last 3 months warmest on record....

[Toma]

No way! They are lying, obviously.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/april_may_and_june_2014_is_the_warmest_three_month_period_ever.html

[FraserB]

123 years of data, pretty darn impressive.

[benyl]

Not in Calgary though. I was in Orlando in early-mid June and it was fucking HOT!

[killramos]

Sure got hot in the mid 40's, wonder if the A bombs had anything to do with it?:rofl:

Pretty shitty trend though, did they use excel?

Also that trend ( while it looks like a lowball) as i mentioned) is 0.68 C per century. Isn't that a whole lot less than all the climate change crazies have been touting? ( Also since this is a Toma thread i want to state i believe there are crazies on both sides):drama:

Cool chart though.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Nitro5]

About fucking time. The last few summers have sucked.

[msommers]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Seriously... if I posted that we had the coldest 3 months everybody would start jumping all over it saying "Climate and Weather have nothing to do with each other!!!!111!@*&#!!"

If everyone starting jumping saying exactly that, then everyone is a god damn idiot.

Not the greatest link, Toma. Plus their sensationalized writing style is incredibly difficult to take seriously.

This is what actually caught my attention:


In April, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reached a monthly average of 400 parts per million for the first time in at least 800,000 years

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/05/01/mauna_loa_atmosphere_measurements_carbon_dioxide_levels_above_400_ppm_throughout.html

[flipstah]

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by flipstah
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
I can confirm this statement is accurate.:thumbsup:

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by flipstah
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!

You ain't wrong.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by killramos
Also that trend ( while it looks like a lowball) as i mentioned) is 0.68 C per century. Isn't that a whole lot less than all the climate change crazies have been touting?

If you fit only the more recent years you'll get a higher slope (and it's expected to only further increase).

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by FraserB
123 years of data, pretty darn impressive.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[revelations]

Originally posted by FraserB
123 years of data, pretty darn impressive.

LOL ... so true

Here is a better perspective:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

[Unknown303]

God I want it to snow so bad right now.

[frizzlefry]

Read the article. Writing proficiency low. If they are unable to grasp clean English when writing a publicized work then I suggest they blame OBAMA and the LIBERALS for writing in an UN-AMERICAN STYLE and refer to the following interview with a FACT person who knows the TRUTH....

These posts are getting old.

Besides, cooling was evidence of global warming. Now warming is.

I think the earth is getting warmer BTW. I just wish people posting articles about it had a fucking clue and were not so sensationalist.

[dirtsniffer]

Originally posted by revelations


LOL ... so true

Here is a better perspective:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

Looks like quite the sudden increase around year zero. I wonder what happened there.

[MGCM]

Originally posted by Unknown303
God I want it to snow so bad right now.

been thinkin about that the past few days lol

[93VR6]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer


Looks like quite the sudden increase around year zero. I wonder what happened there.

500 million years ago was not year zero for earth, it was about 3.8 billion years before that.

[Seth1968]

A fraction of a degree in a century compared to a planet that is billions of years old and naturally changes its temperaure by hundreds of degrees.

These types of sensationalist charts are very misleading. Not only for the reason above, but people just look at that doomsday slanted line, without realizing that the difference in the numbers scale is insignificant.

Anyway, none of it means shit. The ONLY tangible thing that will come out of this "global warming" fiasco is billions of dollars taken out of our pockets.

[ZenOps]

Nice chart. Stephen Hawking does explain well why the entire universe is cooling down.

On the long scale, the earth is cooling as the core solidifies, and the sun begins to expend its fuel.

We should be doing everything to prevent the catastrophe of global cooling?

[Seth1968]

You want to be an alarmist and show you actually know the priorities that will bring us down? Start here:

- A continued erosion of our basic human rights.

- Corporate takeover of our government.

- Sky rocketing increase in severe childhood illnesses.


Global warming lol.

[TheStigz]

Must be dem Chem-trails





















:rolleyes:

[Feruk]

Originally posted by 93VR6
500 million years ago was not year zero for earth, it was about 3.8 billion years before that.
Year zero on the chart is now. :banghead:

[msommers]

4.6BYA actually.

[clem24]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Nice chart. Stephen Hawking does explain well why the entire universe is cooling down.

On the long scale, the earth is cooling as the core solidifies, and the sun begins to expend its fuel.

We should be doing everything to prevent the catastrophe of global cooling?

Stick to nickels and conspiracy theories dude.. The sun will become a red giant and either engulf the Earth or push us further.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sun-will-eventually-engulf-earth-maybe/

[dirtsniffer]

Originally posted by Feruk

Year zero on the chart is now. :banghead:

haha thanks for clarifying that for me.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by clem24


Stick to nickels and conspiracy theories dude.. The sun will become a red giant and either engulf the Earth or push us further.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sun-will-eventually-engulf-earth-maybe/

Interesting theory, but I'm pretty sure by the time the Sun gets halfway to earth if it does expand at all, it will be fusing helium (instead of hydrogen)

Meaning that it will be outputting several thousand times less heat, meaning - universal cooling. Hawking does explain it all very well, the unverse in the long run is cooling.

[FixedGear]

I'd be willing to bet that a large proportion of climate change deniers lack the ability to interpret a basic bivariate plot

[ZenOps]

Math doesn't even into play. You cannot chart the impossible number of factors that can enter into something as big a climate change.

Take for instance: The "god" particle accelerator, and potentially being able to hot fuse the heavy water from seawater. Assume that each particle has at least 20x the energy of a uranium particle.

What happens when man starts "burning" all those heavy water particles for free cheap clean energy? That would be more radiant heat than all nukes and nuclear power plants on the world combined. If one is truely serious about global warming, one must find a way to create energy without inducing extra heat.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by FixedGear
I'd be willing to bet that a large proportion of climate change deniers lack the ability to interpret a basic bivariate plot

Ever notice how anyone who questions global warming is called a "denier"? As if we're all some fucking 15th century heretics.

Burn all those deniers to death!

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Ever notice how anyone who questions global warming is called a "denier"? As if we're all some fucking 15th century heretics.

Burn all those deniers to death! I don't think we can really argue the science behind "climate change", or as you're referring to it, "global warming". However, I'm having issues on what we can really do about it. It appears to me that we could literally destroy the Canadian economy in efforts to go green, and it would amount to pissing in the ocean.

Here's an interesting summary list of all the arguments... and counters.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by codetrap
I don't think we can really argue the science behind "climate change", or as you're referring to it, "global warming". However, I'm having issues on what we can really do about it. It appears to me that we could literally destroy the Canadian economy in efforts to go green, and it would amount to pissing in the ocean.

Here's an interesting summary list of all the arguments... and counters.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I just skimmed that article Codetrap and it looks very interesting. Thanks for that.

Don't get me wrong. I love science and technology, but I'm very skeptical about the science behind climate change (global warming, whatever). Shit, you guys almost have as many titles as Indians:)

Even if the earth is warming, so fucking what? My points are:

- We can't do shit about it.

- At what EXACT rate is warming and is it necessarily a "bad" thing?

- There are far more pressing threats to human kind that just about everyone ignores.

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by Seth1968


- There are far more pressing threats to human kind that just about everyone ignores.

None of those will matter if the Earth falls apart. /hype

Seriously though, the spike projection at the end of the graph is what worries me. I see lots of talk but inaction from Governments who need to lead this push :dunno:

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Seth1968]

This is part of the reason why so many are skeptical about climate change.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

Now add a major political vested interest, people who believe everything the media (government/corporations) say, and the fact that the immediate threats to humans is generally being ignored.

It's no wonder the whole issue is so controversial.

[msommers]

Originally posted by Seth1968
- Sky rocketing increase in severe childhood illnesses.


Weren't you (or still are) in the anti-vaccination crowd?

As for overpopulation, I predict an highly contagious bacteria extremely resistant to all current anti-biotics will evenly lean out populations. Predictions of our population doubling by 2040 (if I remember correctly) will just not be sustainable, something will snap. We're already well beyond our global capacity and have been for decades.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by msommers


Weren't you (or still are) in the anti-vaccination crowd?


Somewhat.

More like this: http://www.lifehealthchoices.com/the-center/education/vaccines/vaccination-choices

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by msommers


We're already well beyond our global capacity and have been for decades.

False.

There is enough food in this world to feed everyone, currently and into the future. Just wait until they start farming in towers.

You know why everyone isn't currently fed? Because of how much food is thrown out before it ever reaches the market because business owners sit on their stock if it doesn't sell.

Food production per acre has gone up an insane amount since the 19th century. Food is not a problem. Space will be though. Improper use of land that destroys it permanently also is an issue.

The single largest issue? Fresh water. Canada has 7% of the worlds freshwater resources. THEY (everyone else) will come to take it. The US is already trying, and our governments have foolishly signed away our right to said water that already goes to them.

Better pray for better desalination techniques.

[msommers]

Yes I realize food, potentially, may not be an issue. Actually National Geographic did a huge write-up on it months ago on how to feed such a sizeable population. Well, in theory.

One of the biggest issues however is one that you described, water. Another are non-renewable resources, and even some renewables like timber. If you consume at a rate greater than you're able to replenish, it's only a matter of time. De-forestation is a massive problem already and has been for awhile. Think how it'll look in 100 years from now. Slowly depleteing and contaminating our environment in an effort to continue to expand is going top out, if not already. There's a reason why maximum loads exist in lab experiments for bacteria for example - you eventually run out of environment in some shape or form due to overopupulation. And yes technology will continue to push that boundary for us on Earth.

Anyways you can google earth's carrying capacity and see it's not a black and white issue. LOTS of papers have been written on this topic that suggest we have been over our capacity for awhile while others are less skeptical.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
The single largest issue? Fresh water.

Better pray for better desalination techniques.

Not only is that yet another one of those immediately pressing issues, but again, it's also one that is generally ignored.

The water issue is another that should be in the "headlines" on a daily basis. Ever wonder why the real issues take a back seat?

[ExtraSlow]

Desalinization is a well established and easily duplicated process. The only issue is the huge amount of energy it uses.
It's commonly used in at least a dozen countries around the world with no issues.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Desalinization is a well established and easily duplicated process. The only issue is the huge amount of energy it uses.
It's commonly used in at least a dozen countries around the world with no issues.

Beyond is frustrating today.

Not to be sarcastic or snippy with you, but yes, duh. So I guess a better way to supply energy for such projects is required is how I should have made my statement. My bad. The nits have been picked. :banghead:

[ZenOps]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsbad_desalination_plant

Carlsbad is almost done, two more years to go.

Its one of the most efficient at ~3 kWh for 1 m3 fresh water.

Assuming around 24 cents per kwh, about 75 cents per cubic meter (which is reasonable, if not seemingly ridiculously expensive to nations and cities that have freerunning water which really only have to pay pumping and maintenence costs) And that is just the raw energy cost, not including the cost to actually build the plant.

What will they use to create the electricity to make the drinkable water? Coal, of course... Anyone want to calculate how much you need to burn to get one cubic meter of water?

I'd assume that a water desalinization plant of that size would require two fulltime coal plants to operate at capacity.