Any doubts about Climate Change?

**FlyFree** · 21-11-2015, 06:00 PM

BTW, your question re 1891. It could be a simple oversight. No need for caustic replies.

'Since 1891' doesn't mean 1891 was hot. The chart starts at 1890. The first data point is 1891. Thus 'since 1891'.

**blue** · 21-11-2015, 06:22 PM

mmgw people are getting conned big time but still cannot see it ... amazing

**blue** · 21-11-2015, 06:25 PM

heres the only graph you need

**FlyFree** · 21-11-2015, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by blue

Charming. At some point in the late 20th/ early 21st century it has become fashion to be proud of being stupid. On both the nutcase right and the nutcase left. Methinks it may have coincided with The Rise of Metube.

A nauseating lack of self-respect/integrity proudly bull-horned to the world. A white flag waved in the battle for some semblance of intelligence.

Have a gold star.

**RPETER65** · 21-11-2015, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

So in other words you're happy to remain ignorant and you don't understand science. Got it.

So why cry when people don't answer your questions.

No I Don't got it,just don't see where the studying of coal is going to benefit me. Well I am not exactly crying, but I did have some curiosity as to why the temperature of 1890 would be comparatively high compared to the last decade.

Anyway what is the big deal thar you would waste your time writing that post.

**blue** · 21-11-2015, 06:40 PM

RPETER65 the only wise voice on this thread !

get a shave flyfree.... and stop clapping like a circus seal

**RPETER65** · 21-11-2015, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by blue

heres the only graph you need

Global Climate Change and the Enhanced Greenhouse Hypothesis
www3.nd.edu › Archive › Spring2000
The greenhouse effect traps radiant energy in our atmosphere, and warms the .... In August of 1999, climatologist John Daly traveled to the 'Isle of the Dead' to observe the benchmark for himself.

This article is quite informative on climate change. The article is a little long to post.

**S Landreth** · 21-11-2015, 09:23 PM

More detail on this past October (and the outlook for 2015),…….

October 2015 becomes first month to cross key global warming boundary

The information shows that October 2015 was by far the warmest October on record, dating back to 1880. Not only that, but October also had the largest temperature departure from average of any month on record.

The scorchingly hot October seals the deal: 2015 is almost certain to become the Earth’s hottest year since instrument records began in 1880. This means the year will beat out 2014, and become yet another data point showing that manmade global warming, plus natural climate variability, is pushing the climate into new territory.

The global average surface temperature came in at 1.04 degrees Celsius above average for the month, which is the biggest warm temperature anomaly in recorded history, the NASA data shows.

Importantly, this was also the first time that a single month exceeded the 1-degree Celsius temperature anomaly, surpassing the 0.97 degree Celsius temperature anomaly in January 2007. This is a symbolic milestone, but one that will be broken more frequently as the climate continues to warm due to increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the air because of human activities.

The NASA data corroborates information released by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) on Monday, also showing that October was the warmest such month on record, as the year heads toward setting a record for the warmest calendar year, beating out 2014 for the top spot.

On Wednesday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its October temperature data, and also found the month was the warmest such month on record, and broke the record for the largest monthly global temperature anomaly in 1,630 months of record-keeping. The agency said the month fell just short of the 1 degree Celsius anomaly, at 0.98 degrees Celsius above average, but nevertheless solidly beat the previous record monthly temperature anomaly, which was set in September.

According to NOAA, 2015 is cruising toward the record for the planet's warmest year since instrument records began.

Parts of South America, the Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, Africa, Europe, Australia, the Pacific Ocean and the western U.S. were all record warm in October, according to the NOAA data.

In the JMA data set, which analyzes similar temperature records but processes them differently than NOAA and NASA do, this October beat October 2014 by 0.34 degrees Fahrenheit, or 0.19 degrees Celsius. According to NASA, though, this October beat October of last year by 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit, or 0.19 degrees Celsius.

According to the JMA, this was the largest temperature departure from average for any month so far this year.

The JMA information shows October was unusually mild throughout areas of the Northeast, Central, and South Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean, much of North America, parts of Asia, and most of Europe — as well as all of Australia, Africa and the Middle East.

The warmth in the Central Pacific is related to a strong El Niño event that is characterized by unusually mild ocean temperatures along the equator, from the central Pacific to the west coast of South America.

El Niño events cause changes in weather patterns around the world by altering the way heat is distributed throughout the oceans and atmosphere. They also tend to boost global average temperatures higher, in addition to the effects of long-term manmade global warming.

The NOAA has found a 97% chance that 2015 will break the all-time calendar year temperature record for the planet. On Tuesday, Gavin Schmidt, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, said it is now 99% likely that 2015 will set a calendar year temperature record.

According to NASA, the January through October period ranks as the warmest such period in its 136 years of record-keeping, with a temperature anomaly of 0.82 degrees Celsius, or 1.45 degrees Fahrenheit. This beats global average temperature anomalies for the same period last year, which was 0.76 degrees Celsius, or 1.37 degrees Fahrenheit above average.

For the year as a whole, global average surface temperatures are likely to reach 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial temperatures for the first time, according to the UK Met Office, NOAA and now NASA as well.

Even 2014, which was the previous record-holder for the warmest year in recorded history, did not eclipse this symbolic, but important, boundary.

The 1-degree mark means that the world is already halfway to the internationally agreed warming target of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), above preindustrial levels. Since the stated goal of the Paris Climate Summit, which kicks off on Nov. 30, is to craft an agreement that will limit global warming to the 2-degree target or lower, it's clear that diplomats do not have an easy task before them.

In fact, the assessments produced to date show the planet will likely exceed the 2-degree threshold, at least for a period of time, even if the Paris agreement puts stringent emissions limits in place that are rigorously enforced.

**Umbuku** · 21-11-2015, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by blue

heres the only graph you need

Except your graph is incorrect both for world temperature and for the regional temperature of the North Atlantic.

Here's the short version of why:

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

..................

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Overall, our conclusions are:

a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years, and

b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medi...arm-period.htm

And here's the long version of why:

Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group

Front Matter | Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years | The National Academies Press

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Moberg et al. 2005 Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction

**Cujo** · 21-11-2015, 09:58 PM

Wish you guys wouldn't go confusing rpetey with actual science and proven data.

**Neo** · 22-11-2015, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by blue

heres the only graph you need

This article is quite informative on climate change.

Too funny for words

**Neo** · 22-11-2015, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by FlyFree

At some point in the late 20th/ early 21st century it has become fashion to be proud of being stupid.

blue is from the north east of England, believe me it's been going on a lot longer than that

**Neo** · 22-11-2015, 02:58 AM

blue's a bit of a trendsetter round his way

**RPETER65** · 22-11-2015, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by blue

heres the only graph you need

This article is quite informative on climate change.

Too funny for words

Did you read the article ?

**Neo** · 22-11-2015, 06:00 AM

One question at a time please...

Originally Posted by Neo

Ok Our Peter... you want to talk about integrity.

Burning coal creates pollution, helping to propagate the greenhouse effect, but how long ago was coal created?
Science can prove beyond a doubt how it was created and how long ago. But in the face of overwhelming evidence you will no doubt claim it was created along with everything else, by God, 6000 years ago or thereabouts.

So tell us when coal was created and then give us the proof to back up your logic.

About that coal.. created or formed..? Your words.

**RPETER65** · 22-11-2015, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Neo

One question at a time please...

Originally Posted by Neo

Ok Our Peter... you want to talk about integrity.

Burning coal creates pollution, helping to propagate the greenhouse effect, but how long ago was coal created?
Science can prove beyond a doubt how it was created and how long ago. But in the face of overwhelming evidence you will no doubt claim it was created along with everything else, by God, 6000 years ago or thereabouts.

So tell us when coal was created and then give us the proof to back up your logic.

About that coal.. created or formed..? Your words.

I already told you I don't have the knowledge of coal to post a viable opinion. I know what answer you want me to post but as I have said I don't know.Were sky scrapers created or formed? I am sure we all know the answer to that question and it is the same type of question as the coal question.

**bsnub** · 22-11-2015, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Did you read the article ?

Its not an article but a paper written by a student at Notre Dame. He is not a climate scientist in anyway shape or form. He is now employed by the Big pharm industry.

The paper is riddled with inaccuracies and distortions furthermore the so called "climatologist" mentioned in the article John L Daly was a kook with no background in science at all. In fact he was a lecturer in Economics who died in 2004.

Another one bites the dust.

**slackula** · 22-11-2015, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Neo

blue is from the north east of England

That does explain his interest in Medieval England: he still lives in it!

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Were sky scrapers created or formed? I am sure we all know the answer to that question and it is the same type of question as the coal question.

Analogies aren't your strongest suit are they?

**RPETER65** · 22-11-2015, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Did you read the article ?

Its not an article but a paper written by a student at Notre Dame. He is not a climate scientist in anyway shape or form. He is now employed by the Big pharm industry.

The paper is riddled with inaccuracies and distortions furthermore the so called "climatologist" mentioned in the article John L Daly was a kook with no background in science at all. In fact he was a lecturer in Economics who died in 2004.

Another one bites the dust.

