 Click to enlarge.
|
Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. — This stuff keeps coming in and nobody wants to hear it.
From the late 1940s through the early 1970s, a climate research organization called the Weather Science Foundation of Crystal Lake, Illinois, determined that the planet’s warm, cold, wet and dry periods were the result of alternating short-term and long-term climatic cycles. These researchers and scientists also concluded that the Earth’s ever-changing climate likewise has influenced global and regional economies, human and animal migrations, science, religion and the arts as well as shifting forms of government and strength of leadership.Much of this data was based upon thousands of hours of research done by Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and his associates during the 1930s and 1940s at the University of Kansas. Dr. Wheeler was well-known for his discovery of various climate cycles, including his highly-regarded ‘510-Year Drought Clock’ that he detailed at the end of the ‘Dust Bowl’ era in the late 1930s.During the early 1970s, our planet was in the midst of a colder and drier weather cycle. Inflationary recessions and oil shortages led to rationing and long gas lines at service stations worldwide. The situation at that time was far worse than it is now, at least for the time being.
Found by D. Hoop.
It’s not that nobody want to hear it, just the Obamapologist and Gorecentrist.
The rest of us are willing to comprehend that even scientist can and often do make mistakes.
Climate change has gone from being scientific to economic long ago. Greed has taken over.
And the sane know this.
Where’s the part where Daffy Duck comes on-screen and says vote for Sarah Palin?
I’ll drop by later to see what hit jobs are done by the usual Liberals with rectal data banks full of propaganda posting here.
odd, i wonder why mt st helen wasnt mentioned on this chart…
Never trust a graph that doesn’t show units on the Y axis.
if anything that looks odd is that the frequency of hot-to-cold and back shortens over time.
Also how is 57’F normal? that’s fucking cold!
That’s wonderful and all, but those aren’t the graphs at the IPCC, which unfortunately are the only ones that matter.
It’s pretty obvious at this point that they will not accept any other data than their own. There will be no debate. Time for debates has passed. There is no entity, group, logic or force that can or will change their course.
It’s funny how people will pick and choose… Amazingly, the same ones that will point to this and say “See! Science says there’s no global warming!” will point to another article and say “See! Scientists don’t know what they’re talking about!” Well, which is it?
Point number one: “Global Warming” is just part of “Climate Change”, go do your homework and see how Global Warming can cause an Ice Age (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm).
Point number two: Science is not about “the truth”. Science is about theories and hypothesis. If you want “truth” and you don’t (want to) realize truth always depends on conditions and perspective, go study religion, not science.
Point number three: Fossil fuels, any of them, will run out eventually. Period. There’s no disagreement there. So take your collective heads out of your collective buttocks and let’s develop energy sources that won’t run out, if not for us, for our kids.
Somehow it seems a lot of the same crowd that are oh so worried about unborn fetuses and abortions don’t care if they sweep problems under the rug and leave for their kids an energy crisis after it’s too late, a collapsed world economy, no sustainable energy options, no clean water, polluted air, etc… Why is that?
#8 As long as there is big oil companies we will not have alternative fuels unless they create them. They make to much money off the black gold and revel in the unrest in the middle east which drives up the prices. This will not change until it’s all gone. Their greed rules the planet.
I agree w/#8, arpie. What happened to the whole getting away from foreign energy resources deal? The only ones objecting to that tactic would be OPEC, right? This just adds evidence to support that they want to keep the discussion controversial and the populace polarized and divided. We can all agree that we’d be better off with energy sources that don’t fund terrorist entities.
You may note that British Petroleum is number one in the world. With Solar Energy schemes. These guys do not need oil to take your money.
LA la la la. I can’t hear you.
Hmmmm…. that chart doesn’t bear ANY similarity to hundreds of other studies, therefore it must be the correct one, and all the other charts are wrong. The first question that should be asked is where did the data for that chart come from that makes it differ so much from all other modern studies?
Shame on those of you that accept and publicize the chart without questioning it’s veracity.
Dvorak has become a man obsessed with finding anything, not matter how questionable, that will support his utterly discredited point of view.
Besides, given the type of person that would actually take that chart as evidence, that chart should go back about 6200 years, starting when the earth was created, so the data is incomplete… I bet you it was a lot warmer and humid during Noah’s great flood, and would make a nice spike id that chart.
So what is the theory regarding the way that the graph turns competely erratic near the beginning of the industrial revolution? Is the inference that the volcanic activity during this period is unprecedented?
Good graph. It confirms that major disruptions to the atmosphere do contribute to climate change.
Humans burning fossil fuels for now 60 years is in fact equivalent to a cataclysmic event.
The chart is bullshit. There are no terms of reference and anyone with any degree of intelligence will quickly note the smoothness of the plotting. That doesn’t happen in real life in anything.
Who are these guys? Well, it turns out one read the weather on TV and the other took a few geology classes at a junior college. He is also a right wing Christian wing nut who believes the earth is only a little over 6,000 years old. (which explains why the chart doesn’t go back further)
So we have a chart with past changes in temperature and prediction of the future. But doesn’t say anything about man-made pollution. How is this supposed to have any bearing on global warming? This is just a chart of natural changes in temperature. It doesn’t say anything for or against man-made climate change.
In fact, if you read the article, the very people who made this chart write,
However, Mankind’s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect,’ are making conditions ‘worse’ and this will ultimately enhance the Earth’s warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades.
So I guess the “stuff” that “keeps coming in” that “no one wants to hear” is that man-made climate change is real.
I’ve decided to become a global warming “denier”. That includes “climate change” too. I don’t believe it.
Right now it’s 0c (32f) outside. I figure that’s pretty normal for Vancouver in December. Can someone tell me, definitively, what is the correct temperature for Dec 11?
Last night on the news, the weatherman said that the “historic low” for this date was -4c and the “historic high” was +13c.
This tells me that the “natural” temperature for this time of year can fluctuate by 17c. That’s a lot. Much more than the 2c change “predicted” by global warming (which didn’t happen) or anything else predicted by climate change.
I’ve also read that even if we were to stop producing any CO2 at all (including breathing) the current levels of C02 (387ppm) would take anywhere from 100 to 900 years to go down to the 350ppm that the IPCC says it should be.
So we’re screwed. If the IPCC is right, we’re going to have 2-7c temperature increases and 3m increases in sea level and there’s nothing we can do about it. So why bother?
i am more worried about pollution than carbon footprints
Fragalot said: Also how is 57′F normal? that’s fucking cold!
Here in Minnesota, 57F is sun tanning temperatures.
The temp was -2F this morning.
Here’s Al Gore’s own chart:
http://web.ncf.ca/jim/ref/inconvenientTruth/full/00_23_53.jpg
It shows 650,000 years of temperature and CO2.
The problem is, assuming this chart is shown 50 feet wide, that’s 13,000 years per foot. Or 1083 years per inch. So 100 years is less than 1/10th of an inch.
Yet, when you look at Al’s chart, it seems to show temperature and CO2 going up for the last 20,000 years.
The other thing: we have ic ages on this planet, at intervals of 100,000 to 120,000 years. Between ice ages we have short periods (10,000-12,000 years) of warm periods.
In other words, the “normal” state for this planet is an ice age. Personally I would prefer to live during the warm periods than the ice ages.
Okay enough. I visit this site for funny pictures, not redneck pseudo-science. I will get funny pictures elsewhere. Bookmark deleted.
NOT FROM IPCC SO IS NOT “SCIENCE”
Probably people don’t report this because it’s based on Raymond Wheeler’s “interpretation” of the NOAA data, who had a wee bit of trouble staying on the gang plank, if you know what I mean. He used real live code in Fortran IV for his work so it was “scientific-like”.
It’s not a lot of trouble to download the NOAA data yourself and run the numbers. In other words, go to the horse’s mouth, not the horse’s ass.
What ever happen the great Dvorak skepticism?
The chart is a joke… USA Today’s infographics are better sourced. What are Nomanic (Nomads?) and what is Great Migration.
The two men running the website seemed to have no special insight, and in fact, seem to have a financial interest in disproving global warming (a fact that global warming skeptics need to realize– you have charlatans on your side too.) I don’t know if global warming is real… but this proves nothing.
I come to website to watch Dvorak cut through the bullshit… not to fling it.
#18, chuck,
That is the difference between weather and climate. That wing nuts and deniers can’t tell the difference is part of their intellectual makeup.
As much as it is wrong to paint all right wing people by the actions of one, for example Rush Limbaugh, it is equally wrong to define climate change by one day’s activities.
My bad… I found references on the website for the chart…
“Climate and the Affairs of Men” by Dr. Iben Browing
Published in 1975 and who’s author is know for predicting the 1990 Madrid earthquake. (What? It didn’t happen?)
and “Climate…The Key to Understanding Business Cycles…The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers.” By Michael Zahorchak Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois.
Published in 1983, based (what I can figure out) papers written in the 30’s and 40’s. Where the get numbers for the 90’s and beyond is anyones guess.
I think we have a pretty good idea why no one is paying attention to this one.
Hey Dvorak! You are getting old and senile, you know?
Of course, most people who know you, just ignore what you say (and they listen to you because old crankies are sometimes funny).
You should stick to tech subjects (although most of the time you don’t know what you are talking about) and don’t make a fool of yourself.
Why do you keep talking about things you don’t have a clue? It’s sad to see what you are doing to your career.
Nobody wants to hear it because that moron Harris isn’t a trained scientist!!!!!!! He studied insurance law in college. For him to call himself a climatologist is absolutely fucking ridiculous. To accept his conclusions or data would be very very poor science!!
Ask yourself this. Where did they get their “data”????
Oh yeah! “Weather Science Foundation”????? Don’t make me laugh!!! Can someone please point me to where exactly in Crystal Lake this is??? I bet you can’t!!!