Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

[saveliberty]

Let's see you people explain how data from Greenland gets put on a chart for the whole world!

What the hell are you talking about? Satellite data is for the entire planet, not just Greenland.

To be fair, the chart is labeled the Northern Hemisphere....

 

[Dubya]

File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So....? maybe things will get as warm as during 1100 BC....and maybe not...
(those SUV chariots really heated things up back then...)

my point remains.....

our planet has been and is subject to NATURAL swings in temperatures.....nothing to get your panties in a twist about.....despite the hysterics of Al Gore and other libs who just want to tax the hell out of you...

You mention that our planet has been subject to (previous) natural swings in temperature as if it's news which just so happens to negate a human cause related to current global warming. Neither is true. Climate scientists are well aware of previous warming and cooling trends. In fact, YOU only know about them because of THEIR scientific research. Odd that you trust their research when it comes to changes that took place hundreds of thousands and even millions of years ago, but you won't grant them any credibility regarding their insights into today's causes.

There's another factor: TIME. I don't mean time as in when. I mean time in terms of how fast. Today's climate change (warming) is happening much faster than previous periods because humans are pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere far faster than previous periods when the changes took place over long periods of geologic time. In case you didn't realize it, that's why the current spike is so steep on the graph.

These people are taking one proxy from one location and applying it to global temperatures. That isn't science. You can't take changes in temperature in Greenland and claim the global temperature was changed by that amount. Notice they use a chart and claim Dansgaard et al as a source! Notice how much they are claiming global temperatures have varied! That's a total lie and isn't based on science.

 

[Dubya]

Gosh....look at how hot it got 7,000 years ago....
i bet they had to really tax the hell out of the people back then for their CO2 emissions....

Here is another thing about your chart:

The values in the table above are anomalies from the 1901–2000 global mean of 13.9°C.[66] For instance, the +0.59°C anomaly in 2007 added to the 1901–2000 mean of 13.9°C gives a global average temperature of 14.49 °C for 2007.[67]

The coolest year in the record was 1911.[63]

Source: Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your global temperature scale has to be off, because it's higher than any temperature on record.

 

[Mustang]

This is one of the reasons why reaching world consensus among gov'ts is so difficult. England, the US, and Australia are historically some of the worst offenders, and other countries expect US to pave the way as far a cost is concerned. Meanwhile, countries like China are NOW the biggest offenders, and we expect THEM to take a leading role in cutting back their emissions. I've only mentioned 4 countries out of about 192 countries in the world, and each country will have a unique perspective.

And then, of course, there's the problem that it's nothing but a huge con.

Tens of thousands of people involved in a con? What are the odds (the statistical odds) of thousands of scientists, most of whom value their professional reputations beyond all other things, engaging in widespread fraud in order to further someone else's agenda? Billions to one, perhaps?

But I can understand something about that view. When people immerse themselves in the dirty, nasty world of politics on a daily basis where ridiculous arguments are routinely trotted out to justify policies that are almost certainly supported due to hidden agendas and motivations, then it's not difficult to understand that these people are the first to suspect the same in other people regardless of the topic. Put simply, they see hidden motivations in all things, even when they're simply not there.

 

[saveliberty]

So....? maybe things will get as warm as during 1100 BC....and maybe not...
(those SUV chariots really heated things up back then...)

my point remains.....

our planet has been and is subject to NATURAL swings in temperatures.....nothing to get your panties in a twist about.....despite the hysterics of Al Gore and other libs who just want to tax the hell out of you...

You mention that our planet has been subject to (previous) natural swings in temperature as if it's news which just so happens to negate a human cause related to current global warming. Neither is true. Climate scientists are well aware of previous warming and cooling trends. In fact, YOU only know about them because of THEIR scientific research. Odd that you trust their research when it comes to changes that took place hundreds of thousands and even millions of years ago, but you won't grant them any credibility regarding their insights into today's causes.

There's another factor: TIME. I don't mean time as in when. I mean time in terms of how fast. Today's climate change (warming) is happening much faster than previous periods because humans are pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere far faster than previous periods when the changes took place over long periods of geologic time. In case you didn't realize it, that's why the current spike is so steep on the graph.

