Global Temperatures Skyrocketing (Again)

a reply to: Kali74

Well that is the problem isn't it, no one can say for sure WHAT caused the variability.

And really no one looks deep enough for it either, modern science in many ways is entirely controlled dogmatic systems that will not allow a complete and thorough overview.

Why ? It is better to control us all, than to ever let humanity actually find out the answers to everything.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Are you talking about the Medieval Warming Period specifically or over-all?

Title: Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ – ‘Based On Nonsense’ – ‘Leading us down a false path’

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'


Read more: www.climatedepot.com... h9Pt

www.climatedepot.com... -continues/
www.climatedepot.com... -going-to-fry-from-agw/

a reply to: 727Sky

Try again.

Exxonmobil links to Dr. Richard Lindzen

Happer is in bed with the Heartland Institute, who also receives funding fro Exxon.

Patrick Moore was NOT a co-founder of GreenPeace, an ATS search will.expose Moore as a phoney.

Climatedepot.com is also funded by Exxon.

a reply to: Kali74

I really don't have much of an idea of what causes global temperature variability. I know that things like volcanic activity, spewing particulate in the air and interfereing with sunlight would cause cooling. Albedo is another cause (black attracts heat), water vapor, orbital paths, amount of tree cover, variations in sun radience.

If humans were able to survive hotter temperatures in the past, why are you so concerned that they can't in the future.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: jrod

why is not ok for Dr. Lindzen's work to be funded by ExxonMobile but its ok for Jim Hansens work to be funded by Soros?

Why do you insist on measuring the quality of work by who funds it. That is not science. That is not science at all.

That is just as bad and using Rico laws to shut down criticism.

None of it is scientific. Either the global warming theory and the people who propose it have done work that can't be criticized or they haven't. Who is funding who is irrelevant.

Even you must admit that the government has found a goose who lays golden eggs in the global warming theory. They now have reason to tax people just for being alive. It would be just as easy to say that the the scientists who support global warming are in the pay of government.

Everyone is biased by money.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Not worth my time, you have presented what I call hyperbole.

Do I really need to.link old ATS threads that show Exxon has been trying to manipulate climate science for decades?

The bottom line is Exxon is not to be trusted with addressing AGW because their bottom line is at stake and have proven they will go to great lengths to.manipulate the public perception about AGW and the role their industry contributes to it.

a reply to: jrod

And the government, who has the most to gain from a brand new tax source, IS to be trusted???????

The bottom line is, it is proven that Mann, Phil Jones et all, all refused to share raw data under freedom of information for fear of being criticized. The exact antithesis of science.

I would have to say that there is plenty of wrong to go around.

www.nature.com...

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has refused to comply with lawmakers’ attempts to subpoena internal communications relating to a recent climate-change study by its scientists.

The analysis, published in Science in June1, analyzed NOAA's temperature records and found that global warming has continued apace in the early twenty-first century. The study contradicts previous findings — often cited by global-warming sceptics — suggesting that warming has slowed since the 1990s.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: jrod

Most scientist or even just normal lay people people are connected to some industry or government sponsor. Gotta eat, however that does not mean everyone on either side is a crook. Anyone remember the hockey stick B.S. and the arctic to be free of ice by now all predicted back in 2001 ?
www.iceagenow.com...

"The fact that the 2001 “hockey stick” chart was presented in color in several sections of the 2001 IPCC report, without explaining how the scientists managed to completely eliminate their earlier depiction of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (both are well covered in historical documents as well as scientific analysis is unacceptable behavior. (www.co2science.org...)

"Noting that the “hockey stick” chart was removed in later editions of the IPCC “scientific” reports supports the conclusion that something is indeed wrong. It was removed because an outside investigation was conducted that resembled a proper engineering review - with a finding of fraud.

"Specifically, the fraud was identified by showing that the critical data for the chart came from cherry picking just a handful of Siberian trees (tree ring proxy to estimate temperature), without evidence that the researcher applied the proper scientific method. Using all the data or any random selection of 10% of the tree ring data showed no significant correlation of planet warming to human CO2 emissions.

