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

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, goatfarmer said:

Sure. A bit of warming in the last few decades in some places. But this is an average of the globe, a dubious concept at best. It's not like a pot of water heating up on the stove, which is the way it's presented. 

Just because you don't understand the science doesn't make it wrong.  I seriously doubt you understand how your phone works, yet you use it.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, BangkokHank said:

I posted some evidence, but since you couldn't argue with it, you reported it - and got it removed. Does that make you feel like you won the argument?

You posted a link to a podcast by some right winger.

[goatfarmer]

1 hour ago, SatEng said:

You are wrong.

The data I am talking about from the European satellites were always microwave radiometers back from the launch of ERS-1 in 1991

ERS-1 - ATSR (Along Track Scanning Radiometer

ERS-2 - ATSR-2

Envisat - AATSR

The difference between the instruments was the accuracy of the measurement, not the temperatures measured themselves

No fixing

No conspiracy 

None of your B**sh*t

Ok. We can make a point with confidence without spitting the dummy. 

[goatfarmer]

57 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Just because you don't understand the science doesn't make it wrong.  I seriously doubt you understand how your phone works, yet you use it.

Here we go. When the alarmists are challenged, it's 'hit the panic button', hurl abuse, anything but rational, civilized conversation. 

[goatfarmer]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

What don't you understand about the fact the Richard Muller assembled a team of high level scientists to examine the very issues you raise concerning methodology? What don't you understand about the fact that climatologists told Mueller that they had already accounted for these issues in their methodology? What don't you understand about the fact that Muller confirmed that climatologists had gotten it right after all? Have you examined the research of Mueller and others? And yet you think you know better than they do? And you accuse me of conceit? It is to laugh.

I wasn't addressing Richard Muller. You left that paragraph off without making a point. 

[Hummin]

Every time I see discussions like this, I thank my god I do not have kids or grandchildren to worry about when exiting this planet?
 

What a mess we are leaving behind us! What a shame!

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

Here we go. When the alarmists are challenged, it's 'hit the panic button', hurl abuse, anything but rational, civilized conversation. 

You posted "But this is an average of the globe, a dubious concept at best. It's not like a pot of water heating up on the stove, which is the way it's presented." 

 

It appears that you doubt science's ability to deal with averages.  The temperature of the pot of water is based on the root mean square of the velocities of the individual water molecules, where "mean" has the same meaning as "average".  So it is like that pot of water.

 

If you have doubts about how this "dubious concept", then perhaps you should research how it is arrived at.  Feel free to identify errors in the approach.  https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/global-temperature-anomalies

Edited July 21, 2022 by heybruce

[goatfarmer]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

All these questions have been addressed by climatologists. And despite the fact that climatologists told Richard Mueller that these issues had been addressed, he went ahead anyway. And his research independently confirmed what they claimed.

What's sociologically and ideologically interesting, is that the same denialists who had enthulsiastically sponsored his research, dropped him like a hot potato once he revealed its results.

You've got nothing. The issues you raise have obviously been repeatedly addressed. The only way your objections could be valid is if there was a huge conspiracy of thousands of climatologists who ignored the obvious points you raised. You clearly have no knowledge of what scientists like Muller have done, and I daresay, absolutely no interest in learning about their research.

So if all of these questions have been addressed by climatologists and your man, Richard,  is one of them, you should have a ready answer to my point. But you haven't.

 

Instead of making a polite, rational, respectful, civilized, reply, we see, as is usual with alarmists, name calling, vague reference to an authority, ad hominem, and dummy- spitting rants. It's so ludicrous as to be almost satirical. 

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

So if all of these questions have been addressed by climatologists and your man, Richard,  is one of them, you should have a ready answer to my point. But you haven't.

 

Instead of making a polite, rational, respectful, civilized, reply, we see, as is usual with alarmists, name calling, vague reference to an authority, ad hominem, and dummy- spitting rants. It's so ludicrous as to be almost satirical. 

Was you point that you don't understand how data analysis is done?  Do you want someone on this forum to provide you with many years of education on instrumentation, data collection, statistical analysis, and other pertinent topics?

[coolcarer]

22 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

I wasn't addressing Richard Muller. You left that paragraph off without making a point. 

He made a point, actually he made a number of them that covers just about every comment you’ve made so far in this thread if you actually bothered to read the Richard Muller report

[placeholder]

25 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

I wasn't addressing Richard Muller. You left that paragraph off without making a point. 

You may not have been addressing Richard Muller but you were addressing the issues that Richard Muller's team had already researched and invalidated the objections that matched those that you raised here.

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, goatfarmer said:

So if all of these questions have been addressed by climatologists and your man, Richard,  is one of them, you should have a ready answer to my point. But you haven't.

 

Instead of making a polite, rational, respectful, civilized, reply, we see, as is usual with alarmists, name calling, vague reference to an authority, ad hominem, and dummy- spitting rants. It's so ludicrous as to be almost satirical. 

A very feeble attempt at evading the fact that your objections are baseless.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Screaming said:

Earth’s climate has changed many times. For example, fossils from the Cretaceous period (144 to 65 million years ago) show that Earth was much warmer than it is today. Fossilized plants and animals that normally live in warm environments have been found at much higher latitudes than they could survive at today. For instance, breadfruit trees, now found on tropical islands, grew as far north as Greenland.

This is another tired objection. It is undeniable that earth's climate is changing. What also undeniable is that for the last several thousand years, it hasn't changed as fast as it is now changing. In other words, it's about rates. Comments like yours are exactly analogous to saying that there's no important difference between an investment that offers 1 percent interest and another that offers 10 percent interest.

