|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 7, 2015 20:28:16 GMT 1
So Obama has declared that it is a FACT not an opinion that "climate change" is occurring. To prove it, he posts a video of a NASA animation that has already been thoroughly discredited, two years ago, and admitted to be fabricated even by the global warming scam's most persuasive supporter. At a time when the Western world is still on the brink of complete economic collapse, he ramrods through the most economically destructive measure ever devised, without the slightest chance of any democratic opposition.
When is this madness ever going to end? Nearly 18 years now of no global warming whatsoever, Three years indeed of global cooling. This during record emissions of CO2. This is the most serious disaster that has ever struck the intellectual progress of the human race, in my opinion - it's a clear and present danger to the entire world and so far upward progression of civilisation.
|
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 29, 2015 8:19:21 GMT 1
Did you just make that up?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 30, 2015 0:11:34 GMT 1
No. Unadjusted satellite records.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Sept 15, 2015 12:35:51 GMT 1
According to this link which uses NOAA data: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record9 of the 10 hottest years (since 1880) have occurred since 2000, the other being, of course, 1998. 2014 comes in at number 1 and this year is predicted to be hotter. What evidence do you have to support your contention? |
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Sept 16, 2015 0:14:06 GMT 1
9 of the 10 hottest years (since 1880) have occurred since 2000, A bold statement, considering that nobody had even set foot on Antarctica with a thermometer before 1895. The instrumental temperature record by definition is biassed towards those places that are routinely instrumented to a useful precision - principally airfields, which are subject to long term drainage and development, thus becoming heat islands. The Central England temperature record goes back to the 17th century (i.e. long before the invention of modern thermometers) but obviously doesn't include the period when East Anglia was a tropical swamp populated by hippopotami, and the Romans did not seem unduly troubled with snow on the lines. The world was a lot hotter on several occasions before the industrial revolution, as exemplified by the discovery of 500-year-old bryophytes under a retreating glacier. |
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Sept 17, 2015 17:46:18 GMT 1
Not sure why. The missing data would be for 10% of the earth's land surface for 11% of the time under consideration - i.e. it's 1% of the potential data set. Not going to make a big difference to the conclusion. In any case for virtually all temperatures in the past we haven't had the luxury of thermometers so proxies are used instead. In your post you used several proxies yourself, e.g. lack of snow reports by Romans and hippos in East Anglia so obviously you are comfortable with the principle. Same tired arguments. This is accounted for in the results. Here's the first link I found to demonstrate this. I particularly recommend watching the video - it goes into it in some detail. www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htmIf you think that finding one part of one glacier was ice free 500 years ago disproves global warming you don't understand how science works. If it was shown that the majority of glaciers were smaller 500+ years ago then that would be more interesting. Can you provide this evidence? Here's a link showing how warm the planet has been, based on the evidence we have, over the last 10,000 years: www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what%E2%80%99s-hottest-earth-has-been-%E2%80%9Clately%E2%80%9DCurrently it is warmer than at any time during this period. If you disagree with any of the above I'd be interested to see any actual scientific evidence to demonstrate your claims. |
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 18, 2015 9:45:47 GMT 1
It's being claimed that the world's temperature is about half a degree hotter than it has ever been in the past million years. Half a degree is far less than one percent of the temperature of about 290K.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Sept 27, 2015 20:37:43 GMT 1
Is this the best the denial camp is able to come up with nowadays! Water at -0.25 C is solid, at +0.25 C it's liquid. Sometimes half a degree can make a big difference. And to be precise it's actually around 0.8 / 0.9 C.
In any case if this was as far as the temperature was going to rise it wouldn't be a big issue. The problem is that there further temperature rises already built into the climate - it's going to keep going up.
|
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Sept 28, 2015 7:27:46 GMT 1
Firstly I don't regard myself as part of the denial camp - but I am not just going to accept, without question, what the scientists are saying. The point I was making was that your dismissal of 1% error in the data, by saying "it's not going to make a big difference" is itself erroneous. If a quarter of a degree can make so much difference in the state of water then it is relevant to make sure that the data set we are basing our calculations from is correct, isn't it? Even if the claimed amount of increase is 0.8/0.9C (not what the graph in your link seems to show) that is still less than 1% of the total amount of heat energy in the atmosphere isn't it?
|
|
