I don't even know what that expression means? What is the average global temps? You mean the average for the history of the earth? EDIT: a quick search shows it means average for 20th century to which I respond 'so?' If you understand basic math then both these stats being true is very possible (even probable) We've been hotter than the 20th century average for a while now folks. Better give our money to the knowledgeable elite to solve the problem How are we doing against the 18th century just out of curiosity? we winning?
Wow so many experts! Who would have thought you could become a PHD from "information" gathered from forwarded political email chains?? Those silly scientists, they should have received their degrees in something WAY more important like an MBA.
It is pretty obvious what it means. It is a picture of a fire with a statement saying there has been 350 straight months of higher than avg global temperatures. Why read to much into it? Nobody can accurately determine the avg temperatures for the history of the Earth. That is impossible. All you can do is estimate it based off of past life/fossils found in parts of the world. A half degree Celsius temperature swing on a global level is pretty damn significant believe it or not. Some food for thought - there was a warming period before the past ice ages as well. Even though the warming was caused by a shift of sunlight and not so much the rapid increase of atmospheric gases (as we are seeing now); there is a lot of evidence of higher Co2/Methane levels taken from ice cores in Antarctica and such supporting life there that needs specific temps to survive during the Pleistocene Era prior to specific epochs. There is A LOT more evidence showing the Earth cycles gases and temperatures (Milankovitch-cycle) than this hypothesis that we are going to burn up and die in the next century because of all of the Man Made gases we emit into the atmosphere. Now I personally think these gases are disrupting the normal cycles and even causing the oceans to be less effective in absorbing gases (because the water is warmer, etc). However, nobody knows if that was the case during the Pleistocene Era because there isn't enough scientific data on specific water temps during that era. This debate is never ending and will go on forever.
why would it be obvious that global average temperatures means average of the 20th century? not reading to much into anything. That stat you posted is incomprehensible without more information (the information I provided). It is still not clear to me why you think it is meaningful that the earth has been hotter than the average of the 20th century for a while now. Usually when somebody resorts to such an unconfirming stat, its a sign that other (more confirming) stats don't back the claim. If you wanted to claim the Earth is getting hotter then post a chart of the Earth's temperature over X amount of time from whatever source your original stat used. You would then want to explain your case for why that source of measuring the earth's temperature is better than other methods. Even that still wouldn't prove man-made global warming, but still the above stat posted is just worthless analysis.
Posts like this work to discredit the global warming movement. Causation is not addressed at all. The picture of a fire as a scare tactic is cheap. No one is going to rush out to approve raising taxes, raising energy costs, and limiting electricity availability based on a superficial, specious argument such as this. There are just so many hurdles to clear before reasonable people are willing to make major sacrifices for this global warming movement. 1. Is global warmining occurring? 2. Is man contributing to it? 3. What measures can be taken to limit global warming? 4. What are the costs of these measures compared against the benefits? How do you probability adjust for this? Going from "global warming is occuring" to "let's ban coal fired power, let's limit fracking, let's raise taxes, let's prevent developing nations from growing their economies with affordable energy" ... is an absurd jump that is inconsistent with any reasonable probability-adjusted cost/benefit analysis.
You obviously didn't get the joke and are looking way to much into it. You didn't provide any stats either, you made an ignorant statement to Gladiatorowdy and then followed up with a question lol. You failed to acknowledge the rest of my post which I am sure you have no idea what it is talking about.
How are we doing compared with the average global temperature from the 21st century? How about the 6th millenia BC? How about the 2nd century? The weather is always in flux, it's funny that people have convinced themselves that they control it one way or the other these days. I'm pretty sure we'd laugh if we heard that our distant ancestors thought they could control the weather with rain dances or whatever, yet here we are. I'm sure thousands of years from now, our future ancestors will laugh at us just the same. I'm sure the trifling amount of greenhouse gasses (in comparison to the natural one's) that humans add to the equation could potentially make a difference....in the same way that the added weight of an ant could potentially topple a skyscraper but IMO the earth is going to do what the earth is going to do. It's human arrogance and ignorance at it's finest thinking that we have a say as to whether temperatures go up or down.
nope. missed ur awesome joke. Stats are used to prove a claim. I didn't make a claim so nothing to post stats about. ignorant about what? I don't think you understand how to do a basic statistical analysis so I didn't read whatever else u wrote.
Now this is a fine example of someone looking at a picture and reading WAY to much into it. Perhaps I should have put a rolling eyes smiley with it because I found the picture hilarious. I don't see how banning coal or limiting fracking or raising taxes or as tallanvor said "Better give our money to the knowledgeable elite to solve the problem" has anything to do with a funny and yet, stupid picture. Boy did it get a rise out of some of yall in here and then yall have no real justification for your reasoning behind why you made the comment to begin with. Just the same sarcastic nonsense that creates these arguments to begin with. Are you in the Global Warming movement? Are you genuinely asking those questions?
Isn't part of the problem is that we are coming out of a mini ice age around 1850ish? Arent all climate models stupid unless put into context of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years?
This earth is quite awesome and nature is quite amazing and all-powerful. It's hard to imagine that human can destroy it. Then came the knowledge of atomic power. Human suddenly realize they aren't ant. They possess the power to destroy nature on earth. There were a time in the past when sailors were afraid to go too far. Then came the amazing knowledge that the world is round. The earth climate is amazing, a balancing act of nature. Then came the knowledge that the climate is indeed a balancing act and a small change here and there does wonder to it. The story here isn't yet fully written but there is little doubt that knowledge will prevail.
We have been recording temperatures with accurate instrumentation for about 150 years or so. Scientist use things like tree ring width to guess the temperature for the other eons. Of course the oldest tree on the planet is probably only 4 or 5 thousand years old, a blink in the life of our planet.
That's a good example of the arrogance and ignorance of man. We learn just a small amount about one of the fundamentals of nature and we think we've mastered it. We're still ants, only now we're ants that believe that they are more than that. I have no doubt that knowledge will prevail, and that's my point. 1000 years from now our future ancestors will look back on us and laugh because they'll realize exactly how little we know. We're just dumb apes that vastly overestimate our knowledge and our impact, the problem is, it'll take us generations to realize it. Humans intrinsically have a desire to think of themselves as significant, some turn to traditional religion, others turn to the religion of science, but it's the same thing really. We're still just a bunch of dumb apes telling ourselves that "now everything is different".
Wouldn't surprise me. Most close minded people tend to be one track minded and have an agenda. ^ Nice claim there cool guy. The fact that you have no idea the Earth works in a cycle and has been for it's entire existence. You apparently have no knowledge on climate history or even meteorology for that matter. You take your political views and use that as a fact to prove a point about this Global Warming phenomenon. Lol statistical analysis? Please enlighten me! I am only 5 years old and have no idea what I am talking about. Great argument there. You can take your baseless opinions and spew it elsewhere. There is no secret Co2 levels are at a higher level than we have seen in a long long time, but if you had any reasonable knowledge on the subject, you would know that Co2 levels have actually been higher than they are now millions of years ago. Try reading a little bit: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029 /2010PA002055/full Here is a good quote so you understand since you like to make assumptions and respond to a post without reading it. Just admit - you have no idea what I was talking about. It is ok
yeah I see everyone laughing at your awesome joke and then wondered why I didn't get it. Must be closed mindedness. neither of those are claims....... I don't? I did
I agree with you that with all we know, we know very little. I showed some example of what we were so sure of, but we were wrong. And we got there with knowledge not through assumptions, religious beliefs or personal beliefs, but slow hard science (with probably insight by some along the way). And so with GW, the slow hard science is still the most reliable method we human have today to gaining knowledge of it. Let me just said that when you think other are arrogance and ignorant and yet come to a very "sure" belief (that it's not possible human can cause GW based on what I don't know)... you are defining yourself and history has shown that such sure thinking based on "personal" beliefs (or whatever you have) isn't reliable.
This has got to be one of the most hysterically vague non committal statements I have ever seen. This is evidence of nothing more than the fact that these guys are guessing like crazy. It is also evidence that people like yourself will take any information that confirms your belief and post it as THE TRUTH!!! ah ha!!! What the hell is a "paleoclimatic record"? I really want to meet the guy that was creating these "records".