[nauseus]

24 minutes ago, Screaming said:

Earth’s climate has changed many times. For example, fossils from the Cretaceous period (144 to 65 million years ago) show that Earth was much warmer than it is today. Fossilized plants and animals that normally live in warm environments have been found at much higher latitudes than they could survive at today. For instance, breadfruit trees, now found on tropical islands, grew as far north as Greenland.

Partly true but bear in mind that Greenland wasn't as it is, and where it is now, that long ago.

 

[Hummin]

21 minutes ago, Screaming said:

Earth’s climate has changed many times. For example, fossils from the Cretaceous period (144 to 65 million years ago) show that Earth was much warmer than it is today. Fossilized plants and animals that normally live in warm environments have been found at much higher latitudes than they could survive at today. For instance, breadfruit trees, now found on tropical islands, grew as far north as Greenland.

Was it close to 8 billion people on the planet back then? 
 

There is many natural reasons for climate changes happens, and also regular cycles involved, but that doesn’t legitimate our help to make another one now right in front of our eyes while we still can change the timing of a new one. 
 

There is no excuse for polluting and exploiting our planet. However even the chosen solutions and the politics around the problem is also deleted. There is no compromises, we have to preserve the forrests, the sea, the wetlands with more, consume less, and stop living in a illusion that everything will be ok. No it will not be ok for your children and your grandchildren. 

[Phoenix Rising]

2 hours ago, goatfarmer said:

Here we go. When the alarmists are challenged, it's 'hit the panic button', hurl abuse, anything but rational, civilized conversation. 

Was that abuse??

 

PS. BTW, it's really hard to have a rational conversation with persons  who behave irrationally by rejecting science.

[Phoenix Rising]

41 minutes ago, Screaming said:

How do we know that climate-change BS is a myth? To understand, we must return to Al Gore’s book, An Inconvenient Truth, that has flooded America’s classrooms. While preaching the tale in his book, the carbon king made gobs of money (one hundred and seventy million dollars and counting) from oil monies. Global warming hype is his cash cow. The crusader got rich from his phony crusade.

Adding to the hysteria, Gore predicted in 2009 that the North Pole would be ice-free by 2013. Do you think he even knew that Chinese sea captains reported melting ice caps as far back as 1434? The inconvenient truth is that the climate has been warming, cooling, and dramatically changing since the beginning of time? Raging fires, mega earthquakes, blizzards, tsunamis, droughts, severe storms, tornados, and heat waves have been around since antiquity-long before carbon emissions. Did you know that the plague of 1867 was blamed on the weather?

Ahhh, isn't it refreshing to read posts that make a number of astonishing claims without a shred of linked evidence to back them up....

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Was that abuse??

 

PS. BTW, it's really hard to have a rational conversation with persons  who behave irrationally by rejecting science.

And keep on raising issues that have been settled long since.

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And keep on raising issues that have been settled long since.

Debunked issues are all the deniers have. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Screaming said:

Earth’s climate has changed many times. For example, fossils from the Cretaceous period (144 to 65 million years ago) show that Earth was much warmer than it is today. Fossilized plants and animals that normally live in warm environments have been found at much higher latitudes than they could survive at today. For instance, breadfruit trees, now found on tropical islands, grew as far north as Greenland.

Yes, archaeologists have shown that Earth's climate has changed dramatically during Earth's existence.  Archaeologists have have also shown that as the climate changes over millions of years the plants, animals and ecosystems evolve with the climate.  And when Earth's climate changes rapidly, as it is doing now, there are mass extinctions. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

This is another tired objection. It is undeniable that earth's climate is changing. What also undeniable is that for the last several thousand years, it hasn't changed as fast as it is now changing. In other words, it's about rates. Comments like yours are exactly analogous to saying that there's no important difference between an investment that offers 1 percent interest and another that offers 10 percent interest.

Or in going from 100 km/hr to stationary in ten seconds (controlled stop) and doing it in 1/10 of a second (fatal accident).  How fast things change is very important.

[placeholder]

34 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Oh nice copy and paste by the way from Allison Nichols at

 

https://ctexaminer.com/2022/07/16/climate-change-hysteria/ & https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/the_hoax_of_climate_change.html

 

I guess plagiarism is par for the course when you're a climate denier

Usually I'm pretty good at spotting plagiarism. But this rant was so nuts that it never occurred to me that somebody would actually be proud enough of it to post it to the internet.

[nauseus]

43 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Yes, archaeologists have shown that Earth's climate has changed dramatically during Earth's existence.  Archaeologists have have also shown that as the climate changes over millions of years the plants, animals and ecosystems evolve with the climate.  And when Earth's climate changes rapidly, as it is doing now, there are mass extinctions. 

I do hope you mean geologists.

[nauseus]

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Usually I'm pretty good at spotting plagiarism. But this rant was so nuts that it never occurred to me that somebody would actually be proud enough of it to post it to the internet.

Pretty slick, eh?

[CharlieH]

Off topic posts /responses. removrd.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I do hope you mean geologists.

Correct.  I got sloppy.

[ozimoron]

15 hours ago, goatfarmer said:

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

All articles about the MWP state that it wasn't world wide.

 

Before you challenge for a link, why not do at least a tiny bit of research?

 

From a google search at the top of the first page

 

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that lasted from c. 950 to c. 1250.

[placeholder]

 

Global heat records are outpacing cold records by 10-1, data shows

According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, around the world, 188 all-time heat records have been broken so far in 2022, compared with just 18 cold records.

A climate scientist at Princeton University says the record imbalance is a sign of climate change.

 

Studies have shown extreme heat will increase in frequency, intensity and duration because of global warming, and that extremes will occur more frequently on the hot side compared to cold.

https://www.actionnews5.com/2022/07/18/global-heat-records-are-outpacing-cold-records-by-10-1-data-shows/

What makes this particularly notable is the fact that during the first half of 2022 there was a La Nina which actually has a depressing effect on global temperatures.