midtnvol
|
|
« on: March 14, 2013, 03:29:41 EDT » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Creek Walker
Guest
|
|
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2013, 03:49:50 EDT » |
|
It's been 15 years now since the "warmest year on record," and politically-guided scientists still claim that the earth is warming at a faster rate now than ever before. Wow.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
midtnvol
|
|
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2013, 06:24:25 EDT » |
|
It's been 15 years now since the "warmest year on record," and politically-guided scientists still claim that the earth is warming at a faster rate now than ever before. Wow.
Climate isn't about one year.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Creek Walker
Guest
|
|
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2013, 07:16:23 EDT » |
|
That's true. Tell that to all the global warming fearmongerers who blame things like super storm Sandy on AGW. However, it's been 15 - FIFTEEN - years. If we are "warming more rapidly than ever before," why haven't we exceeded the '98 high water mark. Is the earth warmer today than it has historically been? Obviously. But who's to say this isn't a cyclical occurrence that has plateaued?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
midtnvol
|
|
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2013, 01:10:39 EDT » |
|
Did you read the article? It's talking about the rate of change and predictions in the very near future. It never said anything about today being the warmest in recorded history but the rate of change is far greater than can be ascertained from fossil records for the last 100 or so centuries.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Creek Walker
Guest
|
|
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2013, 04:53:03 EDT » |
|
Did you read the article? It's talking about the rate of change and predictions in the very near future. It never said anything about today being the warmest in recorded history but the rate of change is far greater than can be ascertained from fossil records for the last 100 or so centuries.
Yes, I did. But how can we talk about the acceleration of the rate of change without mentioning that we've gone 15 years with temperatures at a plateau? That has to be taken into account. Fifteen years is a long time, even when we're talking about eons of history.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
midtnvol
|
|
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2013, 01:45:59 EDT » |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 02:03:19 EDT by midtnvol »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
PirateVOL
|
|
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2013, 02:46:42 EDT » |
|
You are 100% correct, there is zero (0) hard data for man made global warming, or global warming for that matter! Hell, you must remember that global cooling was going to kill us all, just 20-30 years ago! waiting with baited breath for the poles to swap, which will be far more harmful to inhabitants of this planet than global cooling/warming would ever think about.
|
|
|
Logged
|
All men dream: but not equally. Those who Dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds Wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the Dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they May act their dream with open eyes, to make it Possible. This I did. —T. E. Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly." - David Hackworth "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet" General James "Mad Dog" Mattis
|
|
|
midtnvol
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2013, 04:45:33 EDT » |
|
You are 100% correct, there is zero (0) hard data for man made global warming, or global warming for that matter!
Hell, you must remember that global cooling was going to kill us all, just 20-30 years ago!
waiting with baited breath for the poles to swap, which will be far more harmful to inhabitants of this planet than global cooling/warming would ever think about.
The only place I've read about global cooling is here. Since I was in the second grade (that was a few years ago) I've heard about greenhouse gasses and the problems they could cause. Looks like they had this one dead on.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Creek Walker
Guest
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2013, 02:58:48 EDT » |
|
The only place I've read about global cooling is here. Since I was in the second grade (that was a few years ago) I've heard about greenhouse gasses and the problems they could cause. Looks like they had this one dead on.
Seriously?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
midtnvol
|
|
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2013, 04:08:19 EDT » |
|
Seriously? Very seriously. I don't get "Time" or other periodicals. I never heard it discussed among any academic conclaves I attended. If it was it wasn't dwelled on or was dismissed as bad science.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
midtnvol
|
|
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2015, 10:45:08 EDT » |
|
That's true. Tell that to all the global warming fearmongerers who blame things like super storm Sandy on AGW. ," why haven't we exceeded the '98 high water mark.However, it's been 15 - FIFTEEN - years. If we are "warming more rapidly than ever before Is the earth warmer today than it has historically been? Obviously. But who's to say this isn't a cyclical occurrence that has plateaued?
Well 2014 topped 1998 and 2015 is on track to even better that one but if it doesn't set a record then we can assume global cooling is happening.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
PirateVOL
|
|
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2015, 01:49:47 EDT » |
|
Well 2014 topped 1998 and 2015 is on track to even better that one but if it doesn't set a record then we can assume global cooling is happening.
Other than the FACT we are on a 17 year GLOBAL cooling trend you might have a point. As the alarmists are fond of saying, weather is not climate. BTW, we are warming, from the little ice age, it's nature, it's what she does
|
|
|
Logged
|
All men dream: but not equally. Those who Dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds Wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the Dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they May act their dream with open eyes, to make it Possible. This I did. —T. E. Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly." - David Hackworth "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet" General James "Mad Dog" Mattis
|
|
|
|
|
BanditVol
|
|
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2015, 12:56:47 EST » |
|
Other than the FACT we are on a 17 year GLOBAL cooling trend you might have a point. As the alarmists are fond of saying, weather is not climate.
BTW, we are warming, from the little ice age, it's nature, it's what she does
Simply untrue. Temperatures ARE rising. Period, dot. You can see that here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201401-201412.pngHas the rate slowed? Certainly, but temperature rises are real, and do seem to be correlated with manmade CO2. The problem is, the results of the rise are greatly, and repeatedly, exaggerated. Just today I discussed with a friend some dire predictions of sea rise. Which, as it turns out, were based on an assumption that ice will continue melting well into the future given a fixed temperature increase, and the authors of the paper admit in the fine print that it's an assumption that may not be true. But that didn't prevent the reporter citing the source from stating "up to 286 million people" might be displaced by rising seas. What the reporter failed to mention was that those rising seas might take up to 100, 200, or even 2000 years and this is if you accept that the ice continues to melt more year after year at a fixed higher temperature, which, to say the least, is a big assumption. Anyway, temperatures have definitely increased and continue to do so, but the rate is small and the effects much smaller (IMO), than some of the alarmists would suggest.
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The speed of our movements is amazing, even to me, and must be a constant source of surprise to the Germans.” G. Patton
|
|
|
|
BanditVol
|
|
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2015, 10:07:15 EST » |
|
I'm not impressed with the source. They use a very selective time frame to make their point and also limit it to a single source of data. My plot is from a government agency that shows the consensus temperature increase from multiple data sources. It shows a leveling off in the time frame cited by your article, but just glancing at it, it's not quite zero. But they do appear to be pretty close.
|
|
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 10:12:20 EST by BanditVol »
|
Logged
|
"The speed of our movements is amazing, even to me, and must be a constant source of surprise to the Germans.” G. Patton
|
|
|
PirateVOL
|
|
« Reply #18 on: November 13, 2015, 10:17:29 EST » |
|
Simply untrue. Temperatures ARE rising. Period, dot. You can see that here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201401-201412.pngHas the rate slowed? Certainly, but temperature rises are real, and do seem to be correlated with manmade CO2. The problem is, the results of the rise are greatly, and repeatedly, exaggerated. Just today I discussed with a friend some dire predictions of sea rise. Which, as it turns out, were based on an assumption that ice will continue melting well into the future given a fixed temperature increase, and the authors of the paper admit in the fine print that it's an assumption that may not be true. But that didn't prevent the reporter citing the source from stating "up to 286 million people" might be displaced by rising seas. What the reporter failed to mention was that those rising seas might take up to 100, 200, or even 2000 years and this is if you accept that the ice continues to melt more year after year at a fixed higher temperature, which, to say the least, is a big assumption. Anyway, temperatures have definitely increased and continue to do so, but the rate is small and the effects much smaller (IMO), than some of the alarmists would suggest. Bull shizzle We have seen FALLING temps across the world for the last 17 years! The Arctic ice extent is approaching records Oh,'and by the way, despite the wholesale manipulation of records, we are still aren't any warmer than natural solar cycles account for
|
|
|
Logged
|
All men dream: but not equally. Those who Dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds Wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the Dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they May act their dream with open eyes, to make it Possible. This I did. —T. E. Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly." - David Hackworth "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet" General James "Mad Dog" Mattis
|
|
|
Be-the-Vol
|
|
« Reply #19 on: November 13, 2015, 02:37:20 EST » |
|
I'm not impressed with the source. They use a very selective time frame to make their point and also limit it to a single source of data.
My plot is from a government agency that shows the consensus temperature increase from multiple data sources.
It shows a leveling off in the time frame cited by your article, but just glancing at it, it's not quite zero. But they do appear to be pretty close.
I don't really care how impressed you are with the source, as I can show the same conclusion from multiple sources. I know you don't care how unimpressed I am with your "government agency" source, a source that I would assume has a large stake in the results of the data. I also wonder if any of the data sets were based on computer modeling rather than, as my source was, based on verifiable satellite data? It may be that none was obtained from computer models, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were. As I said in my post, it depends on who and what you believe. Also, a few weeks ago there was a thread on the board about what a hypothetical conversation might be like between a scientist and a person of faith. It was said that the scientist would never just say "conversation over" like a person of faith was supposedly predisposed to say. I think your "Period, dot." nonsense confirmed what I believed to be true - thanks for that.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Creek Walker
Guest
|
|
« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2015, 03:31:10 EST » |
|
Here's my question on climate change: Why can't the answer lie somewhere in the middle? Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why does it all have to be AGW-related if you're a liberal or humans are completely blameless if you're a conservative?
We KNOW the earth is warmer today than it was 50 years ago. We KNOW that we're seeing some of the consequences of that. What we DON'T know, and may never know, is whether humans played a role in that or whether it's a naturally-occurring, cyclical phenomenon. And what we're unsure about is just how much the earth has warmed since that massive El Nino year in 1998. (Since El Nino is again off the charts this year, I'd anticipate that this is going to be another hot year, globally, that will give global warming scaremongers ammunition.)
I'm very much a skeptic that humans can actually influence the amount of warming we saw in the latter part of the 20th Century. But I'm not so dead set against the idea that I don't want to learn more if I can. In the meantime, would it really hurt us to clean up our act a little bit? We know that our behaviors are polluting the atmosphere and harming the environment. That isn't debatable. If we can reduce carbon emissions and consume more renewable energy, why wouldn't we want to? But, on the flip side of that, is there really enough data to justify wholesale change that could plunge the U.S. into an economic recession that surpasses even the Great Recession of '07-'09, just so we feel good about our efforts to prevent climate change that we aren't sure is caused by man in the first place?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Be-the-Vol
|
|
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2015, 04:21:19 EST » |
|
Here's my question on climate change: Why can't the answer lie somewhere in the middle? Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why does it all have to be AGW-related if you're a liberal or humans are completely blameless if you're a conservative?
We KNOW the earth is warmer today than it was 50 years ago. We KNOW that we're seeing some of the consequences of that. What we DON'T know, and may never know, is whether humans played a role in that or whether it's a naturally-occurring, cyclical phenomenon. And what we're unsure about is just how much the earth has warmed since that massive El Nino year in 1998. (Since El Nino is again off the charts this year, I'd anticipate that this is going to be another hot year, globally, that will give global warming scaremongers ammunition.)
I'm very much a skeptic that humans can actually influence the amount of warming we saw in the latter part of the 20th Century. But I'm not so dead set against the idea that I don't want to learn more if I can. In the meantime, would it really hurt us to clean up our act a little bit? We know that our behaviors are polluting the atmosphere and harming the environment. That isn't debatable. If we can reduce carbon emissions and consume more renewable energy, why wouldn't we want to? But, on the flip side of that, is there really enough data to justify wholesale change that could plunge the U.S. into an economic recession that surpasses even the Great Recession of '07-'09, just so we feel good about our efforts to prevent climate change that we aren't sure is caused by man in the first place?
Well said. I think the US has taken, and plans to take, tremendous steps to reduce pollution, increase conservation, and spread environmental awareness over the past few decades, which I think is a great thing. What I fear is that data manipulation and alarmism is being used to try to control people's lives and take more of their hard earned money in an attempt to try and address a problem that may not need addressing (or can't be addressed by humans, as mother nature likes to remind us from time to time). Just color me skeptical but not closed minded on the issue.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Creek Walker
Guest
|
|
« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2015, 04:58:32 EST » |
|
Well said. I think the US has taken, and plans to take, tremendous steps to reduce pollution, increase conservation, and spread environmental awareness over the past few decades, which I think is a great thing. What I fear is that data manipulation and alarmism is being used to try to control people's lives and take more of their hard earned money in an attempt to try and address a problem that may not need addressing (or can't be addressed by humans, as mother nature likes to remind us from time to time). Just color me skeptical but not closed minded on the issue.
I agree. And what is concerning is there are plenty of examples of data manipulation but when that is brought up, skeptics are shouted down by AGW alarmists with the aid of their right arm, which is the mainstream media.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BanditVol
|
|
« Reply #23 on: April 28, 2016, 02:29:04 EDT » |
|
I don't really care how impressed you are with the source, as I can show the same conclusion from multiple sources. I know you don't care how unimpressed I am with your "government agency" source, a source that I would assume has a large stake in the results of the data. I also wonder if any of the data sets were based on computer modeling rather than, as my source was, based on verifiable satellite data? It may be that none was obtained from computer models, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were. As I said in my post, it depends on who and what you believe. Also, a few weeks ago there was a thread on the board about what a hypothetical conversation might be like between a scientist and a person of faith. It was said that the scientist would never just say "conversation over" like a person of faith was supposedly predisposed to say. I think your "Period, dot." nonsense confirmed what I believed to be true - thanks for that. My original reply was not to you, it was to Pirate. To take just one example from the above, he states that "Arctic ice is at it's greatest extent". this is simply not true if one simply looks at satellite data. But to address your point, your plot started in 1998. The global warming trend started in the early 1900s so by definition it's not a true picture of what's going on. Finally, I am a person of faith, so right back at you. And a just for good measure.
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The speed of our movements is amazing, even to me, and must be a constant source of surprise to the Germans.” G. Patton
|
|
|
Be-the-Vol
|
|
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2016, 11:59:40 EDT » |
|
My original reply was not to you, it was to Pirate. To take just one example from the above, he states that "Arctic ice is at it's greatest extent". this is simply not true if one simply looks at satellite data. But to address your point, your plot started in 1998. The global warming trend started in the early 1900s so by definition it's not a true picture of what's going on. Finally, I am a person of faith, so right back at you. And a just for good measure. http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/http://www.naturalnews.com/041981_global_warming_computer_models_cooling.htmlhttp://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17470-nasa-data-global-warming-still-on-pause-sea-ice-hit-recordhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/#12977ea28bf0 http://nov79.com/gbwm/trees.htmlI know a few are a couple years old, and you'll question the sources, but we could post stuff like this all long, and it wouldn't change anyone's mind on the issue. Also, you being a person of faith doesn't change the fact that you made my point for me.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|