Jump to content

Temperature records smashed for the 7th month in a row


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif?resi

  • In the 1970s the scientists were all predicting global cooling and a future ice age.
  • The media served as the scientists’ lapdog parroting the alarming news.
  • The ice age never came—the scientists were dead wrong.
  • Now those same scientists are predicting global warming (or is it “climate change” now?)

The entire purpose of this myth is to suggest that scientists can’t be trusted, that they will say/claim/predict whatever to get their names in the newspapers, and that the media falls for it all the time. They were wrong about ice ages in the 1970s, they are wrong now about global warming.

What's fake, what isn't?  

I just noticed this in your post!! Irony is a bit**, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 295
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 minutes ago, dmo_dlo said:

Just the fact that you have to fake a Times cover, or use a doctored one, shows how baseless your points are. Yes, that cover is fake. Not that it really matters, because Times isn't a scientific publication anyway.

And fo the record, if you even look at the wikipedia page of global cooling, you would notice that even back then many more scientists were predicting warming than cooling. 

I guessed you missed my last line...go ahead full speed agenda

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

I guessed you missed my last line...go ahead full speed agenda

What?! :)

So you knowingly posted a fake picture to prove the fake claim that scientists faked an ice age back in 70s and are now proven wrong? That is so smart!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dmo_dlo said:

Global average temperature has increased by about 0.9 degrees celsius since pre-industrial values. You can see that from NASA or UK's Met Office. There is no proof that CO2 has caused this exact amount of warming because predicting the impact of CO2 and other gases would require use of models that include uncertainties. There are literally hundreds of models for climate prediction, and all are subject to these uncertainties. That said, they don't do so badly. Regardless, it is in fact simple physics that increased CO2 or other GHGs would heat up the planet. 

So there are two possibilities. First, all the models are wrong, the Earth is naturally warming and GHGs have added on top of that, and it just so happens that this unusual warming happened right when GHG emissions increased. Second, the Earth is warming and the main driver is increased GHG emissions. You may want to wish that the first possibility is true, but weight of evidence points to the second.

Also consider this: industrialization also resulted in increased particle emissions. Particles (mostly) cool the planet by scattering the sunlight back to the outer space. Again simple physics. We know that this cooling is happening (again how much is more uncertain), but the fact that despite this cooling the Earth has warmed up almost 1 degree means that the impact of GHGs could be even larger than what appears in the form of temperature records.

So in short you agree there is no scientific proof that CO2 has caused the temperature to go up any statistical significant amount since 1760. Good, we are getting somewhere.

Now, over the history of the planet, have there been been periods where the earth was warmer than it is today, warmed more than .9 degrees Celsius over a 250 year period? During these periods, did all life forms cease to exist due to this "warming" period with catastrophic results?  

Also, thank you for ackowledging the United Nations admitted agenda as it relates to climate change. It is to advance transfer of wealth from wealthy nations to poor nations. 

It amazes me that some don't ask themselves why they have been lied to so much (have to hide the decline) , when so many predictions have already been epic fails ( polar bears thriving) why so much science has been manipulated (hockey stick) to make things look worse than they are, officials being caught admitting this is about a transfer of wealth ( see quote above from United Nations official), yet some just keep  believing everything they are being told.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are 10 facts as presented by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth, that have either been shot down or already proven to be False.

1. The expected 20-foot rise in sea levels caused by melting ice caps: The judge accepted that this rise might happen, but only over the course of thousands of years.

2. The “shutting down of the ocean conveyor”: The judge claimed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said this gulf PIRATED VIDEO IS ILLEGAL may slow down, but it is not likely to stop completely.

3. The drying out of Lake Chad and the reduction of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro: The judge said the lake-drying is more likely caused by other human activity, like population increase or overfarming, and there is no real scientific consensus on the snow reduction.

4. Hurricanes are getting stronger: In the Al Gore global warming movie, the former vice president says that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming. The Science and Public Policy institute says there has been “no change in the strength of hurricanes” over the past six decades.

5. Pacific Islands are “drowning:” Science and Public Policy points out that Gore’s claim that low-lying islands near New Zealand are being evacuated is not due to global warming, but the unwise dynamite practices of the local fishermen.

6. CO2 is driving temperature increases: Science and Public Policy says Gore got the relationship between temperature increases and Co2 in reverse.

7. Record Japanese hurricanes: Science and Public Policy says Gore’s claim that 2004 saw a record number of typhoons striking Japan is false. They say the trend for typhoons has gone down over the last 50 years.

8. European heat wave deaths points to the horrors of global warming: The Al Gore global warming movie claims that 35,000 people were killed during a 2003 heat wave in Europe. The Science and Public Policy Institute says scientists are more likely to look to El Nino and volcanism rather than warming for heat waves, and points out that extreme cold is much more dangerous to humans than extreme heat.


9. Aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores: Gore claims you can see changes “in just two years.” Steig points out that Al Gore's global warming movie fails to mention you can’t see dust and aerosois at all in Antarctic cores and any changes are dubiously linked to the Clean Air Act as Gore claims.

10. A link between CO2 emissions and invasive plant species: Gore makes this link. Steig says that the invasive plant species is due to changes in the way land is being used, not global warming.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dmo_dlo said:

Your local meteorological service would have that. There is this cool interactive map from NOAA for climate normals (30 year averages). NASA also has an interactive map where you can select a station and all the years monthly averages.

From when do you determine the norm?  It seems to me that the global temperature is constantly on a path between very cold and very hot.  According to history, it seems logical that we should be headed to a high point.

6a010536b58035970c01b8d1876850970c-pi

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gazoo said:

So in short you agree there is no scientific proof that CO2 has caused the temperature to go up any statistical significant amount since 1760. Good, we are getting somewhere.

...  

Also, thank you for ackowledging the United Nations admitted agenda as it relates to climate change. It is to advance transfer of wealth from wealthy nations to poor nations. 

 

 

I never said that, and you're better off not trying to twist my words. I said there is no scientific certainty about the magnitude, like there is no scientific certainty about weather prediction or carcinogenicity or diet-related health or obesity or economic projections or ... We still make decisions about issues related to those despite inherent uncertainties, and climate should be no exception.

I did not acknowledge any UN agenda either. I said that was one personal opinion, and I agree with him that policies related to mitigation could lead to wealth redistribution. That has no bearing on the fact that climate change is happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Flip Flop said:

From when do you determine the norm?  It seems to me that the global temperature is constantly on a path between very cold and very hot.  According to history, it seems logical that we should be headed to a high point.

6a010536b58035970c01b8d1876850970c-pi

This is probably true but we don't have very accurate records beyond a couple hundred years and during that period there has been one consistent warming from mid 20-century. Again, this is besides the point, because there is no question that we are warming the planet. Is this larger than the historical extent of natural variability? Maybe yes, maybe no, but whatever comes naturally in warming or cooling will come on top of what we are doing. And in the last 30-50 years it has been significant warming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Flip Flop said:

From when do you determine the norm?  It seems to me that the global temperature is constantly on a path between very cold and very hot.  According to history, it seems logical that we should be headed to a high point.

6a010536b58035970c01b8d1876850970c-pi

There is a perfectly logical explanation, for instance the rise in 1100 BC which was MUCH HIGHER than today was due to the Egyptians camels farting. All life on the planet ceased to exist after that warming period.

i saw the movie Gasland where they showed the dude lighting the tap water on fire. Being born and raised on the Marcellus Shale in the southern tier of New York, I knew immediately that was a con job. My uncle used to light his tap water on fire when we were kids. We also had a town called "Burning Springs" not far where you could light the spring water on fire. The author of that movie flat out deceived its lemming viewers to suggest that was from fracking.

Why does Al Gore, Michael Mann and his hockey stick, United Nations Officials and all these other sources find it necessary to lie to us if the truth is really on their side? 

I am honestly a truth seeker. If CO2 is really a danger to our planet I definitely want to know and would support doing something about it. As of now I've been lied to so much it's hard to believe anything these liars have told us. I do know plant life feeds on CO2 and that the increased CO2 has has a profound positive impact on plant life.  Satellite images show stunningly good news for the earths plant lives, but you won't hear CNN tell you that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dmo_dlo said:

This is probably true but we don't have very accurate records beyond a couple hundred years and during that period there has been one consistent warming from mid 20-century. Again, this is besides the point, because there is no question that we are warming the planet. Is this larger than the historical extent of natural variability? Maybe yes, maybe no, but whatever comes naturally in warming or cooling will come on top of what we are doing. And in the last 30-50 years it has been significant warming.

In the last 20 years there has been almost no warming whatsoever. So you think it means something the 30 years before that it warmed a little, yet means nothing that it's virtually not warmed over the last 20 years? It's called temperature, been happening for millennia.

You keep pointing to these grossly flawed climate models to claim it is a fact man is warming the planet, yet dispute the temperature models from over the last several hundred years. Are you really suggesting it wasn't much hotter  in 1100 BC than it is now, is this your argument? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, dmo_dlo said:

I never said that, and you're better off not trying to twist my words. I said there is no scientific certainty about the magnitude, like there is no scientific certainty about weather prediction or carcinogenicity or diet-related health or obesity or economic projections or ... We still make decisions about issues related to those despite inherent uncertainties, and climate should be no exception.

I did not acknowledge any UN agenda either. I said that was one personal opinion, and I agree with him that policies related to mitigation could lead to wealth redistribution. That has no bearing on the fact that climate change is happening.

The question is not about whether or not man is contributing to GHG's in the atmosphere. The science is pretty well confirmed on it. There is a lack of certainty as to the actual long-term effects, but it's still a pretty safe bet to say that pollution is bad. Those statements are not the problem, IMHO. The problem is we can't have an intellectual discussion about what needs to change because one side does have an agenda when it comes to solely blaming the oil and gas industry. 

There is no scientific certainty around the primary contributor to MMGW. Politicians, the media, and the press attribute it to burning of fossil fuels. There is a very good report on how our changes to agriculture has caused more of our GHG emissions than fossil fuels, or any other Human factor. A UN report even attributed 50% of total GHG's to the agriculture industry.

China has 50% more emission than the US. They actually have less automobiles, and very similar energy consumption even though they have a much larger population. The US and China are the 1 and 2 top GHG emitters. Coincidentally, they are also 1 and 2 when it comes to agriculture. Even though we use fossil fuels at a similar rate, China emits 50% more GHG's. Why is that? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Flip Flop said:

From when do you determine the norm?  It seems to me that the global temperature is constantly on a path between very cold and very hot.  According to history, it seems logical that we should be headed to a high point.

6a010536b58035970c01b8d1876850970c-pi

I have as many qualifications as Cliff Harris and Randy Mann in climatology and meteorology. This chart is literally based on made-up information Harris supposedly from the Bible that has no real data to back it up, that doesn't follow any other known source of temperature records, and only goes back 4500 years because he's a YEC. To top it off, the chart is based around the arbitrary number of 57.1 degrees without a consistent scaling of temperatures throughout the graph. The dude is a loony-toon chemtrail nut who thinks there a global conspiracy to control the weather, and has been caught several times blatantly lying about what people have said to further his own agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to post all of the research on agriculture and GHG's. I would recommend that you research it yourself, just for self education on the subject matter. I will tell you the one conclusion in the research that is extremely compelling.

In the US, 1/3rd of our yield in agriculture is thrown away. If we became more efficient producing only what we actually consume, our total GHG emission would go down by 15%. Our entire transportation industry is attributed with only 14%. Even if every vehicle was zero emission, we couldn't reduce emissions as much as cutting our excess agricultural production.

Please note this is based only on what we actually consume, not on what we should consume. We are the most obese country in the world. We could stand to eat less, which would save even more than the 15% from what we over produce.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dmo_dlo said:

I didn't really want to discuss until this was moved to the proper forum (sorry Mods) but your statement is incorrect. Climate changes naturally but within limits of natural variability that is expected. What we see is unprecedented and therefore unexpected. It also doesn't change the main point that greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer than what would've been without them; that much is indisputable. 

As for record lows, the main feature of a changing climate is having extremes, so you will have unprecedented cold and heat waves, and possibly extreme storms, etc 

People that deny man made climate change are going to be seen just like we think of the flat earth society. Time and time again these type of anti science ideals are proven wrong and their believers shown to be ignorant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Dirtybird56 said:

Good stuff, thanks. Makes sense that the emissions of CO2 and other gasses unquestionably make it warmer, the question is just how warmer? Is it a coincidence our exponential increase in emissions  over the past couple decades has coincided with the warmest temperatures on record? Probability says lean a little towards it not being a coincidence, but can't say for sure knowing that the earth has had the variability that it has in the past

 

edit: not sure why some of it is in bigger font

Bottom line is pollution is bad, we need to stop polluting. The only people against that are corporate shills who are pushing corporate agenda's so Companies can cheaply pollute without consequences or with oil companies keep pushing their product on people like crack. The science is real but even if you threw out the idea of man made climate change is ANYONE going to sit here and argue that pollution is a good thing and we shouldn't stop it?

Just ask China how awesome it is for Corps. to go unchecked when it comes to pollution, they literally have to wear masks outside and have major emergencies and large numbers of lung cancer due to unchecked pollution.

Edited by MAD597
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Free Radical said:

Amusing to watch these people act like there's a giant global conspiracy behind global warming, acting as if there hasn't been a concentrated effort by those who benefit from the manufactured dissent repeated by certain groups. 

Yea that is the funny thing, somehow scientists all over the world are conspiring to gain something from the global warming science and Oil and other companies aren't benefiting at all from trying to deny global warming?

It's like these people are literally doing the marketing for the Oil companies themselves.

Let's clue some people in Oil companies and other corporate entities have ALOT more to gain by denying global warming than Scientists have to gain by pushing the idea of global warming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Free Radical said:

Amusing to watch these people act like there's a giant global conspiracy behind global warming, acting as if there hasn't been a concentrated effort by those who benefit from the manufactured dissent repeated by certain groups. 

universities and g.e. benefit from"global climate change" as much as the oil companies. It was a boondoggle from the start to create a new economic sector, follow the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, gazoo said:

I am honestly a truth seeker. If CO2 is really a danger to our planet I definitely want to know and would support doing something about it. As of now I've been lied to so much it's hard to believe anything these liars have told us. I do know plant life feeds on CO2 and that the increased CO2 has has a profound positive impact on plant life.  Satellite images show stunningly good news for the earths plant lives, but you won't hear CNN tell you that.

This is very common knowledge that is always discussed/known about increased CO2 levels. Man-made CO2 doesn't all end up in the atmosphere, but most of it does. Since industrialization about 42% of emitted CO2 has ended in the atmosphere, about 28% in the Ocean, and about 30% in biosphere in the form of biomass or Plants as you call them. There is no controversy, increased CO2 emissions will partly end up in biomass, but that isn't much good news because there is still more ending up in the air.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MAD597 said:

Yea that is the funny thing, somehow scientists all over the world are conspiring to gain something from the global warming science and Oil and other companies aren't benefiting at all from trying to deny global warming?

It's like these people are literally doing the marketing for the Oil companies themselves.

Let's clue some people in Oil companies and other corporate entities have ALOT more to gain by denying global warming than Scientists have to gain by pushing the idea of global warming.

the oil companies have bought patents and shelved real viable alternative energies. Wind mills and solar panels aren't the solution. Its as idiotic as still burning dead matter. Cavemen **** to 1,000 a.d. is not a great technological leap. Why get third party solar energy when you can create your own sun, or better yet and safer just absorb the energy from the atmosphere, Tesla had the answers. The robber barons just couldn't put a meter on his technologies so they **** canned it. But you and your ilk have been brain washed into thinking that the powers that be will give full disclosure and universities are the pinnacle of scientific discovery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...