Global Temperature Update through April...

[DSmith21]

The majority of scientific papers published in the 70s predicted global warming.

Journal of the American Meteorological Society: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

If so, why did the media jump in bed with the 10% rather than the 62%. They could have gone with a global warming hysteria just as easily as global cooling in the 70's. Also why didn't this majority of scientists refute the minority and put the cooling hysteria to an end. Instead, it went on for over a decade. Either way these scientists are very inaccurate in their conclusions.

 

[DSmith21]

Quite simply, you're wrong. You are factually, objectively wrong. You've been fooled by dishonest arguments citing a set of sensationalist media articles that did not accurately report on the scientific debate. What the media said is completely, 100% irrelevant.

All I am telling you is that there was a Global Cooling hysteria back in the 70's. I am not saying whether they were right or wrong. Just that it happened. I haven't been fooled by either the warming or cooling alarmists unlike you. This is because I don't believe their dire predictions that continue to prove false.

 

[ganner918_rivals60369]

All I am telling you is that there was a Global Cooling hysteria back in the 70's. I am not saying whether they were right or wrong. Just that it happened. I haven't been fooled by either the warming or cooling alarmists unlike you.

"I don't believe scientists because the media was wrong in the 70s" is one of the most ridiculous stances I've ever heard.

 

[DSmith21]

"I don't believe scientists because the media was wrong in the 70s" is one of the most ridiculous stances I've ever heard.

You are putting quotes around something that I did not write nor do I agree with. By the way, how do you "hear" that.

 

[warrior-cat]

FWIW, we are not going to "beat" global warming. It's already too late. It's all about managing the consequences now. We're all going to get to see what it is like to live with CO2 at above 600ppm while no human prior to the last century lived with CO2 above 300ppm. We all get to participate in the experiment together so whether you believe it or not is really not relevant. We'll both find out together.

We going to hold hands and sing cumbya?

 

[.S&C.]

"I don't believe scientists because the media was wrong in the 70s" is one of the most ridiculous stances I've ever heard.

Lots of scientist were also wrong in the 70's bud. Some of you "copy and paste" scientist need to stop acting as if you yourself fully comprehend the data on it anyway. There is no guarantee it's even man made. I know it pisses off the "activist" in some, but you just don't know, because no one knows.

 

[P19978]

"Settled science" lol.

You can't help a blind person see if they won't even open their eyes.

 

[.S&C.]

"Settled science" lol.

You can't help a blind person see if they won't even open their eyes.

The only point that matters.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

. Ymnuts just stalks me.
.

Payback.

Where is the missing heat? Look it up and get back to me. Here is the fact. The "settled science" people say they don't know, but it could be at the bottom of the ocean.

The only fact there, is they said it. The heat is predicted heat therefore it does not exist in the quantity you are being told. Computer projections are just projections. They are not "facts".

You never refute an actual global warming question. You attack the person that posed the question. You know very little of the physical world. Yours is a world of fantasy.

 

[The Crow]

Payback.

Where is the missing heat? Look it up and get back to me.

Ok. Here:

The IPCC report shows that when we account for the warming of the entire climate system, global warming continues at a rapid rate, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second.

Many popular climate myths share the trait of vagueness. For example, consider the argument that climate has changed naturally in the past. Well of course it has, but what does that tell us? It's akin to telling a fire investigator that fires have always happened naturally in the past. That would doubtless earn you a puzzled look from the investigator. Is the implication that because they have occurred naturally in the past, humans can't cause fires or climate change?

The same problem applies to the 'pause' (or 'hiatus' or better yet, 'speed bump') assertion. It's true that the warming of average global surface temperatures has slowed over the past 15 years, but what does that mean? One key piece of information that's usually omitted when discussing this subject is that the overall warming of the entireclimate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-pause.htm

 

[Deeeefense]

While not getting involved in this debate, that "hottest on record" must be for somewhere other than here. I work outside a lot, last summer was coolest summer I can remember. Must have been talking about Europe.

