First and foremost, let’s all be wearing our black and gold for the Bruins, show your pride BMG. I have my Gerry Cheevers throwback jersey on. Hey Bob or Dave, why not change the color of the BMG logo to black and gold, just till the end of the series…..
Recently I have had some discussions on other posts regarding climate change, building of Keystone XL, etc. Just to set the table, I am not a “denier” of climate change, rather an agnostic, to the ideas being peddled that unless I atone for my sins (driving a big car, using air conditioning to cool the house, or using coal for heat, eating meat, even having kids/raising a family (basically living in a modern world), the earth will suffer an apocalypse of biblical proportions due to the carbon I emit.
Well, I came across two articles I would like to share with everyone, one is from the NYT. Both discuss how global temps have not increased, and scientists are flummoxed, or likely disappointed. You can see below, the predictions of global temps by climate experts, and the reality. Since 1979, according to the actual data, global temps are basically flat, which is terrific news.
From NYT
“The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.”
From my second source:
“This chart, via Watts Up With That, sums up the hopelessness of the warmists’ position as well as anything. It charts the various projections generated by the models relied on by the U.N., etc, against actual global temperature data as observed via satellites and balloons. The black line represents the mean of the model projections, the green circles represent the average of four balloon data sets, and the blue squares are the average of two satellite data sets. The chart is set so that the mean model projection intersects with empirical observations in 1979:”
Now, would not an appropriate title of the above graph “Epic Failure of Global Warming Models”? Reminds me of a preacher predicting end of time, then saying “God has spared us his wrath, we have time to repent” or some BS like that. Wait, as Justin Gillis of the NYT said “As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming.” Oh dear, does that sound familiar?
Finally,
GO BRUINS!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0
Dan’s been an ARSEHOLE for the last 40 years.
Go Bruins!
1. There’s a significant difference–particularly when we’re talking about a phenomenon on a global scale–between a slowing of the rate of warming (though certainly, as you point out, well below scientific projections) and an all-out flattening. To say those are the same things is a little lazy.
2. I wonder if you read the rest of that NYT article. In it, the writer says we should not be popping the champaigne, by any means.
And during that same timeframe, we’ve also been polluting more globally – ie, putting more particulates in the air. We’re pretty certain particulates in clouds have several effects; one of which is to mask global climate change (global dimming, which causes cooling). This became clear during the aftermath of 9/11, when the entire US air fleet was grounded. The temperature differential – difference between nightime and daytime temps – jumped up. Small sample size of only a few days, yes, but there are other experiments being conducted worldwide, with similar results.
It is highly likely we’re masking the true damage we’ve been doing to ourselves, and unfortunately, the model of cleaning up our particulate pollution will likely result in getting hit hard with the full impacts of human-induced climate change. But we have to get off those pollutants – not only to slow/halt more climate change damage, but also for our health, and frankly, because eventually we’re gonna run out of that stuff anyway, and we need to wean ourselves off ASAP, before we REALLY fuck up the planet, or as I like to put it, return the planet to the age of the dinosaurs, climatically speaking.
Here are just two sources. Keep in mind the average doesn’t need to go up by much to be a concern.
The only one that isn’t in the 21st century is 1998:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
How did the Romans grow grapes in northern England? Perhaps because it was warmer than we thought.
A study suggests the Britain of 2,000 years ago experienced a lengthy period of hotter summers than today.
German researchers used data from tree rings – a key indicator of past climate – to claim the world has been on a ‘long-term cooling trend’ for two millennia until the global warming of the twentieth century.
This cooling was punctuated by a couple of warm spells.
These are the Medieval Warm Period, which is well known, but also a period during the toga-wearing Roman times when temperatures were apparently 1 deg C warmer than now.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html#ixzz2WL7ubSMP
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Scientists are nearly unanimous that the CURRENT warming trend is more intense, not reversing soon if ever, and largely human-caused. I don’t think the Romans were polluting much and warming aside that is the issue. Maybe it’s just me, but I still want to be able to breathe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU
Keystone XL
DRINK!
global temps have not increased
DRINK!
Epic Failure of Global Warming Models!
DRINK!
Some warm/fuzzy thing that has nothing to do with the post?
DRINK!
Play the DWF drinking game, get a hangover.
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/03/28/no-more-minnesota-nice-john-abraham-tears-into-anthony-watts/
We’ve just experienced 338 months in a row of average global temperatures above the 20th century norm. If it had only been 337 maybe you non-denier could persuade all the warmists.
But then again, if I remember correctly, you are still waiting on various apologies from Bill Maher, so this speaks volumes about what you consider to be credible “science”.
The only epic failure here is your ability to convince anyone of this crap.
Isn’t it obvious that this whole thread is nothing but troll-bait?
Let it go, Mike. Let it go.