Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by mocgator, Sep 2, 2014.
In fact, Time magazine had a cover around 1975 or so with the headline "The Next Ice Age?".
OHHHH!!! The 1979 record is only the satellite history. So "lowest on record" is a 35 year record, similar to how the "highest on record" temperatures go back to about 1880 (warming after the little ice age). Right?
See the bottom link in post #30. Skeptical Science actually addresses that Time article and the claims about cooling. There's is not the last word, obviously, but they raise some important issues.
Well he invented the Internet also.
Sea ice has been directly measured by satellites since 1979 (actually slightly earlier, by an incompatible earlier satellite). Temperatures have been directly measured by instruments (reasonably widely, by thermometers) since the 1880's or so. Measurements before then require proxy methodologies like tree rings or ocean floor samples (for general climate markers) and such. "On record" generally means you were able to directly measure something, instead of having to extrapolate from an indirect method.
You can also use shipping records to go back to the 50's or so (Hadley) as a proxy, as they are obviously not direct measurements.
What have you concluded based on this revelation?
You realize that it's not so easy to make comparisons across different data sets with different collection methods, or sometimes even within a single data set that might have at some point have changed the collection process in important ways, such as changing the instrument?
How do you know there was a little ice age, anyway?
Newsflash! Ultraconservative guy on message board says global warming is a hoax!
Who happens to have direct experience in the business...
A lot of people have direct experience in the business. People who, unlike you, have PhDs in climate science.
And what have these PHD's in climate change been predicting for 20 years?
Increase in hurricanes? Increase in tornadoes? Islands be underwater by now? CO2 causing increase in temps,when it has been hotter with a great deal less CO2 in the atmosphere?
One thing they have ben saying is that the reasons for predictions not being accurate is due to natural causes, nature, not man.
This is what causes me the most concern. None of their dire predictions are coming true. At some point and time they have to stop saying the science is settled. Its pretty clear they dont know jack.
All I need to know is that all that is needed to fix this "scientific issue" is more money from a cap & trade tax or other such tax.
I find it deeply ironic that religion and science, which are at odds with one another, have both come to the conclusion that the best way to be forgiven of your sins is to open up your wallet.
And they both know where it is they need to go to get that money, too.
and yet you continue to rely on the continually debunked David Rose and Daily Mail. why would you do that if you're such an expert?
Actually the predictions have been solid, as has been shown on numerous threads on these boards time and time again. It is true that none of the "worst case" scenarios has happened, which is of course a good thing, and perhaps that is what you're referencing. But if you are suggesting that the forecasting has been poor top to bottom, that's just wrong. Again.
So they are about as accurate as the local weatherman.
You cant scream from the rooftops time and again and none of it actually occur.
I dont consider myself a right wing nut nor a climate denier. Yet I find myself asking why the constant doomsday messages?
Contrary to your statement here, Hansen famously forecast three scenarios. Worst case to best case. The best case scenario was if we actually achieved Kyoto emission targets and allayed the man-made CO2 threat. Actual measured temperatures have remained below his "best case" and below most every other model out there, from modest to catastrophic.
Any examples you may have are well within natural historic variation. Failed forecasts include hurricane force and frequency, sea level rise, less snow and many others.
"Screaming from the rooftops" is generally hyperbole I'd associate with someone you say you're not. Again, the great bulk of predictions have fallen within the stated ranges. IOW, they're right. Only acknowledging a single part of the range is the same cherry-picking tunnel vision necessary to try to support the first post in this thread.
Just to be clear you are saying Al Gores "Inconvenient Truth" should be removed from the public classroom for it has way too many lies? Or does this tale fall within the predictions?
I realize it isn't easy. That's why it bothers me that many of these climatologists seem to act like it is easy and express perhaps too much confidence both in their historical temperature proxies and model projections.
Simply google the weather impacts of the Little Ice Age and you'll find tons of historical data about crop failures and accompanying famine, the rise and fall of Vikings on Greenland, ice festivals on the Thames River, etc. Here's one review of the widespread impacts of the LIA by a professor who begins his paper with a disclaimer (just for you, I'm sure) that his research doesn't disavow modern APGW.
And here's a pretty good documentary on the topic:
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v158890018kQaxQaK?h1=Little Ice Age, Big Chill
Gore's documentary was sourced from various scientists and the IPCC. You can't just toss out his statements as if they were made up by a politician. They are generally representative of the state of climate science today. Alarmist predictions that have predominantly failed.