Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

If 20,000yrs ago the Global average temp was only 9 degree lower, then that meant that prior to this century the global average has gone up on average 0.045 degrees per century.

If an increase of 1.3 degrees over the last century is not "alarming" then you've got a screw loose or you simply do not care.

T
K
O

Spectacular math you illustrate, Diest, but where do you get the idea that global temperatures warmed at an average, thus apparently implied constant rate of .045 degrees per century..... and for 20,000 years?

Diest TKO wrote:

If 20,000yrs ago the Global average temp was only 9 degree lower, then that meant that prior to this century the global average has gone up on average 0.045 degrees per century.

If an increase of 1.3 degrees over the last century is not "alarming" then you've got a screw loose or you simply do not care.

T
K
O

Spectacular math you illustrate, Diest, but where do you get the idea that global temperatures warmed at an average, thus apparently implied constant rate of .045 degrees per century..... and for 20,000 years?

okie wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

If 20,000yrs ago the Global average temp was only 9 degree lower, then that meant that prior to this century the global average has gone up on average 0.045 degrees per century.

If an increase of 1.3 degrees over the last century is not "alarming" then you've got a screw loose or you simply do not care.

T
K
O

Spectacular math you illustrate, Diest, but where do you get the idea that global temperatures warmed at an average, thus apparently implied constant rate of .045 degrees per century..... and for 20,000 years?

I'll honor none of your requests until you retract your comment.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

If 20,000yrs ago the Global average temp was only 9 degree lower, then that meant that prior to this century the global average has gone up on average 0.045 degrees per century.

If an increase of 1.3 degrees over the last century is not "alarming" then you've got a screw loose or you simply do not care.

T
K
O

Spectacular math you illustrate, Diest, but where do you get the idea that global temperatures warmed at an average, thus apparently implied constant rate of .045 degrees per century..... and for 20,000 years?

I'll honor none of your requests until you retract your comment.

T
K
O

Now that seems like a very creative way of admitting that you do not know the answer to okie's question!

By the way, the above 3000+ year sea temperature graph was for the Sargasso Sea.

one of the graphs posted by ican originates with DR. FREDRICK SEITZ at oism.org .
dr. seitz is also the originator of the anti-kyoto statement .

i believe he is the same dr. seitz who was interviewed in april 2006 to talk about GW , R J REYNONLDS TABACCO and THE BIG OIL companies .
it's far too long to post here , so if you'd like to meet dr. seitz , please go to the link .
no matter where you stand on GW , i'm sure you'll enjoy meeting dr. seitz .
hbg

link :
DR. FREDRICK SEITZ - INTERVIEW

Also, please note this statement near the beginning and to the left of the Q&A: "This is an edited transcript of an interview conducted April 3, 2006."

Did this institution do any direct studies linking tobacco and cancer?

I took it for granted. People are educated enough that they knew it was a hazard.

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

If 20,000yrs ago the Global average temp was only 9 degree lower, then that meant that prior to this century the global average has gone up on average 0.045 degrees per century.

If an increase of 1.3 degrees over the last century is not "alarming" then you've got a screw loose or you simply do not care.

T
K
O

Spectacular math you illustrate, Diest, but where do you get the idea that global temperatures warmed at an average, thus apparently implied constant rate of .045 degrees per century..... and for 20,000 years?

I'll honor none of your requests until you retract your comment.

T
K
O

Now that seems like a very creative way of admitting that you do not know the answer to okie's question!

By the way, the above 3000+ year sea temperature graph was for the Sargasso Sea.

No. You are incorrect. I'd love nothing more than to answer. All okie has to do is retract his/her false statement. highlighted in red above is the worst math assumption I have ever read.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

If 20,000yrs ago the Global average temp was only 9 degree lower, then that meant that prior to this century the global average has gone up on average 0.045 degrees per century.

If an increase of 1.3 degrees over the last century is not "alarming" then you've got a screw loose or you simply do not care.

T
K
O

Spectacular math you illustrate, Diest, but where do you get the idea that global temperatures warmed at an average, thus apparently implied constant rate of .045 degrees per century..... and for 20,000 years?

I'll honor none of your requests until you retract your comment.

T
K
O

Now that seems like a very creative way of admitting that you do not know the answer to okie's question!

By the way, the above 3000+ year sea temperature graph was for the Sargasso Sea.

No. You are incorrect. I'd love nothing more than to answer. All okie has to do is retract his/her false statement. highlighted in red above is the worst math assumption I have ever read.

T
K
O

No need to retract it, diest. You implied by your calculation that the temperature went up that amount per century, simply because that was the average, and I pointed out your mistake. You implied a false assumption.