Quote:Record low number of radioactive sheep


The number of dangerously radioactive sheep in Norway has hit the lowest level recorded since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, raising hopes that the country's flock will soon return almost completely to normal.

Only 1,914 sheep had to be cleansed of radiation before slaughter last year, a decline of more than 99 percent from the 320,000 sheep affected the autumn after the accident.

Quote:The Bay Area saw a number of record high temperatures Sunday, according to the National Weather Service.
In the South Bay, San Jose reached a high of 97 degrees. That eclipsed the previous July 16 record, which was 96 and had stood since 1925, the weather service said.
In the East Bay, Concord reached a blistering 106 degrees, smashing the previous record of 102 set in 2006. Hayward (91) and Oakland (87) also set marks.

(07-17-2017, 11:23 PM)Valuesize Wrote: While this post (and many others on this thread) are accurate, they tend to dilute the true seriousness of the problem because one degree is almost nothing and really could be nothing more than more accurate equipment.

(07-18-2017, 12:59 AM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-17-2017, 11:23 PM)Valuesize Wrote: While this post (and many others on this thread) are accurate, they tend to dilute the true seriousness of the problem because one degree is almost nothing and really could be nothing more than more accurate equipment.

 What makes you think we didn't have as accurate equipment in the last 10 20 30 years as we do now?

IMO this thread for the most part proves the weather is hotter than it ever has been in a very long time.
That records are not just being broken. But records that stood for a hundred years and getting broken and broken again the next week or the next year.

One degree may sound like almost nothing and could be explained away with your notion that it's too small to be meaningful.
But one degree increase in the average temp of the earth or the seas is extremely meaningful.

 
2016 was the hottest year in 137 years of record keeping and the third year in a row to take the number one slot, a mark of how much the world has warmed over the last century because of human activities, U.S. government scientists announced Wednesday.

(07-18-2017, 05:35 AM)chuck white Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 12:59 AM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-17-2017, 11:23 PM)Valuesize Wrote: While this post (and many others on this thread) are accurate, they tend to dilute the true seriousness of the problem because one degree is almost nothing and really could be nothing more than more accurate equipment.

 What makes you think we didn't have as accurate equipment in the last 10 20 30 years as we do now?

IMO this thread for the most part proves the weather is hotter than it ever has been in a very long time.
That records are not just being broken. But records that stood for a hundred years and getting broken and broken again the next week or the next year.

One degree may sound like almost nothing and could be explained away with your notion that it's too small to be meaningful.
But one degree increase in the average temp of the earth or the seas is extremely meaningful.

 
2016 was the hottest year in 137 years of record keeping and the third year in a row to take the number one slot, a mark of how much the world has warmed over the last century because of human activities, U.S. government scientists announced Wednesday.

We need to install fans on our northern border and make the Chinese pay for it.

(07-18-2017, 08:33 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 05:35 AM)chuck white Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 12:59 AM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-17-2017, 11:23 PM)Valuesize Wrote: While this post (and many others on this thread) are accurate, they tend to dilute the true seriousness of the problem because one degree is almost nothing and really could be nothing more than more accurate equipment.

 What makes you think we didn't have as accurate equipment in the last 10 20 30 years as we do now?

IMO this thread for the most part proves the weather is hotter than it ever has been in a very long time.
That records are not just being broken. But records that stood for a hundred years and getting broken and broken again the next week or the next year.

One degree may sound like almost nothing and could be explained away with your notion that it's too small to be meaningful.
But one degree increase in the average temp of the earth or the seas is extremely meaningful.

 
2016 was the hottest year in 137 years of record keeping and the third year in a row to take the number one slot, a mark of how much the world has warmed over the last century because of human activities, U.S. government scientists announced Wednesday.

We need to install fans on our northern border and make the Chinese pay for it.

A bit flip Chuck. 

And I wonder if we don't need to remember that weather and climate are two very different things. The Bay Area weather is news of sorts, but does not make an argument for a change in global climate. 

103 degrees


The hottest temperature ever recorded in San Francisco, California is 103 degrees, which occurred on both June 14, 2000 and July 17, 1988.

(07-18-2017, 02:53 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 08:33 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 05:35 AM)chuck white Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 12:59 AM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-17-2017, 11:23 PM)Valuesize Wrote: While this post (and many others on this thread) are accurate, they tend to dilute the true seriousness of the problem because one degree is almost nothing and really could be nothing more than more accurate equipment.

 What makes you think we didn't have as accurate equipment in the last 10 20 30 years as we do now?

IMO this thread for the most part proves the weather is hotter than it ever has been in a very long time.
That records are not just being broken. But records that stood for a hundred years and getting broken and broken again the next week or the next year.

One degree may sound like almost nothing and could be explained away with your notion that it's too small to be meaningful.
But one degree increase in the average temp of the earth or the seas is extremely meaningful.

 
2016 was the hottest year in 137 years of record keeping and the third year in a row to take the number one slot, a mark of how much the world has warmed over the last century because of human activities, U.S. government scientists announced Wednesday.

We need to install fans on our northern border and make the Chinese pay for it.

A bit flip Chuck. 

And I wonder if we don't need to remember that weather and climate are two very different things. The Bay Area weather is news of sorts, but does not make an argument for a change in global climate. 

103 degrees


The hottest temperature ever recorded in San Francisco, California is 103 degrees, which occurred on both June 14, 2000 and July 17, 1988.

I don't know what it is with you Wonky but you always for whatever reason want to downplay the significance of record breaking weather.

In this case Chuck posted an article about record breaking highs in the BAY AREA

San Jose reached a high of 97 degrees.The highest since 1925

East bay 106 degrees, smashing the previous record of 102 set in 2006
 
99 degrees at Moffett Field, shattering the previous record of 86 in 1984;

Santa Rosa's Airport 108 degrees Sunday, equaling the highest temperature recorded at the location since reporting began in June 1998
 
All of these places set records for heat and you go do a search for only the city of San Fransisco? to prove what?

  Wonky.....the Bay Area weather is news of sorts, but does not make an argument for a change in global climate.

Sure it does when you look at the bay area and all of the other paces in the USA that have been setting records like never before. Unless you think it's not global and ONLY the USA LOL.

 The ten hottest years on record have all been since 2006... Downplay that.

 

(07-18-2017, 04:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 02:53 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 08:33 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 05:35 AM)chuck white Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 12:59 AM)tvguy Wrote:  What makes you think we didn't have as accurate equipment in the last 10 20 30 years as we do now?

IMO this thread for the most part proves the weather is hotter than it ever has been in a very long time.
That records are not just being broken. But records that stood for a hundred years and getting broken and broken again the next week or the next year.

One degree may sound like almost nothing and could be explained away with your notion that it's too small to be meaningful.
But one degree increase in the average temp of the earth or the seas is extremely meaningful.

 
2016 was the hottest year in 137 years of record keeping and the third year in a row to take the number one slot, a mark of how much the world has warmed over the last century because of human activities, U.S. government scientists announced Wednesday.

We need to install fans on our northern border and make the Chinese pay for it.

A bit flip Chuck. 

And I wonder if we don't need to remember that weather and climate are two very different things. The Bay Area weather is news of sorts, but does not make an argument for a change in global climate. 

103 degrees


The hottest temperature ever recorded in San Francisco, California is 103 degrees, which occurred on both June 14, 2000 and July 17, 1988.

I don't know what it is with you Wonky but you always for whatever reason want to downplay the significance of record breaking weather.

In this case Chuck posted an article about record breaking highs in the BAY AREA

San Jose reached a high of 97 degrees.The highest since 1925

East bay 106 degrees, smashing the previous record of 102 set in 2006
 
99 degrees at Moffett Field, shattering the previous record of 86 in 1984;

Santa Rosa's Airport 108 degrees Sunday, equaling the highest temperature recorded at the location since reporting began in June 1998
 
All of these places set records for heat and you go do a search for only the city of San Fransisco? to prove what?

  Wonky.....the Bay Area weather is news of sorts, but does not make an argument for a change in global climate.

Sure it does when you look at the bay area and all of the other paces in the USA that have been setting records like never before. Unless you think it's not global and ONLY the USA LOL.

 The ten hottest years on record have all been since 2006... Downplay that.