I know exactly who John Daly was, and he was no kook he study climatology for years and debunked much of what the IPCC presented as fact, upon his death the head of the IPPC declared it a great day for there organization.

Maybe you could point out the inaccuracies rather than just claim they are there.

**RPETER65** · 22-11-2015, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by slackula

Originally Posted by Neo

blue is from the north east of England

That does explain his interest in Medieval England: he still lives in it!

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Were sky scrapers created or formed? I am sure we all know the answer to that question and it is the same type of question as the coal question.

Analogies aren't your strongest suit are they?

Actualły it is a good analogy pointing out that everything on earth was not created in 7 days.

Presenting facts is not your strongest suit is it?

**bsnub** · 22-11-2015, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I know exactly who John Daly was, and he was no kook he study climatology for years and debunked much of what the IPCC presented as fact, upon his death the head of the IPPC declared it a great day for there organization.

Total nonsense and so predictable you would buy that crap. Daly was a clown and far from a scientist as they come. You once again prove how ignorant and blinkered you are.

**Neo** · 22-11-2015, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Neo

One question at a time please...

Originally Posted by Neo

Ok Our Peter... you want to talk about integrity.

Burning coal creates pollution, helping to propagate the greenhouse effect, but how long ago was coal created?
Science can prove beyond a doubt how it was created and how long ago. But in the face of overwhelming evidence you will no doubt claim it was created along with everything else, by God, 6000 years ago or thereabouts.

So tell us when coal was created and then give us the proof to back up your logic.

About that coal.. created or formed..? Your words.

I already told you I don't have the knowledge of coal to post a viable opinion. I know what answer you want me to post but as I have said I don't know.Were sky scrapers created or formed? I am sure we all know the answer to that question and it is the same type of question as the coal question.

Oh come on Our Peter, schoolchildren know where coal comes from and how it was made. It's basic science and the reason I'm asking is if you can't grasp such a simple concept, or indeed admit to the facts of the matter, then how can you expect us to consider your opinion on more complex matters such as global warming to have any integrity..?

**RPETER65** · 22-11-2015, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I know exactly who John Daly was, and he was no kook he study climatology for years and debunked much of what the IPCC presented as fact, upon his death the head of the IPPC declared it a great day for there organization.

Total nonsense and so predictable you would buy that crap. Daly was a clown and far from a scientist as they come. You once again prove how ignorant and blinkered you are.

Well once again the loudmouth speaks, but no back up.

**RPETER65** · 22-11-2015, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Neo

One question at a time please...

Originally Posted by Neo

Ok Our Peter... you want to talk about integrity.

Burning coal creates pollution, helping to propagate the greenhouse effect, but how long ago was coal created?
Science can prove beyond a doubt how it was created and how long ago. But in the face of overwhelming evidence you will no doubt claim it was created along with everything else, by God, 6000 years ago or thereabouts.

So tell us when coal was created and then give us the proof to back up your logic.

About that coal.. created or formed..? Your words.

I already told you I don't have the knowledge of coal to post a viable opinion. I know what answer you want me to post but as I have said I don't know.Were sky scrapers created or formed? I am sure we all know the answer to that question and it is the same type of question as the coal question.

Oh come on Our Peter, schoolchildren know where coal comes from and how it was made. It's basic science and the reason I'm asking is if you can't grasp such a simple concept, or indeed admit to the facts of the matter, then how can you expect us to consider your opinion on more complex matters such as global warming to have any integrity..?

And how coal originated is tied to climate change how?

**RPETER65** · 22-11-2015, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Neo

One question at a time please...

Originally Posted by Neo

Ok Our Peter... you want to talk about integrity.

Burning coal creates pollution, helping to propagate the greenhouse effect, but how long ago was coal created?
Science can prove beyond a doubt how it was created and how long ago. But in the face of overwhelming evidence you will no doubt claim it was created along with everything else, by God, 6000 years ago or thereabouts.

So tell us when coal was created and then give us the proof to back up your logic.

About that coal.. created or formed..? Your words.

I already told you I don't have the knowledge of coal to post a viable opinion. I know what answer you want me to post but as I have said I don't know.Were sky scrapers created or formed? I am sure we all know the answer to that question and it is the same type of question as the coal question.

Oh come on Our Peter, schoolchildren know where coal comes from and how it was made. It's basic science and the reason I'm asking is if you can't grasp such a simple concept, or indeed admit to the facts of the matter, then how can you expect us to consider your opinion on more complex matters such as global warming to have any integrity..?

Ok ok, I was not going to take your bait, but why not. Coal comes from compacted vegetation. The evolutionists say it would have taken as much as 350 million years to form the amount of coal beds known in the world. There is however another school of thought that this could have happened in less than 1600 years.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions