Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Excellent!
So the 60s were colder than the 50s?
Right. All those adjustments to historical temperatures.
Perfectly normal. Happens all the time.
Um, yeah, they usually do take outliers out of a statistical survey. Another one of them new fangled science things you don't dun learn you at Talking Snake U, Cleetus.
Do they usually destroy the original, unimproved data as well?
Personally, I'm FOR global warming, but you're an ass with his head stuck in the sand.So you think we should all be ignorant of what humans are doing to climate?But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?The earth is being warmed unnaturally by humans at a fairly rapid rate. Interglacial period or not, humans are having some effect.
Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.
No, the REAL questions are what is the optimum temperature and how do you know?
As soon as we can isolate the human contribution from the natural fluctuation, please let me know.
I never claimed not to be an ass, Taz.Personally, I'm FOR global warming, but you're an ass with his head stuck in the sand.So you think we should all be ignorant of what humans are doing to climate?But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?
Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.
No, the REAL questions are what is the optimum temperature and how do you know?
As soon as we can isolate the human contribution from the natural fluctuation, please let me know.
Naturally occuring amounts of CO2. We don't yet know how our human produced GHGs will affect the earth in such a shirt time frame. Sea will rise, that's a given. ...What part of CO2 does not drive climate change did you not understand?But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?The earth is being warmed unnaturally by humans at a fairly rapid rate. Interglacial period or not, humans are having some effect.There's no problem, Joe.I know enough to know we have a real fucking problem.
This is what I don't get about deniers. I can get having a valid disagreement on what to do about it, but the science is the science. CO2 traps heat. Human beings have increased CO2 levels well above normal levels at an accellerated rate.
We're in an interglacial cycle.
That's what they look like.
Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.
We're pumping in GHGs by the shitload every day.We aren't doing anything to the climate.So you think we should all be ignorant of what humans are doing to climate?But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?The earth is being warmed unnaturally by humans at a fairly rapid rate. Interglacial period or not, humans are having some effect.
Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.
No, the REAL questions are what is the optimum temperature and how do you know?
Can you show me using CO2 and temperature from the geologic record where CO2 drove a climate change?We're pumping in GHGs by the shitload every day.We aren't doing anything to the climate.So you think we should all be ignorant of what humans are doing to climate?But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?
Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.
No, the REAL questions are what is the optimum temperature and how do you know?
30, 60, 100 years later?
Do they usually destroy the original, unimproved data as well?
So who told you such a crazy lie, and why were you stupid enough to believe it?
The GHGs that we're pumping into the atmosphere these days is helping to change the climate.I never claimed not to be an ass, Taz.Personally, I'm FOR global warming, but you're an ass with his head stuck in the sand.So you think we should all be ignorant of what humans are doing to climate?But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?
No, the REAL questions are what is the optimum temperature and how do you know?
As soon as we can isolate the human contribution from the natural fluctuation, please let me know.
The only question is do you think you are any different.
As for my head being stuck in the sand, I've studied the geologic record extensively and I have yet to see any signs that atmospheric CO2 drives climate change. What about you?
Right after you show me the the records over that same time period where humans were helping to change the climate more rapidly then it would without their GHGs.Can you show me using CO2 and temperature from the geologic record where CO2 drove a climate change?We're pumping in GHGs by the shitload every day.We aren't doing anything to the climate.So you think we should all be ignorant of what humans are doing to climate?But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?
No, the REAL questions are what is the optimum temperature and how do you know?
View attachment 166034
Personally, I'm FOR global warming, but you're an ass with his head stuck in the sand.So you think we should all be ignorant of what humans are doing to climate?But the real question is: are humans accelerating the natural warming, how and by how much?We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?
Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.
No, the REAL questions are what is the optimum temperature and how do you know?
As soon as we can isolate the human contribution from the natural fluctuation, please let me know.
30, 60, 100 years later?
Do they usually destroy the original, unimproved data as well?
Again, Cleetus, you don't really understand statistics, so no point explaining it to you.
So who told you such a crazy lie, and why were you stupid enough to believe it?
It was probably the Koch Brothers.
You don't need to explain statistics when the subject is government funding.
Apparently we didn't know how to read a thermometer in any of the decades of the last century. They all had to be 'adjusted'.
Then we found out that we didn't know how to read thermometers in the 00's. And everything had to be 'readjusted'.
In three years we will find out that we didn't know how to read a thermometer in the 10's either. And all the readings will have to be re-readjusted.
In actual fact, the numbers are being constantly changed. The readings for pre-1960 typically go down, and after 1960 they typically go up.
The abrupt change at 1940 is the result of two things. Necessary but still discretionary adjustments to ocean temperatures. And a need to smooth out warming/cooling bump that wrecked the temperature to CO2 correlation.
Here is part of an email chain released in Climategate-
From: Tom Wigley <[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <[email protected]>
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip"
Edit- remember these are just changes from 2008. No one knew that the adjustments were going to be made and the old data tossed out, or at least made unavailable. All the most reasonable and necessary adjustments had already been made by the turn of the millennium.
Excellent!
So the 60s were colder than the 50s?
wouldn't know, Cleetus... don't have much of a memory of the 60's...
Now there was a dip in the 70's... There was also a dip in the 40's, (this was the years of the brutal russian winters that beat the Nazis)
But, the temps have been steadily going up since the begining of the century.
Were the 70s unusually cold? Colder than the 60s? Colder than the 50s?
What about the 40s?
again, are you some kind of retard?
Look, the problem with you deniers is not that you understand the science, because you don't.
The problem is, that you don't want the science to be true, because that might require you to change your lifestyle as a matter of survival. You are pretty much the guy who stuffs his face with hamburger and ignores his doctor when he tells him to change his diet.
No, I'm not a liberal believer in AGW.
Right, you are right and 95% of Ph.D's in Climate Science are wrong. Got it.
As a GHG Methane is like 50 times worse than CO2, Joe.
Your point being? That the permafrost melting would be really bad? Yes, yes, it would, Bible Boy. We should probably do something to keep that from happening.
Apparently we didn't know how to read a thermometer in any of the decades of the last century. They all had to be 'adjusted'.
Then we found out that we didn't know how to read thermometers in the 00's. And everything had to be 'readjusted'.
In three years we will find out that we didn't know how to read a thermometer in the 10's either. And all the readings will have to be re-readjusted.
In actual fact, the numbers are being constantly changed. The readings for pre-1960 typically go down, and after 1960 they typically go up.
The abrupt change at 1940 is the result of two things. Necessary but still discretionary adjustments to ocean temperatures. And a need to smooth out warming/cooling bump that wrecked the temperature to CO2 correlation.
Here is part of an email chain released in Climategate-
From: Tom Wigley <[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer <[email protected]>
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip"
Edit- remember these are just changes from 2008. No one knew that the adjustments were going to be made and the old data tossed out, or at least made unavailable. All the most reasonable and necessary adjustments had already been made by the turn of the millennium.
Yup reading that PDF on how they tried to explain the ice age of the 1970s was a myth the more I get file gate the more I get they really did change the temperature records.
