Hottest Week on Record, Hottest June, Record hottest days, Record Low Antarctic sea ice

[essentialsaltes]

Once again, if you actually got it mostly right, and man is contributing to the climate changing, what are we to do about it?

That is a matter for We The People to decide, including corporation-type people. Both individually, and as represented by our governments, here and elsewhere in the world.

 

[truthpls]

That is a matter for We The People to decide, including corporation-type people. Both individually, and as represented by our governments, here and elsewhere in the world.

So nothing, really then. OK. Unless worship of that belief becomes mandatory for all nations.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Non sequitur.

The graph shows the facts.
The climate is changing.
Faster than ever.
Absolutely in line with predictions.
The predictions have been validated because other facts tell us why the climate is changing.

Facts? That's funny. What facts support global temperature measurements before 1593 when Galileo first invented the thermometer?

Let's just assume they get data for 1200 AD from tree rings. To get a good reading for global temperature, they would need a large quantity of trees from around the world (and more than one from each location) to get a valid estimate for global temperature. How are we to trust their graph when they do not share all their data or the analytical methods that produced it? Besides, even if the graph were accurate, it doesn't even show that current temperatures are above the historical range.

And what evidence do they have back to 1000 AD, or even to 1593, that suggests there is a correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature? Did they have CO2 monitors back then as well?

Show me the data and the analytical methods that support the theory. I'm not inclined to put my faith in a bunch alarmists that say "trust me, I really do need your money so I can save the planet from extinction". You do realize this is just the latest of a long line of climate alarmism hoaxes, right?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Show me the data and the analytical methods that support the theory.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900070

 

[truthpls]

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900070

From your link

"our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium"

Suggest means interpreted.

Even young earthers know the world is over 6000 years old. They seem to be basing conclusions on something like at best one sixth of the facts! Then there is the issue as the previous poster pointed out, about what sort of worldwide sampling of trees etc was used exactly even for that one sixth!

 

[durangodawood]

.....Suggest means interpreted.....

It means Interpreted via sound reasoning.

 

[essentialsaltes]

From your link

"our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium"

Suggest means interpreted.

Have you got eyes? The hockeystick graph is called the hockeystick graph because it looks like a hockeystick. The sharp angle in it is not an interpretation. The latter 20th century is anomolous.

Even young earthers know the world is over 6000 years old.

Some of them do not believe or know that.

 

[truthpls]

It means Interpreted via sound reasoning.

And less than a sixth of the facts, with the one sixth being somewhat in need of clear support

 

[truthpls]

Have you got eyes? The hockeystick graph is called the hockeystick graph because it looks like a hockeystick. The sharp angle in it is not an interpretation. The latter 20th century is anomolous.

The issue is not someone photoshopping a graph in the form of a hockey stick. The issue is that it only covers a thousand years and that you need to provide the location of every tree used in the data etc. Until then it remains bad religion.

Some of them do not believe or know that.

Well, I am being generous by using the shortest date for you. If you want to use, say, 12,000 years or whatever then your partial one sixth becomes much much less! If you want to use the estimates of 'science' of the age of the earth, your 1000 years becomes laughably insignificant.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900070

No data was provided and they only give a general description of their methodology. But I did learn that the graph is of "Northern Hemisphere" temperatures, not global temperatures.

Their "proxy" indicators of global temperature are more questionable than I thought they would be. This exerpt is curious...

Trends over several centuries are evident in the recession of glacier, and the sub-surface information from boreholes. Annual climate estimates, however, require proxies such as tree rings, varved sediments, ice cores, and corals (combined with any available instrumental or historical records), which record seasonal/annual variations. Studies based on such "multiproxy" data networks have allowed the 20th century climate to be placed in a longer-term perspective, thus allowing for improved estimates of the influence of climate forcings, and validation of the low-frequency behavior exhibited by climate models.​

​

They think they can measure global temperature by tracking "the recession of glaciers"? Do they really have a good idea where all the glaciers were at regular intervals over hundreds of years? And they have methods for determining global temperatures from that? And their methods provide accuracy to within 1/2 of 1 degree celcius?

They think they can get annual global temperature estimates by looking at tree rings, sedimentary rocks, ice cores, and corals? This is actually hilarious. It takes more "faith" to believe in what they are saying than it is to believe they are full of it. When they say, "Skillful reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean annual surface temperature was possible", what they really mean is that they had to do a bunch of gymnastics to get the results they wanted.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Argument from incredulity.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Climate scientists working at the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service have announced that 2024 is "virtually certain" to be the warmest year on record.

2024 was the hottest year on record, NASA and NOAA confirm​

• NOAA pegged 2024’s global average surface temperature at 1.46 degrees C above its preindustrial baseline, and NASA’s measurements put the increase at 1.47 degrees C.

“Between record-breaking temperatures and wildfires currently threatening our centers and workforce in California, it has never been more important to understand our changing planet,” Nelson said.

Firefighters on Friday were battling to protect NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge from the Eaton fire, which has burned 13,690 acres and roughly 5,000 buildings thus far.

 

[RileyG]

2024 was the hottest year on record, NASA and NOAA confirm​

• NOAA pegged 2024’s global average surface temperature at 1.46 degrees C above its preindustrial baseline, and NASA’s measurements put the increase at 1.47 degrees C.

“Between record-breaking temperatures and wildfires currently threatening our centers and workforce in California, it has never been more important to understand our changing planet,” Nelson said.

Firefighters on Friday were battling to protect NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge from the Eaton fire, which has burned 13,690 acres and roughly 5,000 buildings thus far.

View attachment 359757

That sounds miserable. Our poor planet.

 

[Nithavela]

That sounds miserable. Our poor planet.

Don't worry, the planet is fine.

Just not "ours" for much longer.

 

[rambot]

Facts? That's funny. What facts support global temperature measurements before 1593 when Galileo first invented the thermometer?

Let's just assume they get data for 1200 AD from tree rings. To get a good reading for global temperature, they would need a large quantity of trees from around the world (and more than one from each location) to get a valid estimate for global temperature. How are we to trust their graph when they do not share all their data or the analytical methods that produced it? Besides, even if the graph were accurate, it doesn't even show that current temperatures are above the historical range.

1) They do share it
2) We (lay people) wouldn't know what to do with the data anyways. Nor do we fully understand how they use tree rings to calculate temperature but I can assure you there will be formulae for that very task.

And what evidence do they have back to 1000 AD, or even to 1593, that suggests there is a correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature? Did they have CO2 monitors back then as well?

1) There is a correlation CO2 because of the properties of CO2. Do you know what those properties are? It's a natural property so it doesn't just come and go whenever an AGW skeptic wants them to.

Show me the data and the analytical methods that support the theory.

Pfffft. Why? You think you know what to do with ANY of it? No. Of course not. IT's not that hard to hunt down these studies have data available so tell me which study you are looking for.

You do realize this is just the latest of a long line of climate alarmism hoaxes, right?

Hoaxes hey? I think what you see as "headlines in the moment" up remembering as "The Scientific community has unanimously proclaimed thusly:...."

Because if you understand the science and the community, you'd know it's not all as nefarious as you think it is.

 

[RileyG]

Don't worry, the planet is fine.

Just not "ours" for much longer.

 

[Nithavela]

Oh, spare us your . I thought you were optimistic about the future, now that the "drill baby drill" president is in office?

 

[RileyG]

Oh, spare us your . I thought you were optimistic about the future, now that the "drill baby drill" president is in office?

Per the terms of service, address the post, not the poster.

 

[Pommer]

Per the terms of service, address the post, not the poster.

To be fair doesn’t give one much to work with.

 

[Nithavela]

Per the terms of service, address the post, not the poster.

You're crying for "the planet" while continuing to cheer on those who abuse it.