Study: Greenland ice sheet may melt completely with 1.6 degrees global warming

Mar 11, 2012
Isua Supracrustal Belt Isua, south-west Greenland. Credit: University of Washington.

The Greenland ice sheet is likely to be more vulnerable to global warming than previously thought. The temperature threshold for melting the ice sheet completely is in the range of 0.8 to 3.2 degrees Celsius global warming, with a best estimate of 1.6 degrees above pre-industrial levels, shows a new study by scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Today, already 0.8 degrees global warming has been observed. Substantial melting of land ice could contribute to long-term sea-level rise of several meters and therefore it potentially affects the lives of many millions of people.

The time it takes before most of the ice in Greenland is lost strongly depends on the level of warming. "The more we exceed the threshold, the faster it melts," says Alexander Robinson, lead-author of the study now published in Nature . In a business-as-usual scenario of greenhouse-gas emissions, in the long run humanity might be aiming at 8 degrees Celsius of global warming. This would result in one fifth of the within 500 years and a complete loss in 2000 years, according to the study. "This is not what one would call a rapid collapse," says Robinson. "However, compared to what has happened in our planet's history, it is fast. And we might already be approaching the critical threshold."

In contrast, if global warming would be limited to 2 degrees Celsius, complete melting would happen on a timescale of 50.000 years. Still, even within this temperature range often considered a global guardrail, the Greenland ice sheet is not secure. Previous research suggested a threshold in global for melting the Greenland ice sheet of a best estimate of 3.1 degrees, with a range of 1.9 to 5.1 . The new study's best estimate indicates about half as much.

"Our study shows that under certain conditions the melting of the Greenland ice sheet becomes irreversible. This supports the notion that the ice sheet is a tipping element in the Earth system," says team-leader Andrey Ganopolski of PIK. "If the significantly overshoots the threshold for a long time, the ice will continue melting and not regrow – even if the climate would, after many thousand years, return to its preindustrial state." This is related to feedbacks between the climate and the ice sheet: The ice sheet is over 3000 meters thick and thus elevated into cooler altitudes. When it melts its surface comes down to lower altitudes with higher temperatures, which accelerates the melting. Also, the ice reflects a large part of solar radiation back into space. When the area covered by ice decreases, more radiation is absorbed and this adds to regional warming.

The scientists achieved their insights by using a novel computer simulation of the and the regional climate. This model performs calculations of these physical systems including the most important processes, for instance climate feedbacks associated with changes in snowfall and melt under . The simulation proved able to correctly calculate both the observed ice-sheet of today and its evolution over previous glacial cycles, thus increasing the confidence that it can properly assess the future. All this makes the new estimate of Greenland temperature threshold more reliable than previous ones.

Explore further: Canada to push Arctic claim in Europe

More information: Robinson, A., Calov, R., Ganopolski, A. (2012): Multistability and critical thresholds of the Greenland ice sheet. Nature Climate Change doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE1449

Related Stories

Record warm summers cause extreme ice melt in Greenland

Jan 15, 2008

An international team of scientists, led by Dr Edward Hanna at the University of Sheffield, has demonstrated that recent warm summers have caused the most extreme Greenland ice melting in 50 years. The new research provides ...

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melting, rate unknown

Feb 16, 2009

The Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets are melting, but the amounts that will melt and the time it will take are still unknown, according to Richard Alley, Evan Pugh professor of geosciences, Penn State.

Melting glacier worries scientists

Jul 25, 2005

Scientists monitoring a Greenland glacier have found it is moving into the sea three times faster than a decade ago, The Independent reported Monday.

Recommended for you

Checking the first data from OCO-2

1 hour ago

(Phys.org) —On July 2, NASA successfully launched its first satellite dedicated to measuring carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) mission—operated by NASA's ...

Canada to push Arctic claim in Europe

13 hours ago

Canada's top diplomat will discuss the Arctic with his Scandinavian counterparts in Denmark and Norway next week, it was announced Thursday, a trip that will raise suspicions in Russia.

Severe drought is causing the western US to rise

19 hours ago

The severe drought gripping the western United States in recent years is changing the landscape well beyond localized effects of water restrictions and browning lawns. Scientists at Scripps Institution of ...

User comments : 132

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotParker
1.8 / 5 (52) Mar 11, 2012
Lucky for us the next ice is already overdue ... and that these "scientists" tell such obvious lies just to get new grants.
axemaster
3.8 / 5 (35) Mar 11, 2012
I think you meant to say "next ice age". And I think your username was meant to be "NotSmart".
Loodt
2.6 / 5 (24) Mar 11, 2012
It looks like we can go farming. What's the current going rate for a medium sized farm on Greenland? Sheep, olives, and grapes are the produce I am interested in.
StillWind
1.7 / 5 (35) Mar 11, 2012
Really? What kind of a moron do you have to be to believe this? I can't believe that even Phys,org would print this. This "is" the National Enquirer of science, but even bat boy is more credible than this.
leptonsoup337
4.1 / 5 (24) Mar 11, 2012
Lucky for us the next ice is already overdue ... and that these "scientists" tell such obvious lies just to get new grants.


You clearly do not have a clue how science works. Tell me, friend, how many climate scientists in the 70s and 80s actually said we were heading into another ice age? If you looked at the data to that point you might have come to the same conclusion. Well, 30 years later we know a lot more about how these things work and we have more (and better) data sets.

You want to talk about "obvious lies" to get more tax payer money? Maybe you should take a good, long, and hard look at the politicians YOU have helped elect that continue to use your money for all sorts of stuff (of which funding science is peanuts!).
leptonsoup337
4.4 / 5 (23) Mar 11, 2012
Really? What kind of a moron do you have to be to believe this? I can't believe that even Phys,org would print this. This "is" the National Enquirer of science, but even bat boy is more credible than this.


