A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Second hottest March since records began



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 21st 17, 09:23 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default 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  
Old April 21st 17, 01:08 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default 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  
Old April 21st 17, 02:14 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default 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  
Old April 21st 17, 02:29 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old April 22nd 17, 12:39 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default 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  
Old April 22nd 17, 12:39 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,001
Default 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  
Old April 22nd 17, 02:21 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default 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  
Old April 22nd 17, 02:47 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default 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  
Old April 23rd 17, 01:39 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default 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  
Old April 23rd 17, 04:41 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.