What Do We Think About Climate Change

....yeah, see, Climate Change IS a religion......

 

Climate Change is science, I've been an atheist since before I even knew what climate was.

 

You are in no position to know what I give a hoot about. God created the oil. Maybe He wants us to burn it before it leaks out of the ground and ruins the beaches.

 

you seem determined to discuss philosophy and religion ( both intangibles ) rather than the theory of Rapid Global Climate Change and the science from which it is derived ( tangibles ). Which this thread is all about, perhaps you should begin a thread based on your religious beliefs.

My premise, which you have incorrectly interpreted, is based entirely on where the data leads, all else is conjecture or anecdotal and there for not included in the reasoning of the hard sciences

the softer sciences, of which climate science is not one, might come close to touching on these considerations, but certainly not any of the hard sciences and most definitely not climate science.

There are a rare few "harmonizing" points between religion and science, at least not among the big three and although some here would love to insist that science is a religion, its clearly not, as previously stated.

if there is one thread that has for all intensive purposes remained unsullied by drift its this one and although some of the logic paths and mind sets found here are way outside the mainstream the thread has managed to retain its original purpose. I would therefor recommend if you insist on discussing philosophy and religion that you either find a thread dealing with those subjects or begin one as this particular thread is concerning climate change

cheers
B

 

On arctic temps, circa 1930'S:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm

Look at the graphed data from NASA/GISS of Fairbanks, AK:





My how warm it was in the arctic during the earlier part of the 20th century! ( I suppose that warming was in anticipation of the huge increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, only 20 years away)

Jimbo

 

your data is ten to twenty years behind the current temp and you had clearly stated that it was
"warmer in the arctic in the 30s than it is today"
which it is not
it was however interesting to note that the local temp variation has been fluctuating so much since the advent of the industrial revolution
whats interesting is that these variations are caused by the arctic oscillation and that system is growing in both strength and intensity with this last winter being the strongest having been observed (if I'm remembering it right)

yes the local variation is interesting but its the Global average that is whats in question in terms of Rapid Global Climate Change

check the last year of recorded temp on all graphs you just presented and you will find they are ten to twenty years out of current data

today's temps can be seen in the graphs I presented earlier
specifically



this graph shows the last ten or so years that your graphs are missing and clearly there is a higher temp being recorded this year than at any time in the 30s

here's another showing even greater detail



but again this is local data concerning local events and not global averages
kinda like when you deniers mention the medieval warming period which was also not a worldwide event but instead was mostly limited to the European continent

Ill throw in the Fairbanks station data to show that even just a short distance from these locally recorded temp swings in the arctic circle things were very different



as you can see quite a bit different from the arctic data just a few hundred miles away
this is a good example of why its so hard to predict local weather variations but not so hard to predict world averages
one is based on the vagaries of numerous climactic events and the other is based on a few elements of basic physics like how much co2 is in the atmosphere and how much particulate mater, density of atmosphere and so on

simple really once you understand the basics

cheers
B

 

The Fairbanks AK graph #3 I posted above goes to Yr 2000 and shows the early 20th century warmer than now. There are literally dozens of graphs/data sets that show this.

Jimbo

 

Temperature

I have wanted to know for a few years now what they mean by rising temperatures. There is dry bulb and wet bulb thermometers, in the shade and in ambient air flow.There is world desertification and there is local. By (local) I mean the urbanization of the environment to suit ourselves. Our cities are impermeable something like 90%of precipitation is quickly stripped off by our storm sewers. Which results in a drier environ that has higher peak daily temperatures. but most importantly colder low temperatures. So if you just record the peaks does it fairly reflect the average temperatur of the day?

 

Jim
get your eyes checked

the Fairbanks station chart posted above goes from 1905 to 2008 and is last marked at 2005
it clearly shows that the average temp of the early 20th century is ~3.7°C lower than it is today
not only that but it also clearly shows that both the highs and lows are trending upwards and not just the average

Schooner
what is recorded is the high and low temp on a daily basis homogenized to a yearly average
or in the case of the Fairbanks data taken at a particular time of year and logged into a yearly graph
the temps are taken on digital thermometers these days rather than the old dry bulb units they used to use
wet bulb temp is a parameter to calculate the efficiency of evaporative cooling towers in given climates and has no bearing on climate science that I am aware of

beyond that you will have to clarify the issue with the urban island effect because Im not quite sure what your trying to get at

 

Of course not that is why the stations that record the right temperature have dissapeared or their data deleted or their keepers had the toe nails ripped out with pliers.

 

This video is a critique of catastrophic man-made global warming theory, based on presentation slides used in a series of public presentations and debates in late 2009 and early 2010. The author is Warren Meyer, author of the web site climate-skeptic.com.

http://www.vimeo.com/8865909

 

Mr B, I politley ask you to delete the above obnoxious and uncalled for comment.

 

Question for the alarmists. What do you propose to replace the energy currently being produced by fossil fuels?

What is your plan?

 

Since God created both climate and weather, I think it entirely appropriate to include him within the scope of this discussion. If He wants us to have rain, it rains. If he wants it to rain fire and brimstone, He'll peel the lid off Yellowstone, or Florida or Ontario. He set the planets in motion, and he can destroy them. They belong to him and we are only tenants. Respect your land Lord.

 

Here in Florida the Gulf Stream can supply the Florida with 4-10 Gigawatts of power, roughly 30% of Florida's demand. Solar panels can efficiently supply individual houses with more than enough power to sustain them. Most houses that I know of with serious solar panels actually sell the energy back to grid for the most part. A wind turbine corridor from northern Texas to the Canada border could supply the entire US with 20% of the electrical needs, while creating 4 million jobs over a 10 year period. Geothermal can supply many areas of the country with efficient heating/cooling solutions throughout the year. Biofuels grown from blue green algae in aquatic farms can supply fuel for transportation, as can better batteries charged through photovoltaic or any of the power sources described above. Tidal power is already being researched in NYC. The Hudson flows at around 4 knots during its peak flow, Enough to power turbines that will produce energy for NYC.
There are many more technologies, but most are being developed outside of the US because the US has clearly very little interest in using sustainable Energy.