DescentBB

woodchip wrote:The last 15-20 year flat line would indicate that is not the case.

callmeslick wrote:that 'mass extinction' thing(and it is a very valid correlation between current trends,current meaning 100 years or so and past temperature changes) and prior mass die-offs should be a warning to us all.

woodchip wrote:No, slick, Thorne and I are not denying the climate is getting warmer (predicated on the data not being wholesale massaged) but that man is the cause of it. The last 15-20 year flat line would indicate that is not the case. So stop saying we are denying warming.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Vision wrote:Serious question: what would it take for you to believe in climate change?

For me I would have to be satisfied that it wasn't being pushed by liars, whores, and special interests. If there is something to a change in our terrestrial climate, I would say the topic got off to a bad start, and continues to be pursued by all the wrong interests. Personally, without doing a whole lot of study (I do not consider this a topic that is crucial to settle, personally, at this point), I tend to be of the opinion that if there is something to this it is only as irreversible as the active presence of it's causes--I believe the earth would probably snap back very quickly, baring any real pollution (CO2 does not count, by any rational definition--I'm talking large quantities of refined waste that does not easily break down or use up). Kind of like in the case of smog or other localized air pollution, which I believe I learned has more to do with the lay of the land around cities which suffer from poor air causing them to exist in a relatively tightly contained environment (Salt Lake City, Utah). I call that poor planning and living in your own squalor, but everything I have ever seen on the tube about it seems to present it as damage to the planet.

callmeslick wrote:Thorne, you are essentially denying a proven fact(that the climate has changed, to the warm side, for decades) because you didn't like how it was presented, or by whom? Are you joking? That is your excuse for an intellectual basis for thought?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:that 'mass extinction' thing(and it is a very valid correlation between current trends,current meaning 100 years or so and past temperature changes) and prior mass die-offs should be a warning to us all.

If you mean temperature changes due to giant asteroids, I guess you have a point. Otherwise.....

woodchip wrote:Also if you look at linked chart you will see a cool off (little ice age) that is nearly as rapid as our temp rise and the resultant temp rebound was also near as rapid:
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html

woodchip wrote:If the rise had continued I might be more amendable to your thinking.

vision wrote:... Right now the best science says things are grim and we must act accordingly.

Spidey wrote:No, like carbon taxes and banning light bulbs.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:No, like carbon taxes and banning light bulbs.

pushing towards cleaner, more efficient electrical consumption in this nation is just prudent economic policy going forward. Neither really has much to do with global warming effects, at all, nor are either touted to be such primarily.

callmeslick wrote:Perhaps, the rationale was that they'd figure out the disposal thing before many WERE disposed.

callmeslick wrote:ahhh, this starts to make some sense:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ti ... .html?_r=0

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Any one of a thousand climate scientists would bring a quick end to their career by recanting and going against the main body of thought.

CUDA wrote:My sister in law works for NASA at the University of Maryland.

Spidey wrote:I’m sick of it…you know what happens when people get sick of something…they stop caring, and that is where I’m getting to.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:No, like carbon taxes and banning light bulbs.

pushing towards cleaner, more efficient electrical consumption in this nation is just prudent economic policy going forward. Neither really has much to do with global warming effects, at all, nor are either touted to be such primarily.

With record heat (and drought) in the west and record cold (wet and snow) in the east, the global warming game-playing continues every day but the climate-gate rhetoric has increased vociferously since we first noted three weeks ago, the data that has been so relied upon to 'prove' global warming's trend was in fact manipulated. What The Telegraph called "the most extraordinary scandal of our times" - that of the "seasonally-adjusted" seasonal raw global temperature data - is about to be investigated by Congress. As Daily Caller reports, California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrbacher exclaimed "expect there to be congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data to falsely indicate warming & sea rise."

This began, as The Telegraph previously noted, with claims that the underlying data used to justify practically every study p[roving global warming has, in fact, been manipulated...

Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.

Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.

Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.

But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.

Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.

How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long “Little Ice Age” around 200 years ago.

This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).

callmeslick wrote:Zerohedge, along with being a sensationalist, conspiracy focused rag, is flat out wrong.

woodchip wrote:And TB's post does not contain facts? You know this how?

Finally, if history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a negative impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere - and where we all live.