Globull Warming

[Screaming Eagle]

No, what you are saying is that you are too much a sheep to check out the talking points you are given. Probably to stupid, also.

Global ocean temperatures at warmest level since 1880

Global ocean temperatures rose to the warmest on record, according to data released last week by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest since global recording-keeping began in 1880.

NOAA reports that both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres experienced record sea surface temperatures in June. Temepratures in the Northern Hemisphere were 1.17°F (0.65°C) above normal, exceeding the 2005 record by 0.05°C or 4.5 percent; while the Northern Hemisphere's increase of 0.99°F (0.55°C) exceeded the 1998 record of 0.92°F (0.51°C) or 7.6 percent

Met Office: Global temperature slowdown — not an end to climate change


Ranking (1–10) Year Temperature difference Ranking (11–20) Year Temperature difference
1 1998 0.515 °C 11 1995 0.276 °C
2 2005 0.479 °C 12 1999 0.262 °C
3 2003 0.457 °C 13 1990 0.248 °C
4 2002 0.455 °C 14 2000 0.238 °C
5 2004 0.432 °C 15 1991 0.197 °C
6 2006 0.422 °C 16 1983 0.187 °C
7 2007 0.403 °C 17 1987 0.167 °C
8 2001 0.400 °C 18 1994 0.163 °C
9 1997 0.355 °C 19 1988 0.163 °C
10 2008 0.314 °C 20 1981 0.130 °C

If it is getting hotter, so what? Who cares? Will it be the end of the world or something?

That's better. No, of course it will not be the end of the world. We have had many periods of rapid increases in temperature in the past. They have always been periods of extinction, and climatic extremes.

The PT and PETM extinction periods are but two examples of these. I do not beleive that Homo Sap would become extinct, but we would see a very rapid contraction in population in any of the scenerious that we have seen in the geologic past.

For those interested in what happened in some of these periods, and the evidence for those events;

Methane catastrophe

If you claim that increase in temperature results in a rapid human population contraction, do you have evidence that such occurred during the Medieval Warm Period? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Oh, and no one gave me any talking points. if global warming is the end of the world or some shit like I see in all your global warming movies, why the hell are we still here? It's been hotter before. It was one degree warmer a thousand years ago than it is now. What is so bad about a warmer planet? Warmer, more lush, more plants, more arable land, more food, more better, what the hell is your problem? It's simple, you want Socialism just like every other stupid ass 'environmentalist'.

It is nearly one degree, Celsius, warmer now than 150 years ago. And the absolutely most optimistic increase from where we are right now to 2100, is 2 degrees C. MIT latest estimate is more than double that.

As stated before, in the past rapid heating events, we have seen major extinction events.

Now, from what you state, you are pretty damned ignorant of the effect of a rapid increase of even 3 degrees C.

And GHgs, the laws of physics and Chemistry, and Oceanography are not Communistic, Capitalistic, or any other created philosophy. They simply are. The fact that you and others try to politisize them, simply shows how weak your arguements are.

Of course it's warmer now than at the end of The Little Ice Age! What part of an ice age ending do you not understand? It gets fricking warmer afterward!

I don't believe a single thing a weather man tells me is going to happen 10 days from now, much less a hundred years.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, you are talking out of your ass. The change in that period was not enough to create the effects that a 2 Degree C. will create. However, the cold period in Scotland in 1300 and 1400 did produce a populaton contraction.


https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/1893/764/1/LordsHighlandsPaper_revised_version.pdf
Whilst there has been an increasing recognition of the influence of natural agency on human
society in Scotland in the medieval period, conventional historiography has generally
presented the wholesale reconfiguration of structures of secular lordship in the Scottish
central Highlands in the 14th century as an essentially political consequence of the sociopolitical
dislocation associated with the Anglo-Scottish wars that occurred after 1296. The
establishment within the region of militarised Gaelic kindreds from the West Highlands and
Hebrides of Scotland has come to be regarded as either a symptom of efforts by externally
based regional lords to bolster their authority, or an opportunistic territorial aggrandisement
by newly dominant neighbouring lords. Feuding and predatory raiding associated with these
kindreds is recognised as competition for resources but generally in a context of projection of
superior lordship over weaker neighbours. Evidence for long-term changes in climate
extrapolated from North Atlantic proxy data, however, suggests that the cattle-based economy
of Atlantic Scotland was experiencing protracted environmentally-induced stress in the period
c.1300-c.1350. Using this evidence, we discuss whether exchange systems operating within
traditional lordship structures could offset localised and short-term pressures on the livestockbased
regime but could not be sustained long-term on the reduced fodder and contracting herd
sizes caused by climatic deterioration. Territorial expansion and development of a predatory
culture, it is argued, were responses to an environment-triggered economic crisis.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh, and no one gave me any talking points. if global warming is the end of the world or some shit like I see in all your global warming movies, why the hell are we still here? It's been hotter before. It was one degree warmer a thousand years ago than it is now. What is so bad about a warmer planet? Warmer, more lush, more plants, more arable land, more food, more better, what the hell is your problem? It's simple, you want Socialism just like every other stupid ass 'environmentalist'.

It is nearly one degree, Celsius, warmer now than 150 years ago. And the absolutely most optimistic increase from where we are right now to 2100, is 2 degrees C. MIT latest estimate is more than double that.

As stated before, in the past rapid heating events, we have seen major extinction events.

Now, from what you state, you are pretty damned ignorant of the effect of a rapid increase of even 3 degrees C.

And GHgs, the laws of physics and Chemistry, and Oceanography are not Communistic, Capitalistic, or any other created philosophy. They simply are. The fact that you and others try to politisize them, simply shows how weak your arguements are.

Of course it's warmer now than at the end of The Little Ice Age! What part of an ice age ending do you not understand? It gets fricking warmer afterward!

I don't believe a single thing a weather man tells me is going to happen 10 days from now, much less a hundred years.

Now, ol' Screammy, by the Milankovic Cycles, we should be slowly cooling, heading for another ice age. Instead, we are rapidly warming.

Man, are you putting on a real display of the depths of your ignorance. Why don't you just use that tool setting right in front of you and remedy some of that vast wilderness of ignorance that exists between your ears.

 

[Bern80]

Well Screammy, why don't you explain how 10 of the warmest years on record have been in the last eleven years? You really call that cooling? Are you that big of a fool?

It's hard to debate someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of concepts like mutual exclusivity and amazing lack of perspective.

You do understand that you can have a cooling trend and have the warmest years on record at the same time right?

You also understand that saying warmest on record in terms of earth history renders such a statement statisitcally irrelevent, right?

I also ask again a question you continue to dodge. If climate change is natural should we be trying to stop it?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

It is nearly one degree, Celsius, warmer now than 150 years ago. And the absolutely most optimistic increase from where we are right now to 2100, is 2 degrees C. MIT latest estimate is more than double that.

As stated before, in the past rapid heating events, we have seen major extinction events.

Now, from what you state, you are pretty damned ignorant of the effect of a rapid increase of even 3 degrees C.

And GHgs, the laws of physics and Chemistry, and Oceanography are not Communistic, Capitalistic, or any other created philosophy. They simply are. The fact that you and others try to politisize them, simply shows how weak your arguements are.

Of course it's warmer now than at the end of The Little Ice Age! What part of an ice age ending do you not understand? It gets fricking warmer afterward!

I don't believe a single thing a weather man tells me is going to happen 10 days from now, much less a hundred years.

Now, ol' Screammy, by the Milankovic Cycles, we should be slowly cooling, heading for another ice age. Instead, we are rapidly warming.

Man, are you putting on a real display of the depths of your ignorance. Why don't you just use that tool setting right in front of you and remedy some of that vast wilderness of ignorance that exists between your ears.

You're telling me that once an ice age begins to end we should immediately, without ever warming up, cool off and go back into another one? If we spent that much time in ice ages we wouldn't have a name for them, we would call the momentary breaks "thaws".

 

[Old Rocks]

Playing even stupider than you are in real life, Screammy?

By all evidence, from physics, chemistry, and paleo-climatology, we are going to be a lot warmer in about 50 years. And there will be effects that you cannot even imagine.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well Screammy, why don't you explain how 10 of the warmest years on record have been in the last eleven years? You really call that cooling? Are you that big of a fool?

It's hard to debate someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of concepts like mutual exclusivity and amazing lack of perspective.

You do understand that you can have a cooling trend and have the warmest years on record at the same time right?

You also understand that saying warmest on record in terms of earth history renders such a statement statisitcally irrelevent, right?

I also ask again a question you continue to dodge. If climate change is natural should we be trying to stop it?

I understand people like yourself indulge in endless doubletalk to support a premise that has absolutely no support in science.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Playing even stupider than you are in real life, Screammy?

By all evidence, from physics, chemistry, and paleo-climatology, we are going to be a lot warmer in about 50 years. And there will be effects that you cannot even imagine.

Other than everyone dying you still haven't told me what the effects will be.

 

[Old Rocks]

Use the tool in front of you.

 

[mdn2000]

Well Screammy, why don't you explain how 10 of the warmest years on record have been in the last eleven years? You really call that cooling? Are you that big of a fool?

I don't comment on figments of people's imaginations, sorry. It is not getting hotter now, tough shit.

No, what you are saying is that you are too much a sheep to check out the talking points you are given. Probably to stupid, also.

Old Crock you are an old fuck, you got some nerve, I have been chasing you up and down these threads because you are too much a sheep to check out the sources you cite, too stupid as well

I will compile them and post them here as well.

When challenged, Old Crock hides

 

[elvis]

Well Screammy, why don't you explain how 10 of the warmest years on record have been in the last eleven years? You really call that cooling? Are you that big of a fool?

I don't comment on figments of people's imaginations, sorry. It is not getting hotter now, tough shit.

No, what you are saying is that you are too much a sheep to check out the talking points you are given. Probably to stupid, also.

Global ocean temperatures at warmest level since 1880

Global ocean temperatures rose to the warmest on record, according to data released last week by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest since global recording-keeping began in 1880.

NOAA reports that both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres experienced record sea surface temperatures in June. Temepratures in the Northern Hemisphere were 1.17°F (0.65°C) above normal, exceeding the 2005 record by 0.05°C or 4.5 percent; while the Northern Hemisphere's increase of 0.99°F (0.55°C) exceeded the 1998 record of 0.92°F (0.51°C) or 7.6 percent

Met Office: Global temperature slowdown — not an end to climate change


Ranking (1–10) Year Temperature difference Ranking (11–20) Year Temperature difference
1 1998 0.515 °C 11 1995 0.276 °C
2 2005 0.479 °C 12 1999 0.262 °C
3 2003 0.457 °C 13 1990 0.248 °C
4 2002 0.455 °C 14 2000 0.238 °C
5 2004 0.432 °C 15 1991 0.197 °C
6 2006 0.422 °C 16 1983 0.187 °C
7 2007 0.403 °C 17 1987 0.167 °C
8 2001 0.400 °C 18 1994 0.163 °C
9 1997 0.355 °C 19 1988 0.163 °C
10 2008 0.314 °C 20 1981 0.130 °C

It's amazing how you continue to question others' intelligence when you continue to misspell basic words.

 

[Toronado3800]

Oh, and no one gave me any talking points. if global warming is the end of the world or some shit like I see in all your global warming movies, why the hell are we still here? It's been hotter before. It was one degree warmer a thousand years ago than it is now. What is so bad about a warmer planet? Warmer, more lush, more plants, more arable land, more food, more better, what the hell is your problem? It's simple, you want Socialism just like every other stupid ass 'environmentalist'.

Problem comes if part of Kansas starts to resemble part of Nevada. The earth HAS been through big changes before. Big extinctions I just love my nieces and nephews and don't want to take the chance just because I demand a 300HP car instead of a 200HP one or can't pay 25cents a day more for electricity or something.

 

[Bern80]

Well Screammy, why don't you explain how 10 of the warmest years on record have been in the last eleven years? You really call that cooling? Are you that big of a fool?

