|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 23, 2017 3:22:54 GMT
Thanks for saving the link Ratty. When I posted it, I didn't save it as I should have so when questions arise, I am always at somewhat of a loss to find it again. You are a good man, and I am convincing your wife of the same. Give me more time ole chap, and I will succeed. I read that twice, 20 minutes apart and still laughed out loud  You're easily amused ....  |
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Apr 23, 2017 7:47:18 GMT
I read that twice, 20 minutes apart and still laughed out loud You're easily amused .... Well my old Mum used to say "when you lose your sense of humor, you might as well be dead" |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 22, 2017 6:20:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 1, 2017 12:16:09 GMT
"IN 1540, EUROPE WAS LIKELY WARMER THAN TODAY, SCIENTISTS CONCLUDE
Abstract: There is strong evidence that the year 1540 was exceptionally dry and warm in Central Europe. Here we infer 1540 summer temperatures from the number of dry days (NDDs) in spring (March–May) and summer (June–August) in 1540 derived from historical documentary evidence published elsewhere, and compare our estimates with present-day temperatures. We translate the NDD values into temperature distributions using a linear relationship between modeled temperature and NDD from a 3000 year pre-industrial control simulation with the Community Earth System Model (CESM). Our results show medium confidence that summer mean temperatures (T JJA) and maximum temperatures (TXx) in Central Europe in 1540 were warmer than the respective present-day mean summer temperatures (assessed between 1966–2015). The model-based reconstruction suggests further that with a probability of 40%–70%, the highest daily temperatures in 1540 were even warmer than in 2003, while there is at most a 20% probability that the 1540 mean summer temperature was warmer than that of 2003 in Central Europe. As with other state-of-the-art analyses, the uncertainty of the reconstructed 1540 summer weather in this study is considerable, for instance as extrapolation is required because 1540-like events are not captured by the employed Earth system model (ESM), and neither by other ESMs. However, in addition to paleoclimatological approaches we introduce here an independent methodology to estimate 1540 temperatures, and contribute consequently to a reduced overall uncertainty in the analysis of this event. The characterization of such events and the related climate system functioning is particularly relevant in the context of global warming and the corresponding increase of extreme heat wave magnitude and occurrence frequency."www.thegwpf.com/in-1540-europe-was-warmer-than-today/
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 1, 2017 12:44:49 GMT
There have been and always will be heat waves just as there will be cold waves. All are related to chaotic climate/Weather.
|
|
eli
New Member
Posts: 3 
|
Post by eli on Nov 1, 2017 14:34:05 GMT
My uncle asked if the ice caps are melting wouldnt that make the ocean cooler?
|
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 1, 2017 20:20:36 GMT
My uncle asked if the ice caps are melting wouldnt that make the ocean cooler? Hi Eli, a short answer would be.. locally yes, but alot of the cold water heads down and then is moved by currents at depth around the world...how long till this water comes back to the surface? Not sure, but it could be a very long time. Then, consider how the ice would be melting, and what warming influence this cause would have on the oceans. Although this is where heated (pun!) Discussion ensues as you'd have to cover whether the atmosphere can warm an ocean, whether the sun warms the ocean, whether or not it's cycles.... Maybe the biggest question is to determine what melting happened when and whether records since '79 are valid....etc etc... I hope in some way this answers your question, but I'm afraid it is all rather complex! |
|
eli
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by eli on Nov 2, 2017 16:16:07 GMT
Ok then if it makes the ocean cooler then why are scientist saying the oceans are warming?
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 2, 2017 17:19:26 GMT
Ok then if it makes the ocean cooler then why are scientist saying the oceans are warming? If you subscribe to the theory that solar energy (across all its spectra) largely heats the oceans AND that our sun has been more active than usual over the last 100 years, then you can easily visualize how our oceans have been warming during that period. Even the unadjusted data (assuming you can find any) show that. If we are now switching over to a time period dominated by a sun that is putting out less radiation, and/or radiation with different spectral characteristics, then you should be able to easily visualize a period of cooling oceans and those effects on our climates. Unfortunately some climate scientists seem to be glorified timeshare salesmen (saleswomen). I am purposely excluding many complicating geophysical elements (orbits, barycenters , etc) of this "unsettled" science (as if most science was ever settled). |
|
eli
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by eli on Nov 2, 2017 17:27:11 GMT
I'm gonna trust scientists over online neo cons.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 2, 2017 17:48:51 GMT
I'm gonna trust scientists over online neo cons. Many years ago when I was earning my science degrees I would have said the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 2, 2017 20:49:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Nov 3, 2017 1:19:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 3, 2017 5:29:59 GMT
I'm gonna trust scientists over online neo cons. There is no relationship between neo cons and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) skeptics. The top neocons in the senate John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Richard Lugar have all come out in support of the Paris Agreement. Whereas other neocons like Marco Rubio who sees neocon philosophy in a more religious light tend have rejected the Paris Agreement as ineffective, ridiculous, and too weak to succeed. I would not expect you to take the word of skeptics in general over scientists; but you need to be aware that many of the nations most venerated physicists in atmosphere and climate like Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, William Happer, Judith Curry, and many others are also skeptics. You probably should pay attention to what they have to say. The whole meme that the science is settled is actually a lie. A lie propagated to avoid debate, an excuse to silence those who disagree with them, and a coverup to avoid acknowledging the huge uncertainties about whether the properties of CO2 are all that important to climate. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 3, 2017 11:11:06 GMT
I'm gonna trust scientists over online neo cons. I agree 100%. That is why it is important to read all of the scientific literature available. The hypothesis of AGW being a major driver of Climate continues to be on shaky ground. |
|