Fraud not limited to cherry picking

"The fraud was not limited to the tree cherry picking. The computer code for presentation had been tweaked such that a hockey stick shape is produced even if the data set is developed with a random number generator!

"The horrific result of this scandal was that the 2001 UN hockey stick chart formed the very foundation of a non-scientific theory that resulted in the awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize, a movie Oscar and a best-selling book.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I'll trust NOAA and NASA plus independent scientists from all over the world over self proclaimed experts and scientists who get funds from big oil. It is stupid not to.

Enough of the hyperbole and links that do not provide any science or data, all you have provided is opinion pieces that CAST DOUBT ON THE ACTUAL SCIENCE THAT JUST SO HAPPEN TO BE FUNDED BY BIG OIL!

Obviously you guys cannot provide actual science and real world data that contradicts the OP, NASA, NOAA, and the actual scientists around the world who study this stuff or you would have already provide it, instead you resort to the usual rhetotic and hyperbole that the science denying crowd clings to. That my friend is total BS, NOT SCIENCE!

a reply to: 727Sky
You too are full of BS when you cite non-scientific predictions.

Iceagenow.com is in cahoots with the Heartland Institute. Only a fool will give their opinion pieces any merit.

Iceagenow.com Source Watch

CO2science.org receives funding from guess who?
Sourcewatch for CO2science.org

Exxon!

The links you provided are bunk! Please try to bring actual science to the discussion. Thank you.

Major Global Warming Denial Movement Linked Directly to Exxon: Proof

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Understanding all the things that have an effect on the climate is pretty important in discussing climate. Here's a great list of climate forcings with links to data sets, papers and graphs.

NOAA

We've passed the temperatures of the MWP by the way, which only affected the North Atlantic region, the rest of the planet was cooler.

a reply to: jrod

Oh I'm sorry I thought the 2001 “hockey stick” chart was in several sections of the 2001 IPCC report . The arctic free of ice and all the starving drowning polar bears I must have been watching some Exon sponsored news show way back when... I didn't know the IPCC had their hands in Exon's pockets too.. And guess what, I don't really care what you believe on the subject or how hot and bothered you become.... for the earth and it's climate is going to do what it has done for 4.5 billion years with or without the socialist wealth redistribution of agenda 21 or 2030 or whatever.

Sorry I really don't trust the news any more and certainly not the computer programs that started this stuff.. The grafts you are quoting have the lowest capable measurement of .2 two tenths of a degree and there is some question if they are even that accurate.. yet all this hyper talk about warming seems to always have a point (.) and a couple of numbers after the point.. Back in the day when people actually had to learn math the first number was tenths, second number was hundredths, and the third number was one thousandth..

The October average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.76°F (0.98°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for October on record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.36°F (0.20°C), and marked the sixth consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken. This record departure from average was also the highest on record for any month, surpassing the previous record set last month by 0.13°F (0.07°C).

You believe what you want to, and preach from any soap box you can find if it makes you feel better. Make it a new religion with a skyfairy and everything... Take collections to support you cause. Go to China and show them the errors of their ways etc etc considering they are the biggest polluters and C02 emitters on the planet. Who knows you may actually convert some to your way of thinking. and save the world !

I for one do hope there is global warming instead of another form of an ice age, simply because mankind will survive the heat and ocean rise..... where as if there is another ice age crops will fail, people will starve and wars for survival will become rather large if history is any clue..

If you are a young person in your life time you may get the real deal answer for AGW. So far I have not seen any IPCC or anyone Else's in the AGW crowd 15 year forecast even come close to actual observed events.

a reply to: 727Sky

Again, no science from you. Just more of the same rhetoric and hyperbole. I see you resorted to one if the usual fallback arguments: climates been changing for billions of years and will continue to do so. That is true, however what we are observing now is unprecedented in history of the world and there is no doubt human activity is a major player.

I see you.are trying to call climate science a religion. That tells me you do not actually care about the science, instead you are here to demonizing good science because it does not agree with your cognitive bias.

a reply to: Kali74

What does MWP mean?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

oh never mind - its medevil warmiing period.

