Cooler than 9,099 Of the last 10,500 years.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%E2%80%94where-doe...Another graph of temperatures from the Greenland ice core for the past 10,000 years is shown in Figure 5. It shows essentially the same temperatures as Cuffy and Clow (1997) but with somewhat greater detail. What both of these temperature curves show is that virtually all of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than the present.So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year (1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.____________________I don't know about you, but that makes me want to force people to become vegetarians, raise the price of everything and kill as many jobs as I can. --fleg
Great find Fleg (yeah, I know....wattsupwiththat.com isn't exactly a mysterious, elusie website....but still, you deserve kudos -LOL)This graph really needs to be posted from the link. Notice that with the exception of the Little Ice Age, and the Dark Ages cooling (between the Roman Warming and Medieval Warm Period), it has almost always been warmer than the present.Present day on far right side (well, the year 2000....2010 is only slightly warmer)http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/easterbro...
So typical of Watts...he kinda left out a few details. Note that his whole piece is based on the Greenland ice core data. From that, he insinuates that the entire planet was warmer 10,000 years ago.It wasn't.We're talkin' about the "Holocene Climatic Optimum":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimumThe Holocene Climate Optimum was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about 2,000 years ago.The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia). Northwestern Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south. The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average which comprised an average global temperature still overall lower than present day temperatures.This climatic event was probably a result of predictable changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) and a continuation of changes that caused the end of the last glacial period.The effect would have had maximum Northern Hemisphere heating 9,000 years ago when axial tilt was 24° and nearest approach to the Sun (perihelion) was during boreal summer. The calculated Milankovitch forcing would have provided 8% more solar radiation (+40W/m²) to the Northern Hemisphere in summer, tending to cause greater heating at that time.Ah, the games the skeptics play. Where are we today in relation to the Milankovitch cycles? We should be cooling appreciably. The planet grows warmer. Go figure.
putnid--I have absolutely given up on arguing about climate change. It doesn't change what is going to happen. You cannot change a conservative's mind. Even the incoming chair of House energy & commerce committee used to be a climate change advocate...now he is a denier. He is afraid of losing his next election and not getting plum assignments. He doesn't give a rat's a$$ about what is right for this country...same thing goes for McCain, Graham, etc.Incoming GOP chair checks principles at the doorhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#40846778
>> You cannot change a conservative's mind. <<Yeah, because the other side is so much more receptive to opposing viewpoints and willing to change their beliefs accordingly.Change "conservative" to "ideologue" or "partisan" and I'd agree with you. But by singling out one side, your colors are showing. And yes, the same is true for those who use an equally broad brush with the word "liberal."You act as if closed-mindedness is a conservative monopoly, and then you say:>> He doesn't give a rat's a$$ about what is right for this country...same thing goes for McCain, Graham, etc. <<Yeah, these are the words of the open-minded... sure, they are. #29
Even the incoming chair of House energy & commerce committee used to be a climate change advocate...now he is a denier.The odd thing here is that the more you recognize the amount of climate change in the data, the more firmly you are classified a "denier". Climate has been changing pretty much continually for about 4.5 billion years on this planet. The warming that occurred from about 1890 to about 1940 and then from about 1970 to about 1998 were just part of a trend that is now about 500 years old, exceptional in neither the rate of warming nor the warmth achieved. The cooling between those two warming periods is also entirely typical. It's too early at this point to say if the cooling since 1998 is just another couple-decade cooling period within the several-century warming trend, or the beginning of a several-century cooling trend such as happened from circa 1000 AD to circa 1500 AD, or the beginning of the next glaciation within the current ice age. All three possibilities are consistent with our knowledge of climate change over the past couple million years.And because I ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRUTH of climate change as a perfectly ordinary event and of recent changes not being distinguishable from prior changes through examination of the data, I am a "denier".If I start panicking about how the past century of steady warming (which did not happen - it was actually quite unsteady, with the actual warming periods accounting for about 140% of the net warming that occurred over the century) is unprecedented in both the rate (ignoring the data of past periods of warming) and the temperature achieve (ignoring the data of past warm periods), and so obviously human-caused (ignoring the fact that according to the data, the alleged causal mechanism has FOLLOWED, rather than preceded, the alleged effect) -- basically, if I choose to DENY REALITY - then I am not a "denier".
Ignorance is bliss and we are all doomed when your facts don't prove true! http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/30/the-2010-climate-b-s-o...BTW, BS means Bad Science.
Why should it matter what I believe? How does me sitting around gnawing on my fingernails about global warming make any difference whatsoever? Why should I care? I'm one fat old man living in an old wooden house in the woods of middle Tennessee. Global warming, global climate change, who cares? It's all irrelevant to me. What matters to me is what is on television that night and what I'm fixing for dinner. Reminds me of when Christians tell me I have to believe in Jesus to go to Heaven. Why does God or Jesus care whether I believe He exists or not? It doesn't change anything. If He exists, he exists, if he doesn't, he doesn't? Belief is irrelevant. If it's true, it's true. If it's not it's not. I don't care. It's a moot point with me. I just want to know when my prime time TV shows are going to start back up. Artie
hush this up whatever it takes.This info is not conducive to the Liberal mission of diminishing the standard of living for Americans, and their eternal mission of controlling people's day to day lives.The Religious Left has their doctrine, and wishes to use it to control us.Jedi
Yeah, because the other side is so much more receptive to opposing viewpoints and willing to change their beliefs accordingly.Well, there's the problem: we have data. Meanwhile, you have "viewpoints" and "beliefs", much of it wrapped up in political conspiracy and fears of creeping socialist/islamic/environmental jihad.I don't think anyone can unravel the Gordian Knot of the conservative mind. Mere "data" doesn't penetrate.
Well, there's the problem: we have data. Meanwhile, you have "viewpoints" and "beliefs"--------------------------------------------He, he, he. ziggy's point made.
Ignorance is bliss and we are all doomed when your facts don't prove true! http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/30/the-2010-climate-b-s-o......BTW, BS means Bad Science. polymermomOh my Gardenbunny, we're all going to die! Have you given away your internal combustion engine motor vehicles yet and eliminated all fossil fuel powered sources of central heat and air conditioning from your abode? Don't want you to generate any excess CO2 (plant food). <g> Put your money where your mouth is.Mike
You cannot change a conservative's mind. What, you just noticed? [chuckle] Regards, TTT.
You cannot change a conservative's mindYou certainly aren't gonna change it be spewing BS.
OP:You cannot change a conservative's mindziggy29:Yeah, because the other side is so much more receptive to opposing viewpoints and willing to change their beliefs accordingly.Change "conservative" to "ideologue" or "partisan" and I'd agree with you. But by singling out one side, your colors are showing. And yes, the same is true for those who use an equally broad brush with the word "liberal."I don't buy this at all. All the "the left is the same as the right, Maddow is the same as Limbaugh, Stewart the same as Beck" rhetoric just defies all evidence.You can absolutely change a Liberal's mind. To the point of fault.Get fifty Republicans in a room and have Beck tell them that the sky is not blue, but is in fact green. They will adamantly agree with him. Not only that, but they will all agree on the exact shade of red and exactly why the whole "the sky is blue" meme is a liberal plot.And you cannot change their minds. Any photographic evidence to the contrary will be dismissed, and any reporting on from the mainstream media dismissed as a hoax. Scientists who suggest the sky is blue will lose government grants and billions of dollars will be spent on "alterative sky research" to prove the sky is green. Ten years from now, the Republicans will all still believe the sky is green and they will have in fact saturated the media with such a unified talking point strategy that the average American will also believe the sky is green.Get fifty Democrats in a room and have Stewart tell them that the sky is not blue, but is in fact green. None of them will agree with each other. Some will agree with Stewart. Some will insist that it is blue. But they will all leave the room in a heated debated about it. Within a week you'll have ten that believe that it is green, ten that believe that it's blue, ten that insist that the color is just an illusion caused by refraction, ten that point out that the sky is black half of the time, and ten (led by Obama) who suggest a compromise between green and blue: perhaps aqua. Nearly everyone will have changed their minds at least once.Partisanship may not be good on either side, but it isn't the same.--CH
Get fifty Republicans in a room and have Beck tell them that the sky is not blue, but is in fact green. They will adamantly agree with him. Not only that, but they will all agree on the exact shade of red and exactly why the whole "the sky is blue" meme is a liberal plot.Does your Mom know that you use drugs?
wolverine307 wrote: Does your Mom know that you use drugs? I'll hazard a guess that yours calls you "Stupid". Regards, TTT.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |