72
   

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

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2010 10:09 am
@okie,
Quote:

Personally, I am to the point of simply laughing at this entire global warming fiasco and call it for what it is, a bunch of incompetents that cannot be trusted with legitimate science.

Meanwhile, there are almost another dozen indicators that have nothing to do with thermometers that all point to global warming

1. The migration of birds in Northern Hemisphere has changed, 2 weeks earlier north in spring, 2 weeks later south in fall
2. Ice outs on lakes are on average 2 weeks earlier than 100 years ago
3. glaciers are retreating
4. Ice in the arctic is thinner
5. Satellite readings show warming
6. Drier conditions in forests because of earlier snow melt
7. The list goes on and on.

Explain why birds have changed their migration times if there is no change in global temperature. Be specific.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2010 03:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
ican posted: During the last decade that temperature decreased slightly.

Cycloptichorn posted: I don't understand how you think this is possible, when 14 out of the last 15 years have been the hottest ever recorded.

The following graph clearly shows that average annual global temperature increased slightly after 2000 and then decreased slightly as of 2010.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010.
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010, the average and mean annual global temperature increased less than 1°C (1.8°F).


0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2010 07:42 pm
Enough is enough. I am pissed at all these Global Warming Thuggees quoting irrelevancies when trying to prove the planet is getting hotter due to man.

How many of these have a vested interest in proving Global Warming ? Be it money, prestige or simply agreeing with the boss.

Incorrectly sited thermometers are erroneous. You can not use erroneous data and say it is good enough. The Thuggees do so because it is all they have.

100 years is nothing. Look at the information about the climate of the earth. What 100 year period are they comparing it to ?

0.5 degrees ovea 100 yr trend, even if it exists, is not enough to prove diddly squat.

To demand blind faith is unscientific and anyone who does so needs to be re-educated.

Look up black body effect. How is it possible to allow for greater heating and cooling when the thermometer is incorrectly positioned and is assumed to be recording the required number of measurements ?

Prove the minimum and maximum temperature are accurate enough to predict the heat lost and absorbed during the day.

Prove that the trend period selected is long enough to produce a meaningful trend. My Aunt Nellie thinks 100 years is a long time, but scientifically it is stupid of you to keep quoting it like a mantra.

Prove that slowing the economy and spending billions does not have any other motive but the benefit of the whole planet. Explain how to do this without making the poor poorer.

Find something else to have religious devotion to, apart from being a doomsayer standing on the internet street corner shouting "the end is nigh! "

okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2010 07:50 pm
@Ionus,
And Parados has the nerve to post his anecdotal evidence of earlier bird migrations and such, none of which can be proven with any reliable evidence that is collected according to the strict scientific standards that would be required for it to mean anything. In fact, if anecdotal evidence works, I remember winters that were much warmer than the last 2 or 3 or so, and I remember blazing hot summers when I was a kid, with temps in the 110 plus range, which seldom if ever happens anymore.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2010 08:25 pm
@okie,
Quote:
his anecdotal evidence of earlier bird migrations
To his untrained brain it seems birds would only do such a thing based on temperature. It is impossible that they might like their summer quarters more.....perhaps less predators due to man...if he knows the thoughts of a bird does that make him a bird-brain ?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Aug, 2010 01:41 pm
THE AVERAGE AND MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F) IN THE LAST 100 YEARS.
Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.
Quote:

391
Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, the director of wildlife research with the Arctic government of Nunavut, dismissed these fears of global warming devastating polar bears. "Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present," Taylor said in 2006, noting that Canada is home to two-thirds of the world's polar bears. He added, "It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria." In September 2007, Taylor further debunked the latest report hyping fears of future polar bear extinctions. "I think it's naive and presumptuous," Taylor said, referring to a recent report by the U.S. government warning that computer models predict a dire future for the bears due to projected ice loss. Taylor also debunked the notion that less sea ice means less polar bears by pointing out that southern regions of the bears' home with low levels of ice are seeing booming bear populations. He noted that in the warmer southern Canadian region of the Davis Strait with lower levels of ice, a new survey will reveal that bear populations have grown from an estimated 850 bears to an estimated 3000 bears. And, despite the lower levels of ice, some of the bears measured in this region are among the biggest ever on record. "Davis Strait is crawling with polar bears. It's not safe to camp there. They're fat. The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in good shape," he said, according to a September 14, 2007 article. He added, "That's not theory. That's not based on a model. That's observation of reality." [Note: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs.'] (LINK)

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Aug, 2010 05:07 pm
@okie,
Quote:
And Parados has the nerve to post his anecdotal evidence of earlier bird migrations and such, none of which can be proven with any reliable evidence that is collected according to the strict scientific standards that would be required for it to mean anything.

That's funny okie..


What are those strict evidence standards okie. I'm just curious.

Is it a strict standard if someone fails to take pictures?
Is it a strict standard if they only use one instance as evidence?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Aug, 2010 01:02 am
The temperature of the ground and air in cities shows a relatively large increase in temp since the time when there wasnt a city at that locale. Putting a thermometer in a city and use it to prove the world is getting hotter is rubbish, but to site it incorrectly as well beggars the imagination.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2010 06:46 am
@MontereyJack,
We've been over this loop many times already - this thread started in 2005 and has more than 800 pages - so, once again, citing the NOAA indicators is meaningless: warming there has been, but it can't be anthropogenic unless you can claim we can affect that big light in the sky:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/07/29/arts/0729-MUSEUM2/0729-MUSEUM2-popup-v2.jpg
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/arts/design/29museum.html?_r=1
The NOAA is claiming no such thing; neither is any scientist anywhere. So what is your argument, if any?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2010 07:11 am
@High Seas,
So if the sun is the ONLY thing that affects earth's temperature why is the moon not the same temperature as the Earth?

It couldn't possibly be that atmosphere makes a difference, could it?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2010 07:28 am
@parados,
Quote:
So if the sun is the ONLY thing that affects earth's temperature why is the moon not the same temperature as the Earth?
Are you asking why the moon is hotter and colder ?
Quote:
It couldn't possibly be that atmosphere makes a difference, could it?
If you mean it causes less fluctuations and makes the Earth a more stable system, then yes.
Exactly how does the Earth being a self correcting system lead to your doomsday scenario ?
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2010 08:37 am
@Ionus,
In the politest way possible I recently had to ask Parados to please stop wasting my time. He seems incapable of understanding the simplest things - even after they've been explained to him countless times. In this particular case many posters - including me, on several occasions - have patiently explained to him that the sun is so overwhelmingly the source of all temperature changes on our entire solar system that all remaining factors specific to each planet result from positive and negative feedback loops - 1st, 2nd, 3rd and higher derivatives in mathematically chaotic systems.

For the last time I'll make this effort - cover greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and in the oceans on our planet:
Water vapor: 95 per cent of all greenhouse gasses.
Carbon dioxide: 3.6 %
Other (methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs): 1.4%

Carbon dioxide resulting from man's activities: 3.2% of total CO2, ie 0.12% of total greenhouse gases.
Methane, nitrogen dioxide, CFCs etc traceable to human activities: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

The planet has been through vast changes long before we showed up on the scene - even Parados can grasp that. We can't affect the climate because we can't affect what the sun does - but at least we can conclusively demonstrate that the IPCC "mathematical model" is a joke. This from a recent article:
Quote:
........2.5 billion years ago the sun’s brightness was 20 percent to 30 percent less than it is today (compared to the 2 percent change in energy balance associated with a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels) yet the oceans were unfrozen and the temperatures appear to have been similar to today’s......Interestingly, according to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from manmade gases is already about 86 percent of what one expects from a doubling of carbon dioxide (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons, and ozone). Thus, these models should show much more warming than has been observed.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/09/lindzen-earth-is-never-in-equilibrium/


High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2010 08:56 am
@High Seas,
PS 2.5 billion years ago our oceans were anoxic - ie had no oxygen. Matters changed via biochemical feedback loops still poorly understood.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2010 01:20 pm
@High Seas,
My God High Seas..
Where are your peer reviewed papers on this?

I'm sure you must have written them since you understand the science better than anyone else.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2010 01:38 pm
@parados,
Where is your rational rebuttal on this?


The sun has been proven NOT the center of the universe.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 04:53 am
@parados,
Quote:
My God High Seas..
High Seas is intelligent but that is overdoing it even for your fondness of exageration.
Quote:
Where are your peer reviewed papers on this?
Do you doubt the figures ?
Quote:
I'm sure you must have written them since you understand the science better than anyone else.
You mean anyone understands the science better than you.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 05:55 am
@Ionus,
It is a bit funny though Io that HS knows what happened in the oceans, some number to one decimal place billion years ago. I can't remember the number on account of it being one of those numbers I find instantly forgettable, it wasn't more than 3 billion. To be precise it was either 1.5 billion or 2.5 billion. I think. And I can't go Back to Post because I'm on your post and the figure was on a post higher up the page, old breaking news, and I would have to go through a rigmorale nearly as bad as the rigmarole you have to go through to get a newly-qualified librarian to get her kecks off and lie still in order to be sure I've got it right and Absurdists like us would never expect a colleague to be all that bothered about it one way or the other seeing as how they can't detect any difference in emotional response, assuming astonishment is an emotion, between learning that the oceans were acocktic 1.5 billion years ago or 2.5 billion years ago. Or even 3.1. So I know you'll understand.

Possibly feeling a difference in emotional response to the different estimates is correlated with high intelligence in which case such a hypothesis would strongly suggest that HS is highly intelligent. And as I think HS is highly intelligent I think, using logic, that I think my hypothesis is proved. What it says for those who feel no such difference when faced with these figures I will forbear to speak of.

I don't doubt the figure HS gave is correct. If it wasn't it would prove HS isn't as intelligent as I thought and I can't do that because my hypothesis would be shot down in flames and the whole tenor of this post would be lost.

You see Io--intelligence is measured by knowing such things. That's because those who set intelligence tests know these things themselves and have a reputation riding on the back of them. If you don't know these things you fail these tests and are condemned to having to "work". Assuming digging holes and filling them in again is not work in the economic sense. To get to know them you have to swot. Swotting is an initiation ceremony into the world of intelligence. There are grades.

I have to go. Mrs Jolly is putting her washing out.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 06:58 am
@spendius,
HS post in no way shows this to be true..

High Seas wrote:
warming there has been, but it can't be anthropogenic unless you can claim we can affect that big light in the sky:


It's nothing but a lot of hogwash to attempt to deflect from her statement. Since there is NO literature out there that shows there can't be anthropogenic warming, in particular for the reasons HS stated. I wonder why she hasn't written a peer reviewed paper and ended all the nonsense about anthropogenic warming possibly existing. After all she stated it can't possibly exist unless we can affect the output of the sun.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 11:17 am
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010.
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010, the average and mean annual global temperature increased less than 1°C (1.8°F).
THE AVERAGE AND MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F) IN THE LAST 100 YEARS.
Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.
Quote:

392
Bryan Leyland, head of the International Climate Science Coalition and an engineer, disputed man-made global warming fears in 2007. "Let us start with a simple question: ‘Is the world warming?' The surface temperature records used by the IPCC show that it has warmed by 0.7 deg C since 1900. The world has not warmed since 1998 and temperatures have been steady since 2002. So the only answer can be: ‘It warmed between 1900 and 1998. Nobody knows if the current slight cooling trend will soon end or continue,'" Leyland wrote in a November 2007 commentary. Leyland also disputed any link between man-made CO2 and temperature. "Computer models of the climate show that if it did, the largest increase in temperature would be 10 km above the tropics. Radiosonde observations published in 2006 show NO sign of faster warming. Therefore, we can be sure that man-made carbon dioxide is not causing global warming," Leyland wrote.

parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 11:30 am
@ican711nm,
The good news is that within the next 2 years, ican will no longer be posting this graphic because it will so clearly show the opposite of his claims.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.73 seconds on 02/07/2025 at 09:46:08