Dont Call It Global Warming

[rumrocks]

I see by your post, climate change is based on a moving 30 year time period.

Why was 30 years chosen.

Who decided on this figure.

What year was this decided.

Do you personally think thirty years is a long enough time period considering temperature records go back hundreds of millions of years.

To me this seems like a suspicious and ridiculously short period of time to base a decision on that will have life changing consequences for hundreds of thousands of people initially and later millions world wide.

People don't invest money, buy a house, buy equipment or choose a mate in what would be the equivalent of a few seconds of data in a 500 million year time span. More data is good, right?

Global warmers once again look suspect by ignoring valuable data.

[tweety]

I see by your post, climate change is based on a moving 30 year time period.

Why was 30 years chosen.

Who decided on this figure.

What year was this decided.

Do you personally think thirty years is a long enough time period considering temperature records go back hundreds of millions of years.

To me this seems like a suspicious and ridiculously short period of time to base a decision on that will have life changing consequences for hundreds of thousands of people initially and later millions world wide.

People don't invest money, buy a house, buy equipment or choose a mate in what would be the equivalent of a few seconds of data in a 500 million year time span. More data is good, right?

Global warmers once again look suspect by ignoring valuable data.

Well its just an indicator of trend. That is all. Is it going up or down. Could be 50 or 20 or 100, probably doesn't matter as long as you have a time period sufficient to average out the weather. 30 is certainly reasonable arrived at by smart stats people. To use a million years as average is not good either, too long.

The science and data are pretty clear, climate temp is increasing. Treating it like a religion is a problem. i'll let you guys argue whether or not the up trend is a problem or not - but you have to be in a special place to suggest the planet isn't warming or that CO2 isn't rising. Personally i don't think its a problem especially since i hate winter temps, but once the discussion moves away from math, i am not interested.

But the other interesting math is rate of rise post ice age. At various times over the last 2 million years it took the planet 5000 years to warm that few degrees whereas the last 100 and predicted next may have the same temp rise. Never in history has the planet risen so much in such a short time. That is the concern. Might not happen, but so far it looks like it will. The KT period with the big rock hitting, well that was different.

So that's the trouble maker for many people, the crazy short term rapid temp rise. Some people are truly worried, some see it as an opportunity to make money, some don't see a problem. Each group wants to convince the other group they are wrong.

So yes, more data is good, and there is millions of years of data. Trouble is the data is showing crazy temp rise in the industrialized world in a very short period.

[rumrocks]

I disagree, you're looking at digital thermometers and historical graphs that reinforce you're position on climate change. We as humans tend to do this.

I can't seem to find the digital thermometer for measuring lower temperature, probably because instruments fail more often in cold weather, but I have found graphs that reinforce and support my position.

I'm really not interested in walking around the internet shower room glancing down to see who has the longest graph or playing poker and raising you two graphs. It would be never ending.

I'm not saying linking graphs or articles aren't important to bolster a persons opinion, but in your case, you are dug in pretty deep and further links would be wasted.

Good luck in your battle.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

But the other interesting math is rate of rise post ice age. At various times over the last 2 million years it took the planet 5000 years to warm that few degrees whereas the last 100 and predicted next may have the same temp rise. Never in history has the planet risen so much in such a short time.

So yes, more data is good, and there is millions of years of data. Trouble is the data is showing crazy temp rise in the industrialized world in a very short period.

Now you are just making stuff up. Not even the alarmist scientists would make such a bold claim in the year 2020. The abrupt nature of climate change within the holocene is accepted science. The official records ( and there is some debate about the accuracy of them), indicate less than 1 degree C in over 100 years, that is a snails pace compared to many historical climate change events. Here are some quotes from alarmist websites:

There have been several such transitions in the past, but one of the largest and most dramatic transitions happened at the end of the last Ice Age. The planet hit a tipping point, and over a period of just 10 to 100 years warmed rapidly. Greenland warmed by 10 degrees Celsius.

Greenland had sometimes warmed a shocking 7°C within a span of less than 50 years. For one group of American scientists on the ice in Greenland, the "moment of truth” struck on a single day in midsummer 1992 as they analyzed a cylinder of ice, recently emerged from the drill hole, that came from the last years of the Younger Dryas. They saw an obvious change in the ice, visible within three snow layers, that is, scarcely three years! The team analyzing the ice was first excited, then sobered — their view of how climate could change had shifted irrevocably. The European team reported seeing a similar step within at most five years (later studies found a big temperature jump within a single year)

a 14-degree cold snap that had struck in the span of a decade

One sobering indication was a 2008 report on a new Greenland ice core that displayed a radical change in three years or less, the temperature stepping as much as 4°C in a single year.

