The best argument against global warming

[saveliberty]

Old Rocks, did they keep global records in 1934? For all we know, it could have been the warmest.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, there were worldwide tempertures kept in 1934.

 

[saveliberty]

Yes, there were worldwide tempertures kept in 1934.

Here's the whole article:

NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record
Published August 14, 2007 by:
Brant McLaughlin

In one more devastating blow against the global warming or "climate Apocalypse" supporters such as former Vice President Al Gore, NASA stated today
that it was wrong when it release a report that 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded in modern history.

According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), NASA scientist and famous man-made global warming proponent James Hansen's well-known claims that 1998 was measured as the warmest year on record in the U.S. were the result of a serious mathematical error. NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.

And perhaps most devastating of all to the man-made global warming backers, it is now admitted that six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere.

NASA has been forced to correct calculations for temperatures of the last 120 years taken from ground-based measuring facilities. Critics of the man-made global warming theory have long been vocal that these measurements are distorted because the ground, and even more the urban ground where most of these measurements took place, is warmed considerably by human activities and cannot accurately represent atmospheric conditions.

"Much of the current global warming fear has been driven by Hansen's pronouncements, and he routinely claims to have been censored by the Bush administration for his views on warming. Now that NASA, without fanfare, has cleaned up his mess, Hansen has been silent -- I guess we can chalk this up to self-censorship," said Burnett.

Sooooo...did NASA correct the global numbers after the error, or just the US ones?

 

[edthecynic]

gslack

Hold on... From 1880 to 2010 is 130 years. Of that 130 years about 30 of them you claim leveled off..... Well thats funny because according to historical records the 1930's was the one of the hottest decades since recorded temps.... SO thats not exactly a leveling off anymore now is it....

.....................................................................................................................

Are you really that stupid? 1934 was a hot one for the US. Which is 1 1/2% of the surface of the earth. The rest of the earth was quite a bit cooler. Do you always repeat wingnut lies without even checking on them?

1934 is the hottest year on record



1934 is the hottest year on record
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument..."In August 2007, Steve McIntyre noticed a strange discontinuity in US temperature data, occurring around January 2000. McKintyre notified NASA who acknowledged the problem as an 'oversight' that would be fixed in the next data refresh. The warmest year on US record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place." (Daily Tech).

What the science says...
1934 is the hottest year on record in the USA which only comprises 2% of the globe. According to NASA temperature records, the hottest year on record globally is 2005.


Steve McIntyre's discovery of a glitch in the GISS temperature data is an impressive achievement. Make no mistake, it's an embarrassing error on the part of NASA. But what is the significance?

NASA's "Y2K" glitch
Contrary to many reports, the error wasn't a Y2K bug but a mixup over data corrections with the NOAA. NASA GISS obtain much of their temperature data from the NOAA who adjust the data to filter out primarily time-of-observation bias (although their corrections also include inhomogeneities and urban warming - more on NOAA adjustments). From January 2000, NASA were mistakenly using unadjusted data.


USA temperature versus global temperature trends
What is often overlooked is the temperature adjustments only applied to temperatures in 48 U.S. states. As the USA comprises only 2% of the globe, this has had infinitesimal effect on global trends.

The graph below (courtesy of Open Mind) compares the global temperature trend from before and after adjustments. Before the error was discovered, the trend was 0.185°C/decade. After corrections were made, the trend was still 0.185°C/decade. The change to the global mean was less than one thousandth of a degree.

Yes, there were worldwide tempertures kept in 1934.

Here's the whole article:

NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record
Published August 14, 2007 by:
Brant McLaughlin

In one more devastating blow against the global warming or "climate Apocalypse" supporters such as former Vice President Al Gore, NASA stated today
that it was wrong when it release a report that 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded in modern history.

According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), NASA scientist and famous man-made global warming proponent James Hansen's well-known claims that 1998 was measured as the warmest year on record in the U.S. were the result of a serious mathematical error. NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.

And perhaps most devastating of all to the man-made global warming backers, it is now admitted that six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere.

NASA has been forced to correct calculations for temperatures of the last 120 years taken from ground-based measuring facilities. Critics of the man-made global warming theory have long been vocal that these measurements are distorted because the ground, and even more the urban ground where most of these measurements took place, is warmed considerably by human activities and cannot accurately represent atmospheric conditions.

