100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Earth smashes warm records for 4th month in a row, 5th seas | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Unending hot streak: Earth smashes warm records for 4th month in a row, 5th season in a row 5 Seth Borenstein, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Thursday, September 17, 2015 2:32:14 EDT PM WASHINGTON -- Earth's record-breaking heat is sounding an awful lot like a broken record. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Thursday that August, this past summer and the first eight months of 2015 all smashed global records for heat. That's the fifth straight record hot season in a row and the fourth consecutive record hot month. Meteorologists say 2015 is a near certainty to eclipse 2014 as the hottest year on record. Since 2000, Earth has broken monthly heat records 30 times and seasonal heat records 11 times. Scientists blame a combination of human-caused climate change and natural El Nino. Earth broke the August record by a sixth of a degree and the summer record by a fifth of a degree. Records go back to 1880. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The amount of precision in instrumentation has increased at a incredible rate in the last thirty years. Much of that technology has been sent to space in the form of Earth sensing satellites. Not only can we "see" the temperature of the Earth's surface in great detail, we can see the changes and effects on vegetation and the oceans.
NASA has fantastic equipment to measure Global Warming and their website is first rate. Carbon dioxide warms the planet and humans are producing record amounts of the stuff. Real solutions to the problem are usually washed away by the flood of phony political diatribe. Spend a little time exploring this website: http://climate.nasa.gov/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's all BS, manipulated data to make the liberals seem like they know what they are talking about...
it's been pointed out more than once they are selectively using only the hottest spots and not using the cooler spots in their data... meaning they will use the temps in the desert, but not in the poles...the earths mean temperature hasn't went up or down in the past 40 years... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's all BS, manipulated data to make the liberals seem like they know what they are talking about... it's been pointed out more than once they are selectively using only the hottest spots and not using the cooler spots in their data... meaning they will use the temps in the desert, but not in the poles...the earths mean temperature hasn't went up or down in the past 40 years... So you think I am a liberal? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where is it hot at?. feels same to me. some days little warmer then others I love warm nights can we get it a little hotter please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's all BS, manipulated data to make the liberals seem like they know what they are talking about... it's been pointed out more than once they are selectively using only the hottest spots and not using the cooler spots in their data... meaning they will use the temps in the desert, but not in the poles...the earths mean temperature hasn't went up or down in the past 40 years... So you think I am a liberal? maybe... are you manipulating the data?  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's all BS, manipulated data to make the liberals seem like they know what they are talking about... it's been pointed out more than once they are selectively using only the hottest spots and not using the cooler spots in their data... meaning they will use the temps in the desert, but not in the poles...the earths mean temperature hasn't went up or down in the past 40 years... So you think I am a liberal? maybe... are you manipulating the data? No, and I have actually verified some of the data in Alaska, Europe, South America, New Zealand, Australia, the Caribbean, and Central America by going there and checking out coral reefs, mountain snow, and glacier retreat. I've also done some research on Texas drought, US drought, flooding, and seasonal temperature variations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i am sorry but 1/6 of a degree is not smashing the record
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
El nino is terrible....
It is suppose to be smack n the middle of the rainy season in our country...and our dams are drying up?!??! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From a scientific point of view, Global Warming is a fact.
What to do about it is where the Liberal vs Conservative views come into the news and the liberal "carbon credit" solution (which isn't an actual solution) gets the majority of the press by far since the majority of the press is liberal. The scientific conservative approaches to Global Warming are sometimes (usually) considered politically incorrect so they really don't get much airtime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Sat 09/19/15 09:01 AM
|
|
it's all BS, manipulated data to make the liberals seem like they know what they are talking about... it's been pointed out more than once they are selectively using only the hottest spots and not using the cooler spots in their data... meaning they will use the temps in the desert, but not in the poles...the earths mean temperature hasn't went up or down in the past 40 years... So you think I am a liberal? maybe... are you manipulating the data? No, and I have actually verified some of the data in Alaska, Europe, South America, New Zealand, Australia, the Caribbean, and Central America by going there and checking out coral reefs, mountain snow, and glacier retreat. I've also done some research on Texas drought, US drought, flooding, and seasonal temperature variations. not doubting you personally, but i just don't think it's a man made thing... everything they are doing about it is great, needs to be done, but what people seem to forget is that the history of record taking is less than 200 years old... weather patterns can last for longer than that, much longer... less than 12,000 years ago, there was a mile high sheet of ice half across of the US, and all of canada, and before that, they found a forest in the arctic circle about 2 million years old... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101217-mummified-forest-canada-science-environment/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Rock
on
Sat 09/19/15 10:57 AM
|
|
Global warming, and global cooling, are both fact.
It's cyclic. It was cyclic before humans, it's cyclic now, and will continue to be cyclic long after human extinction. Sea levels rising? BFD. At one point in fairly recent earth history, eastern Texas was under the sea. Remains of sharks (teeth), and remains of other sea creatures, are being unearthed almost daily, as far north as Dallas. Since sea levels are equated with the amount of polar ice, there must have been little or no polar ice, during that era. Meaning, it was much warmer then, than it is now. Science is, that earth "wobbles" on it's axis during rotation. Science is, earth's climates are cyclic. And there's not a damned thing anyone can do to change it. Foot stomping, by the dirty hippies of the liberal left, won't stop it. Snickering at the dirty hippies, won't stop it. Debate won't stop it. Climate, is always gonna be, cyclic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what we can stop but I think we have to wise up and do what needs to be done to keep the world's Food basket California from drying up.
If not we will all see it pushing food prices to the brink which is going to cause massive starvation as we use the storehouses of rice ect. and you have massive starvation in many countries. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sun 09/20/15 03:25 AM
|
|
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/19/climate-science-turned-monster/
 getting desperate? Promoters of "official" climate, which is defined as the works of the UN IPCC, are desperate. Twenty of them, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) members like Kevin Trenberth, asked the Obama administration to file Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges against climate deniers. All but two of the twenty are at Universities, and the two are career bureaucrats associated with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They all live off the public purse, but somehow in the weird world of climate science that is untainted money. The RICO charge is ad hominem, not about the science. If Virtually all the research funding for global warming comes from government and goes to those supporting the unproven hypothesis. There is no comparison between the amounts of government money going to the "official" side of the science and that going to skeptics. Their RICO charge is so ridiculous it hardly warrants a response, but it does require scientific perspective. It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books, they claim provide the evidence for their charge, signed the letter. It is likely that most, if not all of them or their institutes, receive funding from a government beyond their academic or government salaries. The RICO charge is a particularly nasty form of ad hominem attack. By applying it in the global warming case, it tries to make criminals out of people doing their job properly. The real criminal part of their enterprise is that skeptics are doing what scientists are supposed to do, that is disproving the AGW hypothesis. They accuse these properly named scientific skeptics of performing the scientific method, either through ignorance of the method or to silence them. The twenty, like the IPCC and its supporters, directly or indirectly thwart the scientific method by accepting the hypothesis as proven. They then deflect or ignore overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis is wrong including failed predictions (projections). They consistently refuse to consider the null hypothesis. The attack is not surprising because the IPCC created a monster and were driven to keep it alive. Once you create the monster it becomes uncontrollable and even if it becomes a threat to society, the creator will resist its destruction; worse, you have to keep feeding the monster and will take extreme measures if necessary. This inevitability is the moral message of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An ice age has been predicted in the near future... if earth is getting hotter by the year, statiscally how is it possible to have an ice age ?
 somebodys been blowing smoke up everyones azz with mixed theories 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An ice age has been predicted in the near future... if earth is getting hotter by the year, statiscally how is it possible to have an ice age ? somebodys been blowing smoke up everyones azz with mixed theories it's a "by product" of global warming...so they say  thats why they stopped saying global warming and say climate change now... either way, they can say "i told you so"... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, an oncoming ice age has been predicted.
Now I'm going to ask 'who predicted it, and has their evidence been examined by a third party (preferably unbiased)'. The end of the world has regularly been predicted by a bunch of religious zealots and let's just say that their evidence (as were those who predicted another ice age were) has been so completely shown flawed that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that they were wrong. On sea level rise, it's true that for the city of Denver, Colorado, the sea level could rise 500 feet, and the city wouldn't even notice. Except for the massive flood of refugees and the total collapse of civil order as Miami, New York City, something like 90% of the major population centers on this planet and half of LA get wet. The San Fernando Valley would be fine (It's at roughly 800-1000 feet above sea level). It is also true that the Earth has been warmer and it has been colder in the past. There are two major differences here, one being that in the past the climate changed much slower, and all the organisms had time to evolve into new niches (or go extinct) and the second being that there wasn't a highly stationary civilization on the Earth at the time. It's easy to walk away from being submerged by a rising tide. It's a lot harder to walk away from your house being submerged by a rising tide. Or your entire country - The President of the Maldives had a council meeting in SCUBA outfits because if sea level rise continued, they'd better practice it. And finally, climate change. It might be nice to grow pineapples in Calgary, but that won't help if Nebraska and Kansas look like the Sahara Desert. When the breadbasket goes away, there will be lots of unhappy starving people. Some will have guns. It's not just sea level rise that's the problem (incidentally, most of sea level rise comes not from melting ice, but from things getting hotter getting larger, and sea water is no exception) it's crop failure. Climate change is, beyond a reasonable doubt (there's always unreasonable doubts), here, happening fast, and human-caused. There will be effects, many many people will suffer, and it could lead to the total collapse of human civilization. I dunno about you, but that's something I'd be a little worried about. It may be impossible to fix it all at once - but I'd say that doing just a little here and there even to merely slow it down is a good idea. Unless you just want to watch the world burn. In that case, I have nothing further to say to you on this matter. S. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, an oncoming ice age has been predicted. Now I'm going to ask 'who predicted it, and has their evidence been examined by a third party (preferably unbiased)'. The end of the world has regularly been predicted by a bunch of religious zealots and let's just say that their evidence (as were those who predicted another ice age were) has been so completely shown flawed that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that they were wrong. On sea level rise, it's true that for the city of Denver, Colorado, the sea level could rise 500 feet, and the city wouldn't even notice. Except for the massive flood of refugees and the total collapse of civil order as Miami, New York City, something like 90% of the major population centers on this planet and half of LA get wet. The San Fernando Valley would be fine (It's at roughly 800-1000 feet above sea level). It is also true that the Earth has been warmer and it has been colder in the past. There are two major differences here, one being that in the past the climate changed much slower, and all the organisms had time to evolve into new niches (or go extinct) and the second being that there wasn't a highly stationary civilization on the Earth at the time. It's easy to walk away from being submerged by a rising tide. It's a lot harder to walk away from your house being submerged by a rising tide. Or your entire country - The President of the Maldives had a council meeting in SCUBA outfits because if sea level rise continued, they'd better practice it. And finally, climate change. It might be nice to grow pineapples in Calgary, but that won't help if Nebraska and Kansas look like the Sahara Desert. When the breadbasket goes away, there will be lots of unhappy starving people. Some will have guns. It's not just sea level rise that's the problem (incidentally, most of sea level rise comes not from melting ice, but from things getting hotter getting larger, and sea water is no exception) it's crop failure. Climate change is, beyond a reasonable doubt (there's always unreasonable doubts), here, happening fast, and human-caused. There will be effects, many many people will suffer, and it could lead to the total collapse of human civilization. I dunno about you, but that's something I'd be a little worried about. It may be impossible to fix it all at once - but I'd say that doing just a little here and there even to merely slow it down is a good idea. Unless you just want to watch the world burn. In that case, I have nothing further to say to you on this matter. S. In a few years,when you are freezing,you will be thinking with Nostalgia back to '15!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