Explain how this publication is not valid. Is something wrong with their methodology? Did you read the original article?
Mudshark
2.1 / 5 (19) Mar 11, 2012
So "Greenland" will regain the reason for it's name. The average sea level rise for the last 10,000 years is 0.5-1 meter per century. The normal global temperature for the Earth over the last 600,000,000 was 10 degrees Celsius above our current "low". What is new?
Canman
4.6 / 5 (15) Mar 11, 2012
Stillwind, or should I say breaking wind, physorg reports science news, its does not publish scientific papers. But if you would like the name of the "National Enquirer of Science" that did actually publish this article, just look at the top of the page. Its called "Nature Climate Change", as in "Nature". For those who don't know, most researchers consider it a highpoint in their career if they get published in either "Nature" or "Science".
Vendicar_Decarian
1.2 / 5 (53) Mar 11, 2012
"Tell me, friend, how many climate scientists in the 70s and 80s actually said we were heading into another ice age?" - Lepton

None. Climatologists - few as they were - from that period were well aware that sulphate aerosols were offsetting CO2 enhanced warming.

These of course are the same sulphate aerosols that China is now emitting in considerable quantities from their coal burning power plants, and which is known to be offsetting some of the more recent warming.

Vendicar_Decarian
1.3 / 5 (53) Mar 11, 2012
http://upload.wik...evel.png

"The average sea level rise for the last 10,000 years is 0.5-1 meter per century." - Mudshark

So your claim is a 70 meter rise over the last 7,000 years

Why does the above graphic showing the measured rise of the ocean level show only a 4 meter rise over the last 7,000 years?

Is it because you are a liar?

I think so.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.2 / 5 (52) Mar 11, 2012
http://www.global..._Rev.png

"The normal global temperature for the Earth over the last 600,000,000 was 10 degrees Celsius above our current "low"." - Mudshark

Why does the above graphic showing global temperatures over the last 450,000 years show global temperatures around 4'C lower than the current temperature?

600 million years ago global temperatures were indeed higher than today.

So what? 600 million years ago is pre-Cambrian and the surface of the dry land was barren rock, completely devoid of plant and animal life.

You did know that didn't you, Tard Boy?

Vendicar_Decarian
1.2 / 5 (52) Mar 11, 2012
Why do you ask such a idiotic thing? Doesn't reality mesh with your Conservative political ideology?

"What kind of a moron do you have to be to believe this?" - AssWind

Vendicar_Decarian
1.2 / 5 (52) Mar 11, 2012
"Lucky for us the next ice is already overdue" - ParkerTard

There is no fixed duration for interglacials, Tard boy. So it can not be honestly said that we are overdue. But then honesty is not one of your strong points is it?

With Global temperatures already 0.74'C above recent historical norms, it is likely the next interglacial has already been prevented.
Urgelt
3.9 / 5 (18) Mar 11, 2012
Can't seem to go anywhere without stepping in global warming denialist poo.

*scrapes off his shoes*
RitchieGuy
1.3 / 5 (25) Mar 11, 2012
http://green-agen...and.html

As I've said before: follow the money.
hyongx
Mar 11, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.3 / 5 (49) Mar 11, 2012

From RichieTard's KookTard link.

"THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT IS ALMOST HERE!"

http://www.watchm...ovt.html

Ahahahahaha... What a moron.

Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (48) Mar 11, 2012
The interior at high elevations is quite cold.

But the coasts are reasonably warm. That is where the melting is currently occurring.

As the melt continues, the warming will extend more and more into the interior.

"greenland is cold as f*ck" - Hyonq
Life_is_like_that
1.7 / 5 (27) Mar 11, 2012
I love this line...."Our study shows that under certain conditions the melting of the Greenland ice sheet becomes irreversible."...under certain conditions.....HA!

Just send in the grant money folks.

It is hilarious.....just plug in the measurements for 'certain conditions'....and start running around waving your hands in the air screaming...

Doomsday scenarios are the 'Achilles heel' of the CAGW zealots...it always has been and it always will be....the beautiful part of it is they just don't see it. Beautiful....

Seeing how fast V.D. drops the 'Tard Card' here is also hilarious....nothing he says is of any significance as is the 'Tard Card'....classic insecurity....he can only lift up up his fragile ego by insulting others in a uber juvenile way.

But not to worry folks....he's just getting back at the world for all those lunches he had stolen from him in elementary school.

(pat's him on the head....there there V.D.....there there.....sniffle....HA!)
Howhot
5 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2012
I think Itchieguy must have morphed. Humm so sad he had to pick such a lamo handle. Well it's too bad you don't care about Greenland and all of that freshwater ICE, not only will Greenland be gone by 2100 but it will also change the salinity of the oceans and modify the oceans deep water currents. What about that "a_pick_is_like_that"?
RobPaulG
1.4 / 5 (20) Mar 12, 2012
My mental model says it would take 10 degrees of warming. Just as valid.
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2012
"My mental model says it would take 10 degrees of warming. Just as valid."

Yeah, when you smoke that much weed, everything is valid!
Ammothief41
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2012
Is it true that some people are paid to discount human influenced global warming on the forums?

I just don't get it.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2012
Oh yeah Ammothief41 there certainly are, the post from "life_is_like_that" is one. He's a troll, a right-wing operative ready to attack anyone that doesn't fit the extreme agenda program. They just come in, attack the hell out of an environmental issue, always CO2 related, and then leave.

gregor1
1.4 / 5 (20) Mar 12, 2012
Nothing unusual is happening in Greenland. Here's a paper that physorg didn't think was news. It seems they like to cherry pick.
"The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in
the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century long
intervals nearly 1C warmer than the present decade (2001
2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean
temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of
natural variability over the past 4000 years,"

http://www.leif.o...9444.pdf
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2012
Seriously gregor1? In what part of the world do you live in? The effects of global warming were not apparent 4000 years ago; nor 100 years ago; only since 1995 have the temperature changes really impacted the polar regions.

Unfortunately, all of the wishing you can do to save your kids, isn't going to help stop the global warming monster. It will just get worst and worst as long as you are a sock puppet for fossil fuel.
naqe
1 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2012
I wonder how long it will take mainstream to catch up with space science?
Solar orbits of 40million years and 140million years(approx) plus cosmic clouds/radiations/rays and the biosphere are the major factors of "climate change".
Not to mention the universe is anti-entropic.
So to fight change on any level would be to fight life.

Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (43) Mar 12, 2012
The only person here that I see screaming is you, Tard Boy.

"It is hilarious.....just plug in the measurements for 'certain conditions'....and start running around waving your hands in the air screaming." - LifeTard

"Seeing how fast V.D. drops the 'Tard Card' here is also hilarious..." - LifeTard

Tards are what Tards do... You know. Like being a hypocrite, as you have just shown yourself to be.

