Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks: Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)

+5
Wordslinger
no stress
2seaoat
boards of FL
Markle
9 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 4]

2seaoat



When there is a 97% consensus among scientist, I am not going to spend a moment of time any longer entertaining the 3% theories. I did that until this year, and I have zero uncertainty as to man's contribution to climate change after seeing what is happening in Greenland and watching the Vice special on HBO. I honestly believe the properties I am leaving to children on canals are going to be rendered worthless in less than 25 years, and that beach property will be worthless in that time frame.

Markle

Markle

Bob wrote:This is a timeline that's hard to argue with.  

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks:  Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)  - Page 4 Global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009

So we can start with that.  And it does seem pretty apparent that there is a definite correlation between the amount of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere and rising temperature.  And it does seem to have begun when we first started burning fossil fuels and it's increased over time.

Except for the fact that even Al "Snake Oil Salesman" Gore acknowledged that rises in temperature, which we have NOT had for over 17 years, often preceded rises in CO2.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Markle wrote:

Except for the fact that even Al "Snake Oil Salesman" Gore acknowledged that rises in temperature, which we have NOT had for over 17 years, often preceded rises in CO2.

Firstly, I don't give any creedence to any politicians or talk show hosts on this topic. Period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But here's an explanation from a science journal for what it's worth...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:This is a timeline that's hard to argue with.  

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks:  Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)  - Page 4 Global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009

So we can start with that.  And it does seem pretty apparent that there is a definite correlation between the amount of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere and rising temperature.  And it does seem to have begun when we first started burning fossil fuels and it's increased over time.


Heres the problem trying to debate with all of you already made up minds.

You think on a micro level. That is such a short period of time, its not relevant on the large scale. You want to look at a few short years when data that goes back way longer than that clearly shows a pattern that earth changes, even before man came along.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

crow,

You're just making a variation of the limbaugh argument.  That man is so insignificant in comparison to the Earth that something manmade could never impact that much on the well-being of the Earth.

Keep this in mind.  Not god,  not nature,  not anything has ever been able to render a huge area on the surface of the Earth uninhabitable for a hundred years and do it instantly, EXCEPT for one thing.  That would be humans. They call it Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Did it destroy the Earth?  No.  But if the Earth is rendered unfit for human occupancy then the fact that it's still standing there aint much consolation.

Guest


Guest

Ever wonder why the charts like to begin at about 1850?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum). [1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939. [2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, [3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850, [6] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming. [7] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period. [8]

Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate, or decreases in the human population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China [1] and other countries, [2][3][3][4][5][6][7] lasting from about AD 950 to 1250. [8] It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important. [9][10]

Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 for which data are scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980. Proxy records from different regions show peak warmth at different times during the Medieval Warm Period, indicating the heterogeneous nature of climate at the time. [11] Temperatures in some regions matched or exceeded recent temperatures in these regions, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures. [8]

(I recently read an article that brings that last sentence, and sweeping conclusion into great question)

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:crow,

You're just making a variation of the limbaugh argument.  That man is so insignificant in comparison to the Earth that something manmade could never impact that much on the well-being of the Earth.

Keep this in mind.  Not god,  not nature,  not anything has ever been able to render a huge area on the surface of the Earth uninhabitable for a hundred years and do it instantly,  EXCEPT for one thing.  That would be humans. They call it Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Did it destroy the Earth?  No.  But if the Earth is rendered unfit for human occupancy then the fact that it's still standing there aint much consolation.

bob, I don't even know what the Limbaugh argument is. I don't listen to him.

I am simply telling you the straight deal. You claim you want to discuss this without politics, but you keep bring politics into it.

And do not change the subject. This isn't about pollution, its about if man made global warming. And if you look AT ALL THE DATA, not just a few years you will see cycles. look at pkr's data. he has given great data.

why do you refuse to study the ice ages? I feel it is because you too already have a preconceived ideology which obviously has been fed to you by the agenda.

If you refuse to study ice ages and take a honest look at data longer than a few hundred years old, then there is no discussion. It is simply you believing the agenda and us trying to get you to look at facts. And frankly, im very bored with that scenario and was hoping to discuss facts for once.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:
Markle wrote:

Except for the fact that even Al "Snake Oil Salesman" Gore acknowledged that rises in temperature, which we have NOT had for over 17 years, often preceded rises in CO2.

Firstly,  I don't give any creedence to any politicians or talk show hosts on this topic.  Period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But here's an explanation from a science journal for what it's worth...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html


Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks:  Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)  - Page 4 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ-YN538YUzCqRBvAeW0e5aUZ57NonfmvnW7SlRWwBR0D69cQmsJg

There's a simple way of looking at this Bob.

Gases, even carbon dioxide which the left is using as the culprit in this scenario, do not trap heat as efficiently as a liquid. That's why the heating in old houses used boilers filled with water instead of gas. So the thing to worry about, in humble opinion, is how much heat has been trapped in the oceans. If you look at the graph below the oceans have been cooling instead of heating up...

Uh oh...ONCE AGAIN SCIENCE speaks:  Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)  - Page 4 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQy_oWo1VoW6qy0G78JF7cTQtGR2wLBWN8NzAMzKEsTUCN_KH53SA

The oceans drive the climate. That's why the gulf stream is so important to England. If Greenland and the island mountain range between it and England didn't exist the gulf stream would not give England the heat it needs and most of it would be a frozen waste most of the year. Along with a lot of northern Europe. Basic Oceanography 101.

Yes the atmosphere heats the land masses but it's the ocean that's heating the atmosphere in northern Europe.

As I see it it's the oceans that are the powerhouses that drive the climate. Not the atmosphere.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvoG36nUcSU

 Smile

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum