Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
U of Hawaii Climate Change Study - A Wake Up Call
#11
more perspective

from Axios ... "The Earth has been warmer than average for 406 months in a row" https://www.axios.com/earth-warmer-than-...33c9e.html

The finding extends the planet's hot streak to 406 straight months with temperatures above the 20th century average. Meanwhile, the last colder-than-average month occurred in February 1985. This means that no one under the age of 32 has ever experienced a cooler-than-average month on this planet.
Reply
#12
quote:
Originally posted by Frank

more perspective

from Axios ... "The Earth has been warmer than average for 406 months in a row" https://www.axios.com/earth-warmer-than-...33c9e.html


Cheap magician's trick. If you average the entire 20th century you include the first half that century when we were coming out of the last "mini ice age" when it was, well, colder. The earth was hotter 1000 years ago than it is now. Here is a list of peer reviewed studies that think so.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/m...e-present/

If somebody is getting ready to click reply and attack climatedepot, try and attack the peer reviewed studies cited instead.
Reply
#13
nice addition snout ...
Reply
#14
the planet's hot streak to 406 straight months with temperatures above the 20th century average

Yes, I think it's pretty clear that we have entered uncharted territory. October and November have seemed unusually warm to me this year. When I moved here almost 20 years ago, I would stop running fans in my house around the last week of September. Some years ago the heat continued into October, now I find I'm still running them regularly into November.
Things are changing:

2014: Iselle hits Puna, either at or near the hurricane threshold. Many had considered Big Island protected by the mountains, but Iselle clearly confirmed that isn't the case, with district wide destruction. As the weather continues to get warmer, and sea temperatures rise, it's not inconceivable that we will be hit by more storms of this size, or stronger.

2017: King Tides, people in Hawaii realized they may affect us regularly in the future, with increasing damage to island beaches and structures near the ocean. http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/37149...e-up-call/

2018: Hurricane Lane, Catagory 5, passed near Big Island. We received 50 inches of rain over a few days, resulting in massive flooding, and for the first time I can remember Highway 130 closed.

Hurricane Walaka, traveled farther north and caused one of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to disappear. East Island, a major breeding ground for monk seals and turtles is gone.

Super Typhoon Yutu hits Saipan a member of the the U.S. commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (near Guam) with 180 mph winds. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-ameri...nt-n938081

The list could go on.
The new UH climate report may be similar in some ways to previous reports, and there may be factors in the future which could temporarily affect the trend for increasing temperatures, including sunspots or volcanic eruptions, but the course is set.

I plan on installing hurricane clips for my roof this winter, and replacing some windows in the near future. Personally, I think it's a much better investment than depending on denial, cherry picked psudo-scientific reports published by admittedly biased websites, or best wishes, good luck, and the proverbial thoughts and prayers.

"I want great climate, we’re going to have that.” President Donald J. Trump, while viewing the massive wildfire devastation 11/17/18. (The J stands for Jenius)
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Reply
#15
quote:
Originally posted by riversnout

[quote]
If somebody is getting ready to click reply and attack climatedepot, try and attack the peer reviewed studies cited instead.


There's nothing cited. Essentially, they're lying. International Panel on Climate Change debunked this climate change denier's pet theory a long time ago.
Reply
#16
Oh and .. https://www.manilatimes.net/climate-alar...ut/468967/
Reply
#17
rwr,
The conclusion by the writer of the article you linked is that one study made a math error, so all climate studies are wrong. He then without logic or explanation takes the leap that climate meetings and abatement measures should be stopped.

Will Al Gore and the officials of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change similarly acknowledge their errors

But are all climate studies proven incorrect because this one was? Not at all, not even close. Your link looks at one aspect of climate change, ocean temperatures, where researchers happened to incorrectly analyze their data. Did the corrected result show that climate change doesnt exist? No, the corrected findings CONFIRMED CLIMATE CHANGE & OCEAN TEMPERATURES ARE INCREASING AS OTHER STUDIES HAVE SHOWN. They are however, not appreciably warmer or increasing faster than expected.

Again with The Princess Bride:
I do not think your link means what you think it means.

"I want great climate, we’re going to have that.” President Donald J. Trump, while viewing the massive wildfire devastation 11/17/18. (The J stands for Jenius)
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Reply
#18
quote:
Originally posted by Durian Fiend

quote:
Originally posted by riversnout

[quote]
If somebody is getting ready to click reply and attack climatedepot, try and attack the peer reviewed studies cited instead.


There's nothing cited. Essentially, they're lying. International Panel on Climate Change debunked this climate change denier's pet theory a long time ago.


Nothing cited? Did you even read the article?
-------------------------------------------------------
https://www.c3headlines.com/2012/08/evid...fault.html

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/medieva...th-century

http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/05...en-on.html

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/0...od-in.html

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/0...eriod.html

http://news.investors.com/article/618004...htm?p=full

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...l-age.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...sions.html

many, many, many more.

"cherry picked psudo-scientific reports published by admittedly biased websites" uh, no.
Reply
#19
riversnout,
Here is an example of cherry picking data, from one of your links:

Polar Research finds that temperatures at two sites in the Arctic were much warmer than at the end of the 20th century.

Two sites were much warmer? Then claiming it applies to all of planet Earth? That’s cherry picking and extrapolating the data.

Was Longyearbyen warmer (site 1)? Perhaps
Was Vardo warmer (site 2)? Maybe
If they were, does it mean the average temperatures across the globe in that time period were warmer? No. You cannot make a determination about global temperatures based on two small samples in the Arctic, or two sites anywhere else for that matter. An accurate assessment requires a much larger, worldwide set of samples.

"I want great climate, we’re going to have that.” President Donald J. Trump, while viewing the massive wildfire devastation 11/17/18. (The J stands for Jenius)
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Reply
#20
quote:
Originally posted by riversnout

Nothing cited? Did you even read the article?
-------------------------------------------------------
https://www.c3headlines.com/...
And what is your point? Are you suggesting science has this one wrong? Are you suggesting that made converted and dumped in to the atmosphere CO2 isn't having the effect the scientific consensus says it is?

I looked at a few of those links and...

I think the need to find some needle in some haystack so as to allow corporate interests to continue to rape the planet is getting kind of old.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)