Global warming traps scientists in ice

[rushmc 23]

We have a temp average for the life of the planet?

Who knew.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Perhaps you missed this part:

Quote

above the 20th century average

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Perhaps you missed this part:

Quote

above the 20th century average

wow

So a 100 years is statisically significant when measured against the age of the planet. Who knew .....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

kallend

...fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880...

Not disputing the data, but a timespan of less than 140 years (or 163 for California) is very short in terms of climate.

The Ice Ages lasted thousands (tens of thousands) of years. As did the warm periods in between.

The solar cycle averages 11 years, IIRC. So this is less than 13 solar cycles.

The California drought (driest year on record) has a similar problem. There's geological evidence that there have been droughts that lasted centuries. The one that destroyed the Mayan culture is probably worse than anything we have on record, mainly because our records don't go back far enough.

Just like with the polar ice coverage, it's really hard to call any of this stuff "historical" because we really don't have accurate data for any real length of time.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DanG 1]

Quote

So a 100 years is statisically significant when measured against the age of the planet. Who knew .....

Who said anything about measuring temperatures across the age of the planet?

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

So a 100 years is statisically significant when measured against the age of the planet. Who knew .....

Who said anything about measuring temperatures across the age of the planet?

Average temps?

You really think that can be determined by just a 100 years of records ?

How old is the planet?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

Apparently, it only has about five rings. ( I tried cutting it open to see, but...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth

So, I'm going with 5 years old.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

***

Quote

So a 100 years is statisically significant when measured against the age of the planet. Who knew .....

Who said anything about measuring temperatures across the age of the planet?

Average temps?

You really think that can be determined by just a 100 years of records ?

How old is the planet?

Average temp since they began recording it.

Are you just trying to be obstinate, or is your reading as tough as your writing?

If it is neither, you need ot explain your point better, cause nobody else is talking about extrapolating the temp against the life of the planet.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

So a 100 years is statisically significant when measured against the age of the planet. Who knew .....

Who said anything about measuring temperatures across the age of the planet?

Average temps?

You really think that can be determined by just a 100 years of records ?

How old is the planet?

Average temp since they began recording it.

Are you just trying to be obstinate, or is your reading as tough as your writing?

If it is neither, you need ot explain your point better, cause nobody else is talking about extrapolating the temp against the life of the planet.

Then this average temp as determined by the alarmists, is an arbitary number

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

*********

Quote

So a 100 years is statisically significant when measured against the age of the planet. Who knew .....

Who said anything about measuring temperatures across the age of the planet?

Average temps?

You really think that can be determined by just a 100 years of records ?

How old is the planet?

Average temp since they began recording it.

Are you just trying to be obstinate, or is your reading as tough as your writing?

If it is neither, you need ot explain your point better, cause nobody else is talking about extrapolating the temp against the life of the planet.

Then this average temp as determined by the alarmists, is an arbitary number

No the number is not arbitrary. You need a data set to provide an average. It would have been aritrary if they had chosen the beginning and end of the data set in an arbitrary fashion.

Chosing the absolute beginning and end of the data set is not arbitrary.

[rushmc 23]

If the data set is too small it is

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

If the data set is too small it is

No that still doesn't make it arbitrary.

Maybe you just don't know what arbitrary means?

[rushmc 23]

Say you have a group of 5000 people. You ask three of them what there age is and then state X is the average age of the group. Work for you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

Say you have a group of 5000 people. You ask three of them what there age is and then state X is the average age of the group. Work for you?

Yeah, ok, so you understand arbitrary, you just don't understand what was written above. Thanks for clarifying which misunderstanding you are coming from.

(your analogy isn't analoguous)

Lets say 5,000 people are the last 5,000 people on earth. You get the age of all 5,000 people and calculate the average. Let's say that average works out to be 38.3 years.

Now you start screaming, that was an arbitrary determination of an average, because it doesn't mean that 38.3 years is the average age of all people whom ever lived.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

Average temps?

You really think that can be determined by just a 100 years of records ?

How old is the planet?

I've never understood this argument. Are you saying that any temperature extreme that has ever existed at any point in the history of the planet would be "normal" today and acceptable to you? Perhaps you should check out the climate at the end of the Permian, when a severe greenhouse event (triggered by extensive volcanic eruptions through massive coal deposits in Siberia) almost wiped out multicellular life. Besides soaring temperatures, oxygen levels fell so that sea-level oxygen partial pressure was equivalent to what exists at 15,000 feet today (note that you need to provide bottled oxygen at that altitude). The absence of any significant latitudinal gradient in temperature (hot everywhere) shut down oceanic circulation, an as a result the deep ocean became anoxic. The only thing that could live in the ocean deeper than a couple of hundred feet was blue-green algae, and as a result the ocean burped SO2 for a couple of million years. SO2 is a great greenhouse gas itself, and also displaced oxygen from the atmosphere. The result was the extinction of >95% of the marine species, and >90% of known terrestrial species also went extinct. It took over 15 million years for biodiversity to recover to the level it was at just before the extinction event.

