Remember me
▼ Content

The Little Ice Age


The Little Ice Age28-07-2021 16:22
James___
★★★★★
(4991)
This article https://www.yahoo.com/news/small-climate-changes-devastating-local-120445154.html doesn't allow for the depletion of water tables or for the mismanagement of natural resources like forests.
Also, when looking at a graph for global average temperatures since 1900, something seems a little off. And this is just looking at the graph as presented. Let's accept it for the moment, okay?
If we go back to the end of the Little Ice Age in 1875, the global annual average temperature rose by less than 0.6º C through the year 2000. That's a 125 year period.
And then from 2000 to 2018 it rose by 0.4º C. Did the emissions from 2000 to 2018 represent an increase proportional to 1875 to 2000? Science is supposed to be based on observable relationships.
Of course if we were to consider the increase in the world's population and farming as well as the emissions of hydrocarbons and ODSs, then is a trend observed? This means we need to ask more questions. Also since observations need to be uniform, has the ocean temperature taken by ships been uniform over the years? It was changed in 2013 retroactive to 1999. That's not acceptable when considering the uniformity that science requires.
As for the world population, it has increased by 25% since 2000. 6.1 Billion to 7.67 Billion.
If we just consider CO2 according to this graph https://photos.app.goo.gl/G25zApeDnwDeKij56 emissions started skyrocketing about 1950. And yet the annual global temperature does not agree with this increase.
This is why I look at other things which includes urban sprawl caused by a growing population.
Attached image:

28-07-2021 16:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)
James___ wrote:This article doesn't allow for the depletion of water tables or for the mismanagement of natural resources like forests.

How does California mismanage their forests if this article doesn't allow it?

James___ wrote: Also, when looking at a graph for global average temperatures since 1900,

Seriously? Are you telling me that you took that graph/chart on face value?

Well, then here's one for you. It has logos and stuff.

.
Attached image:

28-07-2021 18:11
James___
★★★★★
(4991)
Sadly, you missed it IBDM. If our planet is warming more than it should, is it because in the last 20 years the world population has grown by over 25%? How does the depletion of natural resources account for any increase in annual temperatures?
But as you've shown, this is not to be discussed.
28-07-2021 19:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)


James___ wrote: If our planet is warming more than it should, is it because in the last 20 years the world population has grown by over 25%?

Since our planet is not warming more than it should, population growth can't very well be the cause now, can it?

James___ wrote: How does the depletion of natural resources account for any increase in annual temperatures?

If the increase in annual temperatures is zero as far as we can tell then there is zero need for us to thusly account as far as we can tell.

James___ wrote: But as you've shown, this is not to be discussed.

You picked up on that! Great! When there is nothing to be discussed then it is usually best to not discuss it.

28-07-2021 19:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16050)
James___ wrote:
This article https://www.yahoo.com/news/small-climate-changes-devastating-local-120445154.html doesn't allow for the depletion of water tables or for the mismanagement of natural resources like forests.
Also, when looking at a graph for global average temperatures since 1900, something seems a little off. And this is just looking at the graph as presented. Let's accept it for the moment, okay?
If we go back to the end of the Little Ice Age in 1875, the global annual average temperature rose by less than 0.6º C through the year 2000. That's a 125 year period.
And then from 2000 to 2018 it rose by 0.4º C. Did the emissions from 2000 to 2018 represent an increase proportional to 1875 to 2000? Science is supposed to be based on observable relationships.
Of course if we were to consider the increase in the world's population and farming as well as the emissions of hydrocarbons and ODSs, then is a trend observed? This means we need to ask more questions. Also since observations need to be uniform, has the ocean temperature taken by ships been uniform over the years? It was changed in 2013 retroactive to 1999. That's not acceptable when considering the uniformity that science requires.
As for the world population, it has increased by 25% since 2000. 6.1 Billion to 7.67 Billion.
If we just consider CO2 according to this graph https://photos.app.goo.gl/G25zApeDnwDeKij56 emissions started skyrocketing about 1950. And yet the annual global temperature does not agree with this increase.
This is why I look at other things which includes urban sprawl caused by a growing population.


The temperature of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it. This is a graph of random numbers.
The global concentration of CO2 is unknown. It is not possible to measure it.

Using random numbers as data is a fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
28-07-2021 19:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16050)
James___ wrote:
Sadly, you missed it IBDM. If our planet is warming more than it should, is it because in the last 20 years the world population has grown by over 25%? How does the depletion of natural resources account for any increase in annual temperatures?
But as you've shown, this is not to be discussed.

There is no 'should be' in measurement or science.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
28-07-2021 20:05
James___
★★★★★
(4991)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Sadly, you missed it IBDM. If our planet is warming more than it should, is it because in the last 20 years the world population has grown by over 25%? How does the depletion of natural resources account for any increase in annual temperatures?
But as you've shown, this is not to be discussed.

There is no 'should be' in measurement or science.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.




This voids any "debate" as claiming that people are ignorant and cannot learn doesn't really allow for anything but breeding. And considering there are over 7 Billion people on the Earth if we can count that high would support your argument.
28-07-2021 20:18
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3614)
This is our first inter-glacial. How in the hell do we know, what the warming hockey-stick graph should look like? Ice Core samples?
28-07-2021 22:32
James___
★★★★★
(4991)
The title of the thread is "Little Ice Age". It happened during the current inter-glacial. This was after the Medieval Warm Period. Those events have been well chronicled by historians, people's diaries and whoever else wrote about them.
And just like ITN and IBDM, no discussion is allowed. We're just too ignorant to understand anything. I think it's sad when that's all people know.




Join the debate The Little Ice Age:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
From ice core analysis to temperature curves26609-09-2021 01:41
sea ice9807-03-2021 06:20
Are We on the Brink of a 'New Little Ice Age? Woods Hole Oceanographic15819-02-2021 02:07
Polar Ice Melt Now 6 Times Greater Than 1990s10313-11-2020 21:11
hudson bay sea ice1601-07-2020 22:12
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact