Page 116 of 117 < 1 2 ... 114 115 116 117 >
Topic Options
#1133918 - 19/10/2012 08:40 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Arnost]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Originally Posted By: Arnost
The record provides evidence for substantial warmth during Roman and Medieval times, larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century warmth.



Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian summer temperatures over the past two millennia Jan Esper, Ulf Büntgen, Mauri Timonen, David C. Frank; Journal of Global and Planetary Change

Full paper is now available on line.
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1133920 - 19/10/2012 08:57 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Eigerwand]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
Originally Posted By: Eigerwand
Thanks for comparing the two data sources with respect to glaciers CeeBee. Underlines probably one of the most important flaws that AGW deniers commonly make, they take quotes (and supposedly evidence) from absolutely rubbish sources!

To that ROM guy. I was not advocating a return to the stone age! I was simply making the point that even outside of the context of AGW there are problems with a global society dependent on CO2 producing non renewable resources and that 'if' these actions have the potential to negatively change the Earth's climate then it makes sense to do something about it!

I am open minded to both sides of the debate but I still believe that there is more conclusive evidence suggesting that AGW is taking place.

This forum has been a real eye opener! As someone with a background in Psychology (along with Mathematics and Physics) I am awe struck with the way most of the deniers seem unable to engage in reasonable debate with out resorting to pathetic sledging and describing others with differing points of view as being Ludites who want the world to return to the dark ages. It comes across that you are actually not so sure about your own views (probably because most of the info comes from highly questionable sources) as such you are experiencing cognitive dissonance and the only way to deal with the anxiety caused by this it to try and convince yourselves that others who may believe there is something to AGW are a bunch of alarmists and extremists hell bent on the downfall of modern civilization.

I don't think I'll bother posting anymore about this topic given the apparent lack of reason demonstrated by some on here. What's the point? I'm sure you guys along with the guys at 'Ice Age Now' know what's good for the planet.


Another excellent post Eigerwand - your thoughtful and insightful posts will be missed.

Here's graph that you won't find on the Ice Age Now website...

Ice Age Now - LMAO!



link


_________________________

Top
#1133929 - 19/10/2012 09:59 Re: Temperature trends [Re: CeeBee]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
To qualify my comments below; there are a couple of quite realistic and pragmatic believers in CO2 warming on this forum also and I personally respect them and read their significant input here and I think they know who they are.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The pattern repeats itself once again.
They come onto the forum and promptly claim that they are neutral and open minded about global warming .
Then they immediately start using terms like "deniers" and claim that the skeptics don't use any science to arrive at their understandings.
They don't even seem to take the time to look at the dozen's if not hundreds of science papers that the skeptics have referenced to to back their understandings of current climate science.
They come from academia without ever having done the hard yards in a hard nosed business enterprise and have no real understanding of life outside of the sheltered walls of academia.
They immediately start claiming that mankind with his civilisation is destroying the planet while they themselves are enjoying and continue to expect and enjoy the fruits of a luxurious life style compared to the other billions on the planet, a life style that that uses much more of the planet's resources than nearly every other human will ever do.
They expect others in the world to bear the angst and pains of a lifestyle that will only cost a fraction of the resources they themselves expect and demand to always have ready access to.
They cannot and will not provide any direct, observed, definitive proof with the hard numbers to back them that CO2 is other than a minor contributor to any warming of the planet.
They won't and can't give an ideal figure that if mankind could control global temperatures as they seem to believe is what mankind is now doing with CO2 emissions, the temperature they believe the global temperatures should be aimed at.
They do not accept any science that doesn't meet and support their beliefs in global warming despite even some of the most prominent climate warming scientists now admitting and saying that there has been a plateauing of global temperatures for the last 16 years.
And this after only 18 years of accepted human induced warming from 1980 as defined by the IPCC
They won't accept that the most extreme claims of the global warmists like the supposed "world wide" retreat of the glaciers has been shown to be wrong with many glaciers advancing.
Or that Arctic sea ice has a long cycle of alternating increases and decreases in it's sea ice possibly controlled by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the PDO.
And so it goes!

They have only one arrow to their bow and that is a fixated belief in CO2 as the extremely dangerous gas that is creating a hot house world and a catastrophic future for the Earth.
They have to defend that belief to the death to the exclusion of all else for without it their faith is dead.

That folks appears to be the cast of the radical global warmers who come onto this forum,

Top
#1133948 - 19/10/2012 11:08 Re: Temperature trends [Re: ROM]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637


Oh dear - ROM has a very nasty case of verbal diarrhoea. Hope he gets that looked at by a professional...
_________________________

Top
#1133950 - 19/10/2012 11:10 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Eigerwand]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 4368
Loc: Brisbane
Originally Posted By: Eigerwand
Thanks for comparing the two data sources with respect to glaciers CeeBee. Underlines probably one of the most important flaws that AGW deniers commonly make, they take quotes (and supposedly evidence) from absolutely rubbish sources!

To that ROM guy. I was not advocating a return to the stone age! I was simply making the point that even outside of the context of AGW there are problems with a global society dependent on CO2 producing non renewable resources and that 'if' these actions have the potential to negatively change the Earth's climate then it makes sense to do something about it!

I am open minded to both sides of the debate but I still believe that there is more conclusive evidence suggesting that AGW is taking place.

This forum has been a real eye opener! As someone with a background in Psychology (along with Mathematics and Physics) I am awe struck with the way most of the deniers seem unable to engage in reasonable debate with out resorting to pathetic sledging and describing others with differing points of view as being Ludites who want the world to return to the dark ages. It comes across that you are actually not so sure about your own views (probably because most of the info comes from highly questionable sources) as such you are experiencing cognitive dissonance and the only way to deal with the anxiety caused by this it to try and convince yourselves that others who may believe there is something to AGW are a bunch of alarmists and extremists hell bent on the downfall of modern civilization.

I don't think I'll bother posting anymore about this topic given the apparent lack of reason demonstrated by some on here. What's the point? I'm sure you guys along with the guys at 'Ice Age Now' know what's good for the planet.


Do you see the irony in your post. You criticise sceptics for pathetic sledging but then your entire post seeks to portray skeptics as having some form of metal disorder.

You think your open minded but your post would suggest otherwise.

I smell the stench of hypocrisy. About the level of hypocrisy I've come to expect from Ceebee who seems to delight in the use of the word "conspiracy" in every other post.
_________________________
This post and any other post by Locke is NOT an official forecast & should not be used as such. It's just my opinion & may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. For official information, refer to Australian Bureau of Meteorology products.

Top
#1133953 - 19/10/2012 11:17 Re: Temperature trends [Re: CeeBee]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Originally Posted By: CeeBee
Oh dear - ROM has a very nasty case of verbal diarrhoea. Hope he gets that looked at by a professional...

I thought ROM's 'verbal diarrhoea' was quite 'solid' to be honest..... smirk
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1133955 - 19/10/2012 11:19 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Locke]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6033
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
"Psychology" rings alarm bells straight away in these climate threads from many foolish so called psycholgy papers and so called pyschology surveys!!!

Top
#1133957 - 19/10/2012 11:30 Re: Temperature trends [Re: snafu]
TSVWeatherNerd Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 09/07/2012
Posts: 930
Loc: Weather Nerd Central, Mundingb...
Originally Posted By: snafu
Originally Posted By: Arnost
The record provides evidence for substantial warmth during Roman and Medieval times, larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century warmth.



Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian summer temperatures over the past two millennia Jan Esper, Ulf Büntgen, Mauri Timonen, David C. Frank; Journal of Global and Planetary Change

Full paper is now available on line.



That was a very interesting read, thanks for posting.
_________________________
Weather Nerd Central, Mundingburra, Townsville



Top
#1133960 - 19/10/2012 11:47 Re: Temperature trends [Re: CeeBee]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003
Originally Posted By: CeeBee
Originally Posted By: Eigerwand
Thanks for comparing the two data sources with respect to glaciers CeeBee. Underlines probably one of the most important flaws that AGW deniers commonly make, they take quotes (and supposedly evidence) from absolutely rubbish sources!

To that ROM guy. I was not advocating a return to the stone age! I was simply making the point that even outside of the context of AGW there are problems with a global society dependent on CO2 producing non renewable resources and that 'if' these actions have the potential to negatively change the Earth's climate then it makes sense to do something about it!

I am open minded to both sides of the debate but I still believe that there is more conclusive evidence suggesting that AGW is taking place.

This forum has been a real eye opener! As someone with a background in Psychology (along with Mathematics and Physics) I am awe struck with the way most of the deniers seem unable to engage in reasonable debate with out resorting to pathetic sledging and describing others with differing points of view as being Ludites who want the world to return to the dark ages. It comes across that you are actually not so sure about your own views (probably because most of the info comes from highly questionable sources) as such you are experiencing cognitive dissonance and the only way to deal with the anxiety caused by this it to try and convince yourselves that others who may believe there is something to AGW are a bunch of alarmists and extremists hell bent on the downfall of modern civilization.

I don't think I'll bother posting anymore about this topic given the apparent lack of reason demonstrated by some on here. What's the point? I'm sure you guys along with the guys at 'Ice Age Now' know what's good for the planet.


Another excellent post Eigerwand - your thoughtful and insightful posts will be missed.

Here's graph that you won't find on the Ice Age Now website...

Ice Age Now - LMAO!



link






Snow Cover Northern Hemisphere.


Another myth bites the dust.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNQRfBAzSzo




Edited by Bill Illis (19/10/2012 11:56)

Top
#1133980 - 19/10/2012 13:36 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Bill Illis]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
Bill, did you make that graph? If not a link would be good.

What season is it showing btw?

There's been a huge drop in Spring and Summer snow cover.







http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=6

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=9

_________________________

Top
#1133990 - 19/10/2012 13:59 Re: Temperature trends [Re: CeeBee]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6033
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
*** You are ignoring this user ***
Sorry, not looking at all whatever it is you have said

Top
#1133994 - 19/10/2012 14:13 Re: Temperature trends [Re: bd bucketingdown]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637

grin
_________________________

Top
#1134112 - 19/10/2012 23:14 Re: Temperature trends [Re: CeeBee]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003


One can get the weekly and monthly NH snow cover data from Rutgers University Snow Lab here.

One can use extreme data selection to produce scary charts but the bulk of the data does not show this.

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=2

Top
#1134113 - 19/10/2012 23:15 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Bill Illis]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2326
Loc: Soon to be Mt Barker - SA
You are going to have to do better than that Bill and explain what it means to get the data and process it yourself.

CeeBee has John Cook doing that for him atm.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1134147 - 20/10/2012 07:38 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Anthony Violi]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
Originally Posted By: Anthony Violi


CeeBee has John Cook doing that for him atm.


That is a lie Anthony - John Cook is not making graphs for me.
_________________________

Top
#1134148 - 20/10/2012 07:42 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Bill Illis]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
Originally Posted By: Bill Illis


One can get the weekly and monthly NH snow cover data from Rutgers University Snow Lab here.

One can use extreme data selection to produce scary charts but the bulk of the data does not show this.

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=2



You did not answer my questions above Bill.

Here they are again.

Did you make that graph? What season is it showing?
_________________________

Top
#1134196 - 20/10/2012 12:30 Re: Temperature trends [Re: CeeBee]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003
Originally Posted By: CeeBee
Originally Posted By: Bill Illis


One can get the weekly and monthly NH snow cover data from Rutgers University Snow Lab here.

One can use extreme data selection to produce scary charts but the bulk of the data does not show this.

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/table_area.php?ui_set=2



You did not answer my questions above Bill.

Here they are again.

