Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Yes I did. I don't see how those articles change any of the points I've made. Do you have a map from the same source as your 1934 map for either 1998 or 2010, so I can compare? I can't really read the tiny graphic you've posted. I can see a lot of pink, but it would be nice to compare to ayear that NOAA and NASA say was hotter, globally, than 1934.
No body knows for sure? Why is ice monitored if the data is suspect or uncertain or is this just a way to introduce the theory of dark ice to complement the dark heat theory?
?
Because certainty is an element of faith, not science.
Fair enough.
That said, with respect to the clarity that you have offered above, is it fair to say that the existing records are insufficient to use in any meaningful form (read: geological time) to gauge the global cyclical (climate) cycles as it relates to the speculation on AGW?
I doubt the chartographers from 1934 are around to make maps.
Bigger map for you. Enjoy!
1934 Large Map World Climate Vegetation Population Temperature Rainfall | eBay
Why was it so warm in the southern hemisphere in mid winter? Cause it's GLOBAL warming in 1934¿
Bigger map for you. Enjoy!
1934 Large Map World Climate Vegetation Population Temperature Rainfall | eBay
Why was it so warm in the southern hemisphere in mid winter? Cause it's GLOBAL warming in 1934¿
My own view?
CO2 concentrations have been observed to increase from about 280 ppm to around 400 ppm overt the last 120 years or so. Based on the quantum properties of CO2, it abosrbs infrared radiation adn then re-emits it in a random direction. This is a well known phenomenon called teh greenhouse effect, which results in the the near-surface temperature being warmer than it would otherwise be, and the far from surface temperature being cooler than it would otherwise be.
Doubling CO2 should result in an increase of around 1 deg C. Increasing from 280 ppm to 400 ppm should result in a temperature increase somewhere in the neighbourhood of 0.6 degrees or so. That ignores any feedback effects (e.g. climate models). In fact the temperature has increased by about 0.8 deg C. So that means (ignoring feedback) that 0.6 deg C of the arming was due to higher CO2 and 0.2 came from somewheres else, maybe natural.
All that said, the feedback effects are critical. If they are much high e than 1, we're screwed. If they're less than one, everyone is wasting a bunch of energuy over nothing. SO far, I think they are pretty close to 1, maybe a little less.
I've seriously considered your points, but have determined that I am, in fact, right. Please adjust your opinion accordingly. :lol:
Seriosuly, the map ios an interesting artifact, but without context, doesn't really stand on its own.
It's readable and clearly shows a GLOBAL temp spike not just US. That not good enough? What caused that spike and fear of glacial loss and global warming in 34?
Bad luck? It wasn't CO2 causing alarmists 80 years ago to go loopy was it?
Bad luck? It wasn't CO2 causing alarmists 80 years ago to go loopy was it?
I honestly don't think I'm the loopy one here.
I really don't know what you're trying to get at. 1934 was a warm year. Your graph indicates that. The temperature record indicates that. It was very warm in the US that summer, as your graph indciates, as NOAA indicates and as anecdotal infomaiton indicates.
Where was it compared to 1998, or 2010? According to NASA and NOAA, it's not int he top ten. It could have been a warm year by 1934 standards, but not warm by 2014 standards, since the 10 warmest years have all been since 1998, I believe.
Were you an almarist from 80 years ago?
Do you want to compare to pre or post modified records?
Do you want to compare to pre or post modified records?
Last edited:
There are just shy of 2300 posts in this thread.
You're welcome to go through them all and find examples from all across the globe
You're welcome to go through them all and find examples from all across the globe
weather examples... from all across the globe! Really?
guys, guys! I received a most inviting request to come on back. Sorry to disrupt, if ever so slightly, your little sheltered gab-fest.
then you shouldn't be so worried about, as you said, "scaring me off". Just saying.
Oh, I wasn't really worried, something about dimes and dozens and such. But you do look like you'll be entertaining.
then you'll have to give me something to work with here! A quick scan of random selected pages in this thread shows a lot of cut&paste "ta da" aficionados who quote and drop links to the denialsphere. I trust you can do better than that, yes? Perhaps you should start off by declaring just how much denial you're into.
Oh ya, you should prove very entertaining indeed.
Shush, don't scare him off, lol.
Opps... My bad.
How about I offer a thoughtful gift to smooth things over.