Your response shows that you have no rational scientific objections, objections to facts, observations or theory. You have no substantive objections at all.

All you can do is ignorantly whine about the results of the analysis, because they expose your political/economic ideology as being unrealistic and unsustainable.

And that is yet another reason why the term "Tard" is assigned to you, Tard Boy.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (42) Mar 12, 2012
Changes in the orbital and rotational parameters of the earth have been the principle factor producing the ice age cycles of the last few millions of years.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are now in the drivers seat. CO2 increases have already guaranteed that the next ice age has been indefinitely postponed.

"Solar orbits of 40million years and 140million years(approx) plus cosmic clouds/radiations/rays and the biosphere are the major factors of "climate change"." - nage
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (42) Mar 12, 2012
An ice cube has just been dropped into a cup of boiling water.

Nothing unusual is happening at the center of the ice cube.

"Nothing unusual is happening in Greenland." - Gregor

Over the last 4,000 years, Greenland Temperatures have been up to 2'C warmer than the modern average.

Within 90 years, northern temperatures will be a minimum of 6'C warmer than today.

But currently in the deep interior of Greenland, like the deep interior of the ice cube, nothing much is going on.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (42) Mar 12, 2012
"Is it true that some people are paid to discount human influenced global warming on the forums?" - Ammoth

Yes it is.

A few years back I exposed an employee of the Competitive Enterprise Institute who was spending at the very least 50 percent of his working day posting anti-environmental nonsense, denial, and Libertarian Propaganda to various environmental boards on Usenet.

I did so by compiling analyzing his post lengths and posting times and built up a profile of his daily habits over a period of a couple of months. The profile exactly matched the daily work routine, complete with lunch breaks, travel time to and from work, etc.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, like the Heritage Foundation is a propaganda PR organization that develop and distribute lies to further the corporate agenda in America and around the world.

naqe
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2012
I guess it will take quite a long time for the mainstream [variable]
to catch up indeed...
Life_is_like_that
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 12, 2012
Just like clockwork.... @V.D. I've got your nose :( ....like fishing in a barrel...that's twice my man.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (42) Mar 12, 2012
As I said. Tards are as Tards do.

"V.D. I've got your nose."- LifeTard
Life_is_like_that
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 12, 2012
Still waiting for my payout from 'Big Oil', 'The Heartland Institute', 'Bigfoot' and 'E.T.'.

HA!
Shootist
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 12, 2012
Is it true that some people are paid to discount human influenced global warming on the forums?

I just don't get it.


There is little to no human caused warming. Who needs to be paid to speak the truth?

"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson. And he knows a whole lot more about alleged "global warming" than you do.
rubberman
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 12, 2012
Still waiting for my payout from 'Big Oil', 'The Heartland Institute', 'Bigfoot' and 'E.T.'.

HA!


You would have to appear to know what you are talking about to get a paycheck from one of the above (Et will pay in candy, the sasquatch prefers bundles of sticks) . Stating your opinion without any scientific back up (even false, cherry picked lame ass links to a toothpick factory like Notparker tries to use would at least be something) just puts you (very deservedly) in the ignorant 'tard' camp....fox news is hiring. Plus, from your posts, it would appear your goal would be to attempt to provoke VD as opposed to actually discussing the article.
rubberman
3 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2012
Is it true that some people are paid to discount human influenced global warming on the forums?

I just don't get it.


There is little to no human caused warming. Who needs to be paid to speak the truth?

Apparently you do......

"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson. And he knows a whole lot more about alleged "global warming" than you do.


About Physics....definitely! About polar bears.... only if he has studied their adaptability to a zero ice flow enviroment and found that they will have no troubles doing it.
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 12, 2012
600 million years ago global temperatures were indeed higher than today.

So what? 600 million years ago is pre-Cambrian and the surface of the dry land was barren rock, completely devoid of plant and animal life.

You did know that didn't you, Tard Boy?


http://en.wikiped..._Maximum


RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (13) Mar 12, 2012
Venditardo says:

From RichieTard's KookTard link.

"THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT IS ALMOST HERE!"

http://www.watchm...ovt.html

Ahahahahaha... What a moron.


And if you had YOUR way, the one world government would have been here already and you would be one of their elite bureaucraps.
AGWites like Venditardo will not wait for all the evidence to come in before they proceed with their condemnations of humanity and get those billions of dollars into the AGW - Progressive/Socialists bank accounts. You will notice that AGWites never condemn the world's governments, only the common people and the corporations who provide energy to keep those people warm in their homes.
Condemn the Communist Chinese government, Venditardo. . .use the power you think you have to prevent the Chinese from polluting the atmosphere.
You won't do it because you're only interested in getting rid of Capitalism and you're using the CO2 issue in your hope to get that done.
RitchieGuy
1 / 5 (13) Mar 12, 2012
AGWites in no way have any intention of greatly reducing their own fossil fuel footprint, but will coerce, threaten and injure those who stand in their way if these others do not comply with present and future regulations for lessening their footprint.
AGWites and pseudo-climatologists always look at GW skeptics with disdain and righteous indignation for imagined transgressions while also encouraging the theft of billions, maybe trillions of dollars of taxpayer money transfers to empower despot rulers of the third world countries to continue their oppression of their own people.

AGWites will never condemn corporations like General Electric (GE) if spite of GE windmills being inefficient and dangerous because GE is tied to the Obama administration and contributes a lot of money toward the Democratic National Committee to reelect Obama. AGWites also will not condemn failed and phony "green" corporations because Obama favors those companies.
Venditard never bad mouths Solyndra.
rubberman
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2012
Nice rant Ritchie!
It's about as accurate as your perceived location of spain...but it certainly was alot of words.
It's interesting how you were able to deduce the political, environmental and economical beliefs of a group of people based on a single shared opinion by members of the group. Kind of like saying that all AGW denialists are in bred SUV driving reality TV junkies who live in fear that the world is trying to take their s**t.
So they place the blame on the government and other countries in order to avoid feeling guilty about inadvertantly, through ignorance and an elevated/misguided sense of self importance, screwing up the planet for all future generations.
Of course someone who "AGW agnostic" is exempt from either of these groups and therefore should happily retire to subtropical Minnesota and enjoy the Papaya's that may ripen early this year due to a slight warm spell....
Bitflux
not rated yet Mar 12, 2012
Youre a bunch of kids in a dick size contest - grow the hell up. Keep science out of your immature rantings and leave it to the grownups.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 12, 2012
Nice rant Ritchie!
It's interesting how you were able to deduce the political, environmental and economical beliefs of a group of people based on a single shared opinion by members of the group. Kind of like saying that all AGW denialists are in bred SUV driving reality TV junkies who live in fear that the world is trying to take their s**t.
So they place the blame on the government and other countries in order to avoid feeling guilty about inadvertantly, through ignorance and an elevated/misguided sense of self importance, screwing up the planet for all future generations.


