Reply With QuoteBut it has not been 1.5°C change. That was my "if it lasted for a century" example. It went up 0.155°C/decade from 1979 to 2008, for a total measured change of 0.465°C; less than half a degree.Originally Posted by Mordoror
Actually, Mueller et al. has not proved anything like that. His study - which did not pass the peer review by the way but was pushed by the media (so called "science by press release") just stated, that there really was a warming trend during the last 30 years (based on CRUTEM station data) and did not try to attribute it to natural or "anthropogenic" causes.
At the end of the day warming is occuring, whether you like it or not....
Depends on how you define warming: a linear trend for how long period? For the last 10-12 years, it is going down / cooling. For the last 30 years, it is still positive. For many places, for 1945 to 2005 period the trend is linear - starts and ends in the equal peaks with a hole between. For the last 5000 or 10000 years, it is cooling.
Trying to fit a linear trend on a part of a sine wave (and this is like the global temperature looks like) is foolish and unscientific. It is like saying "in October it is still warming, since the linear trend for January-October is positive" - it really is, but no one plans for summer vacation on December though.
But it has not been 1.5°C change. That was my "if it lasted for a century" example. It went up 0.155°C/decade from 1979 to 2008, for a total measured change of 0.465°C; less than half a degree.
And what's happening at the moment in Greenland with it's "permanent" ice-cover?
And back in the medieval times your neck of the woods didn't have the current water consumption levels during the draught, did it? And if this draught sets to be more more lasting than just something occasional?
Like I wrote earlier, read up a little about the effects of different level of warming up. It won't harm you. Good start is "New North: The Earth in 2050." Simple understandable text, clear examples and graphs etc.
The same thing that happened during the Medieval warming period. Vikings raised crops and cattle on the Green southern shores of Greenland.
----------It is likely not 'occassional' any more than the one during the Medieval warming period. Man, as always, will adapt. With the obscene amounts of water we waste, that should not be horrendously difficult.And back in the medieval times your neck of the woods didn't have the current water consumption levels during the draught, did it? And if this draught sets to be more more lasting than just something occasional?
----------I am quite well-read on the subject, thanks. You apparently are not, as your viewpoint is solely that of the scaremongers. There are other authoritative points of view as to what the effects of warming would be from people who accept the idea that the Earth is warming. They see a natural process the biosphere is well adapted to, as it goes through this same thing every few hundred years. And as I said, we will also adapt. It is what we do, and why we have survived as a species.Like I wrote earlier, read up a little about the effects of different level of warming up. It won't harm you. Good start is "New North: The Earth in 2050." Simple understandable text, clear examples and graphs etc.
I'm not fearing itYou are living in denial of it, rather or at least its effects on modern and not-so modern societies.
Doom-mongers always think they have a crystal ball and can see the disaster right around the corner. I have been hearing such things on the net for years now, and in books and media for decades before that. But the predictions never come true. According to those past predictions, there are no more winters in Britain, the glaciers have all melted and sea level is up a dozen feet, we are out of oil and gasoline is $100/gallon, and the environment has suffered a catastrophic collapse and most of us have starved to death. The predictions change as the old ones fail, but the people making them never change.I'm not fearing it
You started the thread so you could have commented on the very first post. That is if you consideedr to comment on it at all? That would serve to open the discussion even further, right? I have read your comments on this thread so I find your argument about my ignorance to be ignorant towards my ability to understand your point of view. Man, you are free to tell about your beliefs any time you like, that's what everybody else is doing.
I take it you believe in mankinds ability to cope to the situation. Personally I am not that optimistic about it on general level, mainly because we humans are, well, humans.
Lets consider, for arguments sake, that there's actually global warming happening, at level of 1.5 degrees of C during 100 years. Like I wrote earlier, this would be the average meaning quite a huge difference between small change, the average and big change. At low levels changes would mean almost nothing, at average level depening on where it "hits", there would be quite drastic changes possible and then at high level the change and its effects would cause big problems (eg. region of west Mediterranean that suffers already from droughts and low levels of waters for both people and agriculture).
