Global warming is accelerating, but how much? NCDC data in OP:

[daveman]

The NCDC publishes great media:

Global Climate Change Indicators

How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans. These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements.

These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change.

You left out "altered to fit the model" -- which is, of course, hideously bad science.

 

[daveman]

I don't think the US Government scientists or other reputable scientists are lying or failing, unless they screwed up, by failing to study acidification, which will kill all the shellfish, without the oceans even becoming caustic, as they will become.

Then the seas will go up and over, on major coastal cities. We could lose a lot of Florida and big parts of NOLA and other US cities, by 2050, if this goes as fast as it could. Too bad anybody with Crapforbrains won't prepare.

Oh, you mean like Al Gore and his beach house?

He thanks you for your gullibility while he's enjoying the ocean view.

 

[daveman]

I guess that part escaped somebody, about the ten hottest years in the instrument-record happened, in the last 12 years. If you aren't as smart as a black person, don't try to shuffle in here with a 'wassup,' and don't expect to avoid getting called trash.

Reference your allegation, of slowing warming, or get called asshole, with the other shitters, Matthew. Who says warming is slowing, how much, and put down links.

Racist asshole is racist.

 

[daveman]

We're not all gonna die The earth will not be destroyed There's no need to panic.

The human habitat will be marginalized, and then humans will retreat, from uninhabitable areas, and then, other habitats will fail, and humans will die, until our numbers consist of persons, who can stand the heat.

The oceans will fail, as a source of food. Jellyfish will become the dominant species, in one scenario. By 2050, most of the people at this forum, today will be dead.

But if the survivors don't get their shit together, numbers will be cut. That will happen, out of control, thanks to all the fine planning, we can see.

It's selfish and irresponsible of you to continue exhaling carbon dioxide.

Stop it.

 

[flacaltenn]

this is exactly the type of graph that really pisses me off. it is a non sequitor with two images on the same graph with the y axis and origins manipulated to give a false impression that the two things under discussion are connected

Yeah -- but try explaining WHY the author did it that way to hemp and doom crowd..

Actually tho -- if by adjusting JUST the scale and the offset -- you can make it look similiar -- there COULD BE a relation of some dam type between the data series. That's all it says..

I suggest "How to Lie with Statistics" -- Darrell Hunt. It's written for the lay person and is a quick gas to read..

 

[wirebender]

What law of physics do you propose opposes the outcome of runaway warming, from onslaught of GHGs and the tendencies, which are evident, relative to such an onslaught?

Sure bob. Unlike you, I actually can answer science questions and I don't have to do a load of cut and paste in hopes of perhaps posting something that relates to the questions I am being asked.

Off the top of my head, the four physical laws that are violated by the greenhouse effect as described by climate science are the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, and the Stefan_Boltzman laws.

And the idea of runaway warming is so stupid that even climate scientists don't mention it any more. Most of the world's population knows by now that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have historically been as high as 7000ppm with no runaway warming so the idea that anything less than 7000ppm might cause warming is sheer idiocy.

YOU are the retard, who can't read a graph, yet you make demands. YOU come up with a law of physics, which might be violated, queen of wingpunks. Don't forget to offer theory.[/B][/I]

It is clear that it is you who can't read a graph bob. I gave you one that simply expressed temperature over a long period of time and you couldn't make heads nor tails of it, then you asked for one that showed temperature and CO2 concentrations and that one escaped you as well. Using the two graphs you couldn't answer two simple questions and still can't answer them. The questions were:

1. What was the average temperature of the earth before it decended into the present ice age?

2. What was the atmospheric CO2 concentration prior to entering the present ice age?

With two graphs that explicitly gave this information and were in fact created to express the answers to those questions, you were unable to give an answer. Then blab on about me not being able to read a graph as if anyone here, even old rocks, would beleive that I can't read a graph. I am laughing in your face bob. Great big donky laughs. HE HAWWW HHHEEEE HAAWWWWW.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We're not all gonna die The earth will not be destroyed There's no need to panic.

The human habitat will be marginalized, and then humans will retreat, from uninhabitable areas, and then, other habitats will fail, and humans will die, until our numbers consist of persons, who can stand the heat.

The oceans will fail, as a source of food. Jellyfish will become the dominant species, in one scenario. By 2050, most of the people at this forum, today will be dead.

