Time for Climate Change deniers to plug their ears and hum to themselves

13 posts / 0 new

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is out with a new report showing that the last twelve months – from May 2011 to April 2012 – are the warmest twelve months ever recorded with an average temperature 2.8-degrees above the 100-year average.

And already in just the first four months of 2012 – the average temperature has been 5.4-degrees above the long-term average – also the hottest such period since recordkeeping back in 1895. Unfortunately – lawmakers beholden to big oil are paid to ignore the data.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 10:59 am

Comments

Quote Thom Hartmann Administrator:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is out with a new report showing that the last twelve months – from May 2011 to April 2012 – are the warmest twelve months ever recorded with an average temperature 2.8-degrees above the 100-year average.

Ever Recorded translates to: in the 150 years we have been recording. Which accounts for .00000003% of life on earth. With measurement starting at the end of the Little Ice Age.

Just for context of course... oooo 2.8, run for the hills..

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Thom Hartmann Administrator:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is out with a new report showing that the last twelve months – from May 2011 to April 2012 – are the warmest twelve months ever recorded with an average temperature 2.8-degrees above the 100-year average.

Ever Recorded translates to: in the 150 years we have been recording. Which accounts for .00000003% of life on earth. With measurement starting at the end of the Little Ice Age.

Just for context of course... oooo 2.8, run for the hills..

So you are admitting that the national debt, the current economic crisis and the general welfare of the United States has absolutely nothing to do with President Obama and the Obama administration? I mean he's only been in office for 3 years and that cannot possibly be a long enough time frame in order to make any meaningful measurements of Obama's effectiveness.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

So you are admitting that the national debt, the current economic crisis and the general welfare of the United States has absolutely nothing to do with President Obama and the Obama administration? I mean he's only been in office for 3 years and that cannot possibly be a long enough time frame in order to make any meaningful measurements of Obama's effectiveness.

Interesting analogy. But it fails in that he has use 3 of his alotted 4. or in this case 75%. Seemingly in Non Earth Climate terms, plenty of time to assess.

It is a flawed measurement because it didn't measure the Last warming period.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

No Cap, what you are saying about climate change is that even though there's mounds of factual data staring you in the face, you can deny it because you need a massive amount of facts across a long time period in order to prove cause and effect. 3 years is not nearly enough time to prove cause and effect of the Obama administrations policies according to that way of thinking.

Give me a thousand years worth of Obama policies and then I'll have enough data to determine if it indeed has anything to do with the current situatiion.

Sounds kind of ridiculous doesn't it.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

No Cap, what you are saying about climate change is that even though there's mounds of factual data staring you in the face, you can deny it because you need a massive amount of facts across a long time period in order to prove cause and effect. 3 years is not nearly enough time to prove cause and effect of the Obama administrations policies according to that way of thinking.

No the claim of global warming is. It the hottest it's ever been. Which false. And the Warming is unprecedented, Which is also false. We have only a mere fraction of actual instrument readings. The rest is proxies.

Is it hotter than it's ever been since they started keeping marginally good records. Maybe. If you really woulfd like to see how we keep this record.... I suggest at least looking at. http://www.surfacestations.org/ And gaze upon the wonder that is our climate monitoring system.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

It doesn't matter that it's hotter than it's ever been. What matters is they have proof that carbon emissions have a large effect on global warming. They have factual proof of this. I am sure that somewhere in the earth's past it has been warmer than it is today. What matters is what were the effects of the planet's high temperatures. Cause and effect is what matters at any given time. If we wouldn't have pumped so much crap into the atmosphere over the past hundred years (cause) the planet wouldn't be warmer than it should be right now (effect). Science trumps ideology every time.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Would you take a pill that cured the flu... but one of the side effects was death?

Is there man made global warming on Mars?

Of course not.

But Mars is getting hotter. Why is Mars getting hotter? I would suggest that Mars and the Earth are getting hotter because the big fire ball in the sky we call the "SUN" is getting hotter.

I think we should use solar, wind, water, bio, EVERYTHING that's safe and cheaper because it's the "smart" thing to do.

What I can't align myself with is that the SAME people who push for global warming are the SAME people who push for MORE WAR, MORE LAND GRABS, AGENDA 21, MORE OPPRESSION, MORE KILLING! It's not a logical, peaceful movement. It's a movement that's headed by antisocial psychopaths.

Now if one looks at what else goes along with the ride of buying into global warming... one should start to ask questions.

Think of it this way...

Would you take a drug that would cure the cold... but the side effects are death?

Of course you wouldn't!

Tell me why I should be on board with this movement? I would love to be doing the "right" thing. I have studied these guys behind the global warming movement... have you?

If you haven't, please do so.

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm
Quote Fletcher Christian:

Would you take a pill that cured the flu... but one of the side effects was death?

Is there man made global warming on Mars?

Of course not.

But Mars is getting hotter. Why is Mars getting hotter? I would suggest that Mars and the Earth are getting hotter because the big fire ball in the sky we call the "SUN" is getting hotter.

Come on Fletcher. We've recently had about 8 fires that started from lightning strikes where I live. Mother nature was responsible for that , not man. Therefore it would be silly to believe that man could start a fire with a match.

The earth has had changes in temperature many times over the milinia due to natural occurences therefore it would be silly to believe that man could do anything that would affect the temperature of the earth. You ask me to study the guys behind the warming movement. I'll ask you to study the science behind the warming movement.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

It doesn't matter that it's hotter than it's ever been. What matters is they have proof that carbon emissions have a large effect on global warming. They have factual proof of this. I am sure that somewhere in the earth's past it has been warmer than it is today. What matters is what were the effects of the planet's high temperatures. Cause and effect is what matters at any given time. If we wouldn't have pumped so much crap into the atmosphere over the past hundred years (cause) the planet wouldn't be warmer than it should be right now (effect). Science trumps ideology every time.

Ooooo they have Actual proof that "carbon emissions have a large effect on global warming" ..... Would you be so kind as to share this actual proof?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

So how do scientists know that today’s warming is primarily caused by humans putting too much carbon in the atmosphere when we burn coal, oil, and gas or cut down forests?

  • There are human fingerprints on carbon overload. When humans burn coal, oil and gas (fossil fuels) to generate electricity or drive our cars, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, where it traps heat. A carbon molecule that comes from fossil fuels and deforestation is “lighter” than the combined signal of those from other sources. As scientists measure the “weight” of carbon in the atmosphere over time they see a clear increase in the lighter molecules from fossil fuel and deforestation sources that correspond closely to the known trend in emissions.
  • Natural changes alone can’t explain the temperature changes we’ve seen. For a computer model to accurately project the future climate, scientists must first ensure that it accurately reproduces observed temperature changes. When the models include only recorded natural climate drivers—such as the sun’s intensity—the models cannot accurately reproduce the observed warming of the past half century. When human-induced climate drivers are also included in the models, then they accurately capture recent temperature increases in the atmosphere and in the oceans. [4][5][6] When all the natural and human-induced climate drivers are compared to one another, the dramatic accumulation of carbon from human sources is by far the largest climate change driver over the past half century.
  • Lower-level atmosphere—which contains the carbon load—is expanding. The boundary between the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and the higher atmosphere (stratosphere) has shifted upward in recent decades. See the ozone FAQ for a figure illustrating the layers of the atmosphere. [6][7][8]This boundary has likely changed because heat-trapping gases accumulate in the lower atmosphere and that atmospheric layer expands as it heats up (much like warming the air in a balloon). And because less heat is escaping into the higher atmosphere, it is likely cooling. This differential would not occur if the sun was the sole climate driver, as solar changes would warm both atmospheric layers, and certainly would not have warmed one while cooling the other.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html

That is just one reliable source. Of course I don't expect you to believe any of it. As the post title says. You can just plug your ears and humm. Problem solved.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
  • There are human fingerprints on carbon overload. When humans burn coal, oil and gas (fossil fuels) to generate electricity or drive our cars, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, where it traps heat. A carbon molecule that comes from fossil fuels and deforestation is “lighter” than the combined signal of those from other sources. As scientists measure the “weight” of carbon in the atmosphere over time they see a clear increase in the lighter molecules from fossil fuel and deforestation sources that correspond closely to the known trend in emissions.

What is the Ratio of man made Carbon to Natural carbon in the atmoshere? Nobody is disputing that atmoshereic CO2 is rising.

Natural changes alone can’t explain the temperature changes we’ve seen. For a computer model to accurately project the future climate, scientists must first ensure that it accurately reproduces observed temperature changes. When the models include only recorded natural climate drivers—such as the sun’s intensity—the models cannot accurately reproduce the observed warming of the past half century. When human-induced climate drivers are also included in the models, then they accurately capture recent temperature increases in the atmosphere and in the oceans. [4][5][6] When all the natural and human-induced climate drivers are compared to one another, the dramatic accumulation of carbon from human sources is by far the largest climate change driver over the past half century

Here is your problem with models.... Garbage in Garbage out. Models have yet to accuratly predict the future. or in this case come even close. No model predicted the last 10 years, as CO2 rises the Global average temparature remained Stagniate. No model can account for Clouds nor other natural feedbacks that we don't even know yet. Hopefully your curiosity lead you to look at the surfacestation project which of course casts doubts that we even can accruately determine average Global Temparature to the 10th of a degree.

Quote :Lower-level atmosphere—which contains the carbon load—is expanding. The boundary between the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and the higher atmosphere (stratosphere) has shifted upward in recent decades. See the ozone FAQ for a figure illustrating the layers of the atmosphere. [6][7][8]This boundary has likely changed because heat-trapping gases accumulate in the lower atmosphere and that atmospheric layer expands as it heats up (much like warming the air in a balloon).

Well that's a new one. Don't you love when scientist use words like "likely"

None of that is proof. That is supposition.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Exactly what I said. :(

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Currently Chatting

A Rising Tide Only Lifts All Boats When Everyone Has a Boat.

President John F. Kennedy once said about economic development that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” Kennedy was, of course, right, but he missed something really, really important: A rising tide lifts only lifts all boats when everyone has a boat.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system