America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise
The more things change, the more things stay the same. Seems as if the New York Times ran articles which, with a little help from a word-processor, could run now. This was the headline article in the New York Times, March 27, 1933
To quote Pete Seeger, who doubtless would have disagreed with me on this issue “when will we ever learn”? Apparently not until some more economic vandalism.
Are you imagining that this 1933 article about a long warming spell in the early 20th century somehow contradicts or discredits modern climate science findings about climate trends?
Because it doesn’t. As you can see from this article, for example, scientific studies of the North American temperature record show that the warming trend in the early 20th century is entirely consistent with what we know about climate change.
That is, an almost millennium-long cooling trend over temperate North America ended around 1900, at which point a combination mostly of solar activity and volcanic quiescence drove consistently rising temperatures up till about 1940. As that second link documents, though, those natural forcings are unable to account for the increased (and still increasing) temperature rise since the mid-20th century, which is overwhelmingly due to anthropogenic forcings.
Honestly, are people still engaging in this silly trick of cherrypicking earlier scientific findings that superficially resemble some aspects of modern climate science research and jumping to the conclusion that they somehow invalidate the modern research? Oh well, it’s another item for my collection.
This is not going to end well. I, for one, have limited energy for debating topics like “scientists are stupid and don’t know nothin’”.
This looks like a guy that remembered that in his youth he used to speed up on a dangerous curve in a farm road, he used to make the turn at 40 miles per hour, until he tried once at 45 and skidded off the road. Luckily he got better after the serious accident. Now, decades later, he has a better car that does the same curve at 45 with some difficulty. One day he wonders if he could do it at 50…
Nope, increasing the speed makes accidents worse; similarly, what some never learn is that seeing a temperature increase in the 1930’s and seeing a similar rate of increase between a recent number of years, turns into a bad lesson if the important bit that the overall temperature has increased is omitted.
I’m not exactly sure what OP is saying, but I think he’s one of these alarmists: Temperatures in 1933 were setting records and now it’s 1°C hotter even than that!! With a double exclamation mark, I’m sure. Let’s calm down and look at some facts.
(1) Yes CO2 levels have risen from 180 ppm during the ice age to 410 ppm today. What they don’t tell you is that ppm is “parts per Million.” Can you spell “trace level”? Heck, argon is well over 9000 ppm; why don’t they whine about that? I’ll tell you why: They hate the Job Creators at Big Oil. Nitrogen is at 780,000 ppm — can you imagine how loud the liberals would be screaming if there was a Big Nitrogen to hate?
(2) The whole idea of rising sea levels was refuted by a congressman — I don’t remember if it was Representative Kruger or Senator Dunning — with a simple glass of ice water! These climate scientists with all their PhDs and FRS’s never thought of pouring a glass of ice water!
(3) Even if the temperature does rise another 1°C, so what? Two days ago we had a record-breaking 44°C where I live, but it was the same as 43°C as far as I was concerned. Our a/c has a thermostat, duuhh!
Honestly septimus, I think you’re overstating the case, like a crazy person. We all know climate change isn’t happening - those who just say it is just do it to get a check in the mail. And even if it’s happening, it’s not concerning at all. And if it’s concerning, it’s not our fault anyway. And if it’s our fault, it’s way too late to do anything, and who could have possibly known ?!
Look, the important thing is to keep buying SUVs, OK ?
Hey JGBUSA, the actual “argument” you’re making seems extremely unclear. What I seem to be reading is this:
…But as said, I’m not sure - the actual argument being made here is super unclear, and I hope this isn’t the argument, as this is a phenomenally stupid argument that makes absolutely no sense and is a complete non-sequitur. So - what, exactly, is the argument you’re presenting here? Because we’re all just a little bit lost.
I read it more like this:
Thus quoth the OP:
I am not one of those alarmists. I am saying that climate has always changed. And man’s effect, if any, is small.
What do you think we should do, go back to our caves?
Oh. Well then, we’ll say that this zombie argument needs to die and that you’re incredibly wrong. 
It’s akin to saying “Humans have always died, therefore man couldn’t be responsible for the dying happening between 1939 and 1945.”
:rolleyes:
Yes, I also see no middle ground between “go back to our caves” and “produce so much CO2 that Florida ends up underwater”.
Should we be treating this as a good-faith debate? If so, you should start asking questions in a tone more in line with someone who comes into a scientific debate knowing next to nothing about the subject at hand, because that’s where we’re at. Less “oh yeah, well climate has changed forever, explain that alarmists!” and more “why do scientists almost universally agree that current warming is not comparable to past warming, and why do they think humans are to blame?” That might get an actual honest response. As is, you’re like a creationist coming in to ask “well if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS”. It’s not a good look.
Those are the only two options, of course. Keep going without changing a thing, or going back to the caves. I have mine picked out already, lovely little hole in the ground.
(oh, not that we’re having a real debate or anything, but in the interest of ignorance fighting and that : “cavemen” never really lived in caves. So you’re wrong about that too)
[Bolding mine.]
For those who’ve blissfully forgotten, it was Texas Rep. Steve Stockman–you know, the guy now serving 10 years in the slammer for 23 felonies–who used a glass of ice water in an unintentionally hilarious attempt to prove ocean levels wouldn’t rise due to global warming. As the ice melts, he pointed out, the water doesn’t overflow. But as Jon Stewart demonstrates in this classic clip, that’s because the ice is already in the water. As ice melts on land and goes into the oceans, the water level does indeed rise. (The part on Stockman starts at about 7:28.)
When you see science illiterates like Stockman on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and realize he wasn’t the only idiot serving there, you start to understand why we’ve made so little progress on such a crucial issue.
Also, if you use a glass of salt water with ice cubes, you see the level does actually rise, because the fresh water from the ice is less dense than the salt water.
And if you had a 5 mile deep glass of water and you heated it up, you’d see that it would rise some more because while not very compressible, water is compressible enough that over thousands of meters a little heat expansion adds up.
By “economic vandalism”, you mean “dumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere that it causes immense economic damage”, right?
Yes, I know. Yes, climate changes. No, man’s effect is not small. Hope this helps.
It almost sounds as though you weren’t aware enough to realize my post was in fun. The sentence I’ve excerpted was the only serious sentence in my post. Yet you even missed that. :smack:
Others have already laughed at this, but it is worth a second chuckle!
Melt the ice caps or return to the caves. There’s no middle ground! 
