Vergent Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 by Brad Johnson, ThinkProgress Green, August 2, 2011 “If you’re younger than 26, you have never seen a month where the global mean was as cold as the 161 year average,” observes Robert Grumbine. In contrast, “there are no periods as long as even 20 years of continual below reference temperatures.” He finds that the period 1880-1940 seems to best represent a stable long-term average for global temperatures. If that’s the case, then the “last time the global mean was below the climate normal was March, 1976. If you’re 35 or younger, you have never seen a global mean below climate’s real normal.” Cumulative deviations from the 1850-1940 global mean temperature. http://thinkprogress...l-temperatures/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 This isn't good is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastFromTheEast Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 This isn't good is it? I don't think anyone is complaining.. The majority of the "non wx weenie" people like warmth and hate cold and snow. If it continues to warm and winter is gone they will be very very happy.. If steps are taken to "combat" the warming the majority of the people will be very very angry and pissed when things cool down and also when the next "ice age" comes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Earth's normal changes all the time. Temperatures are "normal" now, since they are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Earth's normal changes all the time. Temperatures are "normal" now, since they are! Wow, what a singularly silly post. By your logic there is no reason to even measure weather data because whatever it is, it's normal. Every forecast would read "More normal weather expected". Still pimping your blog, I see. Very classy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Still pimping your blog, I see. Very classy. LEK's Classless BLOG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 LEK's Classless BLOG Well, I can see why you chose the actor from the Dos XX ads for your avatar instead the self portrait. You have my sincere sympathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastFromTheEast Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Wow, what a singularly silly post. By your logic there is no reason to even measure weather data because whatever it is, it's normal. Every forecast would read "More normal weather expected". Still pimping your blog, I see. Very classy. Are you in grad school for Met? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Wow, what a singularly silly post. By your logic there is no reason to even measure weather data because whatever it is, it's normal. Every forecast would read "More normal weather expected". Still pimping your blog, I see. Very classy. The essence of what I'm trying to say is normal in Earth's atmosphere is in constant flux. The temperatures we are experiencing now are normal for this period of time, the colder temperatures decades ago were normal for that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 The essence of what I'm trying to say is normal in Earth's atmosphere is in constant flux. The temperatures we are experiencing now are normal for this period of time, the colder temperatures decades ago were normal for that time. Even if in the absence of human activity the global mean temperature would be 0.7C cooler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 By the way the graph in the original article is slightly ridiculous. Why would they choose cumulative deviations? That's basically like integrating the change in temperature function, and damps out alot of the detail. I found a couple graphs in a quick google search that show the real temperature trends. There's a 10 year and maybe a 40-50 year oscillation first off that can't be seen in the original graph, and also you can see we hit the crest in the 40-50 year oscillation and now things are cooling. A much different picture than the parabolic nature of the cumulative deviation, which intrinsically came from the integration itself T ----> (T^2)/2. Basically, they're trying to trick people with this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Even if in the absence of human activity the global mean temperature would be 0.7C cooler? Yes, regardless of what is forcing the climate it is still at a "normal". Humans are just another term in the equation, so they affect the normal. So the article title "PEOPLE UNDER 35 HAVE NEVER SEEN NORMAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES" is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 Yes, regardless of what is forcing the climate it is still at a "normal". Humans are just another term in the equation, so they affect the normal. So the article title "PEOPLE UNDER 35 HAVE NEVER SEEN NORMAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES" is wrong. What is your definition of "normal"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superjames1992 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Was the all-caps title really necessary? It wreaks of alarmism. I don't think this data came to anyone's surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 What is your definition of "normal"? We were discussing temperature I thought. Anyway, global greenhouse gases are obviously at extreme levels due to human emissions and some environmental feedback. That does not change anything I've said in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 We were discussing temperature I thought. Anyway, global greenhouse gases are obviously at extreme levels due to human emissions and some environmental feedback. That does not change anything I've said in this thread. True, but it's easier to scare people and appear more convincing with these flashy charts that show exponential jumps upwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 Yes, regardless of what is forcing the climate it is still at a "normal". Humans are just another term in the equation, so they affect the normal. So the article title "PEOPLE UNDER 35 HAVE NEVER SEEN NORMAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES" is wrong. What is your definition of "normal"? We were discussing temperature I thought. Anyway, global greenhouse gases are obviously at extreme levels due to human emissions and some environmental feedback. That does not change anything I've said in this thread. So, you do not think GHG forcing is part of climate? Maybe you forgot what you wrote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Ask the people in Europe right now how they are enjoying global warming. Death due to cold all over Europe. Too bad it isn't colder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Yes, regardless of what is forcing the climate it is still at a "normal". Humans are just another term in the equation, so they affect the normal. So the article title "PEOPLE UNDER 35 HAVE NEVER SEEN NORMAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES" is wrong. I had no idea that Animals normally affected the global climate in this manner. That is quite riduculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superjames1992 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I had no idea that Animals normally affected the global climate in this manner. That is quite riduculous. When my cat poops, the global average temperature goes up by 0.0001C. True story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 So, you do not think GHG forcing is part of climate? Maybe you forgot what you wrote? That's what I said! I guess you can't accept that we're in agreement about GHG forcing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I had no idea that Animals normally affected the global climate in this manner. That is quite riduculous. Actually, animals other than humans have huge impacts on the global climate, everything from plankton to humans does. They/us release immense amounts of CO2 and CH4 from internal biological processes. That's part of the way life has terraformed this planet to be warmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Actually, animals other than humans have huge impacts on the global climate, everything from plankton to humans does. They/us release immense amounts of CO2 and CH4 from internal biological processes. That's part of the way life has terraformed this planet to be warmer. Yeah, except again, those animals are not choosing, acting on free will, to do such things. Humans in their form before choosing to build technology and industry would have affected Co2 and CH4 levels to be no different than the course they were before such things. Are you really trying to argue this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Should we limit the amount of people being born? There weren't 5 billion humans on earth 10,000 years ago, that's a lot of natural Co2 and CH4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Should we limit the amount of people being born? There weren't 5 billion humans on earth 10,000 years ago, that's a lot of natural Co2 and CH4. This is a joke right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 This is a joke right? This thread is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastFromTheEast Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 This thread is a joke. +1 Along with more than half of threads on this sub forum.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 +1 Along with more than half of threads on this sub forum.. The title of the thread is not inacurrate. It might be wrongly worded. But the only difference would be People under 35 have never seen a completely natural climate. This is not about politics, this is not about ideology, this is not about doctrine. This is about history, facts, and science. There has been The Big Bang, The Big Expanse, The Big cooldown, sub atomic particles became matter, matter eventually became the stuff stars and planets were made out of, those stars and planets matured and life formed on some of them, those galaxies filled with stars, planets and life grew older and matured. The planetary cycles of life continued on with internal and external variables governed by rules and laws. Life has been at the whim of that for all of Earth's history. Random organized chaos worked beautifully, voilently, in harmony together making things as we know it in the Universe go round and round. Then one day, out of all of that a species evolved to think for it self and learned the power of choice. Threw that choice over millions of years that species evolved to learn techonolgy, creativity, ect.. None of that exists without us, no roads, no coal power plants, no cars, nothing that humans have any foot print on should exist in a NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. The moment Hominids learned how to control and manipulate FIRE. We took the Earth' state of existance from natural to artificially manipulated by humans. Or you can call it Natural W/Human Manipulaton VS Natural. Now Humans are to the point where we are not only manipulating we are controlling as well. Let's just put this out there for a theoretical situation. Humans directly cause the arctic to melt by the release of GHGS into the atmosphere. This changes the albedos, weather patterns and such. The arctic ice gets decimated enough for large quantities of methane to be released in a short amount of time accelerating the ice melt causing more Methane to be released. Eventually the Earth warms rapidly, ecosystems are destroyed, Antarctica and Greenland start to melt rapidly changing the entire climate to a much warmer wetter one. Let's just say this completely disruptes life as we know it on Earth. Would that really be considered Natural? Any standard measure says no, any philosify that I am aware of says no. Humans may be a natural product of the Earth, Human technology is not just by assocaiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Should we limit the amount of people being born? There weren't 5 billion humans on earth 10,000 years ago, that's a lot of natural Co2 and CH4. The politically correct answer is no. The scientific answer is yes....at some point yes. The population is now over 7 billion. With growing population and "progress" in the developing world natural resources will be depleted at an ever growing rate. At some point when demand exceeds supply.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 This thread is a joke. Is it a joke that more than half the U.S. population has not experienced climate change? I'm 61 and I see the difference between the winters back in the 50's and 60's compared to today in northeastern Mass. A great many people question whether there has been any global warming, it's part of why people are skeptical. Many older folks question it too, but I wonder if they have really paid the kind of attention that I have over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.