 

I'm not downplaying anything. I think science is correct is assuming we are experiencing climate change as a result of human activity. 
Back to Chucks post: He reported weather reports in the Bay Area. SF is in the bay area and the record there was hotter than the recent records Chuck reported. They are called WEATHER reports. 
About the hottest years on record being since 2006: Thing is, in terms of CLIMATE that does not tell us all that much. We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years (maybe less). For all we know the hottest years may have been in 1150. WEATHER does cycle and change. 
What forensic climate science does tell us (tree rings, creek banks, etc.) is that in the past the climate has been through significant changes. Scientists speculate as to the causers and may be correct in the conclusions they reach. But that's "water under the bridge" as far as what is happening now because they are almost certain that the changes now are not from some natural occurrence (volcanos for instance, or big rocks from space slamming into us) but from humankind doing things that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  

Chuck reports WEATHER. 

Sceintists report changes in climate. 

But hey, weather reports are fun. Keep 'em coming Chuck.

(07-18-2017, 04:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 02:53 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 08:33 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 05:35 AM)chuck white Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 12:59 AM)tvguy Wrote:  What makes you think we didn't have as accurate equipment in the last 10 20 30 years as we do now?

IMO this thread for the most part proves the weather is hotter than it ever has been in a very long time.
That records are not just being broken. But records that stood for a hundred years and getting broken and broken again the next week or the next year.

One degree may sound like almost nothing and could be explained away with your notion that it's too small to be meaningful.
But one degree increase in the average temp of the earth or the seas is extremely meaningful.

 
2016 was the hottest year in 137 years of record keeping and the third year in a row to take the number one slot, a mark of how much the world has warmed over the last century because of human activities, U.S. government scientists announced Wednesday.

We need to install fans on our northern border and make the Chinese pay for it.

A bit flip Chuck. 

And I wonder if we don't need to remember that weather and climate are two very different things. The Bay Area weather is news of sorts, but does not make an argument for a change in global climate. 

103 degrees


The hottest temperature ever recorded in San Francisco, California is 103 degrees, which occurred on both June 14, 2000 and July 17, 1988.

I don't know what it is with you Wonky but you always for whatever reason want to downplay the significance of record breaking weather.

In this case Chuck posted an article about record breaking highs in the BAY AREA

San Jose reached a high of 97 degrees.The highest since 1925

East bay 106 degrees, smashing the previous record of 102 set in 2006
 
99 degrees at Moffett Field, shattering the previous record of 86 in 1984;

Santa Rosa's Airport 108 degrees Sunday, equaling the highest temperature recorded at the location since reporting began in June 1998
 
All of these places set records for heat and you go do a search for only the city of San Fransisco? to prove what?

  Wonky.....the Bay Area weather is news of sorts, but does not make an argument for a change in global climate.

Sure it does when you look at the bay area and all of the other paces in the USA that have been setting records like never before. Unless you think it's not global and ONLY the USA LOL.

 The ten hottest years on record have all been since 2006... Downplay that.

 

I'm not downplaying anything. I think science is correct is assuming we are experiencing climate change as a result of human activity. 
Back to Chucks post: He reported weather reports in the Bay Area. SF is in the bay area and the record there was hotter than the recent records Chuck reported. They are called WEATHER reports. 
About the hottest years on record being since 2006: Thing is, in terms of CLIMATE that does not tell us all that much. We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years (maybe less). For all we know the hottest years may have been in 1150. WEATHER does cycle and change. 
What forensic climate science does tell us (tree rings, creek banks, etc.) is that in the past the climate has been through significant changes. Scientists speculate as to the causers and may be correct in the conclusions they reach. But that's "water under the bridge" as far as what is happening now because they are almost certain that the changes now are not from some natural occurrence (volcanos for instance, or big rocks from space slamming into us) but from humankind doing things that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  

Chuck reports WEATHER. 

Sceintists report changes in climate. 

But hey, weather reports are fun. Keep 'em coming Chuck.

(07-18-2017, 06:06 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 04:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 02:53 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 08:33 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 05:35 AM)chuck white Wrote: We need to install fans on our northern border and make the Chinese pay for it.

A bit flip Chuck. 

