Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on September 14, 2013, 04:23:29 PM
-
Note to the Algore: Contrary to your predictions 6 years ago, arctic sea ice has NOT disappeared.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013-earth-has-gained-19000-manhattans-of-sea-ice-since-this-date-last-year-the-largest-increase-on-record/
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstevengoddard.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F09%2Fscreenhunter_561-sep-14-06-01.jpg%3Fw%3D640%26amp%3Bh%3D437&hash=5c2cc4e11d5c59e027bae7881daf012a2ac22026)
In fact, looking at the graph, I'd say there's fairly good documentation that changes in the amount of arctic sea ice are somewhat cyclical, and not entirely predictable. The net result seems to be akin to, "You win a few, you lose a few." Nonetheless, I'm confident that a resourceful spinmeister like the Algore will find a way to explain that when we lose arctic sea ice it's because of global warming, and when we gain (record amounts of) arctic sea ice it's STILL due to global warming.
-
Its breaking news that he was wrong? I knew he was wrong back when his fucktarded movie came out
-
EXCELSIOR!!!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.armedpolitesociety.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D41191.0%3Battach%3D1393%3Bimage&hash=18535ae72a13e941ee5be1113d32747c5b0bf98c)
Why won't anyone take me serial?!?!?
-
Hyperbole from the skeptic crowd is just as annoying as hyperbole from the doomer crowd.
The moderate recovery of the sea ice does not "prove" that human caused global warming is wrong; anymore than record hot summer days prove it right.
Surely, it does hurt the confidence that they are on the right track, when a long term prediction based on the theory and models and consensus all said that the Northwest passage would be ice free by summer 2013 and its dead wrong on that prediction. I'll certainly agree to that, but as I said, hyperbole from the skeptic crowd is just as annoying as hyperbole from the doomer crowd.
-
Hyperbole from the skeptic crowd is just as annoying as hyperbole from the doomer crowd.
The moderate recovery of the sea ice does not "prove" that human caused global warming is wrong; anymore than record hot summer days prove it right.
Moderate recovery? How about 33 years of cyclical activity with no trend in any direction?
-
Da erf has been around for 4-5 billion years. We have a little over 100 years of weather data and not all of it is truly accurate (for a variety of reasons).
Yet there are people claiming that will end up just like a planet that is 26 Million miles closer to the sun, has a completely different atmospheric make-up/content, using models that completely fail to account for the #1 greenhouse gas (water vapor), yet still go on and on and on about "Globular Woerming were all gonna die!!!, Women and Minorities hardest hit, film at 11."
Absolute and utter bull-cookies.
The only driver of da erf's climate is that big glowing ball of yellow in the sky. Period. The end. Full Stop. (Okay, axial tilt and the magnetic poles might have a little something to do with it also, but mankin? Pppffffftttttt.....)
-
Moderate recovery? How about 33 years of cyclical activity with no trend in any direction?
Seems like a downward trend in this plot...
Plot via wattsupwiththat.com
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/sea-ice-news-volume-4-2-the-2013-sea-ice-forecast-contest/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/sea-ice-news-volume-4-2-the-2013-sea-ice-forecast-contest/)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu%2Fseaice%2Fextent%2FSea_Ice_Extent_L.png&hash=49ceb6bdb09ac971e9f6d33c124240f1a690e46c)
and 2013 looks like a moderate recovery back to 2009 levels.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/18/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-4-the-maslowski-countdown-to-an-ice-free-arctic-begins/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/18/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-4-the-maslowski-countdown-to-an-ice-free-arctic-begins/)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Focean.dmi.dk%2Farctic%2Fplots%2Ficecover%2Ficecover_current_new.png&hash=da87af3be4ea2618b6b1d77e58e3e4893e1f08cd)
-
All predictions are drawn from very limited samplings.
10,000 years is a mere blink of an eye in earth's age, most predictions are based on data from <1/100 of that length of time.
Climate science is a politically driven pseudoscience at best.
-
Climate science is a politically driven pseudoscience at best.
When the people who lead and support the "climate change" movement start actually showing they actually care about what they are blabbering about vs. trying to extract the most treasure and power from it I will pay more attention to what they are claiming.
When the big name environmentalists give up their electricity hogging mansions, call me.
When the big name environmentalists give up their private jets, call me.
When the big name environmentalists give up their limos and SUVs, call me.
When the big name environmentalists decide to try to get me to change by convincing me with facts instead of using the government to force me to, call me.
-
When the people who lead and support the "climate change" movement start actually showing they actually care about what they are blabbering about vs. trying to extract the most treasure and power from it I will pay more attention to what they are claiming.
When the big name environmentalists give up their electricity hogging mansions, call me.
When the big name environmentalists give up their private jets, call me.
When the big name environmentalists give up their limos and SUVs, call me.
When the big name environmentalists decide to try to get me to change by convincing me with facts instead of using the government to force me to, call me.
That is one thing that is often ignored or forgotten. None of the proposed solutions given by the lefty AGW crowd will actually help prevent it. That has been true since Kyoto accords were first introduced.
-
Hyperbole from the skeptic crowd is just as annoying as hyperbole from the doomer crowd.
The moderate recovery of the sea ice does not "prove" that human caused global warming is wrong; anymore than record hot summer days prove it right.
Surely, it does hurt the confidence that they are on the right track, when a long term prediction based on the theory and models and consensus all said that the Northwest passage would be ice free by summer 2013 and its dead wrong on that prediction. I'll certainly agree to that, but as I said, hyperbole from the skeptic crowd is just as annoying as hyperbole from the doomer crowd.
I would stipulate that none of the accurate models or consensus said the Northwest passage would be ice free this soon. That was a sensational prediction by politically minded people angling for more funding and new taxes. The more honest models show either no change or predict a couple degree change in 200 years or so. The scientists making wild predictions have to severely rig their models to get them to show any short term changes.
These days you rarely see this discussed. The pro-global warming crowd intentionally confuses the issue IMO. It is still questionable 20 years later whether we are actually seeing warming. The next step is proving mankind has caused it and they still can't do that because CO2 just isn't as big a driver of GW as they suggest. This ignores the act that they have never proposed a real solution that would change anything they claim to be happening.
-
I still contend that early industrial revolution power use created massive atmospheric particulate load and coincided or partially caused the little ice age. Then we stop burning wood, coal so much, and in general clean things up and we get a temp bump from the reduced particulate. Love to see it studied. 150years ago there were little to no trees in my home state. Cleared for farming, steam power, everyday cooking and heating. Britain rose to the top of the world burning Welsh coal all over it. We did the same in the northeast. Not an emission control one.
And I am too saddened by the hyperbole wars. I am inclined to be environmentally conscious but there is no common sense middle these days. Buncha screaming idiots.
-
I still contend that early industrial revolution power use created massive atmospheric particulate load and coincided or partially caused the little ice age.
Industrial revolution? Not hardly. Consider the Vikings' attempt to settle Greenland:
History of the Eastern Settlement
About a century after the Norse settlement of Iceland and after the point when land became scarce there, Erik the Red (also spelled Eirik the Red) was kicked out of Iceland for killing a handful of his neighbors after a land dispute. In 983, he became the first recorded European to set foot on Greenland. By 986, he had set up the Eastern Settlement, and taken the best land for himself, an estate called Brattahild.
Eventually, the Eastern Settlement grew to ~200-500 (estimates vary) farmsteads, an Augustinian monastery, a Benedictine convent and 12 parish churches, accounting for perhaps as many as 4000-5000 individuals. Norsemen in Greenland were primarily farmers, raising cattle, sheep and goats, but supplementing that regimen with local marine and terrestrial fauna, trading polar bear fur, narwhal ivory and falcons for grain and metals from Iceland and eventually Norway. Although there were recorded attempts to grow barley, they were never successful.