[roll]

 

[RacerX.ksr]

I tell people who you really are, you show them. You win again.

 

[akers65]

[roll]

You didn't read my next post
I wasn't just talking about just my neighborhood, and another poster also mentioned that the entire U.S. Was cooler as well...so enjoy your laugh and then learn to read

Also I didn't say anything about global warming. Just the part about "hottest on record"

Is Global warming real, don't know and don't care. I'm not the type to worry over things that I can't change or control

 

[RacerX.ksr]

They regurgitate the propaganda they were indoctrinated with. Stockholm syndrome. Fascinating character study.

 

[AustinTXCat]

Folks, please remain civil and keep personal attacks out of the discussion. Please. I now feel somewhat guilty about bumping this thread and creating yet another poop-storm (Shitstorm).

Better still, why not present all the facts from both sides in a rational manner?

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Dr. Judith Curry sat in front of a congressional committee and told them the science was definitely not settled. She is an actual climatologist and receives funding from NASA and NOAA.

Regardless how many organizations sign on, it in no way proves AGW.

Snow melt, rain, storms, wind, drought are all consequences of the climate. None can be used to prove AGW

A correlation between rising CO2 levels and increased global temperature was assumed. Models were created based upon these assumptions. The models have not been accurate and data has been manipulated.

 

[-LEK-]

.

 

[MegaBlue05]

I don't care about the argument.

But I do think taking better care of the earth should be a common-sense priority for all of us, but this country's priorities are so effed because we put making boatloads of cash ahead of literally everything else, so screw it, get money y'all.

 

[Ophiuchus]

Boatloads of cash while the poorest and most uneducated amongst us defend them ravenously while they are doing it because they don't understand how easily they are manipulated. It really is sad.

 

[P.PattersonISwalkingthruthatdoor]

Whoa, he found his password. How've you been, Broiled Butthole?

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Boatloads of cash while the poorest and most uneducated amongst us defend them ravenously while they are doing it because they don't understand how easily they are manipulated. It really is sad.

Easily manipulated indeed. You have to be aware of the similarity of your belief that man is totally responsible for the 1 degree or so of warming that has been calculated to have occurred over the last 150 years, and those of others that believe a god walked among us 2000 years ago.

You did not intuitively realize the Earth had warmed slightly. You were indoctrinated into that belief due to your geographic location. Sound familiar?

The IPCC report is your bible, and just like team god, you attempt to use it to prove your belief. It doesn't matter to you that it contradicts itself in many places. It doesn't matter to you if it was written by men with ulterior motives.

You laugh at the notion of a hell, but then tell me dire stories of a crispy Earth.

I think I may have given you too much credit. You seem to be all vocabulary and no substance. It is very easy to read any article about AGW, especially the IPCC report, and see the biased and baseless claims.

CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere. That's it.

 

[-LEK-]

No

 

[sluggercatfan]

What about the ones that don't wear any:scream::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye::clap:kay::cool2::sunglasses:

 

[RacerX.ksr]

One of the most powerful odors known to man, requires a concentration of 10,000 ppm to be detected by the human nose.

As a percentage, CO2 concentration has risen from .00028% of the atmosphere, to a current level of .0004%.

An increase of .00012% percent of anything, is of no consequence to the Earth. We are able to measure it precisely enough to make notice of 120ppm, but that is the only significance of that number.

CO2 is a trace gas. The reason the models are wrong is due to greatly exaggerated importance given to CO2 in the equation.

It's OK to admit you were wrong. The people behind this are very persuasive and possess unlimited funding and media support.

What I have is more powerful though. Science.

 

[BlueThruAndThru_rivals115784]

One of the most powerful odors known to man, requires a concentration of 10,000 ppm to be detected by the human nose.

As a percentage, CO2 concentration has risen from .00028% of the atmosphere, to a current level of .0004%.

An increase of .00012% percent of anything, is of no consequence to the Earth. We are able to measure it precisely enough to make notice of 120ppm, but that is the only significance of that number.