And I wonder if we don't need to remember that weather and climate are two very different things. The Bay Area weather is news of sorts, but does not make an argument for a change in global climate. 

103 degrees


The hottest temperature ever recorded in San Francisco, California is 103 degrees, which occurred on both June 14, 2000 and July 17, 1988.

I don't know what it is with you Wonky but you always for whatever reason want to downplay the significance of record breaking weather.

In this case Chuck posted an article about record breaking highs in the BAY AREA

San Jose reached a high of 97 degrees.The highest since 1925

East bay 106 degrees, smashing the previous record of 102 set in 2006
 
99 degrees at Moffett Field, shattering the previous record of 86 in 1984;

Santa Rosa's Airport 108 degrees Sunday, equaling the highest temperature recorded at the location since reporting began in June 1998
 
All of these places set records for heat and you go do a search for only the city of San Fransisco? to prove what?

  Wonky.....the Bay Area weather is news of sorts, but does not make an argument for a change in global climate.

Sure it does when you look at the bay area and all of the other paces in the USA that have been setting records like never before. Unless you think it's not global and ONLY the USA LOL.

 The ten hottest years on record have all been since 2006... Downplay that.

 

I'm not downplaying anything. I think science is correct is assuming we are experiencing climate change as a result of human activity. 
Back to Chucks post: He reported weather reports in the Bay Area. SF is in the bay area and the record there was hotter than the recent records Chuck reported. They are called WEATHER reports. 
About the hottest years on record being since 2006: Thing is, in terms of CLIMATE that does not tell us all that much. We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years (maybe less). For all we know the hottest years may have been in 1150. WEATHER does cycle and change. 
What forensic climate science does tell us (tree rings, creek banks, etc.) is that in the past the climate has been through significant changes. Scientists speculate as to the causers and may be correct in the conclusions they reach. But that's "water under the bridge" as far as what is happening now because they are almost certain that the changes now are not from some natural occurrence (volcanos for instance, or big rocks from space slamming into us) but from humankind doing things that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  

Chuck reports WEATHER. 

Sceintists report changes in climate. 

But hey, weather reports are fun. Keep 'em coming Chuck.

You know. If I went back on this thread I could find You saying the EXACT SAME THING in response to ME saying YES current record breaking weather events of THIS  frequency do indeed indicate more that you want to just call weather.

You have said this EXACT SAME THING BEFORE........

Wonky.... We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years (maybe less). For all we know the hottest years may have been in 1150.

And you were wrong then as well as now.... Every time you have said We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years I posted information showing otherwise.

 It's like you maybe understood then but your brain keeps resetting to the default position  that we don't have reliable records EXCEPT for about the last 100 years.

Anyway here we go again.


In recent years, scientists have also identified ways to study weather patterns from thousands of years ago. One 2013 study, for example, extended temperatures as far back as the end of the last Ice Age—more than 11,000 years ago—by examining oxygen isotopes in fossilized ocean shells. Bubbles of ancient atmosphere trapped in ice can be used to gauge carbon dioxide levels from millions of years ago; fossilized shells preserve information about ocean conditions; and plant and animal microfossils from oceans can tell scientists a great deal about prehistoric temperatures, ocean currents, and wind patterns.



Cold Climates, Warm Climates: How Can We Tell Past Temperatures?


https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/


For example, ice sheets form as snow builds up, with each year's snowfall preserved as a single, visible layer. There are measurable chemical differences in snow formed at different temperatures, so ice cores provide a record of polar temperature going back around 250,000 years for Greenland and 800,000 years for Antarctica.

Yearly banding is also found in fossilised corals and lake sediment deposits, and each band has a specific chemistry that reflects the temperature when it formed. Growth rings in tree trunks can be wider or thinner depending on the climate at the time of growth, so fossilised trees can reveal the length of growing seasons. And fossilised or frozen pollen grains allow scientists to determine what plants were growing in the past, which can give us a good idea of the climate at the time.
Marine sediment cores provide temperature records spanning millions of years. They contain the fossilised shells of tiny marine creatures that preserve a chemical record of the sea temperature when they lived.
To make their temperature reconstructions as accurate as possible scientists have calibrated each proxy by testing how it changes in response to changing temperature. However, the further back in time we look, the more sparse the proxy temperature records become. Therefore the most reliable way to work out past temperatures is to combine different proxies – and to use data from many locations to screen out local temperature fluctuations.

