Remember me
▼ Content

Annual Global Warming Graph (NOAA)



Page 1 of 4123>>>
Annual Global Warming Graph (NOAA)22-07-2017 18:16
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
I think it speaks for itself. Increased levels of CO2 according to NOAA show a slowing in global warming. I do think ozone depletion was a factor.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ChjIePOfW4pz9grW2
22-07-2017 19:22
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
James_ wrote:
I think it speaks for itself. Increased levels of CO2 according to NOAA show a slowing in global warming. I do think ozone depletion was a factor.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ChjIePOfW4pz9grW2



The last dot was the highest dot on the graph, I'm not going to argue with you about the significance of that but are you sure you are looking at the same graph?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
22-07-2017 19:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
double post


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Edited on 22-07-2017 19:24
22-07-2017 19:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
I think it speaks for itself. Increased levels of CO2 according to NOAA show a slowing in global warming. I do think ozone depletion was a factor.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ChjIePOfW4pz9grW2


NOAA does not know the temperature of the globe.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the globe to any useful degree of accuracy.

NOAA does not know the concentration of CO2 in the air.

It is not possible to determine the concentration of CO2 in the air of the entire globe to any useful degree of accuracy. Mauna Loa is ONE station. The few others are nowhere near enough.

Ozone is not depleting. It is not possible for it to. As long as you have Sun and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. Man can't destroy it even if he wanted to.


The Parrot Killer
22-07-2017 20:02
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
1880 - 2014 Annual rise 1.17 F per century

O.M.G. we're all gonna die from 1.17 F PER CENTURY!

Let's see, how many degrees different is the seasonal low at your home from the seasonal high?

For most states, the low is something around 0 degrees Fahrenheit, and the high is, oh, 100 degrees. So adding ANOTHER 1.17 F is simply the end of the world, right?

The greatest catastrophe facing mankind....... other than socialism, Islamic terrorism, squandering our national wealth on climate change research, green power subsidies, cap and trade waste, homosexual perverts molesting untold thousands of innocent children, lesbians and homosexuals preaching their demented evil to impressionable children and gullible adults, Democrats destroying America, Europe converting to sharia law...........
22-07-2017 20:36
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
StarMan wrote:
1880 - 2014 Annual rise 1.17 F per century

O.M.G. we're all gonna die from 1.17 F PER CENTURY!

Let's see, how many degrees different is the seasonal low at your home from the seasonal high?

For most states, the low is something around 0 degrees Fahrenheit, and the high is, oh, 100 degrees. So adding ANOTHER 1.17 F is simply the end of the world, right?

The greatest catastrophe facing mankind....... other than socialism, Islamic terrorism, squandering our national wealth on climate change research, green power subsidies, cap and trade waste, homosexual perverts molesting untold thousands of innocent children, lesbians and homosexuals preaching their demented evil to impressionable children and gullible adults, Democrats destroying America, Europe converting to sharia law...........


Why don't you look up the difference in average global temperatures between now and the ice age, small differences in temperature can have profound effects.

The greatest threat to mankind? weaponized ignorance.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
22-07-2017 21:06
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"stuffedman" stuttered: O.M.G. we're all gonna die from 1.17 F PER CENTURY!

One trillion+ ton Larsen C iceberg just undocked from Antarctica, following other Antarctic trillion+ ton icebergs, Ice Shelf collapses in both the Antarctic & Arctic in the past 20+ years. Total Antarctic land ice losses are ~ 150 cubic kilometers per year. Larsen C iceberg represents 8+ years of Antarctic ice loss, altho that is sea ice, not land ice (just comparing). Present to date Arctic sea ice losses are 11,000 cubic kilometers (equal to an ice cube measuring 23 kilometers by 23 kilometers by 65,000 feet high) compared to average Arctic sea ice of the 1980's. Energy needed to melt such a quantity of ice is ~ 36 times the annual energy consumption of the U.S.
All this melt despite the solar TSI being languid for 40+ years & low for 10+ years (including a 3+ year period where solar TSI set a 100 year low).
"stuffedman" is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' AGW denier liar whiner.
22-07-2017 21:20
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
spot wrote:


The greatest threat to mankind? weaponized ignorance.


Then don't you buy any guns.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Michael Mann's fraudulent Hockey Stick graph is exposed here:

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

a Nobel Laureate in physics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0&t=440s

Secretary of State John Kerry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMpd9Z8Uugg


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
22-07-2017 21:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Your link says it was much warmer in the last 3000 years. Please explain how Glaciers that are disappearing now managed to survive this.

Thanks.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
23-07-2017 00:18
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
spot wrote:
Your link says it was much warmer in the last 3000 years. Please explain how Glaciers that are disappearing now managed to survive this.

Thanks.



Sorry, spot, I don't play your game. Hundreds and hundreds of facts and graphs and reasonable points provided to you and you single out ONE THING? Glaciers "disappearing"? As if anybody's explanation would satisfy you? Or prove anything?

John Kerry told the developed world that the Third World's billions of people are striving to get a halfway decent life for themselves. Anything and everything that we do is MEANINGLESS. So you are welcome to live in squalor, never burn any fossil fuel again, suffer to your climate change sharia heart's content, but you will achieve NOTHING. It's a fraud. End of discussion.


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
23-07-2017 00:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@spot,
Over the last 3,000 years it hasn't been warmer. Around 1100 A.D. it's supposed to have warmed for a couple of centuries. What is being over looked is if the heat we're dumping into the atmosphere can effect what regulates the heat in the northern hemisphere.

@litesong, with Antarctica it is considered that the hole in the ozone layer above it has changed when patterns. As a result they say that warm water is upwelling from the sea floor. The problem with this is that the water on the sea floor is supposed to be cold. Warm water has been observed sinking in the Atlantic however.
23-07-2017 09:46
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
StarMan wrote:
spot wrote:
Your link says it was much warmer in the last 3000 years. Please explain how Glaciers that are disappearing now managed to survive this.

Thanks.



Sorry, spot, I don't play your game. Hundreds and hundreds of facts and graphs and reasonable points provided to you and you single out ONE THING? Glaciers "disappearing"? As if anybody's explanation would satisfy you? Or prove anything?

John Kerry told the developed world that the Third World's billions of people are striving to get a halfway decent life for themselves. Anything and everything that we do is MEANINGLESS. So you are welcome to live in squalor, never burn any fossil fuel again, suffer to your climate change sharia heart's content, but you will achieve NOTHING. It's a fraud. End of discussion.


You could link a million graphs how do I or anyone know that they are better then the peer reviewed ones? they aren't real, the glaciers are real, it's not a game it's not a trick question it's a big problem with your theory.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
23-07-2017 09:55
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
James_ wrote:
@spot,
Over the last 3,000 years it hasn't been warmer. Around 1100 A.D. it's supposed to have warmed for a couple of centuries. What is being over looked is if the heat we're dumping into the atmosphere can effect what regulates the heat in the northern hemisphere.

@litesong, with Antarctica it is considered that the hole in the ozone layer above it has changed when patterns. As a result they say that warm water is upwelling from the sea floor. The problem with this is that the water on the sea floor is supposed to be cold. Warm water has been observed sinking in the Atlantic however.


I think it's rather arrogant to declare that something is overlooked when you have no idea if it was looked into, heat into the atmosphere? What exactly do you mean? CO2 causes warming and that can be demonstrated so why sit there not read up on the subject and speculate?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
23-07-2017 20:02
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
spot wrote:

You could link a million graphs how do I or anyone know that they are better then (sic) the peer reviewed ones? they aren't real, the glaciers are real, it's not a game it's not a trick question it's a big problem with your theory.


Spot, learn the difference between "then" and "than."
Simple grammar is much, much easier to master than science and rational thinking. After you have taken some baby steps for a few years, get back to us for some discussions.

And it's not MY "theory." I reject the climate change "theory." It's a huge, greedy hoax.

You're now #3 on my Ignore List.

~ciao


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
23-07-2017 20:34
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
StarMan wrote:
spot wrote:

You could link a million graphs how do I or anyone know that they are better then (sic) the peer reviewed ones? they aren't real, the glaciers are real, it's not a game it's not a trick question it's a big problem with your theory.


Spot, learn the difference between "then" and "than."
Simple grammar is much, much easier to master than science and rational thinking. After you have taken some baby steps for a few years, get back to us for some discussions.

And it's not MY "theory." I reject the climate change "theory." It's a huge, greedy hoax.

You're now #3 on my Ignore List.

~ciao


I don't know how to use the ignore list feature of this site, you must be clever to figure that out.

And I'm also not a great writer well spotted.