Did you make that graph? What season is it showing?




Top
#1134351 - 21/10/2012 03:07 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Bill Illis]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 213
Thing is, based on the climate data we do have, and first hand observed changes, just about every region/ecosystem in Australia and numerous others around the world appears to be changing in such a way to indicate a warming planet. Something must be driving this? Now honestly, if we all agree that CO2 absorbs infra red radiation and we are adding it to the atmosphere, what is the logical conclusion? Or to put it another way, even factoring for uncertainty in our understanding of the Earth's climate and climate drivers, based on what we do know, what is the most rational conclusion to arrive at?

P.S. To that ROM guy, I would really appreciate a response that didn't involve the political agenda of the far right liberal party. I couldn't care less if your old battler that remembers how tough it was in the old days. We're discussing a scientific question not the chip on your shoulder about the current government or the so called quest of environmentalists to keep the developed world in poverty.

Top
#1134366 - 21/10/2012 07:44 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Eigerwand]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6033
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Newcomer you should really have a look at reality, what has changed in Australia eco-systems, we had a long drought similar to the 1900 early drought both of which were solar induced. I see native scrub all the time and monmitor some areas, it all looks the same, cropping ios the same, temps after a drought induced warming have returned to normality and in many areas have been below mean in past three years. Since drought ended bushfires are now below normal in the main & are the same as always.
Dams are almost all full. CO2 has a small effect we all know that, but solar ocean and volcanic have much greater and they are the factotrs that need to be researched and monitored much better and where research money needs to go. And ROM though he may do long essays at times, has been a farmer, has seen the weather abd climate and happoennings is on agricultural boards or has been, and has had a darn sight more experience and long time built-up knowledge and wisdom that you likely have, I would imagine.


Edited by bd bucketingdown (21/10/2012 07:47)

Top
#1134367 - 21/10/2012 07:46 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Eigerwand]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
A very good illustration here of an implied academic superiority. The various degrees and etc were promptly put on display for all of us to make obeisance and which we were informed of in about the first few sentences of the first post which gives an idea of the obvious superior intellect in play.
And because my opinion apparently does not agree or mesh with Eigerwand's opinion, I am immediately classified as being someone who is his class enemy which gives an excellent perspective on where Eigerwand sits in the political spectrum and his attitude to anybody he regards as his inferior .

From my perspective, anybody who does not know me and who assumes I am from the far right I would have to assume they must be from the extremist far left.

Re Old days; "Those who do not know the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history"

Re; To imagine the world and it's environment is an unchanging and ever lasting, fixed in time and space environment is truly ignorant of the way in which the real world works.
I have watched weather, climate, plants, animals, society, technology, science and every other one of the facets that make up our complex ever changing world and our environment go through many changes, some quite profound, some very subtle even within my life time.

It doesn't need anything other than the totally natural forces that have reigned over this planet for 4.5 billion years to account for the extremely minor changes relative to those often past quite traumatic changes for life on earth, that have occurred over the past far less than a blink in time and are still occurring and will continue to occur in the way this world, it's climate and it's bio-sphere changes and continues.
There is no need nor any proven evidence that the changes we are seeing or in many cases supposedly seeing are driven by anything other then entirely natural, aeons old forces which we are many decades or perhaps a century or two away from when mankind finally starts to understand those forces.

Ps; The science around increasing CO2 and it's interaction with the global temperature changes have been through, over and over and over again on this forum alone, let alone just how much has been written in every way on the subject over the last decade in every discussion on this global warming.
A good read back in even just the threads on this forum will show that about every possible or conceivable angle has been covered on this subject without just going over and rehashing every thing all over again.


Edited by ROM (21/10/2012 07:54)

Top
Page 116 of 117 < 1 2 ... 114 115 116 117 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
1 registered (Ollieo), 272 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Jade, STORM CAZ, StormChasinJason, ^Lem^
Forum Stats
29444 Members
32 Forums
23760 Topics
1472250 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image