Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Temperature has been rising gradually since the 1850's too,but the point that I made that amazingly eludes everyone here so far is the TRENDS.They are almost identical in each warming block since the 1850's.
The current "Modern warming" is no greater than the Minoan,Roman and Medieval warm epochs of the last 3,500 years.
Meanwhile there have been a lot of times where temperature changed radically and CO2 didn't through out this interglacial period.
This chart in the link is based on the ice core data:
There they show how little CO2 levels in the atmosphere changed very little while there were large temperature swings from warm to cool back to warm and so on for the last 10,000 + years.
It is funny that you neglect to see the significant temperature changes of the late 1800's with negligible CO2 changes.
Difference is modern man is using 100 million barrels of oil every day, would the consequence of this not in some way affect our climate causing an abnormal rise in global temperatures?. or do you believe there is no climatic consequence to using that much fossil fuel on a daily basis.
I love it when people try hard to deflect from what I am talking about,which is about temperature TRENDS of the last 150 years.
Still no counterpoint to what I wrote here.
Ok let this oceanographer chime in.
First, it isn't "warmist" science, its climatology. Thanks.
Second, Milankovitch cycles are the PREDICTABLE periods of global climate change which you are referring to when you say "unusual or unpredictable". Except the current trend should be for global cooling.
Third, don't believe in greenhouse effect? Really, this is a demonstrable FACT. Get a tall fish tank, built a terrarium, leave the top off, and add a lamp. Monitor temps, throughout the tank. Now add approximately 400ppm of additional CO2. Want to guess what will happen? Every student who has been through my classes can tell you since we literally do this every year.
As for "trends" warming is warming. If you want to look at the shape of the graph of heating up your oven it will be similar. It still doesn't MEAN anything. A different kickstart (anthropogenic greenhouse gases as opposed to precession) to the climate change doesn't mean the actual change will be different, just the timing.
First, it isn't "warmist" science, its climatology. Thanks.
Second, Milankovitch cycles are the PREDICTABLE periods of global climate change which you are referring to when you say "unusual or unpredictable". Except the current trend should be for global cooling.
Third, don't believe in greenhouse effect? Really, this is a demonstrable FACT. Get a tall fish tank, built a terrarium, leave the top off, and add a lamp. Monitor temps, throughout the tank. Now add approximately 400ppm of additional CO2. Want to guess what will happen? Every student who has been through my classes can tell you since we literally do this every year.
As for "trends" warming is warming. If you want to look at the shape of the graph of heating up your oven it will be similar. It still doesn't MEAN anything. A different kickstart (anthropogenic greenhouse gases as opposed to precession) to the climate change doesn't mean the actual change will be different, just the timing.
Ha ha,
you all the others here can't even follow what I brought up,which is about temperature TRENDS.
My very first post showed that ALL THREE warming periods since the 1850's are nearly the same TREND WISE.About .16C per decade and that according to Dr. Jones in the BBC interview I linked to.Which means this latest warming period that appears to have ended about 10 + years ago is no greater than the earlier ones.This means there is no obvious AGW signal in it since the postulated forcing of CO2 itself is very small,which has long been agreed on by most scientists,warmists and skeptics,does not show up statistically.
This is why I laugh so much is that you people can't even follow what I have been saying at all.That you cling to a rare atmosphere gas with very limited IR absorption range AND that its main band is still outside the main terrestrial IR outflow area of the IR spectrum.It is silly stuff that you look hard for the crumbs when it is WATER VAPOR that dominates the warming and cooling process.
Your fish tank babble does nothing to answer my first post at all,which is about periodic warming temperature TRENDS since the 1850's.
Still not a decent counterpoint for me to work with.
Last edited by Sunsettommy; 02-26-2014 at 06:55 PM..
Difference is modern man is using 100 million barrels of oil every day, would the consequence of this not in some way affect our climate causing an abnormal rise in global temperatures?. or do you believe there is no climatic consequence to using that much fossil fuel on a daily basis.
First of all I am talking about warming and cooling TRENDS.It is something that not a single one of you have yet to address.I specifically point out THREE visible warming periods since the 1850's and that all THREE times the warming TREND is about the same including the most recent one that ended around 10+ years ago.
You write speculatively without a shred of relevance to what I am talking about,it is normally called a conversation deflection.How about sticking with the topic at hand and address what I have been posting about,which is about temperature TRENDS.
The incredible inability of warmists to stick to the topic and especially over what I am primarily writing about is simply amazing!
First of all I am talking about warming and cooling TRENDS.It is something that not a single one of you have yet to address.I specifically point out THREE visible warming periods since the 1850's and that all THREE times the warming TREND is about the same including the most recent one that ended around 10+ years ago.
You write speculatively without a shred of relevance to what I am talking about,it is normally called a conversation deflection.How about sticking with the topic at hand and address what I have been posting about,which is about temperature TRENDS.
The incredible inability of warmists to stick to the topic and especially over what I am primarily writing about is simply amazing!
First, I'd like to rail against the annoying trope of every weather event being evidence of "climate change". Weather is variable, there will be hot days and cold days and records will be broken. An individual record is not evidence of any climate change and the media does no one any favors by trying to sell their stories in such a way.
As to your three visible warming trends, even in a stationary climate one would expect such warming trends to occur with some frequency. What the hallmark of an increasing temperature would be is the absence of similar cooling trends. If one sees noisy data that goes down as much it goes up, one concludes that the slope is near-enough to zero that it cannot be distinguished. If, however, one sees noisy data that goes up and stays flat, one would conclude that there is a small but detectable upward increase. It's your graph, so the question falls to you now--are similar cooling trends visible?
First of all I am talking about warming and cooling TRENDS.It is something that not a single one of you have yet to address.I specifically point out THREE visible warming periods since the 1850's and that all THREE times the warming TREND is about the same including the most recent one that ended around 10+ years ago.
You write speculatively without a shred of relevance to what I am talking about,it is normally called a conversation deflection.How about sticking with the topic at hand and address what I have been posting about,which is about temperature TRENDS.
The incredible inability of warmists to stick to the topic and especially over what I am primarily writing about is simply amazing!
Not sure what a warmist is but how does your esteemed knowledge and research stack up against what the scientific community is saying, for example.? Climate Change: Consensus
Al Gore was so certain of global warming that he admitted he " exaggerated" to get people's attention.
Al Gore was so certain of global warming, but hedged his bets by having a heated driveway installed at his home in TN.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