It seems that this kind of "scenario" thinking is bit like preparing for fight... be prepared and you got good chances of surviving and even winning, be un-prepared and you get your backside served to you by the opposition. So do you think there's no need to prepare at all?
Off course not as neither you nor me have a crystal ball to see what would happen in the future. But this is the lower expectation (for some part of the world) by the end of the century. And still this is not a tiny increase (even if some expectation awaits for more).But it has not been 1.5°C change
Prepare for anything in general; sure. That includes warming, a new cooling trend, an ice age, a significant meteor impact, another Carrington Event, and so on. Assume that warming is going to go berserk, and pour $trillions$ into changing our entire society on that basis? No, thanks.
There are certain things we are already doing, anyways. The drought and ecological rules are forcing water conservation and low water usage farming methods. We are also developing more drought-tolerant crop strains. That kind of thing will continue. Even if we do keep warming, it will not happen overnight. As things change, we will adapt, as always.
The weather in California has been fantastic for some time now so if this is global warming I say keep it up!
Suck it planet Earth.
I'm sure the starting date for their graphs (1750 - ie the tail end of the 'little ice age') was completely accidental.
No, you linked a single URL and quoted the title of the press release not the URL. Its trolling and you know it. But then it goes on to point out it is conjecture.
The actual title of the URL was
New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial.You drop a single URL whos title is not the press release. Its like saying 50% off the price, but only if you choose the bit I want.----------I am beginning to think that you are brain-damaged. My title was "New assessment shows almost no warming in the U.S. from 1979-2008". You are trying to morph that into "no warming at all", which is plainly not what I said. And you, in the very same breath, accuse me of "misquoting". What a comically hypocritical charge!
Im sorry i forgot how you are a meteorologist and know all about long term averages and trends.
In fact, 0.15°C/decade is clearly almost no warming. That would be only a degree and half per century at that rate. It is a miniscule change. What I said was truthful and accurate, no matter how butthurt and faux outraged you get about it.
The thing is, anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, amiright?
That is a lie, and you know it.
----------I do not even know what that sentence means. English, please. I linked to the article page, and put the title of press release right below the shortened description. You are trying to somehow distort this into some great dishonesty, which itself is totally dishonest. Tell you what.... If you do not like the title, tough sh1t. Nobody cares. Whine on, and be ignored from here on out.You drop a single URL whos title is not the press release.
----------In your delusional world, I am sure that your babbling makes sense to you.Its like saying 50% off the price, but only if you choose the bit I want.
----------Did I ever make any such claim? Or are you trying to insert your lies into my mouth as 'what I said/mean'? The answer is obvious.Im sorry i forgot how you are a meteorologist and know all about long term averages and trends.
----------No, just you. That is why further drooling inanities posted by you on this thread will get all the attention they merit (none).The thing is, anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, amiright?
You obviously do it for the lulz.
Actually they have submitted five papers to various journals. Braver than an opinion peice. See bottom of link.
http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
At least they are open, one less thing to complain about.The Berkeley Earth team is making these preliminary results public, together with the analysis programs and data set in order to invite additional scrutiny as part of the peer review process.
The problem I have with global warming is that it has so much focus over something that is wildly unpredictable.
This is not physics we are talking about, where we can calculate the trajectory of an object from here to the edge of the solar system (40 years out) and get it right exactly. We don't have models or computing power now, or even in the near future, to model the climate of the earth. Yet we are making a hell of a lot of assumptions, and putting a lot of political power into something that we really don't have any idea of what is happening.
The message is wrong. Why aren't we putting all this time and effort into sustainable energy? Sustainable fishing? We will end up with a clean atmosphere but the oceans will be void of life and the forests chopped down. Bravo.
Posting Permissions
