| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Global temperature extreme
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Global temperature extreme

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
rocket7777 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 26 Oct 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rocket7777 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Global temperature extreme
    Posted: 28 Oct 2013 at 15:46
Global temperature extreme causes famine.
It weakens empires and lots of empire changes and migrations etc.


1000bc
 shang china
 jewish 10 lost tribe

 250bc
 zhou china


 300ad
 rome
 ancient india
 eastern wu china

 600ad
 sui china

 1300ad collapse during temp hight

 mongol
 medieval europe
 mayan
 song china

 1600-1700ad
 medieval india
 africa
 ming china

etc.





Edited by rocket7777 - 28 Oct 2013 at 15:53
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Bearskin View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 02 Nov 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 18
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bearskin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Nov 2013 at 19:30
That chart looks an improvement on Mann's Hockey Stick graph that caused such a stir at the IPCC.

The climate has been changing throughout earth’s history without human help. In the 1970s the BBC was a particularly vocal mouthpiece of impending doom - most famously 'The Weather Machine' series. Meanwhile climate scientists in the USA were warning of global catastrophe by an order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by mankind. Temperatures had been falling since 1942 and the fear then was not of global warming but global cooling. (Some of us have memories of the cooling hysteria in the 1970s).

Since the end of the Cold War the socio-political thermometer might have changed direction but not the hysteria.


Edited by Bearskin - 23 Nov 2013 at 19:32
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7842
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 11:01
That temperature and the climate has and will continue to change without the help of humans does not mean that it isn't changing with the help of humans now.
Back to Top
Bearskin View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 02 Nov 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 18
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bearskin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Nov 2013 at 21:18
Originally posted by es_bih es_bih wrote:


Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

That temperature and the climate has and will continue to change without the help of humans does not mean that it isn't changing with the help of humans now.


Clap

Why is it so hard for people to wrap their heads around the reality that humans can contribute to climate change?


If AGW is an irrefutable law of science , like the diminishing law of return between CO2 and temperature, as opposed to an hypothesis, then there is no room for doubt.

A BBC series on AGW began with the presenter, Iain Stewart, stating that he believes in man-made global warming. The use of the word 'believes' suggests an article of faith rather than unequivocal fact. No presenter would begin a series on planetary motion by saying he believes the earth moves round the sun or that he believes light moves faster than sound. Unlike AGW these are not hypothetical questions. They require no faith and occur irrespective of what I or anyone else thinks.

The new science of AGW is consensus science, which is the business of politicians. Little coverage is given to those scientists (of whom there are many) who provide evidence to the contrary or demonstrate that findings supporting AGW are spurious. Instead they are called AGW Deniers with all the unsavoury connotations that the phrase suggests in an attempt to smear credibility.

My objection to AGW - I have not actually denied it myself, just questioned it - is that science should be degraded to a political level where one's affiliations determine belief or otherwise. Studies in the USA have demonstrated that acceptance of AGW is based on this fact. Meanwhile the real issue of population explosion and its sustainability is conveniently bypassed. I was born when the global population was several billion. By the end of this century it will, if trends continue, exceed 14 billion. That should be the primary concern.

Have a look at the 700 eminent scientists - including Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaver - who are 'AGW Deniers'. The consensus mould binds not everyone. They can question and think for themselves regardless of slurs like 'deniers' . Of particular significance are those who once free from the control and funding by the IPCC start singing a very different tune from the IPCC chorus line. Here the people think what they are told to think and to produce 'evidence' to support the crib-sheet. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Real science, on the other hand, assumes a null hypothesis. One looks for evidence to discredit an hypothesis - not support it.

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf

The chart above tallies with human history. The famous Hockey Stick graph by Dr. Michael Mann airbrushes out of history the Medieval Warm Period, the time of Nordic colonisation of Greenland and Vinland (note the names) and the ensuing mini ice-age that caused the River Thames to freeze over each winter. Instead we have temperatures that remain static over the centuries which suddenly and dramatically rise with CO2 emission - hence the hockey stick shape.

Good scientists make their sources available to scrutiny. Not Mann! The highly respected Canadian statistician Stephen McIntyre had to use an act over freedom of information to finally obtain the raw data and computer algorithm such was the reluctance to share science. No wonder Mann was reluctant to share. McIntyre found that by entering sets of random data the same shape always emerges. This is not subterfuge, but established fact the findings of which are freely available. Likewise UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had to be forced under the Freedom of Information Act to release data. The so-called Climate Gate scandal reveals just how unscientific science can be.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.