When people talk about climate change

[Neutron Monster]

This is the sort of thing that it creates. This is why it matters.

It's not about it being 1 degree hotter or some change in air temperature; it's about how it will change how we work and live via a gradual change in our environment.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/04/13/climate_change_wyoming_experiencing_effects_now.html

 

[Stevedangos]

I am not a climate change or global warming denier, but its a naturally occuring event that has been going on since the dawn of time. (even I wont try to argue with a thermometer

)

What blows the entire CO2 theory is that if you study the data from Vostok it shows that increases in CO2 levels lag BEHIND increases in temperature by about 800 years. If greenhouse gasses are the major driver of global warming I would think increases in CO2 would preceed temperature increases ???

 

[Neutron Monster]

Nope.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract

 

[Drop.Tine]

The red line is the average from 1972-1999, and the purple from 2000-2013.




Why the disparity in years? And why the lack of information pre-1972? Why in one gathering of information did he use 27 years and another only 13? Why not go from 1986 to 1999? Why not compare 1986-1973 to 1987-1999 to 2000-2013? Why start in 1972?

My mind was so blown by the years he decided as the standard, I couldn't go on from there..............

 

[Stevedangos]

I think I will believe data charted by NOAA before something from Science Magazine

Another case where people making their living from climate change come up with a formula to make the facts support their position

Kind of like email gate when a scientist from East Anglia said "it's a Travisty the data doesn't support our position " lol

 

[wcowherd]

Co2 has half the thermal conductivity of air. Putting more co2 in the air will mean that air will retain more heat. The largest thermal sink on earth is the ocean, which means it will absorb most of the heat. As the water heats ice will melt. As water melts it expands, which means the oceans will rise, and that's when hell breaks loose.

It's really simple chemistry.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by Stevedangos:
I think I will believe data charted by NOAA before something from Science Magazine

Another case where people making their living from climate change come up with a formula to make the facts support their position

Kind of like email gate when a scientist from East Anglia said "it's a Travisty the data doesn't support our position " lol

You are showing the worst sort of bias in this post - when presented with evidence that contradicts your position, you are saying "the facts be damned."

 

[Neutron Monster]

Originally posted by Drop.Tine:

The red line is the average from 1972-1999, and the purple from 2000-2013.




Why the disparity in years? And why the lack of information pre-1972? Why in one gathering of information did he use 27 years and another only 13? Why not go from 1986 to 1999? Why not compare 1986-1973 to 1987-1999 to 2000-2013? Why start in 1972?

My mind was so blown by the years he decided as the standard, I couldn't go on from there..............
Maybe something started happening in 2000 that he wanted to isolate...just a hint for you.

 

[wccards21]

Originally posted by wcowherd:
Co2 has half the thermal conductivity of air. Putting more co2 in the air will mean that air will retain more heat. The largest thermal sink on earth is the ocean, which means it will absorb most of the heat. As the water heats ice will melt. As water melts it expands, which means the oceans will rise, and that's when hell breaks loose.

It's really simple chemistry.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Pure evil. Where's my bible verse now?

 

[Expect2Win]

Thermal energy, Gas laws, heat transfer. Wouldn't that all fall under physics instead of chemistry?

 

[Drop.Tine]

Originally posted by Neutron Monster:

Originally posted by Drop.Tine:


The red line is the average from 1972-1999, and the purple from 2000-2013.




Why the disparity in years? And why the lack of information pre-1972? Why in one gathering of information did he use 27 years and another only 13? Why not go from 1986 to 1999? Why not compare 1986-1973 to 1987-1999 to 2000-2013? Why start in 1972?

My mind was so blown by the years he decided as the standard, I couldn't go on from there..............


Maybe something started happening in 2000 that he wanted to isolate...just a hint for you.

Hey thanks for pointing out the obvious. I am just wondering why they picked 1972 and didn't break down from 1990. Or what was wrong with the 80's. Why not 1971? Why not examine even number of years?

I guess you could just avoid that question and go back to believing every statistical graph that is in favor of whatever you're wanting to push. I wonder if from 1971 to 1950 the trend was the opposite? Then maybe from 1950 to 1936.5 it swung the opposite direction?

#notenoughtimeframe #cherrypickingyears

 

[DOGFATHER1]

The Washington Post.....

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the
Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical
change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the
Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been
met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100
meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the
report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely
disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern
Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so
far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise
and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

* * * * * * * * *

I must apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from
November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington
Post - 93 years ago!!!!!!! Dr. CHG




=)~

 

[millerbleach]

Originally posted by DOGFATHER1:

The Washington Post.....

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the
Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical
change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the
Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been
met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100
meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the
report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely
disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern
Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so
far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise
and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

* * * * * * * * *

I must apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from
November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington
Post - 93 years ago!!!!!!! Dr. CHG




=)~

Why do you insist on ignoring true science?

 

[Expect2Win]

It's really cold here in Rolla tonight, in April. Must not be any of that global warming stuff here.