(07-18-2017, 09:09 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 06:06 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 04:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 02:53 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 08:33 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: A bit flip Chuck. 

And I wonder if we don't need to remember that weather and climate are two very different things. The Bay Area weather is news of sorts, but does not make an argument for a change in global climate. 

103 degrees


The hottest temperature ever recorded in San Francisco, California is 103 degrees, which occurred on both June 14, 2000 and July 17, 1988.

I don't know what it is with you Wonky but you always for whatever reason want to downplay the significance of record breaking weather.

In this case Chuck posted an article about record breaking highs in the BAY AREA

San Jose reached a high of 97 degrees.The highest since 1925

East bay 106 degrees, smashing the previous record of 102 set in 2006
 
99 degrees at Moffett Field, shattering the previous record of 86 in 1984;

Santa Rosa's Airport 108 degrees Sunday, equaling the highest temperature recorded at the location since reporting began in June 1998
 
All of these places set records for heat and you go do a search for only the city of San Fransisco? to prove what?

  Wonky.....the Bay Area weather is news of sorts, but does not make an argument for a change in global climate.

Sure it does when you look at the bay area and all of the other paces in the USA that have been setting records like never before. Unless you think it's not global and ONLY the USA LOL.

 The ten hottest years on record have all been since 2006... Downplay that.

 

I'm not downplaying anything. I think science is correct is assuming we are experiencing climate change as a result of human activity. 
Back to Chucks post: He reported weather reports in the Bay Area. SF is in the bay area and the record there was hotter than the recent records Chuck reported. They are called WEATHER reports. 
About the hottest years on record being since 2006: Thing is, in terms of CLIMATE that does not tell us all that much. We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years (maybe less). For all we know the hottest years may have been in 1150. WEATHER does cycle and change. 
What forensic climate science does tell us (tree rings, creek banks, etc.) is that in the past the climate has been through significant changes. Scientists speculate as to the causers and may be correct in the conclusions they reach. But that's "water under the bridge" as far as what is happening now because they are almost certain that the changes now are not from some natural occurrence (volcanos for instance, or big rocks from space slamming into us) but from humankind doing things that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  

Chuck reports WEATHER. 

Sceintists report changes in climate. 

But hey, weather reports are fun. Keep 'em coming Chuck.

You know. If I went back on this thread I could find You saying the EXACT SAME THING in response to ME saying YES current record breaking weather events of THIS  frequency do indeed indicate more that you want to just call weather.

You have said this EXACT SAME THING BEFORE........

Wonky.... We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years (maybe less). For all we know the hottest years may have been in 1150.

And you were wrong then as well as now.... Every time you have said We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years I posted information showing otherwise.

 It's like you maybe understood then but your brain keeps resetting to the default position  that we don't have reliable records EXCEPT for about the last 100 years.

Anyway here we go again.


In recent years, scientists have also identified ways to study weather patterns from thousands of years ago. One 2013 study, for example, extended temperatures as far back as the end of the last Ice Age—more than 11,000 years ago—by examining oxygen isotopes in fossilized ocean shells. Bubbles of ancient atmosphere trapped in ice can be used to gauge carbon dioxide levels from millions of years ago; fossilized shells preserve information about ocean conditions; and plant and animal microfossils from oceans can tell scientists a great deal about prehistoric temperatures, ocean currents, and wind patterns.



Cold Climates, Warm Climates: How Can We Tell Past Temperatures?


https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/


For example, ice sheets form as snow builds up, with each year's snowfall preserved as a single, visible layer. There are measurable chemical differences in snow formed at different temperatures, so ice cores provide a record of polar temperature going back around 250,000 years for Greenland and 800,000 years for Antarctica.