"Much of the current global warming fear has been driven by Hansen's pronouncements, and he routinely claims to have been censored by the Bush administration for his views on warming. Now that NASA, without fanfare, has cleaned up his mess, Hansen has been silent -- I guess we can chalk this up to self-censorship," said Burnett.

Sooooo...did NASA correct the global numbers after the error, or just the US ones?

Sooooo...already answered. How could someone as alert and brilliant as you miss it?

 

[FA_Q2]

How can the Earth be "relatively cool" at the moment when it is at the warmest its been since temp was measured directly???

Because direct temp recordings are less than 2 centuries old where life has existed on this plant for many millennia. In the grand scheme of history, we are at a relatively cool period.

 

[edthecynic]

How can the Earth be "relatively cool" at the moment when it is at the warmest its been since temp was measured directly???

Because direct temp recordings are less than 2 centuries old where life has existed on this plant for many millennia. In the grand scheme of history, we are at a relatively cool period.

That has as much credibility as your claim that the globe has been cooling the last 10 years.

You have no idea what the temp really was before direct instrument measurement because we only have proxy data and from a very few areas of the globe for that period of time. Where the very limited proxy data has overlapped direct global measurements, the proxy data has been way off. So any claims of GLOBAL temps being warmer before direct measurements are nothing but pure speculation.

 

[gslack]

They expand from rainfall and snowfall... Yeah its called precipitation, and that is the case. So if this is so, than evaporation, works in much the same manner only reversed. So if the temps or ocean levels do not reflect ocean levels, than they do not no matter which way they go...... Now stop showing your ignorance on this its embarrassing now...

No, it doesn't work the same way in reverse, because:

a) Glacial ice can sit solid in a glacier for a thousand years before melting into the ocean and rising ocean levels, i.e. imagine a thousand years of local rainfall melting into the sea over a ten year period - that is what is happening in Alaska

b) Glaciers are not fed entirely by evaporation from the ocean, but also from mountain lakes, moisture released from local vegetation etc

c) Expanding glaciers do not draw water directly from the ocean at all, but from the point of the glaciers origin - in the same way rivers flow to the sea, so do glaciers.

I hope this helps, but in all honesty, do let me know if not. I don't mind explaining this stuff as best I can.

a. According to you thousands of years of rainfall is already melting.... But the facts and data do not support that but no matter to you its what the goracle told you so it must be true.

b. thanks Mr. wizard but we already got that point.... You got a arguement on the points or not?

c. LOL mr glacier scientist I got news for you its a combination of all. Some does come from the oceans, some comes from the land and soil, and some comes from the guy watering his lawn. The water that makes it comes from all over the planet. Some may not be as directly related as others but they all contribute in some way.

Now stop being a dumazz. Reply to the points I made or admit you cannot do it and hush... If the melting glaciers effect sea levels than so do expanding glaciers period. You can be as semantic as you can but the whole thing is undeniable.

Whether the water is ice from thousands of years and melts, or if its seasonal precipitation melting the end result is the same. So whether the water is frozen for thousands of years or frozen a couple of months, the end result is the same.

The largest contributing factors in glaciers are temperature and precipitation. One Without the other does next to nothing when forming a glacier. So shrinking glaciers can have as much to do with precipitation as it does with temperature. Seasonal ice is a prime example of this. Most of the ice growth in the winter will be more related to that years precipitation than with any temperature fluctuation of a few degrees.

If a glacier is -20 degrees F on the surface, and the snow falls on it the snow will accumulate and form new ice. This new ice if left will eventually form into part of the overall glacier itself. Now water freezes at much less than -20, so a mere + or - of even 10 degrees will have little effect over a season. And your pretense is based on a change much less than that. So that alone makes your hypothesis highly suspect.

Your entire premise is based on the idea that a increase in temperature of about 1.4 degrees over the last 150 years is causing the glaciers to melt on a global scale at a rate that is not only impossible to prove with any certainty, but also highly unlikely given the factors of change in both ice and temps when taken in as a whole.

