It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another Month, Another Heat Record Broken

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: phrig

Really? I say it's complicated and you call it simple. I must be as dumb as a bag of hammers or you're playing with me. I think the latter. There's no way anyone who doesn't understand the data source, processing sets and values will be able to make any sense of this. I'm telling you its complicated and you're arguing with me lol. What does best 95% lower confidence bound and their values mean?
What does detrend(amount), derivative, intregral transformation mean? How about low and high pass (harmonic) and inverse fourier?

Are we done here?
edit on 20-10-2014 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

It's funny. When a heat record is broken, it's perfectly acceptable to tie it in with AGW, but when it's cold, and you mention it, you are chastised for not knowing the difference between climate, and weather.

One of those things that makes you go huh. I'm off to put my head back in the sand now.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Also funny:

From the OP -


Earth hasn't set a monthly record for cold since December 1916, but all monthly heat record have been set after 1997.


Key word there being "Earth".

Oh, but I see - you mean all those localized weather events that skeptics love to constantly cherry-pick so they can go "It's cold in my backyard, therefore no globurr warming har har"


Definition of climate:

cli·mate
/ˈklīmit/
noun
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.


One hot month does not make global warming, but hotter and hotter months perpetually leapfrogging each other for 100 years while leaving global cold records behind in WWI-era history...yeah maybe that could mean something.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

I know right? I mean, if we weren't coming out of an ice age, I'd be worried. But since we are, that's all kind or logical.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: mc_squared

I know right? I mean, if we weren't coming out of an ice age, I'd be worried. But since we are, that's all kind or logical.


I recently attended a lecture by a scientist on this issue with up-to-date data.

We came out of the ice age 10000 years ago. In the recent history, the interglacials (like now) have been quite short. Most of the time it's an Ice Age and substantially cooler---the interglacials spurt up in temperature but they don't last.

There's some facts:

a) the Milankovitch driving force from astronomical influences---which can be computed exactly from orbital mechanics and has effectively no undecertainty as a result----as been DECREASING (i.e. towards cold) since around 8000 BC, so we should be cooling, in the absence of other effects. The Milankovitch driving went up and up and peaked at the time the Ice Age ended.

b) the Milankovitch effect from orbital mechanics on total incoming solar radiation is quite small, but the effect on northern latitudes, in particular the parameter often examined is July radiation in 65 N latitude is very large, and that interacts with the ocean circulation and ice near Greenland.

c) the Earth WAS cooling slowly on average for the last few thousand years, as one would expect, until the very modern period when humans started emitting substantial greenhouse gases and changing the land use in a substantial way.

Conclusion: mankind's emission of gases has substantially and very quickly reversed a natural trend, and is only a small fraction of what is likely to come. We are going to see almost as much an increase on the hot side in a hundred years (Heat Age) as there was on the cold side (taking thousands) in an Ice Age---when glaciers miles thick covered part of North America and Europe. This will be in a temperature and climate regime not seen for an enormous amount of time, well before any primates existed.
edit on 23-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



edit on 23-10-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel



Conclusion: mankind's emission of gases has substantially and very quickly reversed a natural trend, and is only a small fraction of what is likely to come. We are going to see almost as much an increase on the hot side in a hundred years (Heat Age) as there was on the cold side (taking thousands) in an Ice Age---when glaciers miles thick covered part of North America and Europe. This will be in a temperature and climate regime not seen for an enormous amount of time, well before any primates existed.


Wow!

Just wow...



new topics

top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join