Nasa: Earth is warming at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years'

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There # all we can do about it.

Not unless we cull the population to 500 million or revert to a pre industrial state.

Only thing we can do is safegard the west and watch Africa die.....like normal really.

originally posted by: Krazysh0tTHIS. THIS is what I'm talking about and you are just trying to casually hand wave it away without trying to explore why the derivative is higher this time. This is a fail at graph interpretation and makes you a lousy scientist. You see unlike you, who is content to not care, scientist DO care about why the end point is higher this time around than the previous times.

Please, tell us how the fact that different instruments being used to record the measurements and then combining those results from two (well, actually, many) different collection methods--real-time data collection with contemporary instruments around the world versus ice core samples from one part of the world--into one graph, noting an anomaly that only seems to occur with contemporary data collection (according to you and your OP), and then running with it like there's no other explanation other than us terrible humans being the cause is exceptional employment of science.

(pssst...it's not; It's actually a very poor method of trying to come to a conclusion about something, as there are WAY too many variables in the collection methods and instruments--and even in the accuracy of the data itself--to be considered impeccable science)

No one is denying that temperatures haven't risen before for the #ing thousandth time. Pointing that out is just insulting people's intelligence and shows you either don't know what you are talking about or don't care to learn.

This entire thread is insulting to people's intelligence, as are your own dismissals of EVERY SINGLE REBUTTAL that is put forth to you--but I guess "just trying to causally hand wave [data interpretations] away" only matters if it's done by those of us who have put much effort into researching this whole theory and decided that there's not enough data to conclusively determine that (a) humans are the entire cause of certain anomalies or that (b) it has 'never occurred before.' (and for the record, that's not called "denial," that's called "skepticism")

Give us a break--you use buzz words like "denier" and call people "lousy scientist" when you, yourself, are guilty of exactly what you berate others for doing. I guess that makes you an exceptional scientist, not to mention full of credibility?

Having to curse to make your point really shows your level of maturity, as well. You sure are selling your point well...

Oh, and for the record, Captain Science, you can Google "Vostok Ice Core Samples" and find the graphs that I...how did you put it?...oh, yeah:

Still waiting for those links to those graphs you seemed to pull out of your ass btw.

I would have assumed that someone so learned as yourself in the historical data of atmospheric CO2 and temperature would be well acquainted with the Vostok Ice Core graphs. Again, you're selling your point really well...

a reply to: Meee32

To be fair, trying to go by that graph, which is really just speculation past a certain point (I stick with 450kya because of the Vostok ice-core samples even showing degradation in the data as the years go back), is not the best way to debate with AGW proponents...it's just too weak with hard data.

I definitely agree with your point about acting like one millennium showing ANYTHING pertinent in the grand scheme of the Earth's climate is ridiculous, and only done because it can feed those prone to freaking out over doom porn.

Yes, levels seem to have risen, but it's not going to be dire for the globe, because going back past 1880 or so, we only really have spotty data, unless you want to use ice cores, which only show the atmosphere in one extreme location on the globe.

My previous comment with graphs derived from the Vostok samples

Site with three graphs (CO2) derived from different samples from Antarctica

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Hmmm yeah I agree that the data isn't the best but isn't it pretty much a known fact that we have had ice ages and warm periods before? Isn't it also pretty much a known fact that co2 has been higher before too?

I just don't see how a thousand years of (also pretty shoddy) data amounts to anything in the grand scheme of things, let alone a hundred (which they typically use). It all just seems so silly to me. I am actually quite surprised they have managed to keep this global warming stuff alive for so long, after every one of their predictions have failed.

Why don't people who think this is real try to come from another angle and forget this insane argument. For example, you could say to someone "hey get solar and wind energy and be self sufficient! You can save loads of money and not have to rely on the big energy companies"

It would still be the same result for them no? Instead they want to try and blame some theory on everyone and try to say we're killing the planet. While I bet they make no alterations in their own lives. These people should be living by example!

I can get behind the whole self sufficiency and empowerment thing, not so much the unproveable it's your fault blame game.

wattsupwiththat.com...

