• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

New report on climate change released today

His sea level claim is bunk.

There are 1000's of hometowns that have a substantial warming trend to his that he claims does not.

I probably already wrote about it in this thread somewhere but I'll repeat it anyway. Suffice to say that we have seen a major regime shift in our summer weather pattern along the entire east coast of Florida. It is apparent at Titusville, Melbourne, Vero Beach, all the way down to Miami. Records going back to the late 19th century and the whole system just shifted in one jump in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The shift is consistent with changes in rain events up into the eastern 2/3s of the US in the summer. Big blocking high pressure is parking over the western Atlantic and the temperature anomaly aloft is capping our convection and trapping moisture at the surface. Our nights have gotten a lot warmer in a very short period and that moisture when advected up onto the continent is producing big convective rain events; a lot of them. This isn't a one off summer or two. It is > 10 consecutive summers during which we go the entire summer without the low temperature reaching the 100 year average and with dozens of days setting "record warm" minimums. I've lost track of the number of days that the temperature doesn't go below 80F at all during the entire day along the east coast of central and south FL. We don't get continental air masses down here in summer. Our daily low is dictated by the temperature at the 500 millibar level and how that affects our diurnal convection. Abnormally warm temps in the mid troposphere cap our convection and we bake in onshore winds blowing across abnormally warm coastal waters. It is obviously a bit more complicated than that but that is the way it is averaging out.
 
the medieval period which the Hockey Stitch tried to delete] it was warmer than today.

Where, and according to whom? Did you measure global temperatures in the medieval period?
Or are you relying on THE VERY SAME SCIENTISTS WHO TELL YOU THE EARTH IS WARMING AT UNPRECEDENTED SPEED DUE TO CARBON EMISSIONS?

Climate denyers - dumb and dumber.

Let me put this as easy as I can for you without overheating your brain!
It says it all when believers need to use derogatory terms to denigrate their opponents. It is usually a sign of of having no real facts, just a belief.
It may be a reality that a large chunk of the population have been hoodwinked into a belief that a trace gas can have a devastating impact on the planet. But that doesn't mean the effect is real.
I presume you are aware that the thin atmosphere of Mars is 95% carbon dioxide ?
I don't think Mars is very warm.
What is missing on Mars is surface water-and that is the major greenhouse gas on Earth-though it usually meditates the temperature rather than causing runaway temperatures.

Iv'e already posted a list of real scientists and geophysicists who don't agree in human caused global war........oops, nearly did it again, climate change as it is called today as the old moniker didn't cut it with the public at large.
As The whole GW/CC juggernaut rolls on, subtly shifting focus from dodgy science to politics and morality it is a lot easier to fleece the public and taxpayers out of billions of dollars on a futile attempt to cut CO2 [ plant food] which is just a harmless trace gas which at around 400PPM is much lower than it was in the past. The erupting Mt Etna in Sicily has been spewing CO2 into the atmosphere for weeks now. Even if human activity didn't produce one single CO2 molecule, this single volcanic eruption has already produced about as much CO2 as human activity has over the last 5 year period. Add to that the various bush fires around the globe and any rational person would see the futility of throwing trillions of dollars into a black hole.
 
As far as GLOBAL average temperature concerned there were no medieval warm period.
The IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001 then summarized research: "evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.
It was limited in area and and time fluke weather patterns distribution.
 
What is missing on Mars is surface water-and that is the major greenhouse gas on Earth-though it usually meditates the temperature rather than causing runaway temperatures.

Our atmosphere is currently holding a lot more water vapor than it did 10,20,40,80 years ago. Why is that?

which at around 400PPM is much lower than it was in the past.

How far in the past and what was the climate like back then? What were the dominant biota?


The erupting Mt Etna in Sicily has been spewing CO2 into the atmosphere for weeks now. Even if human activity didn't produce one single CO2 molecule,

Increase volcanic activity explains the increase in average CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years? Can you point us to the papers that lay out the numbers indicating that natural sources of CO2 are swamping anthropogenic sources?
 
Volcanos in aggregate (big ones like Etna, mid ocean ridges and all other geophysical burping and farting) average out to releasing about 0.645 billions tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere.

Humans release about 29 billions tons, primarily from burning fossil fuels.

Those are the prevailing estimates and tabulations.

You have other numbers? Sources?
 
the medieval period which the Hockey Stitch tried to delete] it was warmer than today.

Where, and according to whom? Did you measure global temperatures in the medieval period?
Or are you relying on THE VERY SAME SCIENTISTS WHO TELL YOU THE EARTH IS WARMING AT UNPRECEDENTED SPEED DUE TO CARBON EMISSIONS?

Climate denyers - dumb and dumber.

I presume you are aware that the thin atmosphere of Mars is 95% carbon dioxide ?
I don't think Mars is very warm.

Don't tax what's left of your brain, but try to think of some reasons that might be, Angelo. Like distance effecting solar intensity (mars gets about 1/4 the solar irradiance that earth does), or the thinness of the Martian atmosphere (which you mentioned but seemed to immediately forget). Go ahead - give it a try!

What is missing on Mars is surface water

You mean LIQUID water:

marswater.JPG
...and sunlight, and an EM field...

But we are talking about THIS planet, Angelo. Where temperature has always correlated with atmospheric CO2 content, despite your wishful thinking.
 
You seem to be obsessed with comparing science of the past with the science of today. Science does not stay still and evovles daily, hour, by hour, even by minute as new data, techniques, and technology evolves. It makes no difference if predictions 40 years ago weren't exactly accurat. But go ahead and continue to put your head in the sand. I hope global warming continues to burn your butt. And again you refuse to answer my question. Is it your stance to do nothing?

You obviously missed my statement that no matter what we do, the Earth and it's climate will continue to evolve and change like it has always done for billions of years. As far as science goes, there is theoretical science based on theory and models and experimentation and observation science. I know which one I'd take if my life depended on it!

Life as we know it does depend on doing something. So you believe it's perfectly okay to allow the unchecked spewing of carbon in the air. And it's perfectly fine like cities like Bejing China to have such smog-filled days that it is extremely dangerous for individuals to be outside without a respirator?

Observation science has shown that the climate is changing. You refuse to believe it. Your choice. No point in arguing with you. I am a scientist - a geologist in fact. I have studied the ice cores. I have OBSERVED the changes.
 
As far as GLOBAL average temperature concerned there were no medieval warm period.
The IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001 then summarized research: "evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.
It was limited in area and and time fluke weather patterns distribution.

Want you cake and eat it too hey? Toss a coin, heads man made GW/CC, tails man made GW/CC. I'm still waiting for conclusive scientific proof that any catastrophic predictions made about GW/CC tipping the planet to a point of no return in the last 40 years have actually eventuated. All Iv'e seen is skimming around the edges of a belief, not observable scientific fact. I dare anyone here to show me conclusive proof that anything predicted by the fraudster Al Gore in his Oscar winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth which a British court found nine gross untruths, have come to pass.

I repeat again that a billion years of climate history is not the only matter that the taxpayer funded IPCC ignores. It ignores completely, or downplays the natural ongoing climate impacts of a great many other natural factors such as the role of the Sun-the key provider of energy into the climate system. The IPCC cherry picks from a minority of studies that suggests its impact is minor and ignores the majority that suggests otherwise.

Although IPCC sanctioned climate models, [there's that word again] might be marvels of complexity, they also suffer from over-reliance on assumptions that so far have produced grossly exaggerated warming forecasts. It has to to assure itself of continuing funding by governments of various persuasions.

It was Hitler's propaganda minister Goebbels who once said : " Tell a lie often enough and eventually people will believe it!" Or something similar.
 

Notice the graph of historical sea ice levels?

I posted that to prove to you and other alarmists here of the never ending bullshit behind ALL predictions of doomsday! Remember that according to these same fraudsters and doomsayers, that the North Pole, as well as Antarctica were supposed to be completely ice free by now!
 

Using the American Enterprise Institute as a source on climate change is like using research funded by Phillip Morris to argue smoking is good for you. This is how fucking stupid and dishonest that organization is:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Es4gG9xVf8[/youtube]

Face it angelo, you don't believe in climate change because the facts don't match your narrative. That's it.
 
Volcanos in aggregate (big ones like Etna, mid ocean ridges and all other geophysical burping and farting) average out to releasing about 0.645 billions tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere.

Humans release about 29 billions tons, primarily from burning fossil fuels.

Those are the prevailing estimates and tabulations.

You have other numbers? Sources?
 
As far as GLOBAL average temperature concerned there were no medieval warm period.
The IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001 then summarized research: "evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.
It was limited in area and and time fluke weather patterns distribution.

Want you cake and eat it too hey? Toss a coin, heads man made GW/CC,

Again, there was no simultaneous increase in temperature during medieval warm period.
For any given region there are long term fluctuations in climate distributions associated with one or another cause/causes.
If you go 5000 years ago Middle East was a very nice place, 8000 thousand ago Sahara was a nice place. That does not in any way affect Global Warming conclusion.
If anything medieval warm period should give all the more reasons to be afraid of Global Warming because it tells you that climate is pretty chaotic and can change for no obvious reason, imagine what would happen if you give a real reason for change, like significant CO2 increase?
 

So... carbon emissions in the US are down from 6 billion tons/yr to 5 billion tons a year. Why is that relevant if carbon emissions have nothing to do with climate?
A lot of people have been making a lot of bad predictions for a long time. And water is wet.
You have not advanced your argument that there's no such thing as anthropogenic global warming, though. Nor have you demonstrated that global temperatures fluctuate independently from atmospheric CO2 content. In fact, THEY DON'T!:

temps.JPG

Deal with it.
 
lpetrich, I know you are a math wiz.

Can you show how in these previous eras (Carboniferous, Permian) that the much higher carbon dioxide levels combined with lower solar output (~2% less than now) would still lead to similar temperatures to our current time?

This is what Angelo will pull out next at seeing the above chart. That chart is almost a kill shot and the data behind its construction is solid.

320px-Solar_evolution_(English).svg.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_luminosity
 
Back
Top Bottom