Jump to content






Photo

106 Degrees In San Fran Yesterday

Summer heat climate change global warming fried eggs on the sidewalk

  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#1 Who_Do_You_Trust

Who_Do_You_Trust

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 843 posts

Posted 02 September 2017 - 05:56 PM

Yesterday, the official high temperature in San Francisco was 106 degrees.  This surpassed the old record by 16 degrees.  not 1 or 2 degrees by which most temperature records are normally broken, but 16 degrees!

 

If there is still anyone out there who thinks the climate is not in turmoil beyond it's normal gyrations, I applaud you for sticking to your guns.  Please understand, however, that you are part of an ever shrinking number of people who share your views.  Science and technology have already made it clear that something is going on, and the data to support it becomes more compelling every day.  Of course, most citizens don't spend hours poring over technical data to reach their conclusions.  They reach their conclusions by simple observation of events and phenomena.  Record heat, record floods, sea level rise, and such.

 

There is a solution of course.  Everyone park their car and walk or bike to their destination.  Oh wait,  it's too hot to do that.  Damn, we're screwed.



#2 2 Aces

2 Aces

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,403 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 02 September 2017 - 06:03 PM

Yawn. Typical radical Leftist talking points and *sky is falling* hysteria from our resident *drama queen*. Boring. 

 

dramaqn.jpg



#3 Chris

Chris

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,857 posts
  • Location:Folsom CA

Posted 02 September 2017 - 06:19 PM

Hey snowflake, just for a second try and take in some real science, look at the graph below, you are a smart guy, check out the average global temps..........    The science says we are way too cool on average, and need way more CO2....   But carry on "snowflake" dem that you are......    Sad you don't see the forest through the trees and rely on your short term political gains, lie to the people, the masses, the silly dem voters to get your short term gain, and very short in the geological time scale.  Chris

 

image277.gif?w=640&h=404


1A - 2A = -1A


#4 Chris

Chris

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,857 posts
  • Location:Folsom CA

Posted 02 September 2017 - 06:26 PM

Oh, and I just made you look silly but you won't see it of course.........!   Science, facts, numbers, the actual history, the actual geological history, true Earth history, actually what happened, is lost on you....!  But carry on, so entertaining....!   I love dealing with novices who get their only "facts" from the liberal, progressive, MSM and maybe Neil Tyson or Matt Damon, Al Gore.......   You lose once again.   Try some real science and some actual, true data for once and we can debate.   Otherwise, you are just being foolish.  Chris 


1A - 2A = -1A


#5 2 Aces

2 Aces

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,403 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 02 September 2017 - 06:40 PM

Chris, guys like him LOVE Al Gore so much, he would actually SLEEP with Gore if he could. It's a Religion to these idiots. I am not kidding. They are so invested in the scam, that they have become a cult. These people are sick. Many predictions over many decades, and they've been wrong every time. Time for them to quit lying and sit down and shut up.

 

climate_predictions.jpg?w=840



#6 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 03 September 2017 - 01:55 PM

Settle yourselves crusaders. No need to attack the man. That is part of the problem. Attack the ideas on their merit.

 

This is exactly the kind of "scientific" analysis that looks good,to people with no understanding of what GLOBAL climate means. You can't say "hottest ever" when you have a fraction of a percent time spent monitoring temperature. Hottest in 200 years? Probably. For that location for that day of the year.  Hardly global, hardly indicative of , well, anything.   As for the sea level rise, THERE IS NO UNUSUAL RISE. Seas are rising at about the same rate they have been for millinea (a couple millimeters per year). Nothing strange going on there.

Storms are not more frequent OR more powerful. Yes, we had a big one hit a major city which resulted in massive flooding and expense. Historically speaking, nothing unusual about that either, although the quantity of rain was extreme and impressive.  In fact, a warming world will see far less powerful storms than a cooling one. Remember, most of the warming is done near the poles rather than in the tropics.  Storms are partially driven by heat differential (vast oversimplification)

And floods? According to the IPCC there is no EVIDENCE to support the idea that flooding is getting worse "

Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends."

