Breaking Heat records all over by 10 degrees

a reply to: toysforadults


One thing is clear with the graphs , and that we are all agreed that we are in an interglacial phase, on average this warm lasts 12 thousand years. Depending on how you read it the long term trend will be glacial, the instability we are seeing could be interpreted as the warning signs. As sure as night follows day, interglacials are followed by glaciation.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Greven

what you are putting out there is a total falsification because the earth actually responses to this by creating more plant life (carbon based life forms) that then circulate more oxygen it's like a big cycle

You seem to not understand that the O2 emitted by photosynthesis doesn't come from splitting CO2, but from splitting 2 H2O.

a reply to: Greven

My opinion has not changed. See my reply to Phage. You guys try to read my mind instead of limiting it to what I posted.

You don't think such a tall graph to cover two degrees is for a reason? To exaggerate it in peoples minds? Anything over 75 to 100 years back is best guess when it comes to those graphs. They have no actual real time data from accurate instruments.

Do you think a rise of a few centimeters in the next hundred years will flood cities before they can adjust for it? Do think food production places and methods can't be changed to accommodate the climate change? I simply do not buy into the doom porn aspects of this. That's pure politics that led to the carbon credits scam from people who it would have made very much richer.

My mind has changed some over the last twenty years. Hasn't yours?

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Phage

stop putting words in my mouth, stop creating strawmen and then responding to something I never said it looks ridiculous

it's like talking to yourself

Then why don't you say what you meant?

it's alllllll about the sun

Because I don't think it's any secret why it gets hotter in the summer and colder in the winter. What was your point?

a reply to: Blaine91555

Do you think a rise of a few centimeters in the next hundred years will flood cities before they can adjust for it?

Estimates run higher than that but are you familiar with the problem of salt water intrusion?

That's pure politics that led to the carbon credits scam from people who it would have made very much richer.

That same "scam" seems to have resulted in a great decrease in SO2 emissions without raising costs. Is it bad if someone makes money from something that works?

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: toysforadults


One thing is clear with the graphs , and that we are all agreed that we are in an interglacial phase, on average this warm lasts 12 thousand years. Depending on how you read it the long term trend will be glacial, the instability we are seeing could be interpreted as the warning signs. As sure as night follows day, interglacials are followed by glaciation.

exactly!

you got it man!!!

we are in an ice age for what the last 2 million years?

a reply to: Blaine91555

You guys try to read my mind instead of limiting it to what I posted.

yes this is exactly what they do and then they respond to their alleged mind read rather than to what you actually said, I find it highly annoying and it's a tactic for those who can't admit fault

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burdman30ott6

What do you think about satellite data which shows warming.
Ocean heat content?

35 years worth of data is meaningless when we're discussing a 4.5 Billion year old sphere and it's climate, ya? I'm not saying we're not seeing warmer temperatures (and colder temperatures for that matter) peppered through each year than have previously been observed, I'm saying nothing that's being presently pushed is outside of the margin of error where present day estimates of past temperatures are concerned. I'll also say coastal ocean temperature changes are partly attributable to "heat islands" as the drainage from those heat islands goes into the ocean at a warmer temperature (and greater volume) than runoff from open fields does.

I don't think we're too far apart from each other on identification of the symptoms, Phage. Obviously the jet stream is moving and the effects aren't good. We're only vastly different on our positions as to why it's happening. I say it's a natural event, and the concept of Anthromorphic climate change is little more than an opportunity seized to take more money and control from the people using false cause and effect combined with a very well organized and propagandized campaign and the actual "culprit" here is simply Mother Nature and her endless cycles of change. Mankind sometimes needs to reign in our arrogance and realize we're simply not that powerful and can neither cause nor prevent nature's ultimate plans from seeing fruition.

a reply to: Greven

What equipment was used to provide the data?

Who collected the data?

How was the equipment calibrated?

Who did the calibration?


Get back to me when you have real answers. Until then, just quote stuff someone else said because it confirms your bias. Just like religion.

pfft.

a reply to: Phage

Add up the daily highs reported by the NOAA, divide by the number of days in that month. That's not a monthly average of high temperature readings for that month?

I do not see any reason beyond money and politics for the doom porn. With that kind of time we would be true idiots if we could not easily adapt. But then, we humans do do dumb things all the time, like rebuilding in flood zones.

I'm not opposed to progress that way at all. I don't see the need to cause economic chaos to do that. We know and if those impacted wait to long to adapt, that's on them. Destroying economies won't help anyone but those who would profit from hyping the danger for personal profit or politics.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

35 years worth of data is meaningless when we're discussing a 4.5 Billion year old

4.5 billion years is meaningless when it comes to human effects on climate.


Physics tell us that rising CO2 concentrations will cause increasing temperatures. The current warming trend cannot be accounted for by anything that we can measure other than increasing CO2 concentrations. There are theories about what caused climate to change in the past. None of those things are happening now. The past 100 years, the past 50 years has shown a more rapid change in temperatures than can be discerned in any prehistoric record.

There's a chance that some unknown, unmeasured thing is happening. But CO2 sure fits the bill. But maybe it's not CO2. So let's just pretend it isn't and keep burning fossil fuels.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Greven

My opinion has not changed. See my reply to Phage. You guys try to read my mind instead of limiting it to what I posted.

You don't think such a tall graph to cover two degrees is for a reason? To exaggerate it in peoples minds? Anything over 75 to 100 years back is best guess when it comes to those graphs. They have no actual real time data from accurate instruments.

Do you think a rise of a few centimeters in the next hundred years will flood cities before they can adjust for it? Do think food production places and methods can't be changed to accommodate the climate change? I simply do not buy into the doom porn aspects of this. That's pure politics that led to the carbon credits scam from people who it would have made very much richer.

My mind has changed some over the last twenty years. Hasn't yours?

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: amazing

Ah yes, what was that...

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Greven

I understand what's being said and why, I just don't think that economically destructive means are needed and in fact they will backfire in the end. Only money can fix problems, only private industry can create solutions and without R&D money from profits from current technology can anything meaningful be done.

Look at that atrocity of an agreement they had going before they peeled back the camouflage and thankfully we got out of it. China lied and activists help with that nonsense. China will take the most profitable course no matter what's being said. We keep taking steps forward and the world answers by saying pay us to do the right thing, all of which leads to talk and more talk.

I think the doom and gloom have been highly exaggerated to stimulate research funding and institutions and people who profit from that. What's needed are not pie in the sky, we can switch to renewable, clean everything right now nonsense presented in this collaboration between science clawing for money and politicians.

Your opinions are irrational. The internet came about due to scientific research at universities in conjunction with the government, yet you post emphatically that only private industry can create solutions? That it's all puffed up?

Hell no, time after time, studies find that science is underestimating how dire things are.

Two degrees is tall for a reason. Given a range of less than 20 degrees over the last 500 million years, do you see that 2 degrees is a lot? The last time New York was under a mile of ice, it was maybe 5 degrees cooler than today!

Ah yes, carbon credits. WHO CARES? You cannot rationally argue that some proposed solution YOU DON'T LIKE means that the PROBLEM ITSELF DOESN'T EXIST! It's ludicrous. It belies your entire position.

You know what I see? More immigrants fleeing climate change. More famines as croplands desiccate. More movement away from the coasts. More movement of animals as their ranges shift with the climate. Wars over resources are likely. Worse and worse, for our entire lifetimes. It seems likely to me that human populations will decline in this century as things deteriorate.

Sure, my mind has changed. I was skeptical, then read research with an open mind, and determined that the facts supported human-induced climate change.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Add up the daily highs reported by the NOAA, divide by the number of days in that month. That's not a monthly average of high temperature readings for that month?

That would be an average of daily highs, and it clarifies what you were talking about. Previously you said "monthly average."

Did you attempt to find out how NOAA arrived at values that conflicted with yours? Their analytic methods are generally available.

Destroying economies won't help anyone but those who would profit from hyping the danger for personal profit or politics.

I don't think that reducing CO2 emissions will destroy economies. I think it will lead to innovation which will increase efficiency. I don't think the fossil fuel industry is in favor of that.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

What equipment was used to provide the data?

Who collected the data?

How was the equipment calibrated?

Who did the calibration?


Get back to me when you have real answers. Until then, just quote stuff someone else said because it confirms your bias. Just like religion.

pfft.

Why oh why didn't you want to quote me, I wonder?

Probably because you have no possible way to refute my argument.

I'm not your damn monkey. Find it yourself.

I researched myself and found that data myself. Your religion is yourself.

a reply to: Phage

Depends on who pays Phage. Whose wallets do they dip into? It's always the middle class and small business that pays. The poor would pay a lot of it in higher costs for anything that uses energy to produce and that's pretty much everything.

a reply to: Greven

You can't answer my questions because the information is not available.

I wonder why. . .

But you keep the faith!

a reply to: Phage

No back then their website was not much other than forecasts and links to data.

As far as innovation, it's come on its own without the need for forcing it. It's happening now. let the market drive it. When it's affordable and adaptable to all the climates, it will come and come quickly without the need to take anyone's money. Just my opinion and thanks for the conversation Phage.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Phage

Depends on who pays Phage. Whose wallets do they dip into? It's always the middle class and small business that pays. The poor would pay a lot of it in higher costs for anything that uses energy to produce and that's pretty much everything.

Idiotic economic schemes to counter human-induced climate change are irrelevant to the factual reality that humans are causing climate change.

Separate the two.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lumenari

Breaking records where you are doesn't mean it is 10 degrees hotter everywhere.

That's true, but when there are consistently far more all time high temperature records set as opposed to all time low temperature records, it's...interesting.

In the last 365 days in the US there have been 157 all time high records set and 21 all time lows.
In the last 365 days globally there have been 338 all time high records set and 48 all time lows.

All time records. Highest ever. Not daily highs, not "hottest 4th of July." Not hottest for the month, not hottest for year. Hottest ever.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...


I've been posting these statistics for a few years now. It's been quite consistent. Way more all time highs than all time lows.

Yawn.

This is the first year in recorded history that nobody has died so far this year by tornado in America.

Record low tornado activity, actually.

As far as scientists in the 80's and 70's, lots of them out there were warning about the coming ice age.

Newsweek Article, 1975

At least they were not asking to tax everyone out of existence then. All they wanted to do was things like covering Antarctica in soot to melt the South Pole, or possibly divert Arctic rivers in an effort to warm the planet.

So as far as the climate changing? It always has, always will.

I suspect it has a lot more to do with the activities of our only source of heat for the planet (the sun) and a whole lot less to do with anything the Cult of Gore is proposing.

But to each their own...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

You can't answer my questions because the information is not available.

I wonder why. . .

But you keep the faith!

You can't refute the physics that human-induced climate change is based on.

In fact, you are denying that spectrometers work like physicists say they do, by inference of your questioning.

Keep the deranged faith. We can go around like this all day.