We are living in the hottest period for 125,000 years

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, honcho said:

a global govt will give bill gates a raging hard on! all his life he has wanted to control the world.. i would rather die in the fires of hell than be locked on the couch eating bugs and playing with a tablet

Wow!  I think that is the deepest dive down a conspiracy theory rabbit hole I've ever seen.

[Scott]

A post with a graphic without a link has been removed.  You need to post a link to copied material.

[AndyFoxy]

Well at least the Europeans won’t be feeling hot this coming winter. 

[pmarlin]

20 hours ago, placeholder said:

You know this? Please share with us the source of your knowledge.

I do know that the quote can't be proven.  Just how did they know what happened in the past like 125,00 years ago.

[goatfarmer]

On 7/20/2022 at 6:59 AM, ozimoron said:

the MWP was not a globally uniform event.

 

 

And you have data from across the globe to support such a bold claim? 

[goatfarmer]

On 7/20/2022 at 8:13 AM, Bkk Brian said:

That pales into insignificance to the record temperatures being recorded throughout the world today, from your own wiki article article sub link.

 

... after it was fixed. The 1990 IPCC chart tells a far different picture. https://climateaudit.org/2012/10/09/the-afterlife-of-ipcc-1990-figure-7-1/

[goatfarmer]

20 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I just don't believe you!

I can't buy any scientific measuring equipment today, that was on sale 30 years ago.

Fair point. Even if the claim were true for the particular satellite, there was a major change from infrared to microwave sea surface temperature measurement which meant that data had to be 'merged', or in lay language, 'fixed'. 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10872-005-5782-5

 

Similarly, Nasa explains how its data is
"... quality controlled, calibrated, remapped and merged to provide nearly Global coverage of equal-angle uniform observations."

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00830

 

Sounds like a lot of 'fixing' of data.

[BangkokHank]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Wow!  I think that is the deepest dive down a conspiracy theory rabbit hole I've ever seen.

Then you haven't been paying attention. The World Economic Forum globalists even tell us of their plans - in detail - and you STILL think it's a conspiracy theory? You deserve what's coming.

[placeholder]

46 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

And you have data from across the globe to support such a bold claim? 

Modern Climate Change Is the Only Worldwide Warming Event of the Past 2,000 Years

New research finds that previous periods of warming and cooling driven by natural causes were regional shifts in temperature rather than global events

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/modern-climate-change-only-worldwide-warming-event-past-2000-years-180972719/

 

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2.epdf?

 

Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0.epdf?

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

Right! Far easier to call them names.

Well, when people start touting conspiracy theories, I don't think labelling them is out of line? Of course, if you subscribe to conspiracy theories, then you'll probably disagree. 

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

Fair point. Even if the claim were true for the particular satellite, there was a major change from infrared to microwave sea surface temperature measurement which meant that data had to be 'merged', or in lay language, 'fixed'. 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10872-005-5782-5

 

Similarly, Nasa explains how its data is
"... quality controlled, calibrated, remapped and merged to provide nearly Global coverage of equal-angle uniform observations."

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00830

 

Sounds like a lot of 'fixing' of data.

Playing with the multiple meanings of "fixed" may be your idea of the basis for a rational scientific discussion, but it's clearly irrelevant to how science actually gets done. However, to a conspiracy theorist such as yourself, it probably is their idea of how science gets done.

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

Then you haven't been paying attention. The World Economic Forum globalists even tell us of their plans - in detail - and you STILL think it's a conspiracy theory? You deserve what's coming.

But do we deserve the nonsense you're pushing? Got some actual evidence from these globalists to share with us?

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, pmarlin said:

I do know that the quote can't be proven.  Just how did they know what happened in the past like 125,00 years ago.

Plenty of links to how proxy determinations of global temperature gets done have been offered. If you don't want to follow those links and learn something, well, that's what's called willful ignorance.

[Bkk Brian]

33 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

... after it was fixed. The 1990 IPCC chart tells a far different picture. https://climateaudit.org/2012/10/09/the-afterlife-of-ipcc-1990-figure-7-1/

The chart source and data is not from the IPCC so how Stephen McIntyre ex board of directors of Southeast Asia Mining Corp and now running the climateaudit.org have fixed it?

 

The original chart is here https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2020/2019-years/ with added data from here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0

 

 

[goatfarmer]

20 hours ago, BritManToo said:

The interview Paula Yates did with Buzz Aldrin (Big Breakfast circa mid 1990s, I was there), she suggested just that and he didn't punch her.

Nonetheless, it is a bit undignified calling someone a liar. This is the tactic employed by the alarmist mob when they disagree with you. If you disagree you must be lying because everyone knows they are right: a bit self-serving. There are more dignified ways of disagreeing with someone.

[placeholder]

41 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

... after it was fixed. The 1990 IPCC chart tells a far different picture. https://climateaudit.org/2012/10/09/the-afterlife-of-ipcc-1990-figure-7-1/

Whatever the merits of the info that the link leads to, (and given that it comes from climateaudit.org its merits are dubious) the fact is that the "hockey stick" has been confirmed over and over again by climatologists using different data sources. It is now settled science.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

Nonetheless, it is a bit undignified calling someone a liar. This is the tactic employed by the alarmist mob when they disagree with you. If you disagree you must be lying because everyone knows they are right: a bit self-serving. There are more dignified ways of disagreeing with someone.

Well, when someone calls those who disagree with them an "alarmist mob" maybe accusing that someone of being willfully dishonest isn't out of line.

[goatfarmer]

21 hours ago, placeholder said:

I've forgotten if it was you or someone who posted that because grapes grew in Britain once upon a time, that means that global warming isn't real. What don't you understand about the fact that Britain is not the entire world.  The surface of Britain covers  209,331 square miles. The surface of land on Earth comes to about 150,000,000 square kilometers. The Earth as a whole has about 500,000,000 square kilometers of surface.

So the UK holds about .14% of land surface. And from this tiny sample you draw conclusions?

Why not? Alarmists would have us draw similar magical conclusions of the global temperature a century or two ago from the paltry data derived by a few random, desultory, clippers and steam ships patrolling a similar percentage of the 350m sq km of sea water that makes up the bulk of the earth's surface.

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

Why not? Alarmists would have us draw similar magical conclusions of the global temperature a century or two ago from the paltry data derived by a few random, desultory, clippers and steam ships patrolling a similar percentage of the 350m sq km of sea water that makes up the bulk of the earth's surface.

The data is derived from a wide variety of sources already posted in this thread, your ignorance in claiming its from

 

"paltry data derived by a few random, desultory, clippers and steam ships"

 

Is just that, ignorance of the facts

[goatfarmer]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Plenty of links to how proxy determinations of global temperature gets done have been offered. If you don't want to follow those links and learn something, well, that's what's called willful ignorance.

If you read them critically, you'll come to the conclusion that the process of 'calibration' is just another example of magical thinking. Do you really believe it possible to determine the temperature for an interval of years, thousands of years ago, to 0.1C, from tree rings, sediment cores, coral or ice samples and then extrapolate a global average temperature to 0.1C from these few, disparate sites to the whole world? If so, you are not only conceited (in casting aspersions of 'willful(sic) ignorance' but credulous as well. 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, goatfarmer said:

And you have data from across the globe to support such a bold claim? 

"evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' are chiefly documented in describing northern hemisphere trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."

[placeholder]

25 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

Why not? Alarmists would have us draw similar magical conclusions of the global temperature a century or two ago from the paltry data derived by a few random, desultory, clippers and steam ships patrolling a similar percentage of the 350m sq km of sea water that makes up the bulk of the earth's surface.

Even if your characterization of how samples were obtained in the last 200 years was accurate, there is plenty of recent evidence to support the fact that the warming of the oceans is ongoing.

 

Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues through 2021 despite La Niña Conditions

The increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities traps heat within the climate system and increases ocean heat content (OHC). Here, we provide the first analysis of recent OHC changes through 2021 from two international groups. The world ocean, in 2021, was the hottest ever recorded by humans, and the 2021 annual OHC value is even higher than last year’s record value by 14 ± 11 ZJ (1 zetta J = 10²¹ J) using the IAP/CAS dataset and by 16 ± 10 ZJ using NCE

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-022-1461-3I/NOAA dataset.

 

 

The Oceans Are Getting Warmer

Annual average temperatures of the oceans’ surfaces have been diverging from the 20th century (1900-1999) average more and more since the 1980s. In 2021, global ocean surface temperatures were 0.65 degrees Celsius higher than that century’s average, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

https://www.statista.com/chart/19418/divergence-of-ocean-temperatures-from-20th-century-average/

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by placeholder

[Scott]

Conspiracy post removed.

 

[BritManToo]

19 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

Why not? Alarmists would have us draw similar magical conclusions of the global temperature a century or two ago from the paltry data derived by a few random, desultory, clippers and steam ships patrolling a similar percentage of the 350m sq km of sea water that makes up the bulk of the earth's surface.

I alway wondered why the temperature measurements recorded by amateur Victorian scientists are accurate to 0.05 of a degree? 

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

If you read them critically, you'll come to the conclusion that the process of 'calibration' is just another example of magical thinking. Do you really believe it possible to determine the temperature for an interval of years, thousands of years ago, to 0.1C, from tree rings, sediment cores, coral or ice samples and then extrapolate a global average temperature to 0.1C from these few, disparate sites to the whole world? If so, you are not only conceited (in casting aspersions of 'willful(sic) ignorance' but credulous as well. 

Well, if it was my opinion alone, you might have a point. But since this is what the overwhelming majority of climatologists believe, I'll go with them rather than the empty rhetoric of an anonymous poster on thaivisa.com

And first you claimed that it was only a few ships taking samples back when and now you claim that samples are being drawn from a few disparate sites. Can you share with us an actual numerical figure of what "few" actually means? Because I've got news for you. "Few" isn't a word that has much use in science in defining quantity. So, since I'm sure you've done the research, share with us what number you actually assign to "few".

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I alway wondered why the temperature measurements recorded by amateur Victorian scientists are accurate to 0.05 of a degree? 

First accurate mercury thermometer was in 1714 before Victorian times

[heybruce]

38 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

Then you haven't been paying attention. The World Economic Forum globalists even tell us of their plans - in detail - and you STILL think it's a conspiracy theory? You deserve what's coming.

Right.  Why don't you provide a source showing how the World Economic Forum and/or Bill Gates plan to take over the world?  No podcasts or YouTube videos please, give us something in print from a credible source.

[heybruce]

16 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I alway wondered why the temperature measurements recorded by amateur Victorian scientists are accurate to 0.05 of a degree? 

The Gravitational Constant (one of those very important number that most people know nothing about) was measured to within 1% accuracy 250 years ago, and that is a much more difficult measurement than temperature.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, goatfarmer said:

Fair point. Even if the claim were true for the particular satellite, there was a major change from infrared to microwave sea surface temperature measurement which meant that data had to be 'merged', or in lay language, 'fixed'. 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10872-005-5782-5

 

Similarly, Nasa explains how its data is
"... quality controlled, calibrated, remapped and merged to provide nearly Global coverage of equal-angle uniform observations."

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00830

 

Sounds like a lot of 'fixing' of data.

Data processing is not ‘fixing data’.

 

Away with you and your climate change denial blogs.

 

 

[goatfarmer]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Only a trace amount of dye in water can greatly change its properties regarding light and absorption of heat.  The same holds for trace amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Yes, but will increasing the dye by 30% make a substantial difference?