 

 

And finally, there is an ever GROWING number of people who are recognizing the bogus data manipulation being done by climate "scientists."  The "adjustments" to data are ridiculously obvious as the data DOES NOT MATCH the predictions/models. Instead of redoing the models to match reality, they redo the data to match the models. Bad scientist!  Not the trend direction in the 4th national climate assessment goes from a downturn towards the lower 5% confidence to an upturn! that's not science, that is political magic!

 

webp-net-gifmaker-2.gif

An even better oneis this. Note the trend lines after they artificially cool the past. This is pretty typical of climate data sets. The data is "adjusted", but always to show more warming. Go figure.

 

Screen-Shot-2017-02-12-at-9.38.04-AM-1.g


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#7 UncleVinnys

UncleVinnys

    Just visiting this planet.

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,263 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Truth Prevails

Posted 03 September 2017 - 05:24 PM

Nice try, Chris, but you cannot equate data from 800 MILLION years ago and apply that to the lifespan of the human race (1 million years.)

 

The point is the last few decades have seen relentless upswings in global temperatures.

 

There was a professor who was fired recently for suggesting that hurricane Harvey was "karma" for Houston.

Actually, I think he has a point.   :idea:

People who cannot be convinced by logic, reason, and science simply may need a real-life experience

to bring them to the conclusion that the world is getting hotter, storms are getting worse, and climate change is real.

I guess when your state economy is based on oil you simply don't want to hear the truth.

Like fracking causing earthquakes. Maybe they need a temblor to knock their house down to be convinced.

I can well imagine these hard-headed deniers :headbang:

rethinking their choices as they shovel out 3 feet of mud from their living room.

 

Why we even have some hard-heads right here in Folsom, ha, ha!  :lmaosmiley:
 


1 God: 1 World: 1 People     :peaceman: 


#8 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 03 September 2017 - 07:19 PM

For pete's sake. Storms are NOT getting worse or more frequent according to SCIENTISTS that work for both the IPCC and federal government. Yes, climate change is real...and always has been. Duh. We don't live in a static system.

And check your facts... There have not been "relentless upswings" in temperatures the past few decades. Far from it! Even pro agw forces have admitted that there has been a nearly 2 decade pause in the rate of warming. But hey, don't let facts invade your safe space...

 

For tornadoes (from NOAA

image061.jpg

 

Cyclone energy:

6a00e54eeb9dc1883400e553bfddf188338.jpg

 

image058.gif


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#9 UncleVinnys

UncleVinnys

    Just visiting this planet.

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,263 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Truth Prevails

Posted 03 September 2017 - 08:19 PM

The point is: burning fossil fuels only adds to the problem, and we have a moronic pResident who wants to burn more coal, is paid off by the Koch Brothers, and wants us out of the Paris climate accords.
Insanity! 

 

:CRAZYLOCO:

 

 

Global Temp

1 God: 1 World: 1 People     :peaceman: 


#10 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 03 September 2017 - 08:45 PM

The point is that there is ZERO evidence that burning fossil fuels has any noticeable effect on climate. Your graph looks scary...until you see the big picture and realize there is nothing unusual about it... Please note 2 things. 1) CO2 LAGS behind temperature increases by several hundred years (so it is NOT driving temp). and 2) the spike in co2 shows no correlated spike in temps. We are in an inter-glacial period. We have been warming for the last 20k years. CO2 has been far higher in concentration (10x) with no corresponding temperature increase.  No, you are being mislead into thinking recent history shows something it does not.

historical-temperature.jpg


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#11 Chris

Chris

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,857 posts
  • Location:Folsom CA

Posted 04 September 2017 - 07:54 AM

Nice try, Chris, but you cannot equate data from 800 MILLION years ago and apply that to the lifespan of the human race (1 million years.)

 

 

Actually you can....!   If you knew more science or actually made an effort to understand it you would know how silly the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis is. Note the repeating cycles, both macro and mini of temperature, CO2 over time.  And burning more fossil fuels...?  Again, if you study the numbers we are actually very deficient in CO2 compared to historical data, yes, over millions of years.  If anything we need to get those CO2 levels back up to historical levels....!   ;)  


1A - 2A = -1A


#12 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 04 September 2017 - 10:57 AM

This just in: National weather service predicting "exceedingly early frost" for corn belt. Now if I used AGW logic, I would be shouting that we're entering an ice age (which is FAR more likely that runaway warming) due to local weather.  You can't claim global crisis from LOCAL events. 