See now that is something I don't understand in the discussion. Of course the MWP only affected the northern region. As previously discussed, the southern region is mostly ocean and would remain cooler. The same thing is happening today but its still called GLOBAL warming.

Why the disparity?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: 727Sky
You clearly trust some news source, because all that crap you just said originates from it.

The 'ice free by 2016' originates from Rush Limbaugh, for example.

The discovery that CO2 causing global warming goes all the way back to the 1880s.
The broader realization that mankind is increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere goes back to at least 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson mentioned it in a speech to Congress and had a committee study it.

Do you know what that forecast was?

CO2: we would have at least ~354 CO2 ppm by 2000, but possibly as much as ~440 CO2 ppm.
RESULT: We hit 368 CO2 ppm in 1999, so it was within the forecast range nearer the low estimate.
°C: depending on that CO2 ppm, we would have increase temperatures by between +0.6°C and +4°C.
RESULT: We hit +0.6°C in 1999 (+0.42°C) from the 1950 relative temperature (-0.18°C).

This was not the IPCC. This was a report in 1965 by a President's Science Advisory Committee mentioned above.

They studied to see if humans were causing CO2 to increase in the atmosphere. They found that we were the only possible party. This is relatively simple stuff, here!

IF atmospheric CO2 causes warming, THEN increasing atmospheric CO2 increases warming.
Science tells us that CO2 causes warming, and you can even do homemade experiments to verify it.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, as measured since the 1950s.
Repeated research since the 1950s has found that humans are increasing atmospheric CO2.
THUS humans are increasing atmospheric CO2, which will increase warming.

THE END. There is no argument. There is only obfuscation by people who refuse this based on entirely different reasons such as economics (taxes & business), politics, or religion instead of science, logic, and reason.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: 727Sky

Again, no science from you. Just more of the same rhetoric and hyperbole. I see you resorted to one if the usual fallback arguments: climates been changing for billions of years and will continue to do so. That is true, however what we are observing now is unprecedented in history of the world and there is no doubt human activity is a major player.

I see you.are trying to call climate science a religion. That tells me you do not actually care about the science, instead you are here to demonizing goodvscience because it does not agree with your cognitive bias.

I quoted the science of the hockey stick IPCC report did you miss that little gem ? The starving drowning Polar bears and the ice free arctic that was fore told way back in 2001.. Nothing more to say and if you can't see the model's errors that were gospel not 15 years ago and all the hype that went along with those pronouncements.

Actually I really am open to climate change or climate disruption totally man made or natural or a combination of all of the above; that is the unproven answer as of yet. .. Kali74 and I have had some rather respectful discussions on the subject as I have with others. Your attitude and the disregarding of anything on the other side of the argument with a response they are all on Exon's payroll or personal attacks fits right in with the AGW so called progressive crowd. You are just a screen name to me as I am to you. You obviously believe your talking points where I am skeptical of all the dire warnings from the IPCC, or any other government sponsored, bought and paid for study, that says the arctic will be ice free and the Polar bears will all be drowning. So, believe what you want to believe and who you want to believe... worry about it if that is your desire... Just don't expect everyone else to jump on you fervent crusade or have your faith in computer models or temperature data that there are questions about the collection and accuracy. If you were around in the 70s all the talk was about global cooling and a new ice age... Well here we are and things are still pretty much the same with weather patterns changing with more rain and snow or less rain and drought in many places of the globe I have been to or read about.
1978 New Ice age
youtu.be...


A lot of graphs and real science in the following video.. Not hype just geologic data and a great presentation which goes far to explain much of the stuff going on today around the globe.
youtu.be...

Global warming,the religion of one world central planning statists,if anthropogenic warming is real and an obvious fact,why do all you chicken littles try so hard to indoctrinate the rest of us?
Like I said,global smarming is a religion.

a reply to: Greven

Now that was a good reply, Thanks; for I did not know where the origins of some of this stuff started.