Information

Climate Concerns

The "CLIMATE CONCERNS" group is dedicated to discussion regarding the topic of the ever present and serious issue of changes to our climate due to the introduction into the atmosphere of human induced effects which prove harmful to the environment and which eventually may prove destructive to our planet. 

Members: 55
Latest Activity: Oct 3

Reference/Research Sites

Discussion Forum

Odd results of Climate Change

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Oct 3. 73 Replies

Take an amusing quiz to learn about unexpected effects of Climate Change. After each multiple choice question, you see if you were right (and the right answer if you weren't).…Continue

Tags: odd effects of Climate Change

Temperature Anomaly Chart

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Plinius Aug 8. 1 Reply

From Climate Central, Temperature anomalies arranged by country from 1900 - 2016:Continue

Tags: Temperature Anomalies by Country

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Climate Concerns to add comments!

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on December 14, 2016 at 3:07pm

Donald, you said that, "...the climatologists have said that the global temperature has been rising at about 1.5 degrees C per century."

I don't know your source, but this makes no sense to me.

According to NASA, "In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age." Your rate of change implies that the Little Ice Age happened only a hundred years ago. It happened from 1300 to 1600.

NASA says that the global average surface temperature rose 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.1 to 1.6° F) between 1906 and 2005. That's 0.3°C in about a century, not 1.5°C, and most of that increase is in the last few years rather than being evenly distributed.

Just since we've had these discussions, we've seen the temperature jump from 0.85°C rise to this year's 1.2°C rise.

My impression is that you read an unreliable source which promotes fake news about climate change. New cherry-picked or misleading claims keep appearing. In the case of this claim, it seems the author's intent was to reassure readers that the current rate of rise isn't new or frightening.

Here's a NASA climate temperature graph till 2015, that I modified by putting in the predicted 1.2°C rise for 2016.

Doesn't the latest slope look steeper to you?

And no, it's not all from El Nino.

Comment by Donald L. Engel on December 14, 2016 at 3:01pm

Ceneck, you gave this URL in an entry lower on this page:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2016

Did you read that report?  The author switched poles in the middle of the article.  He started talking about the Arctic losing ice, and then switched to the Antarctic and said the ice is growing, and not receding.  Then I read about the author, and it says he is a co-founder of the Tea Party.  That pretty much explains the trickery involved in his article.

Comment by Grinning Cat on December 14, 2016 at 2:25pm
Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on December 14, 2016 at 12:18pm
Scientists who produced the annual Arctic Report Card warned the situation was changing so quickly it was “outpacing our ability to understand and explain” what they were witnessing.

“The warmest temperature anomalies were centred on Alaska, Svalbard in the Atlantic sector and the central Arctic,” the report said.

Arctic temperatures have hit levels last seen a ridiculously long t...

Comment by Donald L. Engel on December 14, 2016 at 12:51am

"Cenek, the Vostok Ice Core Data graph is taken from the Antarctic, not the Arctic.  The Antarctic has never melted completely away in the last 420,000 years,  Some thing interesting for all of you:  google, "Scientists who have removed their names from the IPCC Report".

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on December 13, 2016 at 6:22pm

Don warmth estimates from prehistory are based on extrapolating from the partial pressure of greenhouse gasses.  

So if you accept the indirect measurements of prior temperatures you accept the climate model that permits it.

We can very accurately measure the amount of man made emissions. We can get a decent estimate of known natural emissions. We can fairly well measure how those gasses migrate through the atmosphere. We have a fairly good understanding of some of the carbon reuptake processes. 

Given all that, anthropogenic climate change is a good argument. 100% man caused? Not a chance. 0%?  Equally unlikely. 

I think there is real issue in assigning moral values to climate facts. As you are aware in the past the arctic ice cap have many times melted completely away.  The global temperature has been much hotter, and much colder. The sea levels have been much much higher, much much lower. 

There is no "Ought" in climate science, only "Is".

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on December 13, 2016 at 5:57pm

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2016

A bit off topic. Has anyone read the latest addendums?

Comment by Donald L. Engel on December 13, 2016 at 1:48pm

1, 2, and 4.  I don't see how anyone can say that man is contributing to this warming period until it goes way beyond what the previous 4 warming periods have reached.

In Ruth's entry of 21 hours ago, she presented the following quote, "2016's global average is expected to be 1.2°C above pre-industrial, despite our neutral El Nino status."  That is GREAT!!!  for the past 50 years or so, the climatologists have said that the global temperature has been rising at about 1.5 degrees C per century.  And now Ruth is saying it only rose 1.2 degrees in 125 years.  That means the rate of warming is slowing down!!  Now we don't have to worry any more.

Comment by Joan Denoo on December 13, 2016 at 12:25am

Donald, what does "OK" mean? Does it mean: 

1. OK, I, Donald, don't want to discuss this anymore? 

2. OK, You, Ruth, Joan and the others in this conversation don't answer my questions? 

3. OK, the upper 1% do not peddle min-misinformation about global change?

4. OK, humans were not here to cause the other climate changes so why do you believe humans played a part in this one?

5. OK, your concept is pure conjecture and I, Donald, need not waste any more time discussing this?

6. OK, you think you are right and I have nothing more to add?

7. OK, I get it, the evidence points to a faster rise in temperature, faster rise in CO2, and faster rise in glacier melt all over the world and humans do participate in global warming?

8. OK, none of the above. 

I'm sorry to pester you Donald, but do you believe global change is real or not?

Do you believe there is global change and humans participate in its creation? 

Do you believe there is no global change and humans do not participate in a faux climate change?

Comment by Donald L. Engel on December 12, 2016 at 4:40pm

Okay.

 

Members (55)

 
 
 

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service