And Vin, a minor quibble, but humans (genus homo) have been around for around 2.5 million years

Something else to chew on. If CO2 drops below about 150 ppm, plant life fails, which means all life fails. We came dangerously close to this during the last glacial period when co2 was at 170-180 ppm. CO2 helps plants, that's why greenhouses sometimes have 3 times what we currently do. Have you seen the report from NASA on how the Earth is greening? CO2 is not evil!!!

 

https://www.nasa.gov...-greening-earth


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#13 Who_Do_You_Trust

Who_Do_You_Trust

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 843 posts

Posted 04 September 2017 - 09:04 PM

The point is that there is ZERO evidence that burning fossil fuels has any noticeable effect on climate. Your graph looks scary...until you see the big picture and realize there is nothing unusual about it... Please note 2 things. 1) CO2 LAGS behind temperature increases by several hundred years (so it is NOT driving temp). and 2) the spike in co2 shows no correlated spike in temps. We are in an inter-glacial period. We have been warming for the last 20k years. CO2 has been far higher in concentration (10x) with no corresponding temperature increase.  No, you are being mislead into thinking recent history shows something it does not.

historical-temperature.jpg

 

Joe - Your interpretation of these graphs is very creative.  Temperature neither leads nor lags CO2.   Whoever created these placed the CO2 data below the Temperature data.  At first glance, it looks like temperature data leads CO2 data.  If the CO2 data were shown above the temperature data, it would appear the other way around.  A close look shows most of the CO2 & temperature peaks and troughs coincide very well in time domain.  Another point,  it appears the temperature peaks my be more related to the slope of the CO2 graph at various points along the X axis.  Temperature increases sharply when the CO2 graph slope is sharply positive.  then the temperature slowly declines as the CO2 graph slope goes negative.  Hey,  I'm  tech writer and have been reading graphs for decades.  you need to look at more than just points.  You need to consider the trends, slopes and slope angles to get the entire picture.  BTW, on the graphs you posted, the graph lines themselves are 2500 years wide.  How you can determine things to a few hundred years, as you claim, is beyond me.



#14 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 04 September 2017 - 09:50 PM

Nothing creative about it. Although this graph may not show the lag due to the scale, Each of those grid cells is 10k years, (not 2500 as you claim) so seeing a 1/12 of a grid cell lead is tough for old tech writer eyes.  However, it is pretty well known that CO2 does indeed lag behind temperature by 800 years (give or take). Ice cores confirm this (the only real proxy we have for data going back that far)  A very likely cause for this could be that as ocean temps warm, their capacity for  absorbing CO2 diminishes.

As for the graph, how would you position it? You could make the co2 scale go from  100 to 600 to make co2 change seem smaller OR you could do what they did and use the scale that fits the measurements for both temp and co2. Sorry, your claim is invalid

Oh, and I do not make the claims, scientists do:

 

Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination."  Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."

On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present).  One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years.  Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.  Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years.

In a somewhat different type of study, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediment facies in the tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting phase of the last great ice age.  In commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years.

So what's the latest on the issue?  To our knowledge, the most recent study to broach the subject is that of Caillon et al. (2003), who measured the isotopic composition of argon -- specifically, ð40Ar, which they argue "can be taken as a climate proxy, thus providing constraints about the timing of CO2 and climate change" -- in air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises what is called Glacial Termination III, which occurred about 240,000 years BP. The results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years."

 

<Mic drop>


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#15 2 Aces

2 Aces

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,403 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 05 September 2017 - 06:23 AM

The entire concept of *man-made* climate change is a lie, a fraud, and a hoax. Purely a money-grab. Period.

 

big_ice_age_ending_cartoon.gif







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Summer heat, climate change, global warming, fried eggs on the sidewalk

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users