A very intersting read if you have time.
Really shows how the scientific process works, and how the "consenus" opinion changes gradually over time, as more evidence comes forward. As science progressed from uniformitarianism, to thinking climate changed imperceptibly slowly over 1000's of years, to the startling acceptance that it can turn on a dime: https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm

[burnt]

Now you are just making stuff up. Not even the alarmist scientists would make such a bold claim in the year 2020. The abrupt nature of climate change within the holocene is accepted science. The official records ( and there is some debate about the accuracy of them), indicate less than 1 degree C in over 100 years, that is a snails pace compared to many historical climate change events. Here are some quotes from alarmist websites:

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

A very intersting read if you have time.
Really shows how the scientific process works, and how the "consenus" opinion changes gradually over time, as more evidence comes forward. As science progressed from uniformitarianism, to thinking climate changed imperceptibly slowly over 1000's of years, to the startling acceptance that it can turn on a dime: https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm

I had time.

And it seems that our blackface sockboy might not be able to boost that carbon tax quite enough to impact the earth's climate.

Surprise.

It's almost like humanity is not in control of quite everything yet. Very little, as a matter of record.

[tweety]

Now you are just making stuff up. Not even the alarmist scientists would make such a bold claim in the year 2020. The abrupt nature of climate change within the holocene is accepted science. The official records ( and there is some debate about the accuracy of them), indicate less than 1 degree C in over 100 years, that is a snails pace compared to many historical climate change events. Here are some quotes from alarmist websites:

A very intersting read if you have time.
Really shows how the scientific process works, and how the "consenus" opinion changes gradually over time, as more evidence comes forward. As science progressed from uniformitarianism, to thinking climate changed imperceptibly slowly over 1000's of years, to the startling acceptance that it can turn on a dime: https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm

That is the official position of the NOAA, short of KT, nothing like it on a global scale. Not exactly alarmists

[AlbertaFarmer5]

That is the official position of the NOAA, short of KT, nothing like it on a global scale. Not exactly alarmists

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Can you please back that statement up with proof.

[sumdumguy]

Frost Quakes in the big TO last night as temperatures dive to minus thirty. Pity - Prolly frigid temps are headed for Quebec. Too bad.

[tweety]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Can you please back that statement up with proof.

Any site that doesn't start with "guardian"

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Any site that doesn't start with "guardian"

So, you couldn't find any source to substantiate your claim.

The Guardian comment confuses me. The Guardian is easily the most unashamedly pro global major newspaper there is. Even going so far as to brag that they no longer will print any news or editorials that go against the crisis narrative. Are they not extreme enough, or why do you discount them as a source of climate information?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/16/the-guardians-climate-pledge-2019 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/16/the-guardians-climate-pledge-2019

[tweety]

You must not have looked very hard....

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You must not have looked very hard....

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

No, you are right, I did not look hard enough to find an archived article from NASA from 10 years ago containing the disclaimer that it is based on the best available science of the day, and is not being updated.
And did you note that it is based on the now thoroughly discredited temperature reconstruction done by the disgraced Micheal Mann?

I see that NASA is slowly distancing themselves from that position, and coming more inline with accepted science. As of 2016, they have reduced the claim down to unprecedented in the last 1000 years:

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) top climate scientist announced Tuesday that the Earth is warming at a pace not seen in at least the past 1,000 years

There is also this quote from 2016, but it is from the Guardian, so apparently it doesn't count:

In fact, the Guardian notes, "a NASA reconstruction shows that the pace of temperature increase over recent decades outstrips anything that has occurred since the year 500."

Is the year 500 just a random number, or a cherry picked starting date?

[tweety]

No, you are right, I did not look hard enough to find an archived article from NASA from 10 years ago containing the disclaimer that it is based on the best available science of the day, and is not being updated.
And did you note that it is based on the now thoroughly discredited temperature reconstruction done by the disgraced Micheal Mann?

I see that NASA is slowly distancing themselves from that position, and coming more inline with accepted science. As of 2016, they have reduced the claim down to unprecedented in the last 1000 years:


There is also this quote from 2016, but it is from the Guardian, so apparently it doesn't count:



Is the year 500 just a random number, or a cherry picked starting date?

Good to see at least you agree the climate is warming.....

[fjlip]

Good to see at least you agree the climate is warming.....

Since the ice age, mini ice age, absolutely, and WHO wishes it was COOLING since then????

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Good to see at least you agree the climate is warming.....

Never argued with that, we are fortunate enough to live in the warming phase, on a couple of different time scales, all within an extended interglacial.

Do you have any response to the post I made regarding the NASA article and the not so unprecedented rate of warming? Or just change the subject?