Yearly banding is also found in fossilised corals and lake sediment deposits, and each band has a specific chemistry that reflects the temperature when it formed. Growth rings in tree trunks can be wider or thinner depending on the climate at the time of growth, so fossilised trees can reveal the length of growing seasons. And fossilised or frozen pollen grains allow scientists to determine what plants were growing in the past, which can give us a good idea of the climate at the time.
Marine sediment cores provide temperature records spanning millions of years. They contain the fossilised shells of tiny marine creatures that preserve a chemical record of the sea temperature when they lived.
To make their temperature reconstructions as accurate as possible scientists have calibrated each proxy by testing how it changes in response to changing temperature. However, the further back in time we look, the more sparse the proxy temperature records become. Therefore the most reliable way to work out past temperatures is to combine different proxies – and to use data from many locations to screen out local temperature fluctuations.

 You just shot down your own argument!
What you posted was about CLIMATE. 
Weather is what we will have tomorrow.

(07-19-2017, 02:29 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 09:09 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 06:06 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 04:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 02:53 PM)tvguy Wrote: I don't know what it is with you Wonky but you always for whatever reason want to downplay the significance of record breaking weather.

In this case Chuck posted an article about record breaking highs in the BAY AREA

San Jose reached a high of 97 degrees.The highest since 1925

East bay 106 degrees, smashing the previous record of 102 set in 2006
 
99 degrees at Moffett Field, shattering the previous record of 86 in 1984;

Santa Rosa's Airport 108 degrees Sunday, equaling the highest temperature recorded at the location since reporting began in June 1998
 
All of these places set records for heat and you go do a search for only the city of San Fransisco? to prove what?

  Wonky.....the Bay Area weather is news of sorts, but does not make an argument for a change in global climate.

Sure it does when you look at the bay area and all of the other paces in the USA that have been setting records like never before. Unless you think it's not global and ONLY the USA LOL.

 The ten hottest years on record have all been since 2006... Downplay that.

 

I'm not downplaying anything. I think science is correct is assuming we are experiencing climate change as a result of human activity. 
Back to Chucks post: He reported weather reports in the Bay Area. SF is in the bay area and the record there was hotter than the recent records Chuck reported. They are called WEATHER reports. 
About the hottest years on record being since 2006: Thing is, in terms of CLIMATE that does not tell us all that much. We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years (maybe less). For all we know the hottest years may have been in 1150. WEATHER does cycle and change. 
What forensic climate science does tell us (tree rings, creek banks, etc.) is that in the past the climate has been through significant changes. Scientists speculate as to the causers and may be correct in the conclusions they reach. But that's "water under the bridge" as far as what is happening now because they are almost certain that the changes now are not from some natural occurrence (volcanos for instance, or big rocks from space slamming into us) but from humankind doing things that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  

Chuck reports WEATHER. 

Sceintists report changes in climate. 

But hey, weather reports are fun. Keep 'em coming Chuck.

You know. If I went back on this thread I could find You saying the EXACT SAME THING in response to ME saying YES current record breaking weather events of THIS  frequency do indeed indicate more that you want to just call weather.

You have said this EXACT SAME THING BEFORE........

Wonky.... We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years (maybe less). For all we know the hottest years may have been in 1150.

And you were wrong then as well as now.... Every time you have said We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years I posted information showing otherwise.

 It's like you maybe understood then but your brain keeps resetting to the default position  that we don't have reliable records EXCEPT for about the last 100 years.

Anyway here we go again.


In recent years, scientists have also identified ways to study weather patterns from thousands of years ago. One 2013 study, for example, extended temperatures as far back as the end of the last Ice Age—more than 11,000 years ago—by examining oxygen isotopes in fossilized ocean shells. Bubbles of ancient atmosphere trapped in ice can be used to gauge carbon dioxide levels from millions of years ago; fossilized shells preserve information about ocean conditions; and plant and animal microfossils from oceans can tell scientists a great deal about prehistoric temperatures, ocean currents, and wind patterns.



Cold Climates, Warm Climates: How Can We Tell Past Temperatures?


https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/


For example, ice sheets form as snow builds up, with each year's snowfall preserved as a single, visible layer. There are measurable chemical differences in snow formed at different temperatures, so ice cores provide a record of polar temperature going back around 250,000 years for Greenland and 800,000 years for Antarctica.

Yearly banding is also found in fossilised corals and lake sediment deposits, and each band has a specific chemistry that reflects the temperature when it formed. Growth rