Global Temperature Update through April...
- Thread starter gracetoyou
- Start date
1. The proposed solutions will have to be better than the "problem". I'd rather burn up in a 400 degree planet than give one dollar to the pieces of **** pushing the carbon taxes/crony green company handouts/etc.
2. The people yelling loudest about global warming cannot be as ignorant as Z and LEK. It is readily apparent to everyone, except them, that citing a pediatrician in Islamabad who has never studied global warming as support for their position on global warming is mentally retarded.
So it's not really that I don't agree with the other side. It's that the other side is completely incompetent when it comes to putting together a coherent thought. Z has claimed the earth will be 400 degrees in 100 years (something along those lines. The actual quote is probably still in the political thread). His support for that position is the fact that the society of pediatric doctors of Argentina and the institute for the advancement of cancer research of Nigeria have signed on to that position without ever studying global warming. And then we still haven't heard any actual solutions to the problem that don't involve just transferring money from the American taxpayer pocket to other countries or people.
LEK, it's all about the approach. Like Willy, I usually sit in the middle on warming/cooling/Whatever the f*ck the GD term for it is this week, and my own personal stance resides quite far from science denial.
People respond more easily to positive influences than negative, condescending lectures. The object here is selling folks on the point of view rather than criticizing. Once we inject counter-productive terms like "imbecile", "ape" and "simple *****" into the conversation, then the discussion ends and is effectively over. More often than not, we might as well consider the other party alienated. Trust no longer exists.
Good luck going forward.
LEK has called the guy a gay, retarded ape....but LEK is so accepting! He isn't a bigot - even though he uses gay and mentally handicapped as insults...wonder how those communities would feel if they saw you say all this and then argue for their sides in other discussions...shame shame
At least two of those guys aren't/weren't even scientists (I don't know who the dude w the beard is)
Thanks for posting those links. That second one is the story I was referring to in my initial post but I forgot to link that story.
I totally agree. I'd rather have this planet burn to a crisp before I give another dollar towards ******** taxes.
I still can't believe people debate this as science and climate, when it has nothing to do with either one.
Austin, appreciate the civil reply. And for years this thread has gone on. It's dealing with absolute insanity. It's in the face of all scientific data, and it's ignored. It's like talking to someone who is trying to convince you the sky is purple when it's blue. Or an insane comment that's it made up. The reason there is no middle ground is because there isn't. Its my fault for continued involvement.
[George] WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: No. And neither does science. But I'm one of those who are called deniers. And the implication is that I deny climate change. It's impossible to state with clearer precision the opposite of my view, which is that, of course the climate is changing. It's always changing. That's what gave us the medieval warm period. That's what gave us subsequent to that for centuries the brutal Ice Age. Of course it's changing. But when a politician on a subject implicating science, hard science, economic science, social science says the debate is over, you may be sure of two things. The debate is raging and he's losing it. So I think frankly as a policy question, Chris, Holman Jenkins, Kim's colleague at the "Wall Street Journal" put it perfectly, the only questions is, how much money are we going to spend? How much wealth are we going to forego creating in order to have zero or discernible effect on the environment?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...over_the_debate_is_raging_and_hes_losing.htmlGEORGE
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...over_the_debate_is_raging_and_hes_losing.htmlGEORGE
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012
was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).
That is a direct quote from the latest IPCC report. The scientists that study GW for a living, the people that create the report for the government, the people that started this whole mess, have medium confidence that their answer is likely correct.
This is like a religion for a couple of you guys. You continue to have unwavering faith in the face of tremendous doubt. That takes faith. The report could have just as easily been three words long. "WE DON'T KNOW'.
An idiot might have more confidence than the climatologist that studied the data and came to a non-conclusive conclusion, but a normal person of reasonable intelligence would not. Unless that person just hated humanity and enjoys seeing it suffer whenever possible.
preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012
was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).
That is a direct quote from the latest IPCC report. The scientists that study GW for a living, the people that create the report for the government, the people that started this whole mess, have medium confidence that their answer is likely correct.
This is like a religion for a couple of you guys. You continue to have unwavering faith in the face of tremendous doubt. That takes faith. The report could have just as easily been three words long. "WE DON'T KNOW'.
An idiot might have more confidence than the climatologist that studied the data and came to a non-conclusive conclusion, but a normal person of reasonable intelligence would not. Unless that person just hated humanity and enjoys seeing it suffer whenever possible.
What would help is if idiots stopped bringing politics into a scientific debate. If you don't like taxes or policy or any of the other **** that lowlife scumballs are using to try and take advantage of the science, then don't blame the science.
Also, I responded to one xenophobic poster who said there was nobody in Africa capable of changing the oil in his car (because he traveled there one time and saw for himself) and I responded by showing him the qualifications of the Presidents of the Science Academies of Uganda and Zambia as an example to show how ludicrous that statement was. This in turn gave the imbeciles in this thread the opportunity to claim I was saying a medical doctor was my answer to solving global warming.
So you see how it simply goes round in round in a circular argument when you are dealing with disingenuous and/or religion handicapped numbskulls.
In order to function as a civilized society we need to have some standard of belief in something. That all the pilots that fly our airplanes, that all the doctors that perform our surgeries, that all the lawyers and judges that argue in our courtrooms... that all of these people have attained some minimum level of education that has in turn earned our trust to perform these duties. We can't all look over their shoulders and substitute our own ignorant opinions in place of their own. In short, we don't all get to fly the airplane.
But yet we have the entire world's combined scientific institutions that represent the most advanced thinking on the subject of climate that the world has to offer telling us something and yet we are substituting our own ignorant uneducated opinions to rationalize one idiotic reason after another to disregard what they are telling us. And that is not only insane it is unsustainable. Science by majority rules will not work. We can't all vote on what science is real no more than we can fly an airplane by proxy.
These threads do absolutely nothing and I know that. I simply use them to insult idiots because of my frustration over their idiocy. So please, carry on, but don't for one moment think your driveling spittle flecked creationist 5000 year old earth with Jebus riding around on dinosaurs nonsense is accomplishing anything other than to make you look like a brain addled neanderthal scratching himself with a mammoth tusk. Because that is precisely where your level of thinking is. In a mud pit, wet and cold, wondering how you can rub two rocks together so you can create a sharp enough edge to scratch the ticks off your fat hairy asses.
Also, I responded to one xenophobic poster who said there was nobody in Africa capable of changing the oil in his car (because he traveled there one time and saw for himself) and I responded by showing him the qualifications of the Presidents of the Science Academies of Uganda and Zambia as an example to show how ludicrous that statement was. This in turn gave the imbeciles in this thread the opportunity to claim I was saying a medical doctor was my answer to solving global warming.
So you see how it simply goes round in round in a circular argument when you are dealing with disingenuous and/or religion handicapped numbskulls.
In order to function as a civilized society we need to have some standard of belief in something. That all the pilots that fly our airplanes, that all the doctors that perform our surgeries, that all the lawyers and judges that argue in our courtrooms... that all of these people have attained some minimum level of education that has in turn earned our trust to perform these duties. We can't all look over their shoulders and substitute our own ignorant opinions in place of their own. In short, we don't all get to fly the airplane.
But yet we have the entire world's combined scientific institutions that represent the most advanced thinking on the subject of climate that the world has to offer telling us something and yet we are substituting our own ignorant uneducated opinions to rationalize one idiotic reason after another to disregard what they are telling us. And that is not only insane it is unsustainable. Science by majority rules will not work. We can't all vote on what science is real no more than we can fly an airplane by proxy.
These threads do absolutely nothing and I know that. I simply use them to insult idiots because of my frustration over their idiocy. So please, carry on, but don't for one moment think your driveling spittle flecked creationist 5000 year old earth with Jebus riding around on dinosaurs nonsense is accomplishing anything other than to make you look like a brain addled neanderthal scratching himself with a mammoth tusk. Because that is precisely where your level of thinking is. In a mud pit, wet and cold, wondering how you can rub two rocks together so you can create a sharp enough edge to scratch the ticks off your fat hairy asses.
Last edited:
I see many similarities between Crow's blind faith in his list and a person's faith in a god.
What he's saying here is that, well, we just need to trust them. We can't comprehend this on our own. Climate scientists, medical doctors...they all agree on the subject. We must have complete faith in them no matter the evidence to the contrary.
He completely ignores the possibility that there are ulterior motives in play for so many of these institutions. He continues to ignore the reams of research that state the numbers / models these source studies are citing are often times strategically positioned, or in many cases, completely inaccurate. He continues to ignore the fact that the immense majority of the institutions he lists have no qualified members to properly verify and support an opinion on climate change. He continues to completely ignore the process by which this "consensus" has been reached and publicized.
No clue how he doesn't consider himself a religious man. He lives and breathes religion. He embodies most of the attributes he professes to despise.
That's a sad existence.
What he's saying here is that, well, we just need to trust them. We can't comprehend this on our own. Climate scientists, medical doctors...they all agree on the subject. We must have complete faith in them no matter the evidence to the contrary.
He completely ignores the possibility that there are ulterior motives in play for so many of these institutions. He continues to ignore the reams of research that state the numbers / models these source studies are citing are often times strategically positioned, or in many cases, completely inaccurate. He continues to ignore the fact that the immense majority of the institutions he lists have no qualified members to properly verify and support an opinion on climate change. He continues to completely ignore the process by which this "consensus" has been reached and publicized.
No clue how he doesn't consider himself a religious man. He lives and breathes religion. He embodies most of the attributes he professes to despise.
That's a sad existence.
Blind faith? Have you read an IPCC report? Does this look like a fairy tale bible to you?
Executive Summary The evidence of climate change from observations of the atmosphere and surface has grown significantly during recent years. At the same time new improved ways of characterizing and quantifying uncertainty have highlighted the challenges that remain for developing long-term global and regional climate quality data records. Currently, the observations of the atmosphere and surface indicate the following changes: Atmospheric Composition It is certain that atmospheric burdens of the well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs) targeted by the Kyoto Protocol increased from 2005 to 2011. The atmospheric abundance of carbon dioxide (CO2) was 390.5 ppm (390.3 to 390.7)1 in 2011; this is 40% greater than in 1750. Atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O) was 324.2 ppb (324.0 to 324.4) in 2011 and has increased by 20% since 1750. Average annual increases in CO2 and N2O from 2005 to 2011 are comparable to those observed from 1996 to 2005. Atmospheric methane (CH4) was 1803.2 ppb (1801.2 to 1805.2) in 2011; this is 150% greater than before 1750. CH4 began increasing in 2007 after remaining nearly constant from 1999 to 2006. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) all continue to increase relatively rapidly, but their contributions to radiative forcing are less than 1% of the total by well-mixed GHGs. {2.2.1.1} For ozone-depleting substances (Montreal Protocol gases), it is certain that the global mean abundances of major chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are decreasing and HCFCs are increasing. Atmospheric burdens of major CFCs and some halons have decreased since 2005. HCFCs, which are transitional substitutes for CFCs, continue to increase, but the spatial distribution of their emissions is changing. {2.2.1.2} Because of large variability and relatively short data records, confidence2 in stratospheric H2O vapour trends is low. Near-global satellite measurements of stratospheric water vapour show substantial variability but small net changes for 1992–2011. {2.2.2.1} It is certain that global stratospheric ozone has declined from pre-1980 values. Most of the decline occurred prior to the mid 1990s; since then ozone has remained nearly constant at about 3.5% below the 1964–1980 level. {2.2.2.2}
Confidence is low in ozone changes across the Southern Hemisphere (SH) owing to limited measurements. It is likely3 that surface ozone trends in eastern North America and Western Europe since 2000 have levelled off or decreased and that surface ozone strongly increased in East Asia since the 1990s. Satellite and surface observations of ozone precursor gases NOx, CO, and non-methane volatile organic carbons indicate strong regional differences in trends. Most notably NO2 has likely decreased by 30 to 50% in Europe and North America and increased by more than a factor of 2 in Asia since the mid-1990s. {2.2.2.3, 2.2.2.4} It is very likely that aerosol column amounts have declined over Europe and the eastern USA since the mid 1990s and increased over eastern and southern Asia since 2000. These shifting aerosol regional patterns have been observed by remote sensing of aerosol optical depth (AOD), a measure of total atmospheric aerosol load. Declining aerosol loads over Europe and North America are consistent with ground-based in situ monitoring of particulate mass. Confidence in satellite based global average AOD trends is low. {2.2.3} Radiation Budgets Satellite records of top of the atmosphere radiation fluxes have been substantially extended since AR4, and it is unlikely that significant trends exist in global and tropical radiation budgets since 2000. Interannual variability in the Earth’s energy imbalance related to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is consistent with ocean heat content records within observational uncertainty. {2.3.2} Surface solar radiation likely underwent widespread decadal changes after 1950, with decreases (‘dimming’) until the 1980s and subsequent increases (‘brightening’) observed at many land-based sites. There is medium confidence for increasing downward thermal and net radiation at land-based observation sites since the early 1990s. {2.3.3}
Temperature It is certain that Global Mean Surface Temperature has increased since the late 19th century. Each of the past three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, and the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest. The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880–2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist, andabout 0.72°C [0.49°C to 0.89°C] over the period 1951–2012. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003– 2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C and the total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the reference period for projections, 1986−2005, is 0.61 [0.55 to 0.67] °C, based on the single longest dataset available. For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901–2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming. In addition to robust multidecadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability. Owing to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). Trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24], 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] and 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18], respectively. Several independently analyzed data records of global and regional land-surface air temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations are in broad agreement that LSAT has increased. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have also increased. Intercomparisons of new SST data records obtained by different measurement methods, including satellite data, have resulted in better understanding of uncertainties and biases in the records. {2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3; Box 9.2}
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Executive Summary The evidence of climate change from observations of the atmosphere and surface has grown significantly during recent years. At the same time new improved ways of characterizing and quantifying uncertainty have highlighted the challenges that remain for developing long-term global and regional climate quality data records. Currently, the observations of the atmosphere and surface indicate the following changes: Atmospheric Composition It is certain that atmospheric burdens of the well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs) targeted by the Kyoto Protocol increased from 2005 to 2011. The atmospheric abundance of carbon dioxide (CO2) was 390.5 ppm (390.3 to 390.7)1 in 2011; this is 40% greater than in 1750. Atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O) was 324.2 ppb (324.0 to 324.4) in 2011 and has increased by 20% since 1750. Average annual increases in CO2 and N2O from 2005 to 2011 are comparable to those observed from 1996 to 2005. Atmospheric methane (CH4) was 1803.2 ppb (1801.2 to 1805.2) in 2011; this is 150% greater than before 1750. CH4 began increasing in 2007 after remaining nearly constant from 1999 to 2006. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) all continue to increase relatively rapidly, but their contributions to radiative forcing are less than 1% of the total by well-mixed GHGs. {2.2.1.1} For ozone-depleting substances (Montreal Protocol gases), it is certain that the global mean abundances of major chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are decreasing and HCFCs are increasing. Atmospheric burdens of major CFCs and some halons have decreased since 2005. HCFCs, which are transitional substitutes for CFCs, continue to increase, but the spatial distribution of their emissions is changing. {2.2.1.2} Because of large variability and relatively short data records, confidence2 in stratospheric H2O vapour trends is low. Near-global satellite measurements of stratospheric water vapour show substantial variability but small net changes for 1992–2011. {2.2.2.1} It is certain that global stratospheric ozone has declined from pre-1980 values. Most of the decline occurred prior to the mid 1990s; since then ozone has remained nearly constant at about 3.5% below the 1964–1980 level. {2.2.2.2}
Confidence is low in ozone changes across the Southern Hemisphere (SH) owing to limited measurements. It is likely3 that surface ozone trends in eastern North America and Western Europe since 2000 have levelled off or decreased and that surface ozone strongly increased in East Asia since the 1990s. Satellite and surface observations of ozone precursor gases NOx, CO, and non-methane volatile organic carbons indicate strong regional differences in trends. Most notably NO2 has likely decreased by 30 to 50% in Europe and North America and increased by more than a factor of 2 in Asia since the mid-1990s. {2.2.2.3, 2.2.2.4} It is very likely that aerosol column amounts have declined over Europe and the eastern USA since the mid 1990s and increased over eastern and southern Asia since 2000. These shifting aerosol regional patterns have been observed by remote sensing of aerosol optical depth (AOD), a measure of total atmospheric aerosol load. Declining aerosol loads over Europe and North America are consistent with ground-based in situ monitoring of particulate mass. Confidence in satellite based global average AOD trends is low. {2.2.3} Radiation Budgets Satellite records of top of the atmosphere radiation fluxes have been substantially extended since AR4, and it is unlikely that significant trends exist in global and tropical radiation budgets since 2000. Interannual variability in the Earth’s energy imbalance related to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is consistent with ocean heat content records within observational uncertainty. {2.3.2} Surface solar radiation likely underwent widespread decadal changes after 1950, with decreases (‘dimming’) until the 1980s and subsequent increases (‘brightening’) observed at many land-based sites. There is medium confidence for increasing downward thermal and net radiation at land-based observation sites since the early 1990s. {2.3.3}
Temperature It is certain that Global Mean Surface Temperature has increased since the late 19th century. Each of the past three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, and the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest. The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880–2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist, andabout 0.72°C [0.49°C to 0.89°C] over the period 1951–2012. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003– 2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C and the total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the reference period for projections, 1986−2005, is 0.61 [0.55 to 0.67] °C, based on the single longest dataset available. For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901–2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming. In addition to robust multidecadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability. Owing to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). Trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24], 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] and 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18], respectively. Several independently analyzed data records of global and regional land-surface air temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations are in broad agreement that LSAT has increased. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have also increased. Intercomparisons of new SST data records obtained by different measurement methods, including satellite data, have resulted in better understanding of uncertainties and biases in the records. {2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3; Box 9.2}
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems. {1}
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. {1.1}
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen. {1.1}
- Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. In many cases, a synthesis of evidence and agreement supports an assignment of confidence. The summary terms for evidence are: limited, medium or robust. For agreement, they are low, medium or high. A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence. The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, more unlikely than likely 0–<50%, extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely. See for more details: Mastrandrea, M.D., C.B. Field, T.F. Stocker, O. Edenhofer, K.L. Ebi, D.J. Frame, H. Held, E. Kriegler, K.J. Mach, P.R. Matschoss, G.-K. Plattner, G.W. Yohe and F.W. Zwiers, 2010: Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland, 4 pp. 2 .
- Ranges in square brackets or following ‘±’ are expected to have a 90% likelihood of including the value that is being estimated, unless otherwise stated.
Crow, did you actually read that long copy and paste of yours? You probably should. It states the 15 years prior to 2012 the rate of increase was substantially lower than the previous 50 years,
It also says that any change is do natural variations and should basically be thrown out.
That's why people have a hard time believing the doom and gloom of this. It's almost as if they have a desire for the global warming to proceed, because without it what purpose do they serve.
It just screams of a money and power grab. So far basically none of their models have been right or even close. Which science do we believe, that we're about to have a mini ice age or climate change?
