Well Done Us

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

The Medieval Warm Period has hardly any statistical significance.

Whose talking about "statistical significance?!" The Medieval Warm Period was WARMER than preceeding periods which has been clearly demonstrated in the scientific literature.

The last +10k years have been relatively stable in terms of temperature and that's pretty evident from the graphs but you seem incapable of reading them properly.

Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had WARMED sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise. By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration to North America from Asia. Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees fahrenheit. Forests have returned where once there was only ice.

Do you know what a trend line is?

Yes. Now look at this graph. Put a trend line at the end of the last glacial period and up until the present time. Is it a warming or cooling trend?

Anyway, go ahead and be argumentative for the sake of it, you started off by saying that the globe has been warming ever since the last ice age.

No I didn't. I said: "The globe has been warming since the end of the last ice age." Which it has. It's now about 16 degrees fahrenheit warmer than it was at the end of the last glacial.

and you're now contradicting that by conceding that it cooled as well.

Did I say it had ONLY been warming? Um, no.

At any rate, I have far better things to do

Cheerio, then.

 

[DelToro]

What's that got to do with why we still have polar bears?

The earth is an inherently stable system with negative feedback loops galore. That's evidenced by the fact that we are all still here after 4 billion years of life on earth. If it was unstable, the atmosphere and all life would have disappeared eons ago. The system is like a ball bearing in a bowl, not one on an upturned plate. Tip it one way, and it returns back to the centre. More CO2 = more plant growth = more oxygen production and more CO2 absorption. CO2 being called "poison" really makes me laugh. It is plant food, FFS.

Climate changes, species come and species go. It's sad, but it's part of the natural order. If the world ends up being 2, 3, 4, 20 degrees warmer, life will continue just fine, as it always has done. The mix might be a bit different, changing as always.

So as a species we should feel no responsibility for how our actions influence the climate?

 

[Chippy_boy]

So as a species we should feel no responsibility for how our actions influence the climate?

Sure we should. But everything in perspective.

Moderate actions to reduce CO2 output are perhaps prudent and sensible. In 100 years time we'll be running entirely on nuclear-fusion power generated, zero carbon electric everything. And we'll have the ability to build enormous CO2 sequestration plants to lower atmospheric CO2 is we need to. This is entirely manageable "problem"... to the extent that it even is a problem.

 

[Chippy_boy]

It doesn't help when dungaree-wearers, so hell bent on "doing good", frig the data to try to make their argument stick. There's FAR too much of this sort of thing going on:

Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.

Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.

But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.

Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...icked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

 

[smudgedj]