Precipitation is more directly related to seasonal ice yet they do not mention precipitation on the data they use to write their horror stories of global ice melting and flooding the planet. Now why is that? Well its because if they mention it was a low year for snowfall in the arctic and then cry about glaciers shrinking, someone may just put two and two together. Then there goes the cash cow and fear factor.

Trust me buddy I know more about this and understand this on a far greater scale than you do. Now don't even try your fake intellectual crap on me, its not working. you can't pull it off....

 

[skookerasbil]

Here's the whole article:

NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record
Published August 14, 2007 by:
Brant McLaughlin

In one more devastating blow against the global warming or "climate Apocalypse" supporters such as former Vice President Al Gore, NASA stated today
that it was wrong when it release a report that 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded in modern history.











Hey Rocks.....................


Oooooooooooooooooooooooops!!!!!!!!



Pwned once again..............

 

[Vanquish]

skooker, you're really childish and annoying. That's probably your goal though, eh?

 

[Old Rocks]

gslack;

Trust me buddy I know more about this and understand this on a far greater scale than you do. Now don't even try your fake intellectual crap on me, its not working. you can't pull it off....

 

[Old Rocks]

Here's the whole article:

NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record
Published August 14, 2007 by:
Brant McLaughlin

In one more devastating blow against the global warming or "climate Apocalypse" supporters such as former Vice President Al Gore, NASA stated today
that it was wrong when it release a report that 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded in modern history.











Hey Rocks.....................


Oooooooooooooooooooooooops!!!!!!!!



Pwned once again..............

NASA GISS: Research News: 2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year
Jan. 16, 2008

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

Image at right: This still from the animation presented shows the temperature anomalies that were present during 2007. Credit: NASA. View Temperature Anomaly Video (MPG) or "Earth's Temperature" Web short.

"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.

No, Skooker, whatever Brant stated, this is what NASA states. 1934 was only exceptionally warm in the US.

However, the results of those warm years for us should be a warning as to what to expect as things warm up globally. A combination of precipitation events, and droughts.

 

[skookerasbil]

skooker, you're really childish and annoying. That's probably your goal though, eh?

perhaps...........but Im a "lets get down to brass tacks" guy s0n................

You can debate this glacier stuff and that temperature stuff until the cows come home.........but the ONLY important thing to a vast majority of Americans is how it will effect public policy. If global warming as a man-made phenomenon were a slam dunk, the green economy would be a slam dunk. Its not...........not by a long shot and it is likely that the energy bill will go down in flames later this summer when the public realizes what its going to cost them and what it's going to cost the American economy. This point is not even debatable...........

So...........all this back and forth about satellites, temperatures, glaciers, monitoring stations = an exercise in people doing circle navel contemplation when it comes right down to it. Its the same as baseball people sitting around debating whether or not its faster to slide into first base on a close play or run through the base. In the end, nobody cares...........nobody is going to sit around and debate that for hours and hours except the real k00ks.

Lets face it............the religious environmentalists are simply people looking to provide something meaningful in their lives so they latch on to this hysterical cause. Without exception, they are angry miserable people who are looking to take it out on somebody who is more sucessful then they are.

Me? Im concerned more about the hundreds of thousands of people employed in the coal industry who stand to lose their jobs as a result of Crap and Tax legislation. The k00ks are more concerned about the fcukking polar bears and the science lotto. Fcukk these people who want to take out their anger and misery on hardworking Americans.

 

[skookerasbil]

McClatchy Washington Bureau
Print This Article
Posted on Wed, Aug. 19, 2009

Drop in world temperatures fuels global warming debate
Robert S. Boyd | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: August 19, 2009 07:49:04 PM

WASHINGTON — Has Earth's fever broken?

Official government measurements show that the world's temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998.

That's given global warming skeptics new ammunition to attack the prevailing theory of climate change. The skeptics argue that the current stretch of slightly cooler temperatures means that costly measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions are ill-founded and unnecessary.

Proposals to combat global warming are "crazy" and will "destroy more than a million good American jobs and increase the average family's annual energy bill by at least $1,500 a year," the Heartland Institute, a conservative research organization based in Chicago, declared in full-page newspaper ads earlier this summer. "High levels of carbon dioxide actually benefit wildlife and human health," the ads asserted.

Many scientists agree, however, that hotter times are ahead. A decade of level or slightly lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system, they say.

"The preponderance of evidence is that global warming will resume," Nicholas Bond, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, said in an e-mail.

"Natural variability can account for the slowing of the global mean temperature rise we have seen," said Jeff Knight, a climate expert at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, England.

According to data from the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala., the global high temperature in 1998 was 0.76 degrees Celsius (1.37 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average for the previous 20 years.

So far this year, the high has been 0.42 degrees Celsius (0.76 degrees Fahrenheit), above the 20-year average, clearly cooler than before.

However, scientists say the skeptics' argument is misleading.

"It's entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of cooling superimposed on the long-term warming trend," said David Easterling, chief of scientific services at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

"These short term fluctuations are statistically insignificant (and) entirely due to natural internal variability," Easterling said in an essay published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in April. "It's easy to 'cherry pick' a period to reinforce a point of view."

Climate experts say the 1998 record was partly caused by El Nino, a periodic warming of tropical Pacific Ocean waters that affects the climate worldwide.

"The temperature peak in 1998 to a large extent can be attributed to the very strong El Nino event of 1997-98," Bond said. "Temperatures for the globe as a whole tend to be higher during El Nino, and particularly events as intense as that one."

El Nino is returning this summer after a four-year absence and is expected to hang around until late next year.

"If El Nino continues to strengthen as projected, expect more (high temperature) records to fall," said Thomas Karl, who's the director of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville.

"At least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year currently on record," predicted Jeff Knight, a climate variability expert at the Hadley Centre in England.

John Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who often sides with the skeptics, agreed that the recent cooling won't last.

"The atmosphere is just now feeling the bump in tropical Pacific temperatures related to El Nino," Christy said in an e-mail. As a result, July experienced "the largest one-month jump in our 31-year record of global satellite temperatures. We should see a warmer 2009-2010 due to El Nino."

Christy added, however: "Our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous, and our policy makers need to know that . . . We really don't know much about what causes multi-year changes like this."

In addition to newspaper ads, the Heartland Institute sponsors conferences, books, papers, videos and Web sites arguing its case against the global warming threat.

The skeptics include scientists such as Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who thinks that climate science is too uncertain to justify drastic measures to control CO2. He calls the case for action against global warming "silly" and "grotesque."

Others go further. For example, Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University in Bellingham, thinks the world is in a 30-year cooling phase.

"The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling," Easterbrook said in a talk to the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco in December.

Government scientists strongly disagree. "Claims that global warming is not occurring . . . ignore this natural variability and are misleading," said NOAA's Easterling.

In reality, global warming "never ceased," said Karl, the climate data center director.









See that in red Rocks??? Its BS like that that has changed the course of the debate. The majority views it as a crock of sh!t with special interests attached..............which of course, it is. Only the k00ks fail to see it!!!

 

[Vanquish]

skooker, you're really childish and annoying. That's probably your goal though, eh?

perhaps...........but Im a "lets get down to brass tacks" guy s0n................

Son? What a weird little idiomatic expression.

No doubt there are environmental whack-jobs out there, but you paint with too wide a brush. I'm glad you see it as crystal-clear as humans vs animals...but it's not that clear. You realize that you live on a planet that depends on you not to fuck it up, right?

Can you at least admit that if you trash the planet, you'll have nowhere else to live (unless we terraform some new celestial body), right?

It's great to think of yourself as the defender of the poor and hard-working, but all you're doing is patting yourself on the back...and not tackling

Hey, I get it. California kooks are so removed from reality that they don't get there are real lives at stake. Great. Understood. Right on. Thumbs up. But you're so dug in to your position you dont see that some people wanting to clean up the planet aren't kooks...and they have a legitimate point. If you're truly on the side of helping people....don't just think about the coal miners...think about ALL the people on the planet.

I'm not saying the coal miners don't need to be given a fair shake...they do. But that's why government is so hard...there are multiple, competing, yet valid interests that need to all be accounted for.

I'd like to think I know how you feel. You come on a board like this and some people are just not reasonable to talk to. The more they dig in, won't compromise or debate rationally, the more you want to say "fuck it"...you fuckers are wrong and I'm right. Screw you. But that's not how you ever convince people.

Sorry for the ramble...its just I really do try and see other people's sides in these posts...and would like to actually move forward with one of these posts...

 

[FA_Q2]

How can the Earth be "relatively cool" at the moment when it is at the warmest its been since temp was measured directly???

Because direct temp recordings are less than 2 centuries old where life has existed on this plant for many millennia. In the grand scheme of history, we are at a relatively cool period.

That has as much credibility as your claim that the globe has been cooling the last 10 years.

You have no idea what the temp really was before direct instrument measurement because we only have proxy data and from a very few areas of the globe for that period of time. Where the very limited proxy data has overlapped direct global measurements, the proxy data has been way off. So any claims of GLOBAL temps being warmer before direct measurements are nothing but pure speculation.

So what you are saying is we should ignore 5 billion years of earth history in favor of the measurements taken in the last 150? That is what is called cherry picking evidence. We may not know what degree the world was at a given century but we sure can get a basic understanding of the temperatures. We can also get accurate CO2 level measurements and it has been FAR higher in the past. Life has existed on land for 400 million years and it is ridiculous to ignore that over the last 150 years. It seems that everyone if focusing on the first point - the temps of the last decade when there are SEVERAL others that need to be addressed. Part of that is the implications of a temperature change and weather it is manmade. Long historical measurements of conditions that were similar or even worse than our current situation could give insight into this. It seems that many GW proponents want to ignore that because it does not buy into the whole 'the world as we know it is ending.'

 

[edthecynic]

Because direct temp recordings are less than 2 centuries old where life has existed on this planet for many millennia. In the grand scheme of history, we are at a relatively cool period.

That has as much credibility as your claim that the globe has been cooling the last 10 years.

You have no idea what the temp really was before direct instrument measurement because we only have proxy data and from a very few areas of the globe for that period of time. Where the very limited proxy data has overlapped direct global measurements, the proxy data has been way off. So any claims of GLOBAL temps being warmer before direct measurements are nothing but pure speculation.

So what you are saying is we should ignore 5 billion years of earth history in favor of the measurements taken in the last 150? That is what is called cherry picking evidence. We may not know what degree the world was at a given century but we sure can get a basic understanding of the temperatures. We can also get accurate CO2 level measurements and it has been FAR higher in the past. Life has existed on land for 400 million years and it is ridiculous to ignore that over the last 150 years. It seems that everyone if focusing on the first point - the temps of the last decade when there are SEVERAL others that need to be addressed. Part of that is the implications of a temperature change and weather it is manmade. Long historical measurements of conditions that were similar or even worse than our current situation could give insight into this. It seems that many GW proponents want to ignore that because it does not buy into the whole 'the world as we know it is ending.'

YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ME!

What I said was, the temp data for the earlier part of Earth's history comes from PROXY data collected from a very few locations and therefore reflects ONLY the temps for those areas and not the whole globe. Just the fact that another denier tried to pass off the 1934 USA temp as the warmest temp globally and was completely wrong, I merely said any attempt to globalize the very limited proxy data is PURE SPECULATION.

In short, you can't say today is "relatively cool" based on proxy data trumping direct instrument measurements. In reality, no one knows just how cool or warm the GLOBE is TODAY compared to millennia in the past.

All that can HONESTLY be said is this is globally the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement, no more and no less. You could argue that certain areas of the globe were warmer thousands of years ago, but not that the whole globe was warmer thousands of years ago.
Get it?

 

[code1211]

Deniers don't like the idea of climate change, they don't believe it is possible for humans to change the climate, they don't like the implications of climate change, they don't like the things we might have to do to address it, or they just don't like government or science. But they have no alternative scientific explanation that works.

Read more: City Brights: Peter Gleick : The best argument against global warming

Once again a propon ent of AGW says that he is right and explains that others who say what he says are correct and that other who parrot what was already said are also right.

Once again, any proof at all is omitted.

 

[FA_Q2]

That has as much credibility as your claim that the globe has been cooling the last 10 years.

