to time is aligning to bring significant modifications in the climate bringing changes for everything connected with it.
After analyzing the theory that the human kind is ultimately responsible, through the environmental damage it causes, for the way the climate reacts this past century and comparing it to this study that proves how a periodicity in the life of the planet can actually influence its future climate, we can only rethink our opinion about the climate changes.
Source: Guardian
Filed Under: Green News
Well, let’s do something about it. Anway. Right? It’s high time.
From your original source.
A major Met Office review of more than 100 scientific studies tracking the observed changes in the Earth’s climate system finds that it is an “increasingly remote possibility” that human activity is not the main cause of climate change.
’nuff said
No mention, of course, of the fact that surface ice levels in the Antarctic are actually increasing, completely out of step with the predictions made in the IPCC 4th report.
Explain that please warmists. Oh, you can’t? Let’s all ignore it then. Move along, nothing to see here…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/17/northern-hemisphere-snow-extent-second-highest-on-record/
“Warmists”? Please. How did a scientific matter turn into such a stupid political argument? I can’t say that I have much of an opinion on whether global warming is real or not, but I can say this:
The vast majority of sincere scientists appear to agree that the earth is slowly getting warmer. They back it up with data and careful reasoning. But then there is this movement of people who don’t believe this at all, who claim that the research is wrong, or being misinterpreted. This of course is fine. But then, they produce no data of their own, no coherent analysis, and employ miserable logic in an attempt to convince us that the earth isn’t actually getting warmer as the scientists believe. Instead of logic and research, we hear garbage like “well I live in the city of X and this summer was really COLD”, and think that it means something. It doesn’t.
Mr. Richard: even if the surface ice levels in the antarctic are in fact increasing, it doesn’t mean that the planet is getting colder. You need to understand that the warming they’re talking about is 1/5th of a degree *per decade*, which cannot be picked up by fools looking out at their back yards, or by measuring a single effect. Instead it has very subtle effects on various systems that can only be picked up by careful measurements and really solid science. It could for example very well be true that the earth is getting warmer, and that the antarctic ice is growing at the same time. Completely possible. So your argument is not nearly as convincing as you think. If you’re a true climate scientist capable of explaining a bit about how these things work, I’ll pay much closer attention to what you have to say.
I’m not going to try and produce any armchair evidence of my own, but rather I’ll watch what the honest scientific community is saying about it and what they’re finding out, and I’ll be inclined to think that they’re a lot closer to the truth than the people like you who obviously have for some reason chosen to believe that it’s all some kind of big scam. I’m willing to believe whatever the data supports. Thus, so far, I’m inclined to side with the people who dedicate their lives to figuring this stuff out, to figuring out the truth. Your quips are virtually meaningless.
That being said, I haven’t actually heard about this growth in antarctic ice. Got a link you can share? That business about the snow coverage doesn’t seem quite as relevant. Those of us living in cold climates know that you actually tend to see a lot more snow during the warmer parts of the winter, closer to the freezing point…
I’m not even quite sure I understand what this article is trying to say. The little graph there seems to indicate that the ice coverage is decreasing over time… but then the text below seems to talk about a Met Hadley study which indicates that the temperature increases are the result of natural patterns, and not human-induced trouble. But then the last paragraph seems to refer to a study (the same study?) that somehow “proves” this, but then doesn’t provide a link to the study. So I follow the link to the source – the Guardian story – which states:
“A major Met Office review of more than 100 scientific studies tracking the observed changes in the Earth’s climate system finds that it is an “increasingly remote possibility” that human activity is not the main cause of climate change.”
Which seems to quite clearly state that the Met Office is moving towards the conclusion that it is in fact human activity driving these changes. What exactly is this article getting at? What is the main point?
What a farce, the article from the guardian takes the exact opposite position. Either this title is purposely misleading, (thanks because this topic could certainly use more misinformation) Or someone did not read the guardian article and understand it.
From the guardian article:
Climate change scientists have started a fightback against sceptics who argue that the observed changes in the Earth’s climate can largely be explained by natural variability.
The statement from this article:
“As far from the truth as it may seem, the climate changes including the melting of the icecaps from the Earth’s poles can actually be caused by a certain pattern that is actually ruling the history of the planet.”
It appears that this is purposeful deceit.
Okay, seriously. Somebody please explain to me what this article is trying to say. That climate change *is* the result of human interference? That it *isn’t*? I see no chain of reasoning that I can follow either way.
Furthermore, the paragraph saying that a “study conducted by UK Met Hadley Center on the arctic ice has concluded that the increase and decrease in the arctic surface is the result of a pattern” seems to directly contradict what I find on the source article from the Guardian, which quite clearly states that:
“A major Met Office review of more than 100 scientific studies tracking the observed changes in the Earth’s climate system finds that it is an “increasingly remote possibility” that human activity is not the main cause of climate change.”
Note the “not” down there towards the end. They don’t appear to be saying anything about natural patterns.
What’s the story?
Guardian has described a reaction towards the theory that global warming is directly linked to the human interference, not supporting the hypothesis that a periodicity in the evolution of the planet would be responsible for it.
The bottom line is this: If the Earth has gone through significant changes in the axe, significant modifications in its evolution have ultimately followed. The two glaciers eras are the evidence that the Earth’s going through major changes over the millenniums and I doubt ice probes are enough to prove how major.
Apart from this …let’s consider that the previous modifications of the Earth (people should make some research on them) had not had the “privilege” of being accompanied by the presence of the human race who seems so eager to do its part in deteriorating the planet that it calls home.
Taking the history of this planet, adding the humanity and all its wonderful ability to destroy the result cannot be good.
Still if it were just the human kind destroying the world it would take a bit …longer, or it would be more drastic …like a major atomic reaction.
Extremely well put.
Indeed …what are we to believe? The web is flooded with opinions about one theory or another…still people fall to extremes when judging the matter closely.
Corporations like Exxon pay scientists to dig up info stating that global warming is the result of Earth’s evolution while the compelling evidence that this evolution comes clashing into the current destructive human behavior makes the environmentalists cry out that this is a lie.
Well…it is not. The Earth has been proven to have gone through massive changes over the millenniums, but then the industrialization and technology was not around then to interfere with them.
The bottom line is that …no matter what we say the Earth is changing and we should reconsider what we do during its time of change.
The sooner we stop hurting it…the better.
On a related note, I’d like to see a survey of all the people who reject climate science, to tell me where they get their opinions. I suspect they picked them up from people who are playing some kind of political game.
If it turns out that I’m wrong on this, and that these people are in fact getting their opinions from actual, real scientists, then I’ll sit up and take notice for sure. Instead it’s probably crap coming from conspiracy theorists and retards like Rush Limbaugh…
DO you mind if I use this information on the project that I’m wokring? That’s about green environment. I will properly cite you.