But I have rationally thought that glaciers, which can be dated, that are melting now but are much older three thousand years shows something profound about past temperatures.

Have fun ignoring me, I will however point out your lies when appropriate.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
23-07-2017 22:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
spot wrote:
StarMan wrote:
spot wrote:
Your link says it was much warmer in the last 3000 years. Please explain how Glaciers that are disappearing now managed to survive this.

Thanks.



Sorry, spot, I don't play your game. Hundreds and hundreds of facts and graphs and reasonable points provided to you and you single out ONE THING? Glaciers "disappearing"? As if anybody's explanation would satisfy you? Or prove anything?

John Kerry told the developed world that the Third World's billions of people are striving to get a halfway decent life for themselves. Anything and everything that we do is MEANINGLESS. So you are welcome to live in squalor, never burn any fossil fuel again, suffer to your climate change sharia heart's content, but you will achieve NOTHING. It's a fraud. End of discussion.


You could link a million graphs how do I or anyone know that they are better then the peer reviewed ones? they aren't real, the glaciers are real, it's not a game it's not a trick question it's a big problem with your theory.


Consensus isn't used in science.

A 'peer reviewed' graph is no better than any other.

No one is monitoring the glaciers of the world.


The Parrot Killer
23-07-2017 22:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
spot wrote:
James_ wrote:
@spot,
Over the last 3,000 years it hasn't been warmer. Around 1100 A.D. it's supposed to have warmed for a couple of centuries. What is being over looked is if the heat we're dumping into the atmosphere can effect what regulates the heat in the northern hemisphere.

@litesong, with Antarctica it is considered that the hole in the ozone layer above it has changed when patterns. As a result they say that warm water is upwelling from the sea floor. The problem with this is that the water on the sea floor is supposed to be cold. Warm water has been observed sinking in the Atlantic however.


I think it's rather arrogant to declare that something is overlooked when you have no idea if it was looked into, heat into the atmosphere? What exactly do you mean? CO2 causes warming and that can be demonstrated so why sit there not read up on the subject and speculate?


How can it be demonstrated?


The Parrot Killer
23-07-2017 22:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
StarMan wrote:
spot wrote:

You could link a million graphs how do I or anyone know that they are better then (sic) the peer reviewed ones? they aren't real, the glaciers are real, it's not a game it's not a trick question it's a big problem with your theory.


Spot, learn the difference between "then" and "than."
Simple grammar is much, much easier to master than science and rational thinking. After you have taken some baby steps for a few years, get back to us for some discussions.

And it's not MY "theory." I reject the climate change "theory." It's a huge, greedy hoax.

You're now #3 on my Ignore List.

~ciao


You should understand that people like Spot do no understand the difference between rejecting a theory, creating a theory, and a void.

He feels (as many do here) that if you reject the 'climate change' theory, you are doing it by creating a new theory.

These guys can't even define what 'climate change' or 'global warming' even IS without using circular definitions.


The Parrot Killer
23-07-2017 22:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
spot wrote:
StarMan wrote:
spot wrote:

You could link a million graphs how do I or anyone know that they are better then (sic) the peer reviewed ones? they aren't real, the glaciers are real, it's not a game it's not a trick question it's a big problem with your theory.


Spot, learn the difference between "then" and "than."
Simple grammar is much, much easier to master than science and rational thinking. After you have taken some baby steps for a few years, get back to us for some discussions.

And it's not MY "theory." I reject the climate change "theory." It's a huge, greedy hoax.

You're now #3 on my Ignore List.

~ciao


I don't know how to use the ignore list feature of this site, you must be clever to figure that out.

And I'm also not a great writer well spotted.

But I have rationally thought that glaciers, which can be dated, that are melting now but are much older three thousand years shows something profound about past temperatures.

Have fun ignoring me, I will however point out your lies when appropriate.


No one is monitoring glaciers.

You don't know how old a glacier is. Glacier age measuring techniques are speculative in nature.


The Parrot Killer
23-07-2017 22:54
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
StarMan wrote:
spot wrote:

You could link a million graphs how do I or anyone know that they are better then (sic) the peer reviewed ones? they aren't real, the glaciers are real, it's not a game it's not a trick question it's a big problem with your theory.


Spot, learn the difference between "then" and "than."
Simple grammar is much, much easier to master than science and rational thinking. After you have taken some baby steps for a few years, get back to us for some discussions.

And it's not MY "theory." I reject the climate change "theory." It's a huge, greedy hoax.

You're now #3 on my Ignore List.

~ciao


I don't know how to use the ignore list feature of this site, you must be clever to figure that out.

And I'm also not a great writer well spotted.

But I have rationally thought that glaciers, which can be dated, that are melting now but are much older three thousand years shows something profound about past temperatures.

Have fun ignoring me, I will however point out your lies when appropriate.


No one is monitoring glaciers.

You don't know how old a glacier is. Glacier age measuring techniques are speculative in nature.


Glaciers are being monitored I know of people that do it.

The question is who to believe sources and people I know or some internet troll?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
23-07-2017 23:00
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
James_ wrote:
@spot,
Over the last 3,000 years it hasn't been warmer. Around 1100 A.D. it's supposed to have warmed for a couple of centuries. What is being over looked is if the heat we're dumping into the atmosphere can effect what regulates the heat in the northern hemisphere.

@litesong, with Antarctica it is considered that the hole in the ozone layer above it has changed when patterns. As a result they say that warm water is upwelling from the sea floor. The problem with this is that the water on the sea floor is supposed to be cold. Warm water has been observed sinking in the Atlantic however.


I think it's rather arrogant to declare that something is overlooked when you have no idea if it was looked into, heat into the atmosphere? What exactly do you mean? CO2 causes warming and that can be demonstrated so why sit there not read up on the subject and speculate?


How can it be demonstrated?


You could read a book for instance the one I linked and attempt to replicate the experiments described inside it.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
24-07-2017 02:22
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
James_ wrote:
@spot,
Over the last 3,000 years it hasn't been warmer. Around 1100 A.D. it's supposed to have warmed for a couple of centuries. What is being over looked is if the heat we're dumping into the atmosphere can effect what regulates the heat in the northern hemisphere.

@litesong, with Antarctica it is considered that the hole in the ozone layer above it has changed when patterns. As a result they say that warm water is upwelling from the sea floor. The problem with this is that the water on the sea floor is supposed to be cold. Warm water has been observed sinking in the Atlantic however.


I think it's rather arrogant to declare that something is overlooked when you have no idea if it was looked into, heat into the atmosphere? What exactly do you mean? CO2 causes warming and that can be demonstrated so why sit there not read up on the subject and speculate?


How can it be demonstrated?


You could read a book for instance the one I linked and attempt to replicate the experiments described inside it.


spot,
I'm not speculating. CO2 hasn't been proven to cause warming. No graph shows a consistent relationship between CO2 levels and global warming. According to NOAA's own statement the 100 year warming trend started in 1998 is projecting to be less than the previous 100 year trend showed.
At the same time ice core research shows that a small increase in CO2 increases the frequency of ice ages.
Also the IPCC's 2013 report stated there was a 15 year global warming pause while also stating that record levels of CO2 was preventing a significant decrease of ozone in the ozone layer.
Initially it was claimed that elevated CO2 levels ended the last Ice Age. This was the proof that CO2 caused global warming. Ice core researchers no longer support that assumption.
Edited on 24-07-2017 02:23
24-07-2017 05:31
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
James, these people are immune to facts and reason.
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Michael Mann's fraudulent Hockey Stick graph is exposed:

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

Nobel Laureate in physics, Ivar Giaever, exposes the reprehensible lies and greed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0&t=440s
24-07-2017 12:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
StarMan wrote:
James, these people are immune to facts and reason.
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Michael Mann's fraudulent Hockey Stick graph is exposed:

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

Nobel Laureate in physics, Ivar Giaever, exposes the reprehensible lies and greed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0&t=440s

You don't seem to understand the concept of fact.

A scientific fact is is an objective and verifiable observation, not simply someone's opinion that happens to coincide with your own opinion.
24-07-2017 16:14
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"AGW denier liar whiner stuffedman" stuttered: Nobel Laureate in physics, Ivar Giaever, exposes the reprehensible lies and greed:

In Giaever's own words:
"I am not really terribly interested in global warming.... I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified..."
24-07-2017 16:58
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1307)
OK Litebeer,
I don't put too much weight on what one guy says, but let's get it right at least. This is Giaever from 2015 after wising up for 7 years.
So here is a statement by Obama. He gave a recent speech at a college in the United States and he said "no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change." That's a ridiculous statement ... How can he say that? "I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong. Dead wrong."

I was taught global warming in second grade and I too was horrified. I think by high school I had the truth figured out too.
24-07-2017 17:48
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
The 2 links represent 2 different views on CO2's influence on Global Warming. Both views use the last Ice Age as a reference. As I mentioned ice core researchers have started saying that a rise in CO2 levels followed warming. I will point out statements that I find of interest in both articles.

I will start with CO2 caused the last Ice Age to end; https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/

This comment is interesting because it is where global warming scientists (IPCC) say they found the missing heat which is currently the cause of rising temperatures.
>> The equatorial heat warmed the precincts of Antarctica in the Southern Hemisphere instead, shrinking the fringing sea ice and changing the circumpolar winds. As a result—and for reasons that remain unexplained—the waters of the Southern Ocean may have begun to release carbon dioxide <<

Currently the hole in the ozone layer is credited with this happening today. https://phys.org/news/2016-07-antarctic-peninsula.html

In that article they also mention; if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase at currently projected rates their warming effect will dominate over natural variability (and the cooling effect associated with recovering ozone levels)

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-07-antarctic-peninsula.html#jCp

The IPCC acknowledges CO2 is helping to prevent a greater loss of stratospheric ozone.
About half way down where it starts with Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2);
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

And from my favorite ice core researcher; cecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen

http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

Ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that the last ice age started to become milder 19.000 years ago, completely in accordance with increased solar radiation from the earth's favourable orientation in its orbit around the sun.

When it is cold there is less CO2 and when it is warmer the level is higher. We believe, that this CO2 feedback has significance as even small changes in solar radiation have had great effects. CO2 works as an intensifier.

And please remember that ozone recovery which requires CO2 has a cooling effect on our planet. This is why I am an advocate of more research being done and is also why I have been pursuing my experiment.
24-07-2017 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
OK Litebeer,
I don't put too much weight on what one guy says, but let's get it right at least. This is Giaever from 2015 after wising up for 7 years.
So here is a statement by Obama. He gave a recent speech at a college in the United States and he said "no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change." That's a ridiculous statement ... How can he say that? "I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong. Dead wrong."

I was taught global warming in second grade and I too was horrified. I think by high school I had the truth figured out too.


I'm glad to see the indoctrination didn't take in your case.


The Parrot Killer
24-07-2017 20:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
And please remember that ozone recovery which requires CO2 has a cooling effect on our planet. This is why I am an advocate of more research being done and is also why I have been pursuing my experiment.


The production (and destruction) of ozone does not change the temperature of Earth.

CO2 is not involved in the production (or destruction) of ozone.

The ozone layer is created continuously. It does not need 'recovering'.

The only way to reduce the ozone is to remove the Sun (end of story, we're all dead), or remove the oxygen (end of story, we're all dead).


The Parrot Killer
25-07-2017 18:24
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
Just thought I'd mention this, the warming waters that are attributed to be causing global warming at this time might also be the same waters attributed to having warmed bringing about the end of the last ice age.
If so then cooling the air and water currents flowing into the Arctic might become more important. This is because it may be that we need to preserve the glaciers on Greenland.
25-07-2017 20:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
@All,
Just thought I'd mention this, the warming waters that are attributed to be causing global warming at this time might also be the same waters attributed to having warmed bringing about the end of the last ice age.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the ocean. We have very little instrumentation there. Surface buoys are not enough (they only measure the surface waters) and we don't have enough of those to determine if the ocean is warming or cooling with any degree of useful accuracy.
James_ wrote:
If so then cooling the air and water currents flowing into the Arctic might become more important. This is because it may be that we need to preserve the glaciers on Greenland.

No one is monitoring the world's glaciers. How do you know all the glaciers on Greenland are melting?


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2017 01:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
Your link says it was much warmer in the last 3000 years. Please explain how Glaciers that are disappearing now managed to survive this.

Thanks.


The real problem here is that YOU don't understand anything about this. 600 years ago we had a little ice age (the maunder minimum) followed shortly thereafter by another century long cold period (the Dalton minimum). Most of the lower latitude and lower altitude glaciers were formed THEN and not more than 3,000 years ago. All that's been happening is that these areas are now returning to normal.

And they STILL haven't gotten there. The farm-able areas of Greenland are still too cold.

Why is it that like a young child you believe that things you've never experienced before do not exist?
27-07-2017 01:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Your link says it was much warmer in the last 3000 years. Please explain how Glaciers that are disappearing now managed to survive this.

Thanks.


The real problem here is that YOU don't understand anything about this. 600 years ago we had a little ice age (the maunder minimum) followed shortly thereafter by another century long cold period (the Dalton minimum). Most of the lower latitude and lower altitude glaciers were formed THEN and not more than 3,000 years ago. All that's been happening is that these areas are now returning to normal.

And they STILL haven't gotten there. The farm-able areas of Greenland are still too cold.

Why is it that like a young child you believe that things you've never experienced before do not exist?


While we do have some indications of weather in England at the time in recorded history, we don't have any records to the temperature of the Earth as a whole during those minimums.

You do make the valid point that spot is making what is known as a presentism fallacy.

Assuming conditions that exist today are 'normal' is a fallacy in it's own right.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2017 01:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
@All,
Just thought I'd mention this, the warming waters that are attributed to be causing global warming at this time might also be the same waters attributed to having warmed bringing about the end of the last ice age.
If so then cooling the air and water currents flowing into the Arctic might become more important. This is because it may be that we need to preserve the glaciers on Greenland.


Everything on this earth is in close connection. But we do not have any idea how or to what extent. Be very careful in assigning things to one thing or another when there is no particularly good way of documenting this.

Remember I argued that ice cores could not report CO2 accurately.

Look at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4865672/

Skeptical Science tries to claim that the air bubbles in the Ice Cores at Vostok are the actual atmosphere at the time that it was entrapped. This is bunk.

If you carefully read https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140922110424.htm

Buried within the article is "The chemical removal of CO2 in sea ice occurs in two phases. First crystals of calcium carbonate are formed in sea ice in winter. During this formation CO2 splits off and is dissolved in a heavy cold brine, which gets squeezed out of the ice and sinks into the deeper parts of the ocean. Calcium carbonate cannot move as freely as CO2 and therefore it stays in the sea ice. In summer, when the sea ice melts, calcium carbonate dissolves, and CO2 is needed for this process. Thus, CO2 gets drawn from the atmosphere into the ocean -- and therefore CO2 gets removed from the atmosphere," explains Dorte Haubjerg Søgaard.

This as easily moves the other way. The Vostok Ice Cores were removed from land and they are saying pretty plainly that CO2 moves about in ice as I stated.

What is happening? I am still of the opinion that if there HAS been any global warming it is very slight and that the record is severely damaged by both Urban Heat Island Effect and misrepresentation of the data by NASA.
27-07-2017 02:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
Just thought I'd mention this, the warming waters that are attributed to be causing global warming at this time might also be the same waters attributed to having warmed bringing about the end of the last ice age.
If so then cooling the air and water currents flowing into the Arctic might become more important. This is because it may be that we need to preserve the glaciers on Greenland.


Everything on this earth is in close connection. But we do not have any idea how or to what extent. Be very careful in assigning things to one thing or another when there is no particularly good way of documenting this.

Remember I argued that ice cores could not report CO2 accurately.

Look at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4865672/

Skeptical Science tries to claim that the air bubbles in the Ice Cores at Vostok are the actual atmosphere at the time that it was entrapped. This is bunk.

If you carefully read https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140922110424.htm

Buried within the article is "The chemical removal of CO2 in sea ice occurs in two phases. First crystals of calcium carbonate are formed in sea ice in winter. During this formation CO2 splits off and is dissolved in a heavy cold brine, which gets squeezed out of the ice and sinks into the deeper parts of the ocean. Calcium carbonate cannot move as freely as CO2 and therefore it stays in the sea ice. In summer, when the sea ice melts, calcium carbonate dissolves, and CO2 is needed for this process. Thus, CO2 gets drawn from the atmosphere into the ocean -- and therefore CO2 gets removed from the atmosphere," explains Dorte Haubjerg Søgaard.

This as easily moves the other way. The Vostok Ice Cores were removed from land and they are saying pretty plainly that CO2 moves about in ice as I stated.

What is happening? I am still of the opinion that if there HAS been any global warming it is very slight and that the record is severely damaged by both Urban Heat Island Effect and misrepresentation of the data by NASA.


The second cause most of all. It's a crime against science for what NOAA and NASA has done.

Urban centers make up 0.14% of the surface area of the Earth. Most NOAA thermometers are NOT located in urban areas.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2017 17:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
Just thought I'd mention this, the warming waters that are attributed to be causing global warming at this time might also be the same waters attributed to having warmed bringing about the end of the last ice age.
If so then cooling the air and water currents flowing into the Arctic might become more important. This is because it may be that we need to preserve the glaciers on Greenland.


Everything on this earth is in close connection. But we do not have any idea how or to what extent. Be very careful in assigning things to one thing or another when there is no particularly good way of documenting this.

Remember I argued that ice cores could not report CO2 accurately.

Look at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4865672/

Skeptical Science tries to claim that the air bubbles in the Ice Cores at Vostok are the actual atmosphere at the time that it was entrapped. This is bunk.

If you carefully read https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140922110424.htm

Buried within the article is "The chemical removal of CO2 in sea ice occurs in two phases. First crystals of calcium carbonate are formed in sea ice in winter. During this formation CO2 splits off and is dissolved in a heavy cold brine, which gets squeezed out of the ice and sinks into the deeper parts of the ocean. Calcium carbonate cannot move as freely as CO2 and therefore it stays in the sea ice. In summer, when the sea ice melts, calcium carbonate dissolves, and CO2 is needed for this process. Thus, CO2 gets drawn from the atmosphere into the ocean -- and therefore CO2 gets removed from the atmosphere," explains Dorte Haubjerg Søgaard.

This as easily moves the other way. The Vostok Ice Cores were removed from land and they are saying pretty plainly that CO2 moves about in ice as I stated.

What is happening? I am still of the opinion that if there HAS been any global warming it is very slight and that the record is severely damaged by both Urban Heat Island Effect and misrepresentation of the data by NASA.


The second cause most of all. It's a crime against science for what NOAA and NASA has done.

Urban centers make up 0.14% of the surface area of the Earth. Most NOAA thermometers are NOT located in urban areas.


Until fairly recently there were only some 500 temperature reporting stations around the USA and at least 300 of them were in areas that had large urbanization.

So please do not tell us all about things you do not know about.
27-07-2017 17:26
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1307)
Didn't Anthony Watts do a bit of snooping on this? I think he found like 800 of 1200 broke NOAAs own rules for thermometer placement guidelines.
27-07-2017 17:41
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Didn't Anthony Watts do a bit of snooping on this? I think he found like 800 of 1200 broke NOAAs own rules for thermometer placement guidelines.


Yes - what he told us is that NOAA temperature stations are only 1218 in number. And most of these are at or around major urban areas.

"researchers were able to identify a 410 station subset of "unperturbed" stations that have not been moved, had equipment changes, or changes in time of observations, and thus require no "adjustments" to their temperature record to account for these problems."

What this means is that MOST of the information from NOAA is tainted.
27-07-2017 17:59
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Didn't Anthony Watts do a bit of snooping on this? I think he found like 800 of 1200 broke NOAAs own rules for thermometer placement guidelines.


Some close to heat sources, such as air conditioner exhausts, and black top parking lots. But hey, when you have professional liars pushing their fraud, what's the big?

On that note, I will originate a new thread citing stupid passages from Al Gore's Earth in the Balance. That infamous book was found in the Unabomber's rathole cabin when he was captured, filthy and in shredded clothes.


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
27-07-2017 19:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Your link says it was much warmer in the last 3000 years. Please explain how Glaciers that are disappearing now managed to survive this.

Thanks.


The real problem here is that YOU don't understand anything about this. 600 years ago we had a little ice age (the maunder minimum) followed shortly thereafter by another century long cold period (the Dalton minimum). Most of the lower latitude and lower altitude glaciers were formed THEN and not more than 3,000 years ago. All that's been happening is that these areas are now returning to normal.

And they STILL haven't gotten there. The farm-able areas of Greenland are still too cold.

Why is it that like a young child you believe that things you've never experienced before do not exist?



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326

2 seconds of googling proves you wrong

no comment needed


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate Annual Global Warming Graph (NOAA):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
NOAA's greenhouse gas forcing is fake?107-02-2019 19:12
The Stench from the EPA, NASA and NOAA8010-11-2017 05:08
World Population and Annual Global temperature Since 19501026-09-2017 03:32
CO2, The Ozone Layer, The Chapman Cycle, The IPCC and NOAA2424-06-2017 22:37
More NASA and NOAA scientists stepping up to the plate.1124-05-2017 02:15
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact