1000 Year Global Temperature Graphs

Q: I thought a few pictures might make it easier for our retards to understand. This graph shows the average of *all published scientific research* into past global temperatures - includes the so-called "little ice-age" 300 years ago. The "little ice-age" is hard to spot but it's that little dip from around 1660. At least that's when some people claim it was. Others claim there were three distinct minima; 1650, about 1770, and 1850. Most climatologists now agree that previous assumptions that these were global phenomena was incorrect and that they were local climatic variations. Scotty's absurd claim that "it is generally agreed that the globe has been warming steadily for 300 years" can be seen for what it is - complete oil-shill tosh. As anyone with half a brain can see - one has to put things into perspective to get the true picture. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Global_temperature... Just for interest this one shows the temperature anomoly since the beginning of large scale carbon emissions. http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/670px-instrumental_tem... This one shows the total *lack* of correlation with solar irradience - which, along with "the world has been warming for 300 years tripe" was also one of the denialists favourites until... well until it was recently discovered that around 1980 irradience dropped and temperatures continued to rise dramatically. Oh dear. Mind you that hasn't prevented the more blinkered denialists continuing to claim the 'irradiance correlation' to this very day of course. http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif And as for the "The Earth is cooling" 'argument. Well it simply beggars belief. This brand-new denialist line largely replaces the now defunct 'solar irradiance' line and stems from the fact that 2008 was cooler than 1998! I kid you not. Some rightards are actually citing this as 'evidence' that the world is now getting colder! (the temperature in the Arctic was actually +2.7C that year by the way - the strong cold La Nina event down here scewed the 2008 figure which ranks as 'only' the 7th hottest year since records began) At risk of insulting the intelligence of all grown-ups in here please permit me to explain the definition of 'trend' for some of our rightards A 'trend' is usually shown with a straight line (obtained with "linear regression") and is an overall indication of what is happening. For example, an upward "trend" in stock prices over several decades is shown with an upward sloping line that indicates that stock prices have gone up over the long term - even though the price may fluctuate up or down from one year to the next (due to "noise"). Similarly, global average temperature may fluctuate (or remain flat) over the short term, but the trend over the past few decades (and even century) is upward. As is illustrated by the 'straight line' in this graph: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/Patagonia_LIA_fig2.JPG Don't bother to reply rightards - I already *know* you are completely incapable of being persuaded by such a tiny thing as the sum total of all human knowledge and research into climate change.

A: That's not yer real problem mate. You are going to run out of oil soon and then you won't care about a few degrees increase in temp. You will be living like the 1850s all over... As for the temp increase, we all know there is one, it's whether humans are to blame is the real question. Personally I don't give a shit either way. It's definitely got an upward trend but 1000 years is but the blink of an eye in the age of the earth. The Dinos died out some 65 MILLION years ago - they used too much coal too. They will never be convinced by Facts, which is why Facts are said to have a Leftwing Bias to them. They cannot be persuaded to budge a millimeter by appeals to Reason, or to Conscience, or to Common Sense, or to Morality. They are immune to anything requiring modification of their extremely limited limbic-brain tunnel-vision. It's the nature of Authoritarian Conservative thinking, which is based on Fear, Unreason, Greed, Wilful Ignorance, and Territoriality. Since so many of them are Creationists, perhaps their best argument against Evolution is the very fact of their own existence! Clearly, no amount of Social Evolution has sufficed to make their idiotic dogmatism extinct. You mean it's a fraud? It did cross my mind as to how they would measure temp 1000 years ago! Until about 260 years ago temperature measurement was very subjective. For hot metals the colour of the glow was a good indicator. For intermediate temperatures, the impact on various materials could be determined. For example does the temperature melt sulphur, lead or wax, or boil water? In other words a number of fixed points could be defined, but there was no scale or any way to measure the temperature between these points. It is, however possible that there is a gap in the recorded history of technology in this regard as it is difficult to believe that the Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans or Chinese did not measure temperatures in some way. Galileo invented the first documented thermometer in about 1592. It was an air thermometer consisting of a glass bulb with a long tube attached. The tube was dipped into a cooled liquid and the bulb was warmed, expanding the air inside. As the air continued to expand, some of it escaped. When the heat was removed, the remaining air contracted causing the liquid to rise in the tube and indicating a change in temperature. This type of thermometer is sensitive, but is affected by changes in atmospheric pressure.

Discuss It!

Tom said:

I find the incessent use of derragatory remarks and sophmoric name calling of anyone that disagrees with a bullies "scientific annalysis" tends to make me ask "why dose thou protest so much"

Most Popular Articles

More