Planet Earth: Three major heat records in August

I really can't believe you want rational human beings to think that somehow man can limit or control the normal temperature swings of this planet. How utterly arrogant.

 

Even natural temperature swings have a cause. The climate of the earth cannot change for no reason, there has to be a forcing. Such a rapid change like the one we are seeing now would have a very obvious cause, like volcanic activity. No such natural cause has been found.

The natural cycles that the earth goes through that are he causes of ice ages and interglacials are called Milankovitch cycles. They are a change in the shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun and happen over a period of ~100000 years. We are currently in a decreasing phase of the cycle, so neither the rapid rate of change nor the direction of change fit natural cycle.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles


What's arrogant is to think that we can pump trillions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and it have no effect. The greenhouse effect has been established for more than 200 years through multiple lines of empiracle evidence. Isotopic analysis proves that the carbon in the atmosphere causing the increase in the observed greenhouse effect comes burning fossil fuels.

http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

 

So you guys cant build a website with an army of peiple and a half billion dollars but you can now control the climate on a planetary scale? Mind telling us how you plan on doing that?

 

What? Who are "you guys"? I never built a website with a half billion dollars or whatever, and I doubt a Grizz did either. <Rule 2>

The science and empiracle evidence for climate change goes back at least 50 years. Hell, the first expirements on the greenhouse effect were back in the 1820s. There was no internet back then.

 

The temperature should be right around where it was before the industrial revolution. Not much has changed since then that would cause a drastic climate change like what we've seen.

Here is a source that displays all the climate change factors rather nicely and shows you how the temperature would look if only natural sources were taken into account.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

 

Well, boys, if the proximate cause of our rapid global warming is due to our use of fossil fuels (and there is no other evidence that there isn't), then the obvious answer is to reduce/limit the use of fossil fuels which will reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. That reduction is not necessarily a scientific solution, but a political one. Despite whatever feelings we have about those who are "not from around here", we all inhabit this whirling blue orb spinning through space. I doubt it will be as easy as fixing the ozone hole caused by chlorofluorocarbons, but it is doable.

 

With enough of other people's money they can do ANYTHING. Why else would their primary solution be a carbon tax?

 

Sure Ill help reduce it. Just give us your newly discovered energy source that will get tractor trailer trucks delivering food to you from point a to b. You neglected to tell us what your new discovery is...even better Ill invest in it. Just give us your invention.
Also if you care so much about us wasting fossil fuel...why are you hypocritically wasting fossil fuel typing on an internet forum. Seems to me if you were truly concerned about wasting fuel you wouldnt be wasting electricity and would be outside picketing one of al gores homes for him to turn the heat off when he isnt there. Couldnt hurt to get al gore to use gotomeeting either to blurt his rants instead of flying around wasting all that fuel. Also one of Obamas flights to his numerous vacations wastes more fuel in one trip than I use on my entire fossil fuel footprint all year long. Why arent you picketing these people wasting fossil fuel on frivilous things?

 

But we also just had one of the longest and coldest winters this past winter as well. Snows well into May in NYC.

 

You may want to fact check that. While the East Coast of the US had a especially cold winter, globally it was the warmest winter ever recorded.

http://time.com/3750660/winter-warm-climate-change-noaa/

 

Perhaps. I've heard that the planet naturally goes through periods of rising and falling temperatures. Is this rise in temperature man-made or natural?

Just saying... I lived through the whole O-zone controversy- which was remarkably similar in concept. But the O-zone scare was a big fraud people didn't notice because a ton of media propaganda and scientific endorsement of the concept led people to believe it was a real threat. The interesting thing is that there are plenty of real environmental problems in the world that deserve attention. Fracking...oil drilling...deforestation... But instead of addressing those- which will take money out of someones pocket, they have people focused on climate-change: which is a fast-growing business putting money into peoples pockets. Al Gore recently broke the billionaire mark because he was basically the spokesman for this as well as an early investor. Nothing shady about that, right...?

But just ask yourself. What do you really know that is concrete about climate change? Not what you read, what you know.

 

The AGW cult manipulates data in an attempt to find the conclusion THEY want.

See these AGW cults use the scientific method backwards. They come up with a conclusion then pick data that will back up that conclusion while excluding anythig that contradicts that conclusion. They have been caught doing this numerous times - not only that but have been caught red handed conspiring to do it.

Do you enjoy believing PROVEN liars with a totalitarian agena? because that is what you're doing when you promote this garbage.

These AGW hacks are an insult to science because they don't have any interest in where the evidence takes them - their interest is in promoting an agenda NOT science.

 

WELL, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THE CHARGES AGAINST GALILEO WERE BROUGHT AT THE BEHEST OF HIS RIVALS: Professors: Federal government should totally seek RICO charges against climate change skeptics.

You can behave like this and also claim the mantle of science. But not honestly.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/214751/

 

No one is serious about addressing it, not gov't and certainly not the people who get wealthy off of putting co2 into the atmosphere. Even the hysterical are not serious about addressing it, for they only have one way to try to do it. But when we start hearing govt, and the hysterical demand that we began right now with land management worldwide, and the cessation of the deforestation of the rain forests, and putting back half of the tree loss that has taken place since man has been here, then, and only then will I consider anyone to be serious about this.

Since the taxing of carbon that can be redistributed to poor nations, which end up in the MNC pockets cannot get off the ground, our gov't and the hysterical act as if this is the only way to address it, when in reality, if we really wanted to address it, we would have a multi prong attack, including what I just mentioned with the co2 removal factories that is a part of the ecosystem.

So until we actually get serious about this, all of these posts are moot and a waste of time. Yet not one of the proponents will talk about at least attacking co2 levels with land management and the end of deforestation of the rain forests. That would be easier to do right now than hurting economies that depend upon cheap fossil fuels in order to exist. And at least we would be moving forward and doing something. So where are the hysterical that are demanding land management and bringing back half of the forests we have lost? If they are out there, you sure never hear a word out of them. And that is suspect. As it should be.

 

0.18? WOW!!

While sun spot activity seems to be lower than you might expect to see during high temperature we are just coming out of the Solar maximum that peaked in 2014. The sun spots that we had were a little more intense and created stronger magnetic fields.

The bad news is that with no coal and less NG on the market a lot of people will freeze to death in the coming cooling as the sun spots are predicted to decline to record level in five years.


If we truly believe that burning coal is going to kill mankind we have to start nuking China today.

 

Peter Webster did not exaggerate when he wrote about this movement:

You have signed the death warrant for science.

Judith Curry, one of the scientists that was singled out by Grijalvi.

 

Except the difference in temp are too small to accurately be done or seen

 

Uh nope. It was .05 above the last record. Anyone with a working knowledge of statistics will recognize that as statistically significant.

 

I already addressed Milankovitch Cycles on the previous page. I suggest you browse that information.

Well that is special.

I know a lot about climate change. There are decades worth of information and research readily available.

What part do you deny?

Is it the greenhouse effect? Because that has been long established with multiple lines of empirical evidence since the early 1800s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Is it the increase the earth has seen in observed greenhouse effect? Because that is also well established.

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature

Is it that CO2 is the cause of the current increase in the greenhouse effect? Because that is also well established.

CO2 warming causes the troposhephere to warm and the stratosphere to cool. That is indeed what has been seen
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/43/17235.full.pdf



And increase in the greenhouse effect from would also cause nights to warm faster than days. This has been proven to be true.


KNMI - Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation


How do we know that the increased CO2 causing the greenhouse effect to amplify and warm the earth comes from fossil fuels? Because isotopes don't lie

http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

 

So that explains why the models are too sensitive to CO2, because everything is known.

 

I see you failed to actually address any of the science I posted and decided to ramble about models instead. Classic.

 

Your claims are not borne out by fact, much is still unknown, the models this is all based on do not model Earth but a fictitious planet in a computer. If all you do is listen to the media and government instead of reading the science, then you would find out the two best records, satellites, for measuring the troposphere do not detect warming now for 18+ years where it is supposed to show first as predicted. One of the reason the NOAA dropped using them. That is called the 'missing hot spot'. Did you even check the uncertainty bands on what you linked to?

 

BTW, do you really think that simulated satellite data back to 1860 proves global warming caused by humans? Really. That's nuts. Computer modeling and simulations are not hard data nor empirical proof.

 

Have a nice day

 

None of the information I provided is about models. It is about the physical evidence of climate change.

What oart specifically are you disputing? Go ahead and provide evidence to support your view.

And the no warming in 18 years is cherry picked bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and you know it.





- - - Updated - - -

Oh goody, linkless paragraphs based on what a Heartland shill who is not a climate scientist thinks. That sure convinces me.