CO2 is a trace gas. The reason the models are wrong is due to greatly exaggerated importance given to CO2 in the equation.

It's OK to admit you were wrong. The people behind this are very persuasive and possess unlimited funding and media support.

What I have is more powerful though. Science.

I'm not a climate scientist.

What do you think of a 42.86% increase in anything. Is that significant?

Your first sentence doesn't really pass the "smell" test, does it. I'm not sure what being able to detect an odor with your nose has to with the rest of your statements.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

I'm not a climate scientist.

What do you think of a 42.86% increase in anything. Is that significant?

Your first sentence doesn't really pass the "smell" test, does it. I'm not sure what being able to detect an odor with your nose has to with the rest of your statements.

The number that is important is the million. The increase relative to the total atmosphere is what's important.

The first sentence was an example of just how miniscule an amount 400ppm actually is. 1 ppm would be the same as about 32 seconds out of a year. 400 would be 3.5 hours out of a year.

What it means is, while CO2 may have a small impact on climate, humans have only played a small part of a small part of the change.

The models are self revealing.

 

[-LEK-]

Nm

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Stay ignorant, my friend.

 

[P19978]

Stay ignorant, my friend.

Ymmot, you're wasting your time.

A piece of advice, attributed to Mark Twain:

"Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

 

[-LEK-]

Yea, I destroyed you in 2 arguments, and you put me on ignore. Like most of the science deniers, when presented with evidence that goes against your viewpoint, ignore it and dig deeper.

 

[fatguy87]

The first sentence was an example of just how miniscule an amount 400ppm actually is. 1 ppm would be the same as about 32 seconds out of a year. 400 would be 3.5 hours out of a year.

What it means is, while CO2 may have a small impact on climate, humans have only played a small part of a small part of the change.

Spend an evening in a room with 400 ppm of hydrogen cyanide. It's a trace gas. There shouldn't be any problems. In fact, it will give your skin a healthy, golden glow, shaving at least 3 years off your ostensible age.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Spend an evening in a room with 400 ppm of hydrogen cyanide. It's a trace gas. There shouldn't be any problems. In fact, it will give your skin a healthy, golden glow, shaving at least 3 years off your ostensible age.

What if there was only 300ppm? Would I be safe then?

 

[qwesley]

I would think some of you guys that are showing so much passion for "doing something" should calculate your carbon usage (15% or as estimated of gas and home energy) plus 2-3% of all purchases and go ahead and mail that check to the IRS.

Show us the way,

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Yea, I destroyed you in 2 arguments, and you put me on ignore. Like most of the science deniers, when presented with evidence that goes against your viewpoint, ignore it and dig deeper.

Pot, meet kettle. YOU are the one that denies science. Real science proves that CO2 is not the main driver of any perceived warming. How dense do you have to be to not see this?

Explain to me why the models are incapable of making an accurate prediction.

 

[-LEK-]

.

 

[-LEK-]

.

 

[Free_Salato_Blue]

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calculated that world's average temperature in June hit 61.48 degrees Fahrenheit (16.33 Celsius), breaking the old record set last year by 0.22 degrees (.12 degrees Celsius).

NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden said usually temperature records are broken by one or two one-hundredths of a degree, not nearly a quarter of a degree. Records go back 136 years.

The first six months of 2015 were one-sixth of a degree warmer than the old record, set in 2010, averaging 57.83 degrees (14.35 Celsius).

Blunden said "there is almost no way that 2015 isn't going to be the warmest on record."

 

[RacerX.ksr]

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calculated "

And there you go. You could have stopped there. Carries as much weight as John 11:35. Did Jesus weep? I doubt it.

 

[Free_Salato_Blue]

And there you go. You could have stopped there. Carries as much weight as John 11:35. Did Jesus weep? I doubt it.

Don't believe in arithmetic either?

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Don't believe in arithmetic either?

Sure I do. Do you not believe numbers can be manipulated?