And that difference alone is enough to show FXMastermind wrong, and ignorant also. His claim of “more cold records being set daily” shows a staggering disregard for the concept of “average.” There are more hot records being set daily too, but those aren’t relevant. The point is about long-running wide-area temperature averages, and record temps, high or low, aren’t meaningful to those.
On the average, humans live longer than ever before. Some jackass coming along and saying, “Thousands of babies die every year” doesn’t have any meaning as a rebuttal.
Climate and weather are close enough to make TimeWinder completely wrong.
FX’s claim is a counter-point to the claims by Warmist. It is to be expected to find more daily record high temperatures during periods of global warming, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t setting record cold temperatures either. Indeed we set a number of records with rainfall this summer, one day we has TWICE as much rain as every recorded before … 0.04". So, my point is these records in of themselves don’t have very much meaning to science, it’s just fluffy stuff for the general public.
Also, 135 years of data is just barely significant in climatic terms. So even setting an all time record temperature for a month, or year, or decade or in all recorded history doesn’t carry much weight. Now, if we had an high temperature record broken for the past 100,000 years, or 10 million years … again, not particularly important. Not compared to average temperatures 100 million years ago, which by O[sup]18[/sup] proxy were at least 15ºC higher than today.
My question remains unanswered, what is the natural cause of global warming and what is the natural cause of global cooling. Specifically, what causes the natural cycles of warming and cooling. Until we know this, all claims about man’s contribution are speculative and guesses. Keep in mind that only 120 ppm CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere is unexpected, the other 280 ppm is complete normal and natural and still inexplicable.
It is if what’s happening is unprecedented. Which it is - we’ve never seen anything like this in the historical record. I mean, it’s like if one month there are a million cases of Measles in the continental US - yeah, it’s just one month compared to the decades we’d seen before, but holy shit it’s a gigantic spike in the graph that shouldn’t be happening!
Nobody. Nobody. Has claimed otherwise.
Yeah, the difference and what matters is the rate. Yes, it was hotter in the past. (We know why, by the way - it was a runaway greenhouse effect!). But we’ve never seen an increase of this speed. The weather doesn’t matter. But the overall trend does. And it’s that trend that FXMoron (and apparently you) is ignoring.
I’m sorry, did we just go back in time 100 years or something? :smack:
Milankovic Cycles are not new science. The theory detailing their effect on climate dates back almost a century. Beyond that, you’ve got various oceanic oscillations, plate tectonics, the response of biological organisms… It’s largely known and for the most part well-understood. But even beyond that…
I’m sorry, but this is complete and utter horseshit. It’s like demanding to know the impact of every disease on the planet and death rates everywhere before you can attribute the deaths in Hiroshima to the atom bomb. We know it was an atom bomb because WE CAN SEE THE DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS AN ATOM BOMB.
Similarly, basic science tells us that the greenhouse effect is real, and putting a bunch of CO2 in the atmosphere would almost certainly cause a warming effect. We understand what CO2 does from an analytic standpoint - how it reacts when agitated by solar radiation. If we didn’t have a decent understanding of the causes of past fluctuations (which we do), we could still say with extreme certainty that more CO2 in the atmosphere leads to higher temperatures within the current parameters. This is well-understood from basic chemical and physical analysis. All the historical data we have just helps underline it further.
I’m looking at treads in climate, Here’s the ice core data again. What is causing these natural cyclic changes to average global temperatures … and if you say CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations … then I ask what causes these natural cyclic changes to CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations?
Note the delta T in the upper right corner, that means it’s climate … if it was dT, it would be weather.
Asking for an exact model for natural global climate change before you will accept man-made change is fallacious.
Mankind knew about cancer long before the science of oncology existed, and before cells were ever discovered. They saw people’s faces peeling off.
Climatologists may not know exactly what drives ordinary climate change. (Then again, they may. I’d like GIGObuster to tell me.) But the rate of change is so incredibly different now than ever in the past, it’s childish to try to claim that current observations fit within “natural” models.
Every scientific test shows human intervention in atmospheric gases is correlated with climate change.
The opposition (“deniers”) don’t even have a model at all. You can’t say, “Your model isn’t good enough” without proposing something better.
Toss in cherry-picking and other deliberate distortions on the part of the conspiracy fantasists, and you get a bankrupt philosophy, having no scientific value. The best they’ve got are some old emails between scientists, with no observations of their own.
Also…you changed what I said before you rebutted it. Chicken-shit behavior, but it’s what your side has been engaging in from day one.
Talk about chicken-shit behavior … I have to agree to man-made climate change before I can even ask. What jackass part of the world are you from? Dude, if just asking the question makes you so angry, maybe you know you won’t like the answer.
I’m sorry my rebuttal insults you, you said “The earth is getting warmer”, then I said “The earth is getting warmer”. That was rude of me, how dare I say such a thing. I understand that in jackass parts of the world these are fighting words. I forget because where I live this is called … agreeing.
The question remains, how does climate change naturally?
i.e. the Earth is getting warmer, without any claim as to the cause of the warming (natural or man-made), the amount of the warming, or the likely effects of such warming?
Do you agree that the rate of increase of global surface temperatures in the first half of the 20th century is roughly the same as the rate of increase between 1950 and today?
In the last 5000 years, what 60 year period was closest to the most recent 60 years in terms of rate of increase in global surface temperatures? And how big is the difference in rates?
Of course I can. I’m not the one who is claiming to be able to accurately predict future climate.
I’d say “good question”, but it isn’t - it’s completely irrelevant. Refer to my previous comment, re: Hiroshima. Why is the cause of these natural cyclic changes relevant? We have basic analytics which clearly show what an increase in CO2 would do. And of course, we have good answers to that. Volcanic activity, response from biology
Um… No? It means “the change in temperature”. :rolleyes:
