Global Warming
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,118
Likes: 7
From: Burleson, Texas
Originally Posted by BHibbs
From the report:
Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is
unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer
than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4
to 6 metres of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}
• Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher
than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years.
Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is
unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer
than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4
to 6 metres of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}
• Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher
than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by BHibbs
From the report:
Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is
unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer
than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4
to 6 metres of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}
• Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher
than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years.
Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is
unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer
than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4
to 6 metres of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}
• Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher
than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally Posted by BHibbs
2006 was the warmest year in the US's recorded History.
In descending order, the years with the highest global average annual temperatures were 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004, NASA said in a statement.
In descending order, the years with the highest global average annual temperatures were 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004, NASA said in a statement.
Recording which only started in 1895. Just over 110 years of data. Big whoop-de-do!
Here's the big picture for the top ten hottest years recorded since 1895 in the US.
TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS IN U.S. HISTORY
Rank Year Average temperature (F)
1. 2006 55.01
2. 1998 54.94
3. 1934 54.91
4. 1999 54.53
5. 1921 54.49
6. 1931 54.34
7. 1990 54.24
8. 2001 54.23
9. 1953 54.18
10. 1954 54.13
Source: National Climatic Data Center
Less than 1 degree variance from numbers 1 to 10 and 85 years difference between #1 and #5.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Odin's Wrath
Recording which only started in 1895. Just over 110 years of data. Big whoop-de-do!
Here's the big picture for the top ten hottest years recorded since 1895 in the US.
TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS IN U.S. HISTORY
Rank Year Average temperature (F)
1. 2006 55.01
2. 1998 54.94
3. 1934 54.91
4. 1999 54.53
5. 1921 54.49
6. 1931 54.34
7. 1990 54.24
8. 2001 54.23
9. 1953 54.18
10. 1954 54.13
Source: National Climatic Data Center
Less than 1 degree variance from numbers 1 to 10 and 85 years difference between #1 and #5.
Here's the big picture for the top ten hottest years recorded since 1895 in the US.
TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS IN U.S. HISTORY
Rank Year Average temperature (F)
1. 2006 55.01
2. 1998 54.94
3. 1934 54.91
4. 1999 54.53
5. 1921 54.49
6. 1931 54.34
7. 1990 54.24
8. 2001 54.23
9. 1953 54.18
10. 1954 54.13
Source: National Climatic Data Center
Less than 1 degree variance from numbers 1 to 10 and 85 years difference between #1 and #5.
In descending order, the years with the highest global average annual temperatures were 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004,
And Again, Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years.
Globally.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally Posted by BHibbs
As Stealth would put it, we're talking GLOBALLY, not US
In descending order, the years with the highest global average annual temperatures were 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004,
And Again, Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years.
Globally.
In descending order, the years with the highest global average annual temperatures were 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004,
And Again, Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years.
Globally.
Since your post listed 2006 as the warmest year on record. I put that statement into context.
I'll spend a few minutes on the global issue next. Hell, maybe I can save the whales while I'm at it.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally Posted by Odin's Wrath
Since your post listed 2006 as the warmest year on record. I put that statement into context.
I'll spend a few minutes on the global issue next. Hell, maybe I can save the whales while I'm at it.
I'll spend a few minutes on the global issue next. Hell, maybe I can save the whales while I'm at it.
Whoops. I almost fell into the trap. GW isn't as much the issue as what is causing it is. I don't think that man is the culprit. It's increased solar activity.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,118
Likes: 7
From: Burleson, Texas
Oh well, if they push all these changes proposed by those that be, be prepared to pay through the nose for everything. There will be an enormous gap between the have's and the have nots as well, and I'd bet the have's will be the ones that pushed these changes. Bank.
A revolution will be soon to follow, so be prepared to choose sides.
A revolution will be soon to follow, so be prepared to choose sides.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Odin's Wrath
Whoops. I almost fell into the trap. GW isn't as much the issue as what is causing it is. I don't think that man is the culprit. It's increased solar activity.
conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone."
Fancy Talk aside, they're saying Man IS contributing, if not Causing, Global Warming..
"Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. {10.3}"
I don't see any mention of "Solar Activity" or "Cycles" in the report...
Again, this is THE report on the situation. Not a documentary or something some liberal college came up with. This is the one the G7, with Ronald Reagan representing the US, at the time ordered Ten years ago.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,118
Likes: 7
From: Burleson, Texas
Originally Posted by BHibbs
Well, the consensus of the IPCC is: "The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the
conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone."
Fancy Talk aside, they're saying Man IS contributing, if not Causing, Global Warming..
"Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. {10.3}"
I don't see any mention of "Solar Activity" or "Cycles" in the report...
Again, this is THE report on the situation. Not a documentary or something some liberal college came up with. This is the one the G7, with Ronald Reagan representing the US, at the time ordered Ten years ago.
conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone."
Fancy Talk aside, they're saying Man IS contributing, if not Causing, Global Warming..
"Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. {10.3}"
I don't see any mention of "Solar Activity" or "Cycles" in the report...
Again, this is THE report on the situation. Not a documentary or something some liberal college came up with. This is the one the G7, with Ronald Reagan representing the US, at the time ordered Ten years ago.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere in the Kootenays
Maybe we should try to think like a scientist.
Scientist A: Agree that humans are causing GW, find something to research about it and funding will find me instead of me having to work my butt off to find funding. As long as my "findings" come out on the right side of the fence I can go on living the good life on Easy Street.
Scientist B: Go against the grain and report what I really find about the cause of GW and be ostracized, ridiculed, get death threats, maybe loose my job, house, etc and the list goes on.
Or maybe a politician?
Politician A: Support the notion that GW is manmade, throw tons of money at it that's not mine and get re-elected. Continue living on all the Easy Street addresses I own.
Politician B: Speak out against manmade GW, loose elections and have to find a real job. No one will hire me because the only thing I know how to do is be a politician. Wonder if scientist B wants to be roomies?
Or a reporter?
Reporter A: Report on all the great work Scientist A is doing and all the well spent money Politician A is doling out to said scientist. Front page stories and you guessed it, life on Easy Street.
Reporter B: Report on what Scientist B is trying to hit us over the head with to get our attention and it's back to writing obituaries on the night shift and having to bunk with a washed up politician and a scientist with a target on his back.
Some of the pro-GW people like to say how it's Big Oil money funding the people going against the grain. They're at least half right. It's about money for sure.
Scientist A: Agree that humans are causing GW, find something to research about it and funding will find me instead of me having to work my butt off to find funding. As long as my "findings" come out on the right side of the fence I can go on living the good life on Easy Street.
Scientist B: Go against the grain and report what I really find about the cause of GW and be ostracized, ridiculed, get death threats, maybe loose my job, house, etc and the list goes on.
Or maybe a politician?
Politician A: Support the notion that GW is manmade, throw tons of money at it that's not mine and get re-elected. Continue living on all the Easy Street addresses I own.
Politician B: Speak out against manmade GW, loose elections and have to find a real job. No one will hire me because the only thing I know how to do is be a politician. Wonder if scientist B wants to be roomies?
Or a reporter?
Reporter A: Report on all the great work Scientist A is doing and all the well spent money Politician A is doling out to said scientist. Front page stories and you guessed it, life on Easy Street.
Reporter B: Report on what Scientist B is trying to hit us over the head with to get our attention and it's back to writing obituaries on the night shift and having to bunk with a washed up politician and a scientist with a target on his back.
Some of the pro-GW people like to say how it's Big Oil money funding the people going against the grain. They're at least half right. It's about money for sure.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Originally Posted by Stealth
That's because the sun isn't paying them to do the studying.