Is that your standard of how bad things have to get before we should start to get a little concerned?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 23]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Average temps?

You really think that can be determined by just a 100 years of records ?

How old is the planet?

I've never understood this argument. Are you saying that any temperature extreme that has ever existed at any point in the history of the planet would be "normal" today and acceptable to you? Perhaps you should check out the climate at the end of the Permian, when a severe greenhouse event (triggered by extensive volcanic eruptions through massive coal deposits in Siberia) almost wiped out multicellular life. Besides soaring temperatures, oxygen levels fell so that sea-level oxygen partial pressure was equivalent to what exists at 15,000 feet today (note that you need to provide bottled oxygen at that altitude). The absence of any significant latitudinal gradient in temperature (hot everywhere) shut down oceanic circulation, an as a result the deep ocean became anoxic. The only thing that could live in the ocean deeper than a couple of hundred feet was blue-green algae, and as a result the ocean burped SO2 for a couple of million years. SO2 is a great greenhouse gas itself, and also displaced oxygen from the atmosphere. The result was the extinction of >95% of the marine species, and >90% of known terrestrial species also went extinct. It took over 15 million years for biodiversity to recover to the level it was at just before the extinction event.

Is that your standard of how bad things have to get before we should start to get a little concerned?

Don

the point is we do know that extemes much greate than we are seeing today have existed
Before man could have an effect
Now, alarmists say we are seeing data outside what they call normal
How the hell does anyone know what normal is supposed to be?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

the point is we do know that extemes much greate than we are seeing today have existed

Sure they have existed, and as Don pointed out, some of those extremes were very bad. BTW, no one is saying we are going to get to that level anytime soon.

More importantly, just because there are other, non-man-made factors that affect the climate, it doesn't follow that new, man-made drivers are not important.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

the point is we do know that extemes much greate than we are seeing today have existed

Sure they have existed, and as Don pointed out, some of those extremes were very bad. BTW, no one is saying we are going to get to that level anytime soon.

More importantly, just because there are other, non-man-made factors that affect the climate, it doesn't follow that new, man-made drivers are not important.

The new man made drivers?

Sorry
I dont see it
At least not at the level the alarmists speak of

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

Sorry
I dont see it

Obviously, although I suspect some of that is your not wanting to see it.

Quote

At least not at the level the alarmists speak of

I also suspect that the levels you think the "alarmists" speak of are much higher than the ones they actually speak of.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

Sorry
I dont see it

Obviously, although I suspect some of that is your not wanting to see it.

Quote

At least not at the level the alarmists speak of

I also suspect that the levels you think the "alarmists" speak of are much higher than the ones they actually speak of.

you can have your own opinion

since nothing has been proven, opinion and a theory in jepardy is all we have

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,131]

>since nothing has been proven, opinion and a theory in jepardy is all we have

And, of course, the scientific tests that show CO2 concentrations rising due to our emissions, the factual records showing temperature rising, and the lab experiments that show that increasing CO2 concentrations increase retained heat.

But feel free to go with FOX instead if you like; they aren't egghead "factinistas" who think that just because something has scientific backing, it's valid.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>since nothing has been proven, opinion and a theory in jepardy is all we have

And, of course, the scientific tests that show CO2 concentrations rising due to our emissions, the factual records showing temperature rising, and the lab experiments that show that increasing CO2 concentrations increase retained heat.

But feel free to go with FOX instead if you like; they aren't egghead "factinistas" who think that just because something has scientific backing, it's valid.

and we have had higher concentrations in the past and temps are not following the alamists projections

Al Gore's doom clock is about to time out

We still have ice at the poles

what next?

And what is your facination with Fox?

Do you get your opinions about fox from the same place you get them about Limbaugh?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,131]

>and we have had higher concentrations in the past

. . . and it was warmer in the past.

>and temps are not following the alamists projections

Actually, they are. Even the very first IPCC (1995) showed projections that we are now within.

>We still have ice at the poles

?? What does that have to do with anything? No climate scientist, ever, has claimed that the poles of the Earth would be completely ice-free as a result of climate change.

This is what's known as a "strawman" - where you claim an argument that no one has made, then refute it.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>and we have had higher concentrations in the past

. . . and it was warmer in the past.

>and temps are not following the alamists projections

Actually, they are. Even the very first IPCC (1995) showed projections that we are now within.

>We still have ice at the poles

?? What does that have to do with anything? No climate scientist, ever, has claimed that the poles of the Earth would be completely ice-free as a result of climate change.

This is what's known as a "strawman" - where you claim an argument that no one has made, then refute it.

I am talking alarmits
and it those fools who are being used to drive the agenda

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[futuredivot 0]

I'm not a scientist or an engineer. I'm just a dumb old airplane guy but I found this pretty interesting
http://burtrutan.com/downloads/EngrCritiqueCAGW-v4o3.pdf

You are only as strong as the prey you devour