You have no idea what the temp really was before direct instrument measurement because we only have proxy data and from a very few areas of the globe for that period of time. Where the very limited proxy data has overlapped direct global measurements, the proxy data has been way off. So any claims of GLOBAL temps being warmer before direct measurements are nothing but pure speculation.

So what you are saying is we should ignore 5 billion years of earth history in favor of the measurements taken in the last 150? That is what is called cherry picking evidence. We may not know what degree the world was at a given century but we sure can get a basic understanding of the temperatures. We can also get accurate CO2 level measurements and it has been FAR higher in the past. Life has existed on land for 400 million years and it is ridiculous to ignore that over the last 150 years. It seems that everyone if focusing on the first point - the temps of the last decade when there are SEVERAL others that need to be addressed. Part of that is the implications of a temperature change and weather it is manmade. Long historical measurements of conditions that were similar or even worse than our current situation could give insight into this. It seems that many GW proponents want to ignore that because it does not buy into the whole 'the world as we know it is ending.'

YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ME!

What I said was, the temp data for the earlier part of Earth's history comes from PROXY data collected from a very few locations and therefore reflects ONLY the temps for those areas and not the whole globe. Just the fact that another denier tried to pass off the 1934 USA temp as the warmest temp globally and was completely wrong, I merely said any attempt to globalize the very limited proxy data is PURE SPECULATION.

In short, you can't say today is "relatively cool" based on proxy data trumping direct instrument measurements. In reality, no one knows just how cool or warm the GLOBE is TODAY compared to millennia in the past.

All that can HONESTLY be said is this is globally the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement, no more and no less. You could argue that certain areas of the globe were warmer thousands of years ago, but not that the whole globe was warmer thousands of years ago.
Get it?

I may not speak for you but I certainly can reiterate a point that you seem to be making in the way I see it as to come to a mutual understanding. I still do not see how you can validate completely ignoring history at times when there is strong evidence of higher temperatures than today and definitive evidence there are higher CO2 levels. There have been studies on ancient ocean temperatures that give a very strong evidence that temperatures were warmer globally than they are now as well as other studies of bacteria and ice core samples. These are studied around the world and do give a damn good picture of what the world looked like millions of years ago to include global temperatures.

On that same track, there is absolutely no evidence of what would happen if the earth gets warmer. That is why we need to look at the state of the earth in the past. It paints a picture of the earth at those levels. It is why I have such a hard time with all this GW rhetoric of stop now or we will destroy the planet/us. What are you using to determine what the impact of global temperatures rising a few centigrade and once again how is this conclusively a manmade or even a carbon issue?

 

[Old Rocks]

So what you are saying is we should ignore 5 billion years of earth history in favor of the measurements taken in the last 150? That is what is called cherry picking evidence. We may not know what degree the world was at a given century but we sure can get a basic understanding of the temperatures. We can also get accurate CO2 level measurements and it has been FAR higher in the past. Life has existed on land for 400 million years and it is ridiculous to ignore that over the last 150 years. It seems that everyone if focusing on the first point - the temps of the last decade when there are SEVERAL others that need to be addressed. Part of that is the implications of a temperature change and weather it is manmade. Long historical measurements of conditions that were similar or even worse than our current situation could give insight into this. It seems that many GW proponents want to ignore that because it does not buy into the whole 'the world as we know it is ending.'

YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ME!

What I said was, the temp data for the earlier part of Earth's history comes from PROXY data collected from a very few locations and therefore reflects ONLY the temps for those areas and not the whole globe. Just the fact that another denier tried to pass off the 1934 USA temp as the warmest temp globally and was completely wrong, I merely said any attempt to globalize the very limited proxy data is PURE SPECULATION.

In short, you can't say today is "relatively cool" based on proxy data trumping direct instrument measurements. In reality, no one knows just how cool or warm the GLOBE is TODAY compared to millennia in the past.

All that can HONESTLY be said is this is globally the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement, no more and no less. You could argue that certain areas of the globe were warmer thousands of years ago, but not that the whole globe was warmer thousands of years ago.
Get it?

I may not speak for you but I certainly can reiterate a point that you seem to be making in the way I see it as to come to a mutual understanding. I still do not see how you can validate completely ignoring history at times when there is strong evidence of higher temperatures than today and definitive evidence there are higher CO2 levels. There have been studies on ancient ocean temperatures that give a very strong evidence that temperatures were warmer globally than they are now as well as other studies of bacteria and ice core samples. These are studied around the world and do give a damn good picture of what the world looked like millions of years ago to include global temperatures.

On that same track, there is absolutely no evidence of what would happen if the earth gets warmer. That is why we need to look at the state of the earth in the past. It paints a picture of the earth at those levels. It is why I have such a hard time with all this GW rhetoric of stop now or we will destroy the planet/us. What are you using to determine what the impact of global temperatures rising a few centigrade and once again how is this conclusively a manmade or even a carbon issue?

I have no problem with that. In fact, it is an issue that I have followed now for decades. Now one should refer to the scientists who study this issue, and that would be Geologists.

So what do Geologists have to say? Here is a presentation from the AGU Convention last December;

A23A

On the contrary, there is ample evidence in the geological record as to what happens when the earth warms or cools very rapidly. In very recent geologic history we have the Younger Dryas period where the earth entered a cool period, by about 3 degrees Celsius, in a decade, that persisted for about a thousand years, then the climate changed back, again in period of about a decade. Evidence shows that both changes stressed the the populations of animals in existance at the time. And ended the Clovis Culture in North America. Farther back, there is the PETM about 55 million years ago, a 20% extinction event, and, the big daddy of all extinction events, 95%, the P-T event.

The Younger Dryas
The Younger Dryas Cold Episode

PETM
PETM : Weather Underground

P-T
Methane catastrophe

 

[edthecynic]

So what you are saying is we should ignore 5 billion years of earth history in favor of the measurements taken in the last 150? That is what is called cherry picking evidence. We may not know what degree the world was at a given century but we sure can get a basic understanding of the temperatures. We can also get accurate CO2 level measurements and it has been FAR higher in the past. Life has existed on land for 400 million years and it is ridiculous to ignore that over the last 150 years. It seems that everyone if focusing on the first point - the temps of the last decade when there are SEVERAL others that need to be addressed. Part of that is the implications of a temperature change and weather it is manmade. Long historical measurements of conditions that were similar or even worse than our current situation could give insight into this. It seems that many GW proponents want to ignore that because it does not buy into the whole 'the world as we know it is ending.'

YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ME!

What I said was, the temp data for the earlier part of Earth's history comes from PROXY data collected from a very few locations and therefore reflects ONLY the temps for those areas and not the whole globe. Just the fact that another denier tried to pass off the 1934 USA temp as the warmest temp globally and was completely wrong, I merely said any attempt to globalize the very limited proxy data is PURE SPECULATION.

In short, you can't say today is "relatively cool" based on proxy data trumping direct instrument measurements. In reality, no one knows just how cool or warm the GLOBE is TODAY compared to millennia in the past.

All that can HONESTLY be said is this is globally the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement, no more and no less. You could argue that certain areas of the globe were warmer thousands of years ago, but not that the whole globe was warmer thousands of years ago.
Get it?

I may not speak for you but I certainly can reiterate a point that you seem to be making in the way I see it as to come to a mutual understanding. I still do not see how you can validate completely ignoring history at times when there is strong evidence of higher temperatures than today and definitive evidence there are higher CO2 levels. There have been studies on ancient ocean temperatures that give a very strong evidence that temperatures were warmer globally than they are now as well as other studies of bacteria and ice core samples. These are studied around the world and do give a damn good picture of what the world looked like millions of years ago to include global temperatures.

On that same track, there is absolutely no evidence of what would happen if the earth gets warmer. That is why we need to look at the state of the earth in the past. It paints a picture of the earth at those levels. It is why I have such a hard time with all this GW rhetoric of stop now or we will destroy the planet/us. What are you using to determine what the impact of global temperatures rising a few centigrade and once again how is this conclusively a manmade or even a carbon issue?

There you go again! I said nothing about "ignoring" anything. I said you can't generalize data from a few isolated areas and make global conclusions from it. Also the accuracy of proxy data is questionable since in periods where proxy data overlaps direct measurement the proxy data has been way off.
So rather than "ignore" proxy data, I said it must be taken with a grain of salt.
Get it now?