It's hard to debate someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of concepts like mutual exclusivity and amazing lack of perspective.

You do understand that you can have a cooling trend and have the warmest years on record at the same time right?

You also understand that saying warmest on record in terms of earth history renders such a statement statisitcally irrelevent, right?

I also ask again a question you continue to dodge. If climate change is natural should we be trying to stop it?

I understand people like yourself indulge in endless doubletalk to support a premise that has absolutely no support in science.

It isn't double talk. It's shear ignorance, naivety, obtuseness, take your pick, on your part. You may very well be right Rocks, but your argument skills are so lacking, the arguments you make so invalid, that one will have a hard time taking the word of someone like you.

Yes you do spout a lot of things that are factually true, that doesn't mean they make the case for man made global warming. For example, sure I'll concede we have had some of the warmest years on record in the last 10 years. But it should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer if you peak at one of these warmest years on record the following cooling years are also still going to be among warmest years on record. One fact does not invalidate the other which makes one question your intellect when someone says there is cooling trend and your rebuttal is we have had some of the warmest years on record in the same period.

Climate change occurs naturally in cycles of 100 of years, within cycles of thousands, within cycles of 10 of thousands of years. We know the amount of time man has had from a technology and industrilaization stand point to possibly effect it is very short in terms of earth history, approx. 100 years. Those are all facts and at the very least should make one seriously question whether we are causing this or not.

Lastly whether we do it or not, climate change will happen again on scale that will transform the planet to something very different than what it is today. It is the only GARUNTEED extinction level event we need to worry about.
Of the two possibilities, warmer or colder, colder is going to be the one that kills billions of people. The worst doomsday scenarios say it may get a few degrees warmer on avg.

So I ask again since you are telling us we need to help the earth cool and knowing we will have another ice age at some point that will kill millions if not billions, should we then try to heat the earth up to stave it off for the sake of the human race? You tree huggers are all about the earth, but I think you're just selfish. When that happens should we try to avert this catastrophic natural event for our own selfish desire to live?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Oh, and no one gave me any talking points. if global warming is the end of the world or some shit like I see in all your global warming movies, why the hell are we still here? It's been hotter before. It was one degree warmer a thousand years ago than it is now. What is so bad about a warmer planet? Warmer, more lush, more plants, more arable land, more food, more better, what the hell is your problem? It's simple, you want Socialism just like every other stupid ass 'environmentalist'.

Problem comes if part of Kansas starts to resemble part of Nevada. The earth HAS been through big changes before. Big extinctions I just love my nieces and nephews and don't want to take the chance just because I demand a 300HP car instead of a 200HP one or can't pay 25cents a day more for electricity or something.

Did you really just say that? Shit. Well now that I know that precipitation is directly correlated to temperature and that for each degree temperature increases we can expect 15 inches less precipitation annually. I averaged Nevada out to 10 inches and Kansas(which ranges from 15 to 50) to 25 inches. So based on your model Antarctica should receive (based on my own average temperature of -30°) using Kansas as a model with average temperature of I don't know, 80°, that's 110° difference so, 110*15=1650 and then 1650+25=1675

Wow, Holy shit! Antarctica should receive 1,675 inches of precipitation annually or 4.6 inches per day! In snow that would be 1675 feet! That's about 1/3 of a mile! 4.6 feet per day of snowfall.

How do you reconcile your bullshit with the fact that Antarctica receives an average of 6.5 inches of precipitation annually? How do you reconcile your bullshit with the fact that the rainiest places on earth are also typically the warmest? How do you reconcile your bullshit with the fact that colder air carries much less water than warmer air and that you are saying dry air produces more precipitation than wet air? Do you realize that your stupid as all hell comment means that you are, quite literally, saying that water is not wet?

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't comment on figments of people's imaginations, sorry. It is not getting hotter now, tough shit.

No, what you are saying is that you are too much a sheep to check out the talking points you are given. Probably to stupid, also.

Old Crock you are an old fuck, you got some nerve, I have been chasing you up and down these threads because you are too much a sheep to check out the sources you cite, too stupid as well

I will compile them and post them here as well.

When challenged, Old Crock hides

Not at all. I just post on the subject of the thread, provide real information, from real scientists, and ignore sick minded little trolls like you.

I don't care in the least what you think. You have proven yourself incapable of logical thought. You are a silly little troll, not worth anyone's time.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh, and no one gave me any talking points. if global warming is the end of the world or some shit like I see in all your global warming movies, why the hell are we still here? It's been hotter before. It was one degree warmer a thousand years ago than it is now. What is so bad about a warmer planet? Warmer, more lush, more plants, more arable land, more food, more better, what the hell is your problem? It's simple, you want Socialism just like every other stupid ass 'environmentalist'.

Problem comes if part of Kansas starts to resemble part of Nevada. The earth HAS been through big changes before. Big extinctions I just love my nieces and nephews and don't want to take the chance just because I demand a 300HP car instead of a 200HP one or can't pay 25cents a day more for electricity or something.

Did you really just say that? Shit. Well now that I know that precipitation is directly correlated to temperature and that for each degree temperature increases we can expect 15 inches less precipitation annually. I averaged Nevada out to 10 inches and Kansas(which ranges from 15 to 50) to 25 inches. So based on your model Antarctica should receive (based on my own average temperature of -30°) using Kansas as a model with average temperature of I don't know, 80°, that's 110° difference so, 110*15=1650 and then 1650+25=1675

Wow, Holy shit! Antarctica should receive 1,675 inches of precipitation annually or 4.6 inches per day! In snow that would be 1675 feet! That's about 1/3 of a mile! 4.6 feet per day of snowfall.

How do you reconcile your bullshit with the fact that Antarctica receives an average of 6.5 inches of precipitation annually? How do you reconcile your bullshit with the fact that the rainiest places on earth are also typically the warmest? How do you reconcile your bullshit with the fact that colder air carries much less water than warmer air and that you are saying dry air produces more precipitation than warm air? Do you realize that your stupid as all hell comment means that you are, quite literally, saying that water is not wet?

Damn, Screamy, you people actually work at being stupid.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's hard to debate someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of concepts like mutual exclusivity and amazing lack of perspective.

You do understand that you can have a cooling trend and have the warmest years on record at the same time right?

You also understand that saying warmest on record in terms of earth history renders such a statement statisitcally irrelevent, right?

I also ask again a question you continue to dodge. If climate change is natural should we be trying to stop it?

I understand people like yourself indulge in endless doubletalk to support a premise that has absolutely no support in science.

It isn't double talk. It's shear ignorance, naivety, obtuseness, take your pick, on your part. You may very well be right Rocks, but your argument skills are so lacking, the arguments you make so invalid, that one will have a hard time taking the word of someone like you.

Since when have I asked anyone to take my word for what we are seeing? I post the source of my opinions. As for my arguementive skills, I am a millwright, not an orator.

Yes you do spout a lot of things that are factually true, that doesn't mean they make the case for man made global warming. For example, sure I'll concede we have had some of the warmest years on record in the last 10 years. But it should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer if you peak at one of these warmest years on record the following cooling years are also still going to be among warmest years on record.

What should be obvious, looking at the graph of the last 150 years , is that there is a lot of natural variability in the year to year temperature. 1998 was a very, very strong El Nino year. 2008 was a very strong La Nina year. 1998 set the record for heat for the last 150 years. 2008 was the eighth warmest on record. By what you state, it should have been at least in the midrange, not on top.


One fact does not invalidate the other which makes one question your intellect when someone says there is cooling trend and your rebuttal is we have had some of the warmest years on record in the same period.

I question your intellect in that you cannot see that the mean for these years is still rising.

Climate change occurs naturally in cycles of 100 of years, within cycles of thousands, within cycles of 10 of thousands of years. We know the amount of time man has had from a technology and industrilaization stand point to possibly effect it is very short in terms of earth history, approx. 100 years. Those are all facts and at the very least should make one seriously question whether we are causing this or not.

The Industrial Revolution was putting CO2 into the air rapidly by 1860. Between then and now, we have added about 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and enough to the oceans to measureably increase the acidity of the oceans.

You state that those are all facts, yet, in reality, you presented no facts at all.

Lastly whether we do it or not, climate change will happen again on scale that will transform the planet to something very different than what it is today. It is the only GARUNTEED extinction level event we need to worry about.

We do not know the tipping points, the points at which we create enough warmth to rapidly release the GHGs stored in the Permafrost and ocean clathrates. We do know, from geological history, what happens when we cross those points. We also know, that in the last two years, we have seen some of the Arctic Ocean clathrates start outgassing, and the permafrost has been emmitting increasing amounts of CO2 and CH4 for the last twenty years.

Of the two possibilities, warmer or colder, colder is going to be the one that kills billions of people. The worst doomsday scenarios say it may get a few degrees warmer on avg.

That is all that it did in the PETM.

So I ask again since you are telling us we need to help the earth cool and knowing we will have another ice age at some point that will kill millions if not billions, should we then try to heat the earth up to stave it off for the sake of the human race? You tree huggers are all about the earth, but I think you're just selfish. When that happens should we try to avert this catastrophic natural event for our own selfish desire to live?

By the Milankovic Cycles, were we not putting GHGs into the atmosphere, we might be in another full blown ice age in twenty thousand years.

By the best models available, we will probably raise the average global temperature by 3.5 to 7 degrees C. by 2100. That is far more rapidly than any ecosystem or society can adjust to.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Problem comes if part of Kansas starts to resemble part of Nevada. The earth HAS been through big changes before. Big extinctions I just love my nieces and nephews and don't want to take the chance just because I demand a 300HP car instead of a 200HP one or can't pay 25cents a day more for electricity or something.

Did you really just say that? Shit. Well now that I know that precipitation is directly correlated to temperature and that for each degree temperature increases we can expect 15 inches less precipitation annually. I averaged Nevada out to 10 inches and Kansas(which ranges from 15 to 50) to 25 inches. So based on your model Antarctica should receive (based on my own average temperature of -30°) using Kansas as a model with average temperature of I don't know, 80°, that's 110° difference so, 110*15=1650 and then 1650+25=1675

Wow, Holy shit! Antarctica should receive 1,675 inches of precipitation annually or 4.6 inches per day! In snow that would be 1675 feet! That's about 1/3 of a mile! 4.6 feet per day of snowfall.

How do you reconcile your bullshit with the fact that Antarctica receives an average of 6.5 inches of precipitation annually? How do you reconcile your bullshit with the fact that the rainiest places on earth are also typically the warmest? How do you reconcile your bullshit with the fact that colder air carries much less water than warmer air and that you are saying dry air produces more precipitation than warm air? Do you realize that your stupid as all hell comment means that you are, quite literally, saying that water is not wet?

Damn, Screamy, you people actually work at being stupid.

Is that the sum total of all your arguments? You have told me 4 or 5 times now that I'm stupid, too stupid to understand your brilliance, and when asked to enlighten me you say I should google some shit, without bothering to expound on what, exactly, I should be googling. Forgive me if I fail to be persuaded by your eloquence, you magnanimous prick.

Yet to be answered:
How solar panels fit in gas tanks as an oil replacement.
How electricity is the same as oil.
How colder drier air produces more precipitation than warmer wetter air.
Why warmer than current temperatures in our past did not cause rapid population contractions but will now.
Why if colder places receive less precipitation than warmer places, warming would result in less precipitation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_(meteorology)
Why a warmer planet with more usable land surface would result in less food.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

By the Milankovic Cycles, were we not putting GHGs into the atmosphere, we might be in another full blown ice age in twenty thousand years.

So what?

By the best models available, we will probably raise the average global temperature by 3.5 to 7 degrees C. by 2100. That is far more rapidly than any ecosystem or society can adjust to.

And this has been evaluated and shown that we have had a 1.8-3.5° increase over the last 50 years? No, of course it hasn't as we haven't had that much temperature increase in the last century. Therefore your predictions are just made up bullshit created by people who can tell what the weather will be like a week from now.