So do you advocate stopping CO2 emissions by force? Let's be clear and consistent here. If CO2 emissions are "screwing up the planet for all future generations" then it's a threat far worse than we faced in WW II for instance.

When should we go to war?
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2012
The people from the "Heartland Institute" always love to spin. Spin Spin Spin. Unfortunately for them, lies and the lying dogs they sleep with will get them nothing but backlash. The mental model for these losers is to think small; to think against what the people want.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2012
Mystic asks
If CO2 emissions are "screwing up the planet for all future generations" then it's a threat far worse than we faced in WW II for instance.


Go to war now, these deniers are pricks and need there BofA loans denied.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Mar 13, 2012
"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson

That's Alzheimer talking there Tard Boy.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Mar 13, 2012
"So do you advocate stopping CO2 emissions by force?" - Modern

Those who will not act rationally will be compelled to do so by deadly force if needed.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Mar 13, 2012
600 million years ago is different than 55 million years ago.

"... The Cenozoic Era began just after the temporal boundary between the Paleocene and Eocene epochs approximately 55.0 million years ago." - From Mystic's reference

I am confused at your attempt to justify a comment about temperatures 600 million years ago with a reference to an article about global condition 55 million years ago.

You seem hopelessly confused Mystic.
rubberman
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2012

So do you advocate stopping CO2 emissions by force? Let's be clear and consistent here. If CO2 emissions are "screwing up the planet for all future generations" then it's a threat far worse than we faced in WW II for instance.

When should we go to war?


When humans with mental disorders cut themselves with razor blades, do we not stop them from doing so by force? (straight jacket). It's for their own good, and part of them knows this and knows what they are doing is self destructive. Think about how many laws have been enacted to protect us from inadvertantly hurting each other, banning smoking indoors and in your car with children present, DUI laws, noise bans, cleaning up after your pets if you walk them in public places. These are just examples of society saying your lifestyle choices should only affect you, not everybody. If you don't see a need for change then I have to wonder how you can type while blind and wearing a straight jacket.
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 13, 2012
When humans with mental disorders cut themselves with razor blades, do we not stop them from doing so by force? (straight jacket). It's for their own good, and part of them knows this and knows what they are doing is self destructive. Think about how many laws have been enacted to protect us from inadvertantly hurting each other, banning smoking indoors and in your car with children present, DUI laws, noise bans, cleaning up after your pets if you walk them in public places. These are just examples of society saying your lifestyle choices should only affect you, not everybody. If you don't see a need for change then I have to wonder how you can type while blind and wearing a straight jacket.


So I'll reitterate since you didn't answer my question and instead embarked on an ad hom tantrum against no one...

When do we attack China? India? When do you advocate we round up people in this country and put them in camps for not agreeing with you?

I just want some self consistency.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 13, 2012
Seriously gregor1? In what part of the world do you live in? The effects of global warming were not apparent 4000 years ago; nor 100 years ago; only since 1995 have the temperature changes really impacted the polar regions.

Unfortunately, all of the wishing you can do to save your kids, isn't going to help stop the global warming monster. It will just get worst and worst as long as you are a sock puppet for fossil fuel.

Climate chages correlate well with advances and declines in civiliaztions throughout history. Warmer climates advance civilizations, colder climates do not.
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 13, 2012
600 million years ago is different than 55 million years ago.

"... The Cenozoic Era began just after the temporal boundary between the Paleocene and Eocene epochs approximately 55.0 million years ago." - From Mystic's reference

I am confused at your attempt to justify a comment about temperatures 600 million years ago with a reference to an article about global condition 55 million years ago.

You seem hopelessly confused Mystic.


No I'm not. I was saying your point was moot about it being significantly hotter only when the environment was significantly different. In point of fact it's been MUCH hotter on this planet than it is now with only tens of millions of years separation in time.
rubberman
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2012
Well MM, who is we? If by we you mean modern western civilization, then China and india deserve the same standard of life "we" have. Instead of mass production of goods for "us", the 3 billion of "them" can disperse said goods among "their" own populace and let "us" fend for ourselves. It couldn't be bad for the planet if "they" achieve "our" lifestyle could it? As far as "this" country, you'll have to redefine "we" since now you are suggesting the same group attacking China and India will also be setting up camps locally....so let's try this.
WE, the people who understand the consequences of our lifestyle and why it isn't sustainable, and are willing to live more intelligently with regards to consumption in general, would like you (the vocally ignorant but importantly "self consistent") to objectively look at the evidence of this unsustainability and also make an intelligent choice...instead of advocating a self destructive lifestyle...yours.
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 13, 2012
So...you're not going to answer the question. Ok.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (42) Mar 13, 2012
Your fear of a "One world Government" makes me laugh Tard Boy.

"And if you had YOUR way, the one world government would have been here already and you would be one of their elite bureaucraps." - RichieTard

It is good to see that your childish denialist ranting comes from the Alex Jones Tard-O-Sphere.
rubberman
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2012
@MM- - The "we" I defined wouldn't be going to war...it's counter productive to the end goal. The "we" you refer to need to finish the wars they are in before taking on one of that magnitude.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (42) Mar 13, 2012
"Warmer climates advance civilizations, colder climates do not." - RyggTard

And yet 600 million years ago, when - as your denialist brothers have told us - the surface of the earth was only 9'C warmer than today, the land surface of the earth was entirely lifeless, devoid of all plants and animals.

The current scientific question is weather the climate will warm 2.5'C or 5'C over the next 90 years and weather it will warm 5'C or 10'C over the next thousand.

Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 13, 2012
@MM- - The "we" I defined wouldn't be going to war...it's counter productive to the end goal. The "we" you refer to need to finish the wars they are in before taking on one of that magnitude.


Well they're not going to quit putting gigatons of carbon in the air...they've made that quite clear. Neither are we in the foreseeable future considering only current technologies.

In the end boys and girls THIS particular problem will be solved by technology. There isn't a bureaucrat, a regulation,a tax plan, or an army on this planet that has a chance of making even a small dent in this issue.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Mar 13, 2012
So you feel that increasing the global temperature in 100 years to levels not seen for 50 million years will have no impact on the biosphere, food production, etc.

"In point of fact it's been MUCH hotter on this planet than it is now with only tens of millions of years separation in time." - Modern

Have you been smoking drugs?
EverythingsJustATheory
3 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2012
600 million years ago is different than 55 million years ago.

No I'm not. I was saying your point was moot about it being significantly hotter only when the environment was significantly different. In point of fact it's been MUCH hotter on this planet than it is now with only tens of millions of years separation in time.


With only tens of millions of years separation? With huminoids evolved for at most 7 million years and modern humans for 100,000-200,000 years, 55 million years ago is indeed comparing apples and oranges.

And we've had this discussion before, it's not the maximum temperature that matters, it is the rate of change in the climate. It is all about being able to adapt. If a species is used to it being hot and evolved in those conditions, then it's not a problem. PETM increased global temperatures by 6'C over 20,000 years, and caused many species to become extinct. Over the last 100 years, temperatures have increased 27 times faster than during the PETM.
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 13, 2012
So you feel that increasing the global temperature in 100 years to levels not seen for 50 million years will have no impact on the biosphere, food production, etc.


First of all I'm not convinced that's going to happen, secondly I never said that if it DOES happen it won't have an effect. What I said was that we've seen temperatures SIGNIFICANTLY higher than they are now without the benefit of coal plants and within the "recent" geologic past...

Kindly don't shove words in my mouth ;)
EverythingsJustATheory
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2012
6'C over 20,000 years, rate of 0.0003'C per year.

http://en.wikiped..._Maximum

0.8'C rise over the last 100 years, rate of 0.08'C per year.

EverythingsJustATheory
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2012
If it gets 10'C hotter over the next million years, there will be no issue. If that happens over only 10,000 years, all species on this planet are in trouble, including humans. May not cause our extinction, but it will certainly disminish the human population in great numbers.

THE MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE DOES NOT MATTER (to an extent, obviously Venus can be stable and uninhabitable), ONLY THE RATE OF CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2012
And we've had this discussion before, it's not the maximum temperature that matters, it is the rate of change in the climate.


Well it IS the maximum temperature that matters in some of the dire "runaway greenhouse" predictions. We know it can be a lot higher than it is now and not have Venus a million years later.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 13, 2012
If it gets 10'C hotter over the next million years, there will be no issue. If that happens over only 10,000 years, all species on this planet are in trouble, including humans.


You know, I live in a very moderate climate.

But every year the temperature changes between a low of -10C (sometimes -19C) and 30C (sometimes 35C).

So I adapt to a 50C change EVERY YEAR.
rubberman
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2012
@MM- - The "we" I defined wouldn't be going to war...it's counter productive to the end goal. The "we" you refer to need to finish the wars they are in before taking on one of that magnitude.


Well they're not going to quit putting gigatons of carbon in the air...they've made that quite clear. Neither are we in the foreseeable future considering only current technologies.

In the end boys and girls THIS particular problem will be solved by technology. There isn't a bureaucrat, a regulation,a tax plan, or an army on this planet that has a chance of making even a small dent in this issue.


Agreed!
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (43) Mar 13, 2012
It seems to me that the food you eat when it is -19'C was grown when it was between 10'C and 35'C. So you don't adapt, you exist based on the average temperature. Which is increasing.

"So I adapt to a 50C change EVERY YEAR." - Parkertard

The Central U.S. is rapidly reverting to desert.

Yow do you plan to "adapt" to a life without food?

Tarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (21) Mar 13, 2012
So you feel that increasing the global temperature in 100 years to levels not seen for 50 million years


Nonsense.

The MWP was warmer than now. The Roman optimimum was warmer than the MWP and the Minoan Warming was warmer than the Roman.

And the Holocene Optimum (about 500 years ago) was the warmest still.

Cold is what kills. Humans have nearly died off because of the cold.

Neanderthals did.

http://www.newser...-us.html
NotParker
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 13, 2012
The Central U.S. is rapidly reverting to desert.


Everything you claim is doubtful, but the US is getting cold. Its drier when it is cold.

Go here. Pick plains region.

http://www.ncdc.n.../wn.html

2010 was 11.F COLDER than the warmest winter - 1992
2011 was 10F COLDER
2009 was 8C COLDER
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (20) Mar 13, 2012
If it gets 10'C hotter over the next million years, there will be no issue. If that happens over only 10,000 years, all species on this planet are in trouble, including humans.


You know, I live in a very moderate climate.

But every year the temperature changes between a low of -10C (sometimes -19C) and 30C (sometimes 35C).

So I adapt to a 50C change EVERY YEAR.

Every year in SD we had to adapt to -30F to 105F. That is a 75K delta.
EverythingsJustATheory
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2012
God your skulls are thick. The animals (including us humans) are already adapted for those shifts. What climate change will do is change that swing to -30 to 120'F. In the short time span that this occurs (even 10,000 years), this will cause mass extinctions. As I've previously stated, in the PETM, which caused mass extinctions, temperature marginally increased at one of the highest rates in history, and we are presently increasing average temperature at 27 times that rate. Seriously, are you all idiots?
EverythingsJustATheory
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2012
If it gets 10'C hotter over the next million years, there will be no issue. If that happens over only 10,000 years, all species on this planet are in trouble, including humans.


You know, I live in a very moderate climate.

But every year the temperature changes between a low of -10C (sometimes -19C) and 30C (sometimes 35C).

So I adapt to a 50C change EVERY YEAR.

No, you don't adapt each year. You are already adapted for such a temperature shift annually.
EverythingsJustATheory
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2012
And to be perfectly honest, humans aren't adapted for such a temperature shift, which is why we live in houses and wear clothes. Our intelligence allows us to survive, and that may be the case if temperatures increase. However, the rest of the life on this planet will be in trouble, and hence humans will be in trouble because we rely on those plants and animals for sustenance.
NotParker
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 13, 2012
However, the rest of the life on this planet will be in trouble


What could they do ... learn to hibernate when its cold? Migrate north when it warms and south when it gets cold?

Cold kills. Warmth is great.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 13, 2012
And to be perfectly honest, humans aren't adapted for such a temperature shift, which is why we live in houses and wear clothes. Our intelligence allows us to survive, and that may be the case if temperatures increase. However, the rest of the life on this planet will be in trouble, and hence humans will be in trouble because we rely on those plants and animals for sustenance.

Adapt or die.
The rest of life on this planet HAS adapted to just about every extreme you can imagine. From hydro thermal vents to Death Vally to the Arctic.
Maybe the pandas and koalas can't adapt, but that is the way of nature, adapt or die.
rubberman
2.6 / 5 (15) Mar 13, 2012
However, the rest of the life on this planet will be in trouble


What could they do ... learn to hibernate when its cold? Migrate north when it warms and south when it gets cold?

Cold kills. Warmth is great.


Just can't fathom the variables, can ya?
Plus you keep waffling between "it's getting colder" and "cold kills, warm is great".
Cold doesn't kill everything...warm is not great for everything. Rapid change will kill more due to lack of time for adaptation. As Vendi says...poor parkertard.
tkjtkj
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2012
Mudshark said: "So "Greenland" will regain the reason for it's name. The average sea level rise for the last 10,000 years is 0.5-1 meter per century. The normal global temperature for the Earth over the last 600,000,000 was 10 degrees Celsius above our current "low". What is new?"
So, what is new? you can't be serious! Hint: 'newness' has had 100's of millions of peoples' lives at risk from rising sea levels. Has that escaped you??
NotParker
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 13, 2012
Rapid change will kill more due to lack of time for adaptation.


Whats more rapid than 50C in one year? Some places do 33C in a day:

"Snake River Plain can have high temperatures of 38°C (100°F) during a summer day, and then have lows of 5-10°C (40-50°F)."

Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (42) Mar 13, 2012
"Seriously, are you all idiots?" - Everything

Yes. It has been shown that Republicans and Libertarians have significantly lower IQ's than Normal People.

America will never recover from their higher breeding rates.
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 13, 2012
OK, we're not going to agree here. No one is changing anyone's mind on this issue. No one is going to change their mind on the one side until they are on their death bed and average temperatures still haven't increased by more than a degree. The other side isn't going to be convinced of rising temperatures caused by human activity even IF the sea marches inland to their doorstep.

The PETM did cause mass extinctions, it's also when mammals flourished and probably why human beings are here discussing this issue. AGW or no AGW human beings are causing a mass extinction right now, and it's a NATURAL occurrence. We're not Gods after all. What gets me in these debates is one side pretends it's talking for mother nature (which is a non-entity) like everything proceeding from their mouth was some holy nugget from the planet. If mother nature COULD talk she would say one word...SUCCESS...that's it. We won, I'm sorry if you don't like it. (cont.)
Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 13, 2012
The other side wants to pretend that because we won means we have all the authority (which by any objective measure we certainly DO), and NO responsibility (which by any moral standard we certainly DO).

These arguments are HUMAN arguments, the planet isn't a party in this discussion. It has no morality, it holds no values, and it's only contribution is the reality of chemical cycles and cold hard physics which none of us can escape. Since it's painfully apparent to anyone with eyes to see human beings AREN'T going to march lockstep back into the jungle and use stone knives and bearskins to eek out their survival I suggest that we in fact look to non political solutions. Everyone here CAN win, we absolutely CAN. We just need to acknowledge that we do have responsibility AND authority. Our survival depends on our technology, our brains....period. This isn't some unsolvable problem. (cont)
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (42) Mar 13, 2012
Modernmystic is correct. The issue is largely - although not entirely - a moral one.

And the Republicans occupy the immoral side of mass death and destruction.

Modernmystic
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 13, 2012
My SUGGESTION for whatever it's worth is that we diligently apply our brains to a technological solution to maintain our standard of living (the value center of one side), and to preserve as much of the natural world as we possibly can along with ourselves (the value center of the other side). It really doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong we're talking passed each other, not TO each other.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (42) Mar 13, 2012
As we have all seen, Denialists are chronic liars who are incapable of thinking or acting rationally or honestly.

Extermination of the Republican Menace will soon be the order of the day.

I will participate.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 13, 2012
Vendicar I applaud your passion and conviction. I deplore your (inferred) implementation.

Disagreements in politics are always about means...never about ends. Even the most idiotic radical conservatives I've had the displeasure to endure want everyone to have a pot to piss in, medical care, and a good life....

What we disagree on is how do we get there...
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 13, 2012
Disagreements in politics are always about means...never about ends.

Since socialism fails, all the time, what end do socialists want?
The ultimate end for socialists is control, power.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (18) Mar 13, 2012
Disagreements in politics are always about means...never about ends.

Since socialism fails, all the time, what end do socialists want?
The ultimate end for socialists is control, power.


Your not talking to me, you're talking past me. Even if true they (nearly all of "they") want control to implement what you want. That you don't see it is truly sad. You'd have a better chance of attaining your goals if you did.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2012
But every year the temperature changes between a low of -10C (sometimes -19C) and 30C (sometimes 35C).
So I adapt to a 50C change EVERY YEAR.


That is such a dumb analogy, We do have SEASONS you know! What is even more stupid is not recognizing that it took millions of years of ADAPTATION to handle those temperature changes. The flowering plants, that deciduous forests, etc are all adaptations to seasonal change.

Disturbingly though, you guys in the denier camp seem to think a 50C swing into the RED (50C in the permanent plus column) is the same thing. It's like addition, it's 75F today add 50F and you get 125F in spring.

If you want to live in that environment with AC running full blast all of the time, with expensive CAVE property in the mountains; and probably an oppressive government trying to take your cave, well feel free to support Coal, Oil and NatGas and all of the fossil fuel industry.


ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 13, 2012
millions of years of ADAPTATION to handle those temperature changes.

BS
want to live in that environment with AC running full blast all of the time,

The fastest growing states are in the south, where people run AC much of the time.
But if you have a properly designed and insulated house, not much energy is required.
http://www.monoli...benefits
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (18) Mar 13, 2012
So...we'll all live in Alaska and grow oranges...to paraphrase Dale Gribble?

More likely, if it came to such dire circumstances we would (and some will call me crazy for this but so be it) intentionally set off nuclear weapons in strategic areas to induce global cooling...

Crazy? Yeah...but we know how to do it...
Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2012
MMystic says;
Vendicar I applaud your passion and conviction


I want to second that! I also applaud Vendicar for being right 99.9% of the time. It is always refreshing to see someone fight back against the oppression of right and win!
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 13, 2012
want control to implement what you want.


What do socialists want?
They apparently do NOT want what is best for every individual as they insist individuals must sacrifice for the common good.
And since history shows socialist policies FAIL to achieve the goal you assume socialists want, your assumption about the goal is wrong.
Here is an example of socialist incongruity. If Obama wanted to guarantee re-election, he would support policies that lowered the cost of energy empowering individuals and the economy. Fewer individuals would need food stamps, welfare, govt loans, etc.
Instead, he risks loosing the election by increasing costs, increasing govt control, making more individuals dependent upon Obama and the state.
I don't want individuals to be dependent upon the state. I want individuals to have the liberty to pursue their 'happiness'.
MM, do want to be dependent or independent?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 13, 2012
Crazy? Yeah...but we know how to do it...

Maybe that is why the 'liberals' support Iran's nuclear weapons program. Iran will lob a few nukes at Israel and kill two birds with one stone.
They can be rid of Israel and hopefully stop AGW.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (15) Mar 13, 2012
I don't want individuals to be dependent upon the state. I want individuals to have the liberty to pursue their 'happiness'.
MM, do want to be dependent or independent?


Individuals are independent regardless of what I or you want...it's called reality. There is no collective mind, there is no collective stomach, there is no collective goal. The word "we" is a fiction. Like the concept of mother nature, democrat, republican, or libertarian. We ARE individuals. The base unit of ANY society past, or present is the INDIVIDUAL. Not the family, the church, the town, the nation, the global community. They don't exist in ANY real sense.

Now can we EXIST (ie survive) as individuals? No we can't for a host of reasons I won't get into here. There is a biological reason people feel anxiety when they feel lonely. Because to be human and to be alone is DEATH. We are biologically programmed to find community.

We can have both though, that you, and most on this board don't see this is sad.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2012
In regards to the ABSURD statement that an implied GLOBAL "50C"
is easily acceptable to the deniers of AGW.

The fastest growing states are in the south, where people run AC much of the time.


I've been to just about every lower 48-state and I can not imagine EVEN ONE of them wanting a 50C increase in there average temperature. You must have misspoke your point.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 13, 2012
In regards to the ABSURD statement that an implied GLOBAL "50C"
is easily acceptable to the deniers of AGW.

The fastest growing states are in the south, where people run AC much of the time.


I've been to just about every lower 48-state and I can not imagine EVEN ONE of them want a 50C increase in there average temperature.

Now you claim AGW will raise ave temps 50K?
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 13, 2012
There is no collective mind, there is no collective stomach, there is no collective goal.

Tell that to the socialists.
We are biologically programmed to find community.

But we should be forced to join or be kept in that community?
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2012
"Iran and liberals" Yeah, well that is for another discussion isn't it. The issue here is Greenland's ice melting, not your delusional Iran and Liberals diversion.

Oh, and on the 50Kelvin thing, you said that dude, supporting Nopark.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 13, 2012
We are biologically programmed to find community.


But we should be forced to join or be kept in that community?


Should? No, leave it if you don't agree. I recently called AGW people to be self consistent and launch a first strike against "carbon polluting" countries if they TRULY believe what they say.

Go live in a cabin without electricity, police, national defense, or ANY other contact with ANY country you have the slightest disagreement with. Good luck...
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (41) Mar 13, 2012
Yes. Your kind will be given that option when their heads on on the chopping block.

Adapt to life without a head, or die.

"Adapt or die." - RyggTard

Plants and animals are not capable of adapting to a changing environment with tools. Hence the choice you offer - like virtually everything you say - is false.

But adapt or die will be the choice given to your kind.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Mar 13, 2012
"But we should be forced to join or be kept in that community?" - RyggTard

You have no choice if you intend to be part of the Community.

If you have no desire to be an American then you can sail the high seas on your own... A stateless and free loser.

Howhot
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2012
MMystic
Good luck...


You know that is the sums up the whole argument of the right, Good luck, your on you own. It's like kicking an 18yr old out of your house and saying "Learn to be homeless" son.

So to bring it back on topic; here is a physics observation that says, if temperatures rise 1.5C Greenland will melt.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Mar 13, 2012
"Some places do 33C in a day:" - ParkerTard

Such places are called deserts. Is that your vision for the earth? A near lifeless desert?

Where do you intend to get your food?

Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Mar 13, 2012
"Vendicar I applaud your passion and conviction. I deplore your (inferred) implementation." - Modern

Yes. I find it deplorable myself. But this war is being forced upon the rational, and the moral by the denialists and the unrealists.

Since their side represents pure evil, massive extermination of wildlife, and the deaths of millions of people, the choice is obvious.

Blood.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Mar 13, 2012
Meanwhile it is capitalist America that has failed, and socialist mixed economies rule the world.

"Since socialism fails, all the time" - RyggTard

A fine example of Libertarian/Randite Brain damage.

And still RyggTard can't bring himself to tell us why his hero - Ayn Rand - decided to become a welfare queen.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Mar 13, 2012
Gasoline has reached $107 a barrel. Prices will only continue to climb now that peak oil has passed.

"The fastest growing states are in the south, where people run AC much of the time." - RyggTard

Tard Boy is living in a self imposed Libertarian Fantasy Land.

Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (19) Mar 13, 2012
PURE evil...I don't know about that. I think survival is moral. They think that you're literally trying to kill them. To be honest if all the most radical AGW policies were implemented tomorrow millions would die...truth.

Blood if you're right, blood if you're wrong. I detest utilitarian morality, numbers games. It's not in me to acquiesce to such simplistic savagery. However, reality DOES NOT NEGOTIATE. There will be blood either way, and being the sentimental sap I am I weep either way...sigh...
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 14, 2012
It's like kicking an 18yr old out of your house and saying "Learn to be homeless" son.

Why would he be homeless?
Maybe the 18 year old went to a govt school and didn't learn any skills anyone was willing to pay for?
It's amusing there are several voluntary 'homeless' occupying Wall Street and they are nearly out of donations.
Are you donating your fair share Hottie? You did say you supported them.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 14, 2012
To be honest if all the most radical AGW policies were implemented tomorrow millions would die...truth.

But hey, we all want the same end, we just differ on the means, right MM?
That's what you said, right?
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2012
You know R2, maybe you should learn the AMERICAN principles of SHARING and the COMMON WELFARE.
Are you donating your fair share Hottie
I do what I can R2 with in my moderate means.

Of course I know your thinking, that is socialism.

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (17) Mar 14, 2012
the AMERICAN principles of SHARING and the COMMON WELFARE.

Sharing is a voluntary act and does not require force.
Forced 'sharing' is call theft.
BTW, Hottie, either you live in AK or Canada since you said 'lower 48'.
I'll bet Canada.
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2012
R2; R2, R2... You are so messed up. As citizens of America we both recognize the USA Constitution as the founding principles of governance. Canada has a really good system too. You have a problem in you think sharing is socialism. Hell you think the "general welfare" is socialism. I still don't understand then, what exactly is YOUR definition of socialism and what part of that definition does not apply to YOU?

Howhot
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2012
The problem R2 is not you or me, it this; Greenland's ICE is melting and the question is when will it all be gone. Based on what I've seen in the fields, I bet 20 years.


Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (40) Mar 15, 2012
True. And if tomorrow, you drank all of the water need to drink during the rest of your life, you would die tomorrow.

"To be honest if all the most radical AGW policies were implemented tomorrow millions would die...truth." - Modern

The goal of course is an environmentally sustainable economy. And by "environmentally sustainable", it is implied that the economy have considerable room for all other living things.

While we are at it, I would suggest that the existing system of Corporate slavery and planned obsolescence that is designed to produce that slavery be abolished and replaced with a more environmentally benign economy that promotes efficiency and leisure, for leisure is the ultimate freedom.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Mar 15, 2012
"I bet 20 years" - HowHot

Probably a factor of 10 longer.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Mar 15, 2012
"Sharing is a voluntary act and does not require force." - RyggTard

So is being an American Citizen.

Since you can't seem to abide by the laws of civilized society, I have to wonder why you simply don't live in the middle of the ocean, stateless and absolutely free.

Why do you choose to remain such a loathsome parasite?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Mar 15, 2012
Sorry Tard Boy, but your claim is just another Libertarian lie.

Theft is a taking of another person's property without consent or authorization.

Authorization can come from a variety of legal means, for example the consent of a guardian, or government, or court.

"Forced 'sharing' is call theft" - RyggTard

Lying is a way of life for you Libertarian/Randite Tards isn't it?

Is that why your hero Ayn Rand spent the last years of her life on welfare?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (40) Mar 15, 2012
I'm not sure what end you are referring to Tard Boy, but we all know that the end game for the Libertarian is maximal greed and maximal self interest.

"But hey, we all want the same end" - RyggTard

Leisure is the ultimate freedom. The Corporate Slavery promoted by Libertairans/Randites/Republicans is the ultimate loss of freedom.

The last 40 years of American history are a good illustration of the above principle.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Mar 15, 2012
Absolutely... Why?

Under Libertarian law, children could prostitute themselves on the street to Libertarian pedophiles and make a few bucks for lodging at a rooming house.

After all, under Libertarian principles, Rights are absolute, and prostitution is sacred commerce.

Isn't that right, RyggTard?

"Why would he be homeless?" - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (41) Mar 15, 2012
"There will be blood either way" - Modern

There will only be blood if people insist on acting irrationally.

There are actions and there are consequences. The consequence of acting in a manner that fosters extinction will be death.

I guarantee it.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (40) Mar 17, 2012
MarkyMark
1 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2012
It's like kicking an 18yr old out of your house and saying "Learn to be homeless" son.

Why would he be homeless?
Maybe the 18 year old went to a govt school and didn't learn any skills anyone was willing to pay for?
It's amusing there are several voluntary 'homeless' occupying Wall Street and they are nearly out of donations.
Are you donating your fair share Hottie? You did say you supported them.


Its a pity you cant be honest in your debating by making relivent points. To the Question/topic being put foward.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (41) Mar 17, 2012
I am completely truthful when I state that I have never encountered a Libertarian/Randitw that wasn't a congenital and perpetual Liar.

RyggTard provides a fine example of the principle.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (42) Mar 18, 2012
This weeks daily highs.

21'C, 18'C, 21'C, 23'C, 23'C, 15'C, 13'C

Normal highs for this date 5'C

The entire winter has gone AWOL.

No one has ever seen anything like it.

And this will be the typical winter in 10 to 15 years.

The earth is rapidly warming.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2012
This weeks daily highs.


And yet the satellite data had parts of January and February the coldest in at least 10 years GLOBALLY.

http://discover.i...msutemps

That kind of cold, the kind that killed 1000 people in Eastern Europe is the coming normal.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (41) Mar 18, 2012
GISSTemp shows similar global average temperatures.

"And yet the satellite data had parts of January and February the coldest in at least 10 years GLOBALLY." - NoParker

Europe has had quite a cold winter.

These are precisely the kind of weather extremes that the climate modes predict.

A year without winter.

Astonishingly unusual.

No one has ever seen anything like it.
Excalibur
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 24, 2012
God your skulls are thick.

How else to protect the vacuous interior?

Seriously, are you all idiots?

Seriously, yes, they are.

Howhot
3 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2012
VD:
No one has ever seen anything like it.


You know, looking at some charts, I don't think we've ever seen this in the entirety of human history. Nothing this hot. The "Hockey Stick" graph sure looks more real!
NotParker
1.1 / 5 (12) Mar 27, 2012
These are precisely the kind of weather extremes that the climate modes predict.


Global warming causes everything con men want it to ...
MarkyMark
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
These are precisely the kind of weather extremes that the climate modes predict.


Global warming causes everything con men want it to ...

Works both ways dont it?
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2012
"A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the consensus, the Medieval Warm Period approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasnt just confined to Europe.

In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions."

http://www.dailym...ons.html

Howhot
5 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2012
It is always amazing the amount of JUNK SCIENCE the AGW Deniers will post. You have to be a gullible dolt to swallow this junk.
So taken out of context we have this fine example of self delusionalism

In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.


In the past, maybe. Everything in the 20th Century and beyond is man made factory residuals. Ie pollution. You deniers sure believe in a scorched earth policy.