This new analysis shows that the warming we have seen in the late-20th century is not unprecedented, as can be seen in figure 5 (from the paper). Seen in the reconstruction is a well-defined peak of temperature between 950–1050 AD. They also find that the first millennium is warmer than the second.

hmm maybe in 100 years or so it'll start going down again like it did in the year 1000, also I dont buy the whole "natural cooling but were adding to the warmth so it wont cool" thing coz I mean are we not a part of this planet? of nature? things always have a way of working out, normally with an extinction but who knows

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Who is gonna tell China and India to stop polluting..or tell westerners to eat less meat and drive less, etc.

Unfortunately a lot of policy makers understand this mass resistance isn't going away no matter how bad the problem gets, which is exactly why carbon taxes are the most prominent solution on the table.

It becomes it's own feedback loop. Contrarians deny basic science, thus forcing political realities like carbon taxes into the equation, thus causing them to further reject science; because politics.

...
It's a subset of my favorite hypocrisy on ATS: People constantly bitching here about how their lives are controlled by TPTB.

But to take that control away, change starts with us peons, not with them - we need to vote with our wallets, engage in healthy consumer habits that support sustainability instead of mindless overindulgence.

Instead people continue to feed the beast, and then whine about how much it owns them. Who among "the elites" is ever gonna stop this gravy train when it's making them so disproportionately wealthy already?

Global warming is a very real problem that's actually demanding the train come to a screeching halt.

As bad of an actual problem that may be - it's also probably the greatest gift a (real) ATSer could ever ask for: a universal, mainstream, urgent means to actually bring this corrupted out-of-control system down. It NEEDS to be overhauled or ELSE.

But instead of using that to our advantage, we get more mindless resistance from the peons themselves who can't see the forest for the trees. They don't understand how money even works, so they just throw stones at the first thing they see that's apparently trying to take it away from them.

I live in one of the few places in the world that actually has a carbon tax. It is 100% revenue-neutral. I get every penny back through reductions in other taxes. All it's designed to do is encourage me and my neighbors to spend that money on better things: on healthier food, on more local, low footprint products, on clean energy and decentralized sources that actually empower the people instead of the Koch brothers. This market-driven spending then spurs the infrastructure and the technology we need to keep this system rolling. The more it rolls, the more it snowballs, and the better and cheaper it gets. If I contribute then great, if I don't...I can still break even.

But 99.99% of the tinfoil crowd here who obsess about "the global warming hoax" don't understand how our economy even works. They think a tax like this is demanding their money when it's actually demanding they stop throwing it away.

It's frustrating watching the same, tired cliches play out on these threads over and over and over.

Phony skeptics think they're rebelling against a system that they're enabling more than anyone with everyday laziness and ignorance. But clearly it's a lot easier than actual skepticism, aka critical thinking, so hey - everybody conga!

And these are the people who wag their fingers and lecture about "the fear mongering right wing!". None of their predictions are ever right and their data is based on an incomplete understanding. Much of their data is made up as has been exposed in the past.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think I'll just trust scientists that are smarter than both you

much like people put faith in their priests or "god". You're no different. It makes me sad what folks like you have done to science. You've turned in to a region.

And for people who supposedly love science, you sure do give Obama a pass for destroying our space program. I remember when NDT used to scold Obama, then suddenly he stopped and became a high priest of your new religion.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
[
First off, those aren't temperature spikes. They are derivative spikes, and as you can see the current spike is MUCH higher than those spikes. However, those spikes are merely naturally occurring spikes. The current spike is a combination of naturally occurring and artificially occurring events.

So the current 'spike' is a combination of natural and artificial, (the blue bit) occurring events, while all the spikes before that are just natural occurring spikes/events. So, did someone use a rubber to take away any artificial occurring spikes/events from the former...where's the blue bit for there, arguably going right back to the start of the chart, more so,what would it look like?
Even more than that going back a while, RC.ORG nearly had..did have for a while, October 2008 as a warmest on record except it turned out, the reporting values were for September 2008..I wonder how his algorithmic modelling, that's the one that compensates for everything...possibly including Yahweh would have compensated for that?

Planet X

Second

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude
In the areas I circled, the derivatives rose dramatically, perhaps not as much as the end point of your graph, but they rose quickly just the same.

THIS. THIS is what I'm talking about and you are just trying to casually hand wave it away without trying to explore why the derivative is higher this time. This is a fail at graph interpretation and makes you a lousy scientist. You see unlike you, who is content to not care, scientist DO care about why the end point is higher this time around than the previous times.

No one is denying that temperatures haven't risen before for the #ing thousandth time. Pointing that out is just insulting people's intelligence and shows you either don't know what you are talking about or don't care to learn.

And ignoring the REASONS the temperature rose before is stupid and completely dishonest from a logical point of view. Coming out of an ice age, would you A. expect temperatures to rise, or B. expect temperatures to lower? If you want to talk like a big boy, quit acting like a child. As I said before, the data is what it is, so you don't have to hold you breath or kick you feet.

Now, in the past, as your graph CLEARLY shows, the temperatures had very sharp rises before, much like the rise now (EXCEPT that the rise now appears to be greater). So, should you decide to man up and 'discuss', I'm all for that, if you just want to appear like your winning the temper tantrum, GFYS.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You dont have to read graphs to know its happening. In the US, this has been the hottest summer on record. I have lived in my area since childhood, and at almost 60, I can definitely see the climate is changing. It was 96 degrees almost every day ALL summer, even when we had rain, it hardly cooled down. That's very unusual for where I live. The other thing I have noticed is the lightning is considerably more intense. Makes sense as convection in storm cells from warmer air is stronger. Its happening. We can deny it all we want, but it is happening. The question is, can we really do anything about it? The permafrost in the northern latitudes is starting to melt. That will release a lot of trapped methane and then it becomes a self perpetuating process, we are out of the loop. I just wonder how hot its going to get. Imagine if it goes up to 140 or 150? We wont have to worry about it then.

I agree with crowder.




I wonder where most of you stand on jailing "deniers"? Bill Nye thinks we should!

a reply to: Krazysh0t
looking at the footnote to the table (which has the famous hockey stick form) i find: Proxy-based temperature reconstruction., So I looked for the raw data for the Proxy estimates. not found.
I recall when they called it Global Warming, and the famous UN study cited the Russian tree ring study for the extimate of the last 100 years...and if one out of 12 trees was eliminated, the global warming trend was reversed.
Then I discovered the data from fixed land sites from around the world included around a 100 from China.. but 50 had been moved and no attempt made to correct. Furthermore, the heat island effect is well known, that is, a city grows near a temperature station and it will show higher temperatures. No correction for that in China stats either.
So if NASA does not publish the Actual Source Data, I will not trust their numbers. Ever.

I read this post and found it informative and wanted to congratulate you on your efforts. I think there should be more posts like this one. I have been following up on a lot of information from NOAA and even recently this past year I watched the series called 2016 is strange from YouTube and it shows graphic detailed videos of world wide consequenses of global climate change. I for one believe it is happening for real and that we seriously must get the ball rolling to find real time solutions before it is too late.

a reply to: darkstar57

Honestly, as far as the warming trend goes, you don't have to trust anyone other than your own eyes.

Where I am now, it has hardly snowed in 3 years,
rains a lot, but no snow or it is gone in a day or two.

Highly unusual.

This year the salmon are running later than normal up the rivers here on the island...
Warming is a certainty...

It is a pendulum,
as the planet warms, it becomes unstable and will go hot/cold/hot/cold in more and more extremes.

Or at least that is how I understand large scale warming to be.

I don't visit ATS much anymore, and it's threads like these that remind me why.
It is members like yourself who thrive on fear mongering and belittling mankind, who continue lower the standards of a once great open-minded thriving site. Bravo.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What do you suggest we do about it? Do you think this is a permanent trend?

Solution? LENR.

CO2 and CO is a problem in large amounts and our obsesssion and stagnation with fossil fuels is in fact the crux.

Some say our carbon output isnt enough to make a difference. Even if that were the case (its not) all it could take is one large volcanic eruption combined with our current outpur to tip the scales...

a reply to: TheBulk

Does it matter if one believes in climate change or not? We still have to reduce pollution, stop overpopulating the world and destroying natural habitats, change torturous factory farming practices, stop over induldging, and basically reduce humanity's destruction of the planet.

There is no right or left politics regarding these issues.

If anything, it's the right that so often dismisses anything mentioned above by using the excuse of "leftist propoganda".