|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Second hottest March since records began
Not as hot as last years but no El Niño effect. https://edition.independent.co.uk/ed...806/index.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Second hottest March since records began
On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:26:55 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
Not as hot as last years but no El Niño effect. https://edition.independent.co.uk/ed...806/index.html Of course, they tell us it's the long-term trend that counts, not the one month or even two year numbers. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Second hottest March since records began
Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:26:55 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Not as hot as last years but no El Niño effect. https://edition.independent.co.uk/ed...806/index.html Of course, they tell us it's the long-term trend that counts, not the one month or even two year numbers. You were saying? https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Second hottest March since records began
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:26:55 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Not as hot as last years but no El Niño effect. https://edition.independent.co.uk/ed...806/index.html Of course, they tell us it's the long-term trend that counts, not the one month or even two year numbers. Exactly. However, when you have a steady trend of record breaking months, year after year, this are a demonstration of the long term trend. It is also a demonstration of the actual consequences of the long term rise in temperature we have been experiencing. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Second hottest March since records began
On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 7:29:23 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:26:55 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Not as hot as last years but no El Niño effect. https://edition.independent.co.uk/ed...806/index.html Of course, they tell us it's the long-term trend that counts, not the one month or even two year numbers. Exactly. However, when you have a steady trend of record breaking months, year after year, this are a demonstration of the long term trend. It is also a demonstration of the actual consequences of the long term rise in temperature we have been experiencing. Yes, indeed. And this trend has been going on (with minor setbacks due to volcanic eruptions and the 1970s "global cooling" scare) since the Little Ice Age reached a nadir in temperature two and a half centuries ago. Question: Is Greenland about ready for the Vikings to resettle it? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Second hottest March since records began
On Friday, 21 April 2017 15:29:23 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:26:55 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Not as hot as last years but no El Niño effect. https://edition.independent.co.uk/ed...806/index.html Of course, they tell us it's the long-term trend that counts, not the one month or even two year numbers. Exactly. However, when you have a steady trend of record breaking months, year after year, this are a demonstration of the long term trend. It is also a demonstration of the actual consequences of the long term rise in temperature we have been experiencing. How many months, of unnaturally high temperatures must pass, before "unusually warm weather" becomes a warming climate to paid doubters and internet lobbyists? 12? 36? 72? 144? 1000? 5000? 10,000? 100,000? 100,000,000? 1 billion? Since the Earth was formed? Since before the Big Bang? Do tell! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Second hottest March since records began
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 04:39:08 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 7:29:23 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:26:55 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Not as hot as last years but no El Niño effect. https://edition.independent.co.uk/ed...806/index.html Of course, they tell us it's the long-term trend that counts, not the one month or even two year numbers. Exactly. However, when you have a steady trend of record breaking months, year after year, this are a demonstration of the long term trend. It is also a demonstration of the actual consequences of the long term rise in temperature we have been experiencing. Yes, indeed. And this trend has been going on (with minor setbacks due to volcanic eruptions and the 1970s "global cooling" scare) since the Little Ice Age reached a nadir in temperature two and a half centuries ago. Question: Is Greenland about ready for the Vikings to resettle it? The Little Ice Age was not a global phenomenon, just a regional shift. And there was no 1970s concern among climate scientists that the Earth was cooling. You are once again demonstrating that your information is coming from conspiracy and pseudoscience sites. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Second hottest March since records began
Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 7:29:23 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:26:55 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Not as hot as last years but no El Niño effect. https://edition.independent.co.uk/ed...806/index.html Of course, they tell us it's the long-term trend that counts, not the one month or even two year numbers. Exactly. However, when you have a steady trend of record breaking months, year after year, this are a demonstration of the long term trend. It is also a demonstration of the actual consequences of the long term rise in temperature we have been experiencing. Yes, indeed. And this trend has been going on (with minor setbacks due to volcanic eruptions and the 1970s "global cooling" scare) since the Little Ice Age reached a nadir in temperature two and a half centuries ago. Question: Is Greenland about ready for the Vikings to resettle it? The little ice age was preceded by a substantial drop in atmospheric CO2 possible attributable to the regeneration of the Amazon rain forest after the destruction of its civilisation by disease. There is correlation here. The very extensive cultivation of Amazonia ended at the time of the conquistadors and their associated epidemics. The forest regenerated. CO2 fell. It's also possible that the medieval warm period was partly due to massive increases in forest clearing and agriculture as the world population, including Amazonia, rose and cleared more forest to grow crops. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Second hottest March since records began
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 7:50:57 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
Gary Harnagel wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 7:29:23 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:26:55 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Not as hot as last years but no El Niño effect. https://edition.independent.co.uk/ed...806/index.html Of course, they tell us it's the long-term trend that counts, not the one month or even two year numbers. Exactly. However, when you have a steady trend of record breaking months, year after year, this are a demonstration of the long term trend. It is also a demonstration of the actual consequences of the long term rise in temperature we have been experiencing. Yes, indeed. And this trend has been going on (with minor setbacks due to volcanic eruptions and the 1970s "global cooling" scare) since the Little Ice Age reached a nadir in temperature two and a half centuries ago. Question: Is Greenland about ready for the Vikings to resettle it? The little ice age was preceded by a substantial drop in atmospheric CO2 possible attributable to the regeneration of the Amazon rain forest after the destruction of its civilisation by disease. Yes, I saw a report that earthen structures were found in cleared Amazon forest areas. But what makes you believe that the forest RE-generated when the natives were decimated by disease? Maybe it just generated. Also, what evidence do you have for a drop in the CO2 levels? The latest entry from the Vostok data is about 2500 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milank...insolation.jpg and shows the CO2 level at just over 280 ppm and on the increase. The last 2000 years have shown the following: "The merged, 2000-year record indicates that atmospheric CO2 levels have substantially increased beyond their preindustrial values which fluctuated around 280 parts per million (ppm) for most of the period, with a slight dip from around 1600 to 1800 C.E." Note m a SLIGHT dip. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defined preindustrial concentrations as those prior to 1750." How convenient that the Sargasso sea data shows the temperature minimum at that time. "Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from around 277 ppm (IPCC, 2007) in 1750 to a global average of around 388 ppm" http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_co2.html There is correlation here. The very extensive cultivation of Amazonia ended at the time of the conquistadors and their associated epidemics. The forest regenerated. CO2 fell. Actually, the forest is not the largest CO2 sink by far. It's also possible that the medieval warm period was partly due to massive increases in forest clearing and agriculture as the world population, including Amazonia, rose and cleared more forest to grow crops. Hmmm, you're proposing a civilization with a population similar to what exists there now? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Second hottest March since records began
Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 7:50:57 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Gary Harnagel wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 7:29:23 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:08:25 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 2:26:55 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Not as hot as last years but no El Niño effect. https://edition.independent.co.uk/ed...806/index.html Of course, they tell us it's the long-term trend that counts, not the one month or even two year numbers. Exactly. However, when you have a steady trend of record breaking months, year after year, this are a demonstration of the long term trend. It is also a demonstration of the actual consequences of the long term rise in temperature we have been experiencing. Yes, indeed. And this trend has been going on (with minor setbacks due to volcanic eruptions and the 1970s "global cooling" scare) since the Little Ice Age reached a nadir in temperature two and a half centuries ago. Question: Is Greenland about ready for the Vikings to resettle it? The little ice age was preceded by a substantial drop in atmospheric CO2 possible attributable to the regeneration of the Amazon rain forest after the destruction of its civilisation by disease. Yes, I saw a report that earthen structures were found in cleared Amazon forest areas. But what makes you believe that the forest RE-generated when the natives were decimated by disease? Maybe it just generated. Also, what evidence do you have for a drop in the CO2 levels? The latest entry from the Vostok data is about 2500 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milank...insolation.jpg and shows the CO2 level at just over 280 ppm and on the increase. The last 2000 years have shown the following: "The merged, 2000-year record indicates that atmospheric CO2 levels have substantially increased beyond their preindustrial values which fluctuated around 280 parts per million (ppm) for most of the period, with a slight dip from around 1600 to 1800 C.E." Note m a SLIGHT dip. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defined preindustrial concentrations as those prior to 1750." How convenient that the Sargasso sea data shows the temperature minimum at that time. "Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from around 277 ppm (IPCC, 2007) in 1750 to a global average of around 388 ppm" http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/modern_co2.html There is correlation here. The very extensive cultivation of Amazonia ended at the time of the conquistadors and their associated epidemics. The forest regenerated. CO2 fell. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xm...pdf;sequence=1 Actually, the forest is not the largest CO2 sink by far. Irrelevant. The forest regrew. That's a likely CO2 sink in fact it's required or the forest would not grow. Tropical rain forest is a bigger CO2 sink than temperate forest. It's also possible that the medieval warm period was partly due to massive increases in forest clearing and agriculture as the world population, including Amazonia, rose and cleared more forest to grow crops. Hmmm, you're proposing a civilization with a population similar to what exists there now? That's something archaeologists need to find out. But the areas of cleared forest are huge. The civilisation had farms in large forest clearings. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Where/When time began.  | Jeff-Relf.Me | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 1st 14 02:25 PM |
The rapid melting began in Antarctica | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | February 26th 09 05:16 AM |
Observing Report: GSSP 2007 - Where The Myth Began | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | July 19th 07 02:27 AM |
How Aids Began | Twittering One | Misc | 0 | June 1st 05 04:16 AM |
hottest part of Sun and hottest part of a fireplace question & observation | Archimedes Plutonium | Astronomy Misc | 5 | January 27th 04 06:00 PM |