Eastern Settlement and Climate Change
Some paleoenvironmental evidence suggests that the settlers damaged Greenland's arability by cutting down much of the existing trees-mostly isolated copses of birch-to build structures and burning scrubland to extend areas of pasture, resulting in increased soil erosion.
Climate change, in the form of a slow cooling of the average sea temperature by 7 degrees centigrade by 1400, spelled the end of the Norse colony. The winters became very harsh and fewer and fewer ships made the trip from Norway. By the end of the 14th century, the Western Settlement was abandoned.
Source: http://archaeology.about.com/od/vikings/qt/eastern_settlement.htm
-
I realize Greenland was green when someone decided to name it Greenland. I was not talking about millenia of climate fluctuation. I was conjecturing about one very short term swing in the climate. In the TLDR I'd guess that human activity artificially depressed global temps a degree or two thus in part leading to the 20th century ZOMG the world's gonna melt rise.
I doubt the scale of the vikings tree-cutting impacted climate, your quote just says they were crappy farmers.
-
I realize Greenland was green when someone decided to name it Greenland
Some time ago, I heard that 'Greenland' was more of name made up by the Viking marketing department than reality.
-
That article says a shift occured. It doesn't state a cause.
To say that event A caused event 11 without proof of correlation is false.
Considering that the climate of northern hemisphere around the Atlantic is largely effected by the Gulf Stream, I'd say you'd have to look much further south for a cause.
-
I think the amount of ice is cyclical and man has some impact, but things like volcanic eruptions and the cycles around them potentially impact the earths climate much more.
-
An interesting exercise is to compare the amount of solar energy intercepted by the earth during a year and then compare that figure against the total amount against all sources human generated energy during the year. The term "vanishingly small" overstates it.
-
Some time ago, I heard that 'Greenland' was more of name made up by the Viking marketing department than reality.
Not quite:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv320%2FKoloblicin%2FMiscellaneous%2FMWP.jpg&hash=bbc3296cb30b7cb1174bd195f72f329732c0be98)
-
Looks like a British paper has seen the upcoming IPCC report.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html)
A few tidbits:
"Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.” (Climate Anomaly? Why not Warm Period?)
“Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations ... " (%&$! data doesn't fit our theory!)
“There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent." (Oops - we don't know why we're wrong.)
“we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future” (We're not sure how to spin this without looking stupid . . .)
Report goes on to say that despite being wrong, they still believe global warming is man's fault.
-
An interesting exercise is to compare the amount of solar energy intercepted by the earth during a year and then compare that figure against the total amount against all sources human generated energy during the year. The term "vanishingly small" overstates it.
I don't understand why you think that comparison is relevant. Explain further.
-
An interesting exercise is to compare the amount of solar energy intercepted by the earth during a year and then compare that figure against the total amount against all sources human generated energy during the year. The term "vanishingly small" overstates it.
The AGW-believers' claim isn't that we're creating the heat, but that we're creating conditions that trap the heat. Greenhouse effect.
-
The problem with AGW is not so much the science.
The scientific theory: "Human industrial activity causes warming".
Then we are given several charged assumptions, and are told to accept that they are part of the science, i.e. if you do not accept them, you hate science:
1. That warming is inherently a bad thing. Why? If I lived in a cold country that was slated to get warmer and more fertile, I don't know if I'd agree.
2.That warming is a bad thing we should act against. This is not the same as above. If global warming does, for example, 100 billion dollars' worth damage to humanity, and preventing it costs $100 billion dollars and one cent, it isn't worth doing.
3. That warming is a bad thing we should act against by reducing carbon footprints. Why? Why not geoengineering? But geoengineering is verboten.
4. Because atomic power is anathema to the usual suspects, the only meaningful way to reduce carbon footprint that remains is to reduce our quality of life, either by means of a carbon tax, or by various means persuading the public to give up prosperity such as cars, large televisions, etc. This is already ongoing.
In 95% of the public discussion on global warming, 'global warming' is a stand-in for 'you must accept AGW and therefore 1-4, or you hate science'.
But of course, science doesn't work that way.
-
the only meaningful way to reduce carbon footprint that remains is to reduce our quality of life,
The proponents of the AGW movement are all about reducing your quality of life but not theirs, of course.
-
The proponents of the AGW movement are all about reducing your quality of life but not theirs, of course.
And if they would reduce their quality of life, why would I accept a reduction of mine?
-
I think the folks at "wattsupwiththat" lay out some pretty good criticisms of the science too. But its not a slam dunk "myth busted" set of criticisms.
In my mind, since the evidence for and against is pretty weak, that makes microb's arguments all the stronger.
The cherry on top is the way those who say its a crisis, don't act like its a crisis.
For example, if its really a crisis, then stop flying all over the world for climate conferences and using so much fuel. Start teleconferencing. I know the big universities have all the tech and bandwidth to do massive teleconferencing events for each region.
If its really a crisis, then its time to go nuclear in a very big way. If the US went 100% nuclear electricity, we would far exceed the Kyoto target reductions.
If its really a crisis, then its time to support nat gas frac'ing in a big way. It is much lower CO2 fuel than coal, and could also replace some transportation fuel needs.
-
I think the folks at "wattsupwiththat" lay out some pretty good criticisms of the science too. But its not a slam dunk "myth busted" set of criticisms.
In my mind, since the evidence for and against is pretty weak, that makes microb's arguments all the stronger.
The cherry on top is the way those who say its a crisis, don't act like its a crisis.
For example, if its really a crisis, then stop flying all over the world for climate conferences and using so much fuel. Start teleconferencing. I know the big universities have all the tech and bandwidth to do massive teleconferencing events for each region.
If its really a crisis, then its time to go nuclear in a very big way. If the US went 100% nuclear electricity, we would far exceed the Kyoto target reductions.
If its really a crisis, then its time to support nat gas frac'ing in a big way. It is much lower CO2 fuel than coal, and could also replace some transportation fuel needs.
It is however, a damn good way to get money and control over people...
Which is exactly what the global warming movement people are getting...and they are laughing all the way to the bank.
-
Euroweenie climate change czar admits she doesn't care if AGW is a real thing or not since it's causing all the policies she likes to be implemented. In my miond even more damning than the leaked emails where the climate "scientists" admit how they rig their models.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html
-
Euroweenie climate change czar admits she doesn't care if AGW is a real thing or not since it's causing all the policies she likes to be implemented. In my miond even more damning than the leaked emails where the climate "scientists" admit how they rig their models.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html
From the article:
However, EU and other policymakers are worried that the IPCC's forthcoming admission, expected on Sep 27, that previous forecasts are wrong will damage the legitimacy of climate change policies, such as levies and fuel taxes on consumers to fund renewable energy.
The Government's own estimates of meeting the EU target are a cost increase of 33 per cent to the average electricity price paid by households in 2020. New EU levies on carbon emissions from industry are estimated to cost the British economy £700 million, a bill that is passed on to the consumer via higher prices.
Follow the money!
-
Euroweenie climate change czar admits she doesn't care if AGW is a real thing or not since it's causing all the policies she likes to be implemented. In my miond even more damning than the leaked emails where the climate "scientists" admit how they rig their models.
To paraphrase: "We don't care that our sound science that shows the Earth is flat might be wrong, our policies are still right!"
-
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2013/09/19/real-climate-science-the-ipcc-doesnt-want-you-to-see-n1704053/page/2
-
It's going to be a cold winter....
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Solar-activity-drops-to-100-year-low-puzzling-scientists/articleshow/22719807.cms
Money Quote:
Variations in the amount of heat and light reaching the planet's surface as a result of the cycle are tiny. Total solar output reaching the surface varies by just 1.3 Watts per square metre (0.1 percent) between the maximum and minimum phases of the cycle.
Even this variation has profound impacts on climate and weather. Rainfall, cloud formation and river run-off are all strongly correlated with the sun's 11-year cycle.
Just so everyone understands the earth consists of
Surface area: 510,072,000 km²
148,940,000 km² land (29.2 %)
361,132,000 km² water (70.8 %)
or
Approx. 120 trillion m2.
So that's 156 trillion LESS watts of energy that the earth will receive and the Globular Woerming 'Scientists' are saying "Doesn't matter, Erf will still be warming." I vote we eat their frozen corpses first.
-
156,000 gigawatts? 156,000 gigawatts! Great Scott!
It can't be done, Tom! It can't!
-
Heartland Institute rebuts that IPCC 1,018 page report in 14 pages.
http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
Story here:
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2013/09/19/real-climate-science-the-ipcc-doesnt-want-you-to-see-n1704053
-
It's going to be a cold winter....
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Solar-activity-drops-to-100-year-low-puzzling-scientists/articleshow/22719807.cms
Money Quote:
Just so everyone understands the earth consists of
Surface area: 510,072,000 km²
148,940,000 km² land (29.2 %)
361,132,000 km² water (70.8 %)
or
Approx. 120 trillion m2.
So that's 156 trillion LESS watts of energy that the earth will receive and the Globular Woerming 'Scientists' are saying "Doesn't matter, Erf will still be warming." I vote we eat their frozen corpses first.
It's still humankind's fault. The sun is basically a fire, right? A big, hot, ball of fire. And fire needs oxygen, right?
So OBVIOUSLY all the excess CO2 we humanoids are generating is escaping our atmosphere and being drawn to the sun by the sun's greater gravitational attraction -- where the CO2 is cooling off the sun's fire.
-
Scout's post about 156TW of lost heat energy had me thinking... there's no time component on that so I'm assuming it's just a constant? As long as the sun is shining on something on earth, it's getting X watts. When it's not shining, it's getting 0 watts.
Given that X - 1.3 = 999X/1000 (a translation of "Total solar output reaching the surface varies by just 1.3 Watts per square metre (0.1 percent) between the maximum and minimum phases of the cycle"), that means that:
X - 1.3 = 999X/1000
1000X - 1300 = 999X
X - 1300 = 0
X = 1300
The sun delivers 1300 watts per square meter of earth, and varies by 1.3 watts during max/min cycles.
120 trillion square meters yields 156,000 trillion watts of juice. Getting lazy and dividing by half (the sun only shines on half the planet at a time, right? Well, not really and not with full intensity) that means that the planet really only gets 78,000 trillion watts for 24 hours a day, or 78,000TWh per hour. A variation of 0.1 percent, or 78TWh, is accounting for a dip in planetary temps.
In a year, the sun bestows on us 28,470,000 TWh
Total world electrical generation in 2009 (wikipedia's latest data) suggests mankind creates 20,000TWh total in a year.
The sun dumps 1423.5 times the amount of energy we produce, into our atmosphere, our oceans, our land and our crops, than we do. Almost 100% of that is in the form of heat.
Question:
Given 20,000TWh of power generation per year and an average electrical efficiency such that 75% of that power is converted to heat as either resistive waste or intent, and given that the volume of the earth's atmosphere is 4.2 billion kilometers... how much could 15,000TWh of waste heat warm 4.2 billion kilometers of air?
-
As most of the long timers here know, I'm no advocate of the anthropogenic global warming religion.
Yet from what I can ascertain the article is actually wrong about the arctic sea ice. The measured long term trend is toward less. Just longer time scales than the alarmists were predicting. There is no massive accelerated melt like they were predicting (hoping).
The earth may in fact be getting warmer, pretty sure it is as much as any layman can be.
It does that over time, gets warmer, gets colder, rinse and repeat.
I'm all for increased efficiencies, smaller carbon footprints, reduction of pollution and preserving wilderness habitats. There is no need to employ the religion of scientism to justify any of the above. Heavy handed statism isn't needed either.
Objective science and serious folks in government capable of weighing the costs/benefits would be ideal...oh well, back to the real world, lol.
-
The sun dumps 1423.5 times the amount of energy we produce, into our atmosphere, our oceans, our land and our crops, than we do. Almost 100% of that is in the form of heat.
Question:
Given 20,000TWh of power generation per year and an average electrical efficiency such that 75% of that power is converted to heat as either resistive waste or intent, and given that the volume of the earth's atmosphere is 4.2 billion kilometers... how much could 15,000TWh of waste heat warm 4.2 billion kilometers of air?
I'm not sure if your asking that because you are curious, or trying to imply that it somehow debunks the possibility of human cause global warming.
If curiosity...
Then delta_Q = Cp *m * delta_T
delta_T = delta_Q/(Cp * m)
delta_Q = 15,000TWhr = 5.4*10^16 kJ
Cp = ~1.01 kJ/kg/K
m = 5*10^18 kg
delta_T =~ 0.0107 K or 0.0107 C or 0.0192 F
Which is a lot more than I expected.
If arguing about the science...
Then you are way off base. Nobody (of intellectual leadership) has ever said anything about waste heat being an issue. The issue is H20, CO2, and CH4 trapping the sun's energy more effectively, at least that's the theory.
-
Just curiosity.
Though that obviously ignores the fact that the various water bodies of the earth are also heat transmission mediums and capture part of that waste heat as well.
Thanks, I had no idea what the formula might have been to accomplish that.
-
Yeah, that formulation assumes that 100% of the energy is put in the atmosphere. Since the majority of human waste heat uses air as the primary heat sink (factories, cars, homes, etc), its probably not too far off.
The major power plants are lake, river, and air cooled. The lakes I suppose return their heat to the air and ground, while the rivers will likely carry the energy to the oceans. Direct sea water cooling is (I think) pretty rare since the salt water will eat the heat exchanger, or requires a more expensive heat exchanger to resist the corrosion. Marine vessels will have a sea water cooler, but I don't think anybody else bothers.
But we don't want to just look at electric production, we want to look at total energy usage. Wiki is saying that number is closer to 143 petawatt-hour.
The reason we should include others is that we are converting all fuels into heat. Very little of it is stored long term as potential or kinetic energy. The only one to subtract is sun powered renewables (wood, solar, wind, biofuel, food, hydro, etc). Since this energy is already counted when it comes in from the sun. These sources can add up to be significant, so the number is closer to 123PW-hr.
-
From the wire - “Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10 to 15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries. The U.S. also urged the authors to include the ‘leading hypothesis’ that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/20/climategate-ii-scientists-pushed-to-hide-data/#ixzz2fRwMCaGx
Interesting tactic, considering the AGW people are always shoving "hottest recorded year on record" down our throats. Planetary climate is measured in millennia, people.
-
From the wire - “Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10 to 15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries. The U.S. also urged the authors to include the ‘leading hypothesis’ that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.”
And if we're supposed to be looking at decades and centuries, we have to consider that Erik the Red settled Greenland in 983, and established an agrarian society ON GREENLAND that survived for approximately 500 years before global COOLING made the area untenable. 500 years -- that's about the length of time since western Europeans first set foot on the North American continent, and nearly twice as long as the United States has existed as a country.
I don't think we need to worry until we see the Vikings farming Greenland again. At that point, maybe we should start looking at whether it's going to continue warming, or cool off again as it did around 1400 A.D.
-
And if we're supposed to be looking at decades and centuries, we have to consider that Erik the Red settled Greenland in 983, and established an agrarian society ON GREENLAND that survived for approximately 500 years before global COOLING made the area untenable. 500 years -- that's about the length of time since western Europeans first set foot on the North American continent, and nearly twice as long as the United States has existed as a country.
I don't think we need to worry until we see the Vikings farming Greenland again. At that point, maybe we should start looking at whether it's going to continue warming, or cool off again as it did around 1400 A.D.
There you go again. Confusing the issue by using logic. ;)