Did they get the data on-site because if that is the case it shows the temp trend between a rural place and an urban area.
Canada warming at twice the global rate
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
step up! State what you perceive/interpret as 'making shyte up'... what's being "made up"? You won't let this go... let's dance! What shyte do you claim I'm making up? Waiting.......
is there a translator in the house? Care to elaborate on your statement?
you're nothing but a trolling degenerate... what I can tell you about Machu Picchu is that through the whole flaming waste of time, you formally declared you couldn't speak to how/what/where I lied... point in fact is you stated you didn't care. In your zeal to be the loyal lapper, you simply followed the lead and continued to natter on accusing me of lying... yet never providing a single reference account to that end. That's what I know about your fixation with something your juvenile mind can't move from.
yup... fer sure! This board is all about... meaningful discussion! :lol:
University of York 1840, where did the thermometers 'reside' and how much has the landscape, in a 10 mile radius, changed in the time the chart covers. A nice steady climb would be the result of farmland being changed into a concrete jungle and the concrete holds the heat better.
Naval records could be used to go back in time for a record that should even have the time of each day. Vancouver and Halifax day by day for 200 years and the local records would show if there is a heating or cooling trend for a period of time as short as a decade. If that spreading slows down then the heat rising from California and Baja would pull the seasonal winds down in that direction and we would be back to this weather pattern of the last 200 years.
It's all in the 'perspective'.
Last edited:
silly nonsensical response! Those respective datasets are global in nature. Somehow, because the website presenting the interactive tool is hosted by the University of York... you interpreted the measurements originating from there? Wow... just wow! Notwithstanding the datasets were all named. Clearly you know nothing... nothing... about surface temperature measurement.
you could remedy the trolling CC member "DuhSleeper's" actions very easily! You choose not to... you choose to allow his trolling to prevail.
like I said, you've never provided... and you can't provide... a single reference that supports your repeated lapdog claims that I lied I was there. Again, more pointedly, when I chased you incessantly over dozen of posts to have you support your charge you finally relented and explicitly stated you couldn't provide anything... but most pointedly you openly admitted you didn't care you couldn't support your claim/charges. Again, you simply choose to perpetuate this because you're a sniveling troll. Would you like me resurrect those posts... like I said, they're a mere CC search away! Would you like to really showcase your trolling best?
Off the top of my head I would guess Canada is one of 4 or 5 coldest countries on the planet and I doubt if any amount of reasonable warming is going to jump it more than one or two spots in the lineup.
Off the top of my head I would guess Canada is one of 4 or 5 coldest countries on the planet and I doubt if any amount of reasonable warming is going to jump it more than one or two spots in the lineup.
what lineup? If you don't recognize what impacts melting Arctic sea ice has... what impacts melting permafrost has...
see weather versus climate... in spite of your "billion years ago" distraction, care to provide an attribution for today's relatively recent temperature rise?
Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies, January - December (Annual anomalies relative to 20th century)
Your graph goes back 125 years yet earth's history is about 4 billion years. We know from the evidence there have been times when the Southern US was under ice and we know that there were times when central Canada was tropical. These facts point quite simply to a climate change of much more than the 1 or 2 degrees that everyone is so worried about yet the earth and life survived. As for what has caused the recent rise I guess either just a normal historical change in climate or possibly all the hot air being released by those who think AGW is real.
your... guess... is noted! The standard denier practice to revert back a brazillion years has no bearing on the attribution for today's relatively recent post industrial age warming.
Sure. You seem to like NOAA. They and Wood's Hole both confirmed in the mid-80s that there was a very large, rather active volcano on the Artic sea bed. Seems it's at least one good cause of the melting Arctic ice cap, which will of course have a global effect.
You'll also notice all the charts and graphs show things starting to really take off in the 50s and 60. Now, what technological advancement arrived at that time? Satellites. Scientists have also admitted that when doing their research into past temperature records using, for example, tree ring data. The farther back they go, the fewer specimens they use. So what we really don't have is an accurate picture of the climate and global temperature changes prior to the age of spaceflight.
What is also interesting about the one chart posted on page 1 is the blips that show up during WW2, The Korean War and from Vietnam on. As it turns out, modern warfare is really, really hard on the environment. Who'd'a thunk it?
I think there is one valid concern that was absent in days of old when the population was much smaller & metropolises were virtually unheard of. Many of the larger metropolises lie at sea level and possibly a 2 degree C rise in temp. may raise sea level by several feet causing a huge disruption to the population.
Stating you can create an accurate history of Earth climate using the last 125 years of data is like stating you can provide an accurate history of the automobile with data from the last 2 days. The AGW supporters all seem to dismiss anything prior to the industrial revolution in order to support their bogus claims. If you look at the entire climate history of this planet all the evidence points to much larger and more violent swings in temperature and climate than anything predicted by AGW scientists and politicians.
I have no particular affinity to any source... let's try the U.S. NSIDC: Have undersea volcanoes caused the Arctic sea ice decline?
"A recent study discovered active volcanoes on the floor of the Arctic Ocean, and some people have wondered if they are causing sea ice to melt.
While volcanic eruptions surely warmed the ocean in the immediate vicinity of the eruptions, the amount of heat they produced compared to the large volume of the Arctic Ocean is small. The Arctic Ocean covers 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles), about 1 ½ times the size of the United States or 58 times the size of the United Kingdom. In its deepest spots, the Arctic Ocean is 4,000 to 5,500 meters (13,000 to 18,000 feet) deep. The heat from the volcanoes would have dispersed over an enormous volume and had little effect on ocean temperature, much as a bucket of boiling water emptied into a lake would have little effect on the lake’s temperature.
Second, the eruptions would have introduced heat deep below the sea ice that floats on the ocean surface. The tops of even the tallest undersea volcanoes are more than 1,000 meters (3,000 feet) deep. The Arctic Ocean is strongly stratified, which prevents layer mixing and makes it difficult for any deep water, even deep water warmed by heat from volcanoes, to reach the surface and melt the ice. This layering results from a strong density gradient: water layers near the surface are less salty and therefore less dense, while bottom waters are the densest. Unlike most oceans, where density gradients are determined by both salinity and temperature, Arctic Ocean waters are heavily stratified primarily because of variations in salinity."
no - 1978 is the recognized start of satellite based troposphere temperature measurement
no - that's why proxies are relied upon to provide as accurate as available paleo-reconstructions. But again, focusing on the past is simply a means of distraction to avoid accepting consensus attribution for today's relatively recent warming.
The one under the Arctic ice cap has a lava field that is at least 10 km2. Considering the pressure at those depths, that's still some very powerful eruptions. I'm not talking about some volcano steaming away, I'm talking full-on, violent eruptions going thousands of feet up.
Which makes the data displayed on the graphs even less reliable then.
You manage to talk a lot for someone who says nothing. I wasn't focusing on the past. That's just your way of trying to shut down debate on the subject. Your "consensus" is a joke as well. 97% of 1/3 is hardly a consensus on anything.
As the world warms up, it is leading to a rise in the salinity of the Mediterranean (due to faster evaporation and reduced rainfall in the surrounding basin). The denser outflow into the Atlantic is gradually deflecting the course of the Gulf Stream to the west, which will make Britain and Scandinavia progressively colder but it also thaws out Greenland faster.
This is really happening, folks.