But if the survivors don't get their shit together, numbers will be cut. That will happen, out of control, thanks to all the fine planning, we can see.

I don't have kids.

But if things are really going to be as bad as you say why don't you buy a bullet and rent a gun and put yourself out of our misery.

 

[Old Rocks]

What law of physics do you propose opposes the outcome of runaway warming, from onslaught of GHGs and the tendencies, which are evident, relative to such an onslaught?

Sure bob. Unlike you, I actually can answer science questions and I don't have to do a load of cut and paste in hopes of perhaps posting something that relates to the questions I am being asked.

Off the top of my head, the four physical laws that are violated by the greenhouse effect as described by climate science are the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, and the Stefan_Boltzman laws.

And the idea of runaway warming is so stupid that even climate scientists don't mention it any more. Most of the world's population knows by now that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have historically been as high as 7000ppm with no runaway warming so the idea that anything less than 7000ppm might cause warming is sheer idiocy.

YOU are the retard, who can't read a graph, yet you make demands. YOU come up with a law of physics, which might be violated, queen of wingpunks. Don't forget to offer theory.[/B][/I]

It is clear that it is you who can't read a graph bob. I gave you one that simply expressed temperature over a long period of time and you couldn't make heads nor tails of it, then you asked for one that showed temperature and CO2 concentrations and that one escaped you as well. Using the two graphs you couldn't answer two simple questions and still can't answer them. The questions were:

1. What was the average temperature of the earth before it decended into the present ice age?

2. What was the atmospheric CO2 concentration prior to entering the present ice age?

With two graphs that explicitly gave this information and were in fact created to express the answers to those questions, you were unable to give an answer. Then blab on about me not being able to read a graph as if anyone here, even old rocks, would beleive that I can't read a graph. I am laughing in your face bob. Great big donky laughs. HE HAWWW HHHEEEE HAAWWWWW.

The chortles of an idiot. You still are unable to read a simple graph. All your questions have been answered many times with direct referance to the papers of real scientists, not internet imposters.

 

[wirebender]

The chortles of an idiot. You still are unable to read a simple graph. All your questions have been answered many times with direct referance to the papers of real scientists, not internet imposters.

Just to prove that you haven't been reduced to the part of a cheerleader waving pom poms how about you point out exactly which chart I was unable to read.

Then point to any part of the scripture you have posted here that represents actual proof that the activities of man has anything to do with the changing global climate.

 

[bobgnote]

Take a look at this very simple (even you should be able to understand it) graph describing the temperature history of the earth then tell me exactly what it is about the present climate that you find troubling, or unusual, or unprecedented.

The graph you pasted was a complete waste, with two unexplained plots. You don't have the Holocene or Anthrocene eras at the top, the graph is on its end, and it is not worth a look, unless we are telling Ms. Wienerbitch to **** the hell off. You didn't link it or provide text, and you got to keep it up, anyway, queen with a wiener.

The graph worth reading, where you had tardy-trouble follows:

Still confused? Shall we review text, at several Wienerbitch posts?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Both the RISS and UAH shows the warming "rate" has halved since 1998. They show .011-.13 per year of warming... The Europeans think it has stopped, but they don't have arctic and antarctic coverage either.

Only the GISS comes to close to a steady warming rate. Yes, you can get the 2000-2008 period to be the warmest decade ever by simply avging those years against 1990-1999, 1980-1989, ect. Doesn't have to be much or any warming to do it.

This years avg global anomaly should be around .57c based on a .015c warming per year. Of course we're in a nina, but we're developing a nino...So it should be around .54.56 at least.

.015x+(~.4)=

.4 was around 1998-2000 period http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

So .4+(.015*12)=.57 to .58 anomaly range for 2012. This shows that we warmed from around .38-.4 to .57 or .18c to .2c for the 12 year period. I'm going moe with the giss and noaa saying this of course!

Does make sense as we seem to be following this pretty closely.

By 2020 we should be near .7c for the mean's of the temperature anomaly graph. So a prediction can be made that every one of the top 5 will be replaced with new ones!

DO NOT start from 2000 as the trend started in 1990 of course...If you start in a nina year you will be attacked as being a nut case! Do not start in 1993 as that's a volcano and you will be laughed at!

The warmers will state that you need to follow the 15-20 year trend anyways, but it sure does look like the past 6-8 years have nearly stopped warming if you start within the last decade. The reason you need 15-20 years at least is because the ENSO cycles are .15 +-, meaning you're dealing with a lot of noise. A decades worth of it.

I WILL ADMIT THAT if the current "slope" of warming keeps up for another 5-8 years then we could say that the rate of warming has SLOWN. Decelerating

Doesn't matter what the cause is, but this is just what's occurring based on the data we do have.

 

[wirebender]

The graph you pasted was a complete waste, with two unexplained plots. You don't have the Holocene or Anthrocene eras at the top, the graph is on its end, and it is not worth a look, unless we are telling Ms. Wienerbitch to **** the hell off. You didn't link it or provide text, and you got to keep it up, anyway, queen with a wiener.

]

Poor ole bob. You know so little that not only can you not read the graph, you have no idea what time frames are included because the periods of time are not listed in the same manner as your cut and paste sources.

See the top end of the graph" The word "today" covers the period from the end of the pliestocene to the present. That period called "today" would ordinarily be called the holocene which, formally, is the period from the end of the pliestocene to the present. Anthropocene is not even a formal term. It is an informal term that is used, or not used with no matter at all. It was suggested in 2008 that the term be adopted as a formal term, but to date, it remains unadopted.

None the less, the graph goes right up to the present. Clearly you don't know what the meaning of the word today is.

I am truely sorry that you and rocks are such blatant idiots that you don't know what the term today means and that the holocene is covered by the period titled "today". The graph was taken from one of the most highly respected paleohistory sites in the world and was written for those with only a rudimentary understanding of the various ages. Clearly your understanding falls even below the classification of rudimentary. My condolences to the both of you.

Your own graph is cherrypicked, incorporates altered data, and doesn't even cover an eyeblink of geological time. It certainly does not even come close to reaching far enough back in time to inclued the beginning of the present ice age.

 

[wirebender]

Doesn't matter what the cause is, but this is just what's occurring based on the data we do have.

Tell me matthew, considering that the earth is, and has been in the process of coming out of an ice age for a very long time now, what, exactly is it about increasing temperatures that bothers you? What was the global mean temperature at the point the present ice age began? Looking at the temperature history of the earth, what is the likely global temperature going to be when we have completely exited the present ice age?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Doesn't matter what the cause is, but this is just what's occurring based on the data we do have.

Tell me matthew, considering that the earth is, and has been in the process of coming out of an ice age for a very long time now, what, exactly is it about increasing temperatures that bothers you? What was the global mean temperature at the point the present ice age began? Looking at the temperature history of the earth, what is the likely global temperature going to be when we have completely exited the present ice age?

Well, the Holocene thermal maximum around 4-6 thousand years ago was the "peak" of the current innerglacial period. Based on the cycles of the past 800,000 thousand years at least we should be slowly sloping down with smaller "sin" wave like cooling and warming periods within the longer term cycles. Kind of like The Roman, Medevil, little ice age, etc like.

I wouldn't so much say we're coming out of the glacial as we have very likely seen the peak of the present innerglacial along time ago, but I will say, some if not most of the warming could be a rebound out of the little "ice age". Another medieval warm period!


Ice age=ice sheets at the poles. Around 30 million years ago it was anywhere from 5-8c warmer than today with 400-700 PPM more co2 in the Atmosphere. This is around the time of the formation of the Antarctic ice sheets. The current climate regime of glacial and innerglacial every 100-120 thousand years started around 800-900 thousand years ago...

2 million years ago the earth was 1-2c warmer then today
30 million years ago the erath was 6-7c warmer then today

So when we exit the ice age the earth will be a lot warmer.

Just all interesting to behold!

 

[wirebender]

Based on the cycles of the past 800,000 thousand years at least we should be slowly sloping down with smaller "sin" wave like cooling and warming periods within the longer term cycles. Kind of like The Roman, Medevil, little ice age, etc like.

Should? That is an interesting word. Upon what do you base its use? How many documented exits from ice ages do we have under our belt. We have some reasonably high resolution information on the interglacials experienced during the exit from the present ice age, but we really have no idea what the big picture of coming out of an ice age looks like. It would seem to me that the further out we get, the more rapidly the warming will increase. The point is, that we know where the natural cycles are headed so why the handwringing if not for political power and money?

The present situation is very analogous to the mystic priests of the days of old. They knew when eclipses etc were likely to happen and could read the signs for good or bad harvests and used that information to gain power over those who lacked thier insight. Today, climate science knows that the earth is going to warm and continue to warm in the long term because of the fact that we are coming out of an ice age. Reasonably educated people should be aware of this as well but a large number aren't. Certain scientists have taken on the mantle of priests and demand sacrifice to appease whatever anticapitalist god they represent and promise doom if we don't mend our ways.

Truthfully, I am moderately offended that so many of my fellow human beings have fallen for this hoax and believe even to a small degree. Are we as a species really this advanced and at the same time this gullible, slow, and stupid?

 

[waltky]

Mebbe its gettin' hotter `cause we're gettin' closer to the 11 year solar-cycle peak in 2013?...

... but Granny says it don't matter anyway...

... `cause Jesus gonna come back Dec.21...

... an' the only people gonna be left is the bad ones...

... an' dem terrorists an' lefty lib'ral, Bible-hatin', illegal-alien-sympathizin' yankee media types...

... if dey don't repent an' get right with the good Lord.

 

[bobgnote]

Sure global warming will slow down, fucktards. Fish already don't swim in a lot of areas, of the oceans. After the oceanic food chain collapses, jellyfish take over. Humans depopulate on land, then the sea gets up to 36 C, when organisms respirate N2S, which has happened, before.

 

[wirebender]

Sure global warming will slow down, fucktards. Fish already don't swim in a lot of areas, of the oceans. After the oceanic food chain collapses, jellyfish take over. Humans depopulate on land, then the sea gets up to 36 C, when organisms respirate N2S, which has happened, before.

If you actually believe that bilge, you must be a miserable, fearful sod indeed.

 

[bobgnote]

Based on the cycles of the past 800,000 thousand years at least we should be slowly sloping down with smaller "sin" wave like cooling and warming periods within the longer term cycles. Kind of like The Roman, Medevil, little ice age, etc like.

Should? That is an interesting word. Upon what do you base its use? How many documented exits from ice ages do we have under our belt. We have some reasonably high resolution information on the interglacials experienced during the exit from the present ice age, but we really have no idea what the big picture of coming out of an ice age looks like. It would seem to me that the further out we get, the more rapidly the warming will increase. The point is, that we know where the natural cycles are headed so why the handwringing if not for political power and money?

The present situation is very analogous to the mystic priests of the days of old. They knew when eclipses etc were likely to happen and could read the signs for good or bad harvests and used that information to gain power over those who lacked thier insight. Today, climate science knows that the earth is going to warm and continue to warm in the long term because of the fact that we are coming out of an ice age. Reasonably educated people should be aware of this as well but a large number aren't. Certain scientists have taken on the mantle of priests and demand sacrifice to appease whatever anticapitalist god they represent and promise doom if we don't mend our ways.

Truthfully, I am moderately offended that so many of my fellow human beings have fallen for this hoax and believe even to a small degree. Are we as a species really this advanced and at the same time this gullible, slow, and stupid?

You sure must be getting paid by the word, queen of hermaphrodites. You ignored all the graphs, again.

The situation is analagous, to how dead queers shot speed and tricked their way, all the way from HIV, through AIDs, to death. Which is what Wienerbitches are into, that and farting around, while methane outgassing accelerates, dumbshits:

Methane catastrophe

Just how rapidly seafloor methane will be released depends on numerous factors that are quite difficult to assess. It is possible that seafloor methane will be released so slowly that it will only have a relatively minor warming effect on Earth's climate. On the other hand, because the coming methane release will be the result of our warming of the planet via the burning of fossil and other acrbon fuels, it could happen much more quickly. Indeed, it seems that we are currently pumping the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a much faster -- perhaps tens to hundreds of times faster -- rate than has ever before naturally occurred in the last half billion years or so of the Earth's history. The catastrophic warming we are causing is -- to the best of our knowledge -- unprecedented since the early days of our planet, billions of years ago. Such warming could well lead to methane catastrophe.

 

[skookerasbil]

Bob0.........you might want to take a break from this forum and take a gander over to People.com for a spell. Youre getting publically pwned s0n........and not only on this thread!! Throw in the ever present level of anger always ready to erupt like a ******* volcano = creepy levels of gay.

Bottom line is.........the bomb throwers have had zero impact on public policy in this counrty. ( well, I guess there was that light bulb legislation last year )