These people are taking one proxy from one location and applying it to global temperatures. That isn't science. You can't take changes in temperature in Greenland and claim the global temperature was changed by that amount. Notice they use a chart and claim Dansgaard et al as a source! Notice how much they are claiming global temperatures have varied! That's a total lie and isn't based on science.

You realize that Global Warming mongers handpicked which sites they used? They used more than two methods for accumulating data back as far as they did (including a long period based on Greenland). Congratulations! You are beginning to see the flaws in the Faither model.

 

[Redfish]

In the 1930s the temp stations were in forests, now the same station is in a concrete parking lot under an A/C unit-------and you wonder why it shows higher readings? WTF is wrong with you people?

 

[Dubya]

You mention that our planet has been subject to (previous) natural swings in temperature as if it's news which just so happens to negate a human cause related to current global warming. Neither is true. Climate scientists are well aware of previous warming and cooling trends. In fact, YOU only know about them because of THEIR scientific research. Odd that you trust their research when it comes to changes that took place hundreds of thousands and even millions of years ago, but you won't grant them any credibility regarding their insights into today's causes.

There's another factor: TIME. I don't mean time as in when. I mean time in terms of how fast. Today's climate change (warming) is happening much faster than previous periods because humans are pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere far faster than previous periods when the changes took place over long periods of geologic time. In case you didn't realize it, that's why the current spike is so steep on the graph.

These people are taking one proxy from one location and applying it to global temperatures. That isn't science. You can't take changes in temperature in Greenland and claim the global temperature was changed by that amount. Notice they use a chart and claim Dansgaard et al as a source! Notice how much they are claiming global temperatures have varied! That's a total lie and isn't based on science.

You realize that Global Warming mongers handpicked which sites they used? They used more than two methods for accumulating data back as far as they did (including a long period based on Greenland). Congratulations! You are beginning to see the flaws in the Faither model.

I knew Denialistas have their sites, but I don't know of any global warming sites.

Where did that chart come from that has obvious errors? They didn't even get the global temperature scale right.

 

[Dubya]

In the 1930s the temp stations were in forests, now the same station is in a concrete parking lot under an A/C unit-------and you wonder why it shows higher readings? WTF is wrong with you people?

We don't have evidence of a global temperature being above 15 degrees C from instruments, but that Denialista chart says it is so.

 

[saveliberty]

Gosh....look at how hot it got 7,000 years ago....
i bet they had to really tax the hell out of the people back then for their CO2 emissions....

Here is another thing about your chart:

The values in the table above are anomalies from the 1901–2000 global mean of 13.9°C.[66] For instance, the +0.59°C anomaly in 2007 added to the 1901–2000 mean of 13.9°C gives a global average temperature of 14.49 °C for 2007.[67]

The coolest year in the record was 1911.[63]

Well moron, the chart has the mean at 15 degrees C (59) Learn math conversions.

Source: Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your global temperature scale has to be off, because it's higher than any temperature on record.

Well moron, the chart has the mean at 15, which is 59 in fahrenheit. Learn math conversions.

 

[Mustang]

How could humans POSSIBLY be affecting the planet ecosystem?

Perhaps population growth could give some doubters a clue. Based on estimates, the world population has grown from approximately 1 Billion people around 1800 to around 7 Billion people just 200 years later.

World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[saveliberty]

How could humans POSSIBLY be affecting the planet ecosystem?

Perhaps population growth could give some doubters a clue. Based on estimates, the world population has grown from approximately 1 Billion people around 1800 to around 7 Billion people just 200 years later.

World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ecosystem: organisms and their environment: a localized group of interdependent organisms together with the environment that they inhabit and depend on.


define ecosystem - Bing DICTIONARY

We are discussing climate moron.

 

[saveliberty]

If you don't understand the terms, its a good time to shut up.

 

[Dubya]

Gosh....look at how hot it got 7,000 years ago....
i bet they had to really tax the hell out of the people back then for their CO2 emissions....

Here is another thing about your chart:

The values in the table above are anomalies from the 1901–2000 global mean of 13.9°C.[66] For instance, the +0.59°C anomaly in 2007 added to the 1901–2000 mean of 13.9°C gives a global average temperature of 14.49 °C for 2007.[67]

The coolest year in the record was 1911.[63]

Source: Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your global temperature scale has to be off, because it's higher than any temperature on record.

Well moron, the chart has the mean at 15, which is 59 in fahrenheit. Learn math conversions.

The average global temperature from 1901 to 2000 is 13.9 degrees C. We have never had a measured global temperature above 14.559 degrees C, so how can that chart say we have?

Learn to read English, moron!

 

[Mustang]

How could humans POSSIBLY be affecting the planet ecosystem?

Perhaps population growth could give some doubters a clue. Based on estimates, the world population has grown from approximately 1 Billion people around 1800 to around 7 Billion people just 200 years later.

World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ecosystem: organisms and their environment: a localized group of interdependent organisms together with the environment that they inhabit and depend on.


define ecosystem - Bing DICTIONARY

We are discussing climate moron.

If you can't keep up in this thread, just go to another one. Perhaps a birther thread is more your speed.

 

[bripat9643]

These people are taking one proxy from one location and applying it to global temperatures. That isn't science. You can't take changes in temperature in Greenland and claim the global temperature was changed by that amount. Notice they use a chart and claim Dansgaard et al as a source! Notice how much they are claiming global temperatures have varied! That's a total lie and isn't based on science.

Which chart is based on only temperatures in Greenland? I don't see any such chart.

 

[Dubya]

These people are taking one proxy from one location and applying it to global temperatures. That isn't science. You can't take changes in temperature in Greenland and claim the global temperature was changed by that amount. Notice they use a chart and claim Dansgaard et al as a source! Notice how much they are claiming global temperatures have varied! That's a total lie and isn't based on science.

Which chart is based on only temperatures in Greenland? I don't see any such chart.

I've posted the chart and Dansgaard was involved in the Camp Century, Greenland ice core analysis. The chart doesn't even have accurate global temperature scales and is just another denialista hack job.

 

[nodoginnafight]

How could humans POSSIBLY be affecting the planet ecosystem?

Perhaps population growth could give some doubters a clue. Based on estimates, the world population has grown from approximately 1 Billion people around 1800 to around 7 Billion people just 200 years later.

World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ecosystem: organisms and their environment: a localized group of interdependent organisms together with the environment that they inhabit and depend on.


define ecosystem - Bing DICTIONARY

We are discussing climate moron.

If you can't keep up in this thread, just go to another one. Perhaps a birther thread is more your speed.

These are the people who try to lecture us on "science"????

 

[nodoginnafight]

I guess all the ice on the polar ice caps must have just gotten too cold, so it decided to pack up and move down south ....

 

[Dubya]

Gosh....look at how hot it got 7,000 years ago....
i bet they had to really tax the hell out of the people back then for their CO2 emissions....

Look how much the global temperature have varied in the past 2,000 years backed on that bogus chart and how much it varies according to these proxies:

The Denialista bogus chart has nearly a two degree C variation in global temperatures, but a chart using scientific methods to evaluate proxies has less than one degree C in all the proxies. The bogus chart has data for temperatures more than a degree higher than any temperature on record. The chart is a sloppy attempt to apply Greenland ice sheet variation of temperatures to global temperatures.

 

[saveliberty]

How could humans POSSIBLY be affecting the planet ecosystem?

Perhaps population growth could give some doubters a clue. Based on estimates, the world population has grown from approximately 1 Billion people around 1800 to around 7 Billion people just 200 years later.

World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ecosystem: organisms and their environment: a localized group of interdependent organisms together with the environment that they inhabit and depend on.


define ecosystem - Bing DICTIONARY

We are discussing climate moron.

If you can't keep up in this thread, just go to another one. Perhaps a birther thread is more your speed.

You're the one who can't distinguish between climate and an ecosystem moron.