In the religion thread you posted over and over you had to see proof, where is the proof?
It also says that any change is do natural variations and should basically be thrown out.
That's why people have a hard time believing the doom and gloom of this. It's almost as if they have a desire for the global warming to proceed, because without it what purpose do they serve.
It just screams of a money and power grab. So far basically none of their models have been right or even close. Which science do we believe, that we're about to have a mini ice age or climate change?
In the religion thread you posted over and over you had to see proof, where is the proof?
So you throw out the mini ice age claim and I'm sure you're running with it...hasn't even been peer reviewed and no mention of a mini ice age by researchers. But hey, one little piece of research sounds on the surface like it could refute global warming so you'll run with that right?
The same people saying that all these scientists are bought and paid for are also the ones who will tout some research done by an institution sponsored by the oil & gas industry, or by conservative think tanks. No agenda there!
I find it hilarious that scientists are expected to predict the future exactly when it comes to climate change. But let's ignore the overall trend that each decade is getting hotter than the last. Last decade? Hottest on record.
We're destroying our oceans, air and water. On top of everything else, but that's just not a good enough reason to find cleaner ways of doing things. The selfishness of the world just amazes me.
From Wapo article:
Though University of Northumbria mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova, who led the sunspot research, did find that the magnetic waves that produce sunspots (which are associated with high levels of solar activity) are expected to counteract one another in an unusual way in the coming years, the press release about her research mentions nothing about how that will affect the Earth’s climate. Zharkova never even used the phrase “mini ice age.” Meanwhile, several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-trending-but-its-not-true/?tid=hp_mm&hpid=z3
It is likely that the ocean warmed between 700 and 2000 m from 1957 to 2009. Sufficient observations are available for
the period 1992 to 2005 for a global assessment of temperature change below 2000 m. There were likely no significant
observed temperature trends between 2000 and 3000 m for this period. It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m
to the bottom for this period, with the largest warming observed in the Southern Ocean. {3.2} IPCC report
If they are willing to lie about the water at the bottom of the ocean warming, they will lie about any of it. I happen to KNOW the water at the bottom didn't warm. It is at the bottom because it is at it's densest temperature. This does not change.
None of you can explain the RATE of temperature increase as it relates to an increase in CO2. The RATE of temperature rise dropped off 20 years ago. IF CO2 is the main driver, why doesn't the temp continue to increase?
You both try to make the argument about us saying the Earth has not warmed. None of us has said that. The Earth has warmed but we don't know exactly how much. We don't know how much was caused by man. Each and every number used in climate science is an estimate, some are better than others, but we are not dealing with hard numbers.
Crow and LIK have more faith in these numbers than any of the people they ridicule have in a god.
the period 1992 to 2005 for a global assessment of temperature change below 2000 m. There were likely no significant
observed temperature trends between 2000 and 3000 m for this period. It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m
to the bottom for this period, with the largest warming observed in the Southern Ocean. {3.2} IPCC report
If they are willing to lie about the water at the bottom of the ocean warming, they will lie about any of it. I happen to KNOW the water at the bottom didn't warm. It is at the bottom because it is at it's densest temperature. This does not change.
None of you can explain the RATE of temperature increase as it relates to an increase in CO2. The RATE of temperature rise dropped off 20 years ago. IF CO2 is the main driver, why doesn't the temp continue to increase?
You both try to make the argument about us saying the Earth has not warmed. None of us has said that. The Earth has warmed but we don't know exactly how much. We don't know how much was caused by man. Each and every number used in climate science is an estimate, some are better than others, but we are not dealing with hard numbers.
Crow and LIK have more faith in these numbers than any of the people they ridicule have in a god.
No one is saying we shouldn't be responsible stewards. I find it hilarious that some get so damn upset if a person doesn't go all in. When the models and claims of despair have t materialized. Whatever, have at it if it makes you feel like you're accomplishing something. The rest of us grounded in reality will keep the wheels moving.
I can't believe a reasonably smart man would write something so stupid. Yes the climate has always changed over time but the current situation we have is an extremely rapid rising of temperatures over a relatively short period of time. What I mean is a few degrees over a couple of hundred years. What he's referring to is a few degrees over 10,000 years. Gradual changes are relatively adaptable, rapid changes are not.
Go to Canada, Alaska or Miami and talk about Global Warming. You don't have to convince them it's real, they see the effects right in front of their noses.
I still want to know if there is an argument over something you can do nothing about, whether in all cases, or just this one, you believe arguing with someone equally powerless against the ultimate outcome is somehow going to effect the outcome or just so you can have "I told you so's" long after we're all dead and gone.
Pretty simple in these threads to see the difference between the people who live off of the government tit and the people that pay for the boob job.
According to nasa records, the hottest year in America was 1934. My guess is that there were way fewer people, cars, trucks, trains, jets, factories, coal plants, and gassy cows. Maybe common sense is out of fashion in this day in age but that fact alone speaks volumes
Last edited:
LE, if you are serious and able to click a mouse then the IPCC issues a "Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change" report as part of their assessment. Here is the link:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
What bothers me is that you have all these great scientific institutions providing all this information but it cannot successfully navigate its way to the people through the political/media process. You look at the absolute nonsense that people like Bill keep perpetuating in this thread and also the type that I utterly discredited in what Kaizer was posting and yet they persist. You make a complete fool out of them and it does not faze them. They just double down with more because religion has taught them to be comfortable with ignoring logic, fact, reason, and above all science. So there is no arguing with these imbeciles.
No, it says you are uneducated and not smart enough to rationally participate in this discussion. I just provided you with the combined works of the greatest scientific institutions on earth with the greatest minds in their respective fields all carefully laying out the very most current information we have as a species on the subject and you did not avail yourself of this information by clicking on it and trying to actually learn something. Instead you have chosen to remain willfully ignorant and thus post the crap you just posted which has served to only make stupid people even dumber because now they have an excuse to ignore the entire subject.
- The 2014 IPCC Report is the one I mentioned in my first post...you know...the report that Dr. Robert Stavins (who is on your side) said that the policy makers asked him to change and edit the results to fit their agenda. How can you consider that a complete scientific study report when it was manipulated by policy makers? And then in the next breath say that politics should remain out of the discussion and we should rely on the science? Please answer that without saying "he was taken out of context". Because he was directly quoted. He is still on your side by the way...he just doesn't want politicians and policy makers effing with his scientific findings...and neither do I.
- You still have yet to respond to these links. I would love to hear your response.
Politicians have been battling the IPCC report since its inception. You latching onto that as an attempt to throw the whole thing out the window is absurd. Do I really have to respond to such nonsense? Maybe point out that virtually every important subject in history has tortuously made its way through the political process. According to your idiotic thinking we should have discredited the entire Civil Rights movement because George Wallace stood in the school doorway. Really you are just grasping at straws with no idea of how ridiculous your entire argument is.
As for your 2nd, I've already told you their are scoundrels about trying to profit both ways on this subject but that does not change the science itself.
Please, all of you, just educate yourselves with the links I have provided to the actual IPCC reports and then post your thoughts here. The other stuff serves absolutely no purpose other than to perpetuate ignorance, which is what I am attempting to remedy by taking pity on you and wasting my time here in this thread when none of you appear in the slightest to be able to grasp anything beyond Jebus and the Debil.
As for your 2nd, I've already told you their are scoundrels about trying to profit both ways on this subject but that does not change the science itself.
Please, all of you, just educate yourselves with the links I have provided to the actual IPCC reports and then post your thoughts here. The other stuff serves absolutely no purpose other than to perpetuate ignorance, which is what I am attempting to remedy by taking pity on you and wasting my time here in this thread when none of you appear in the slightest to be able to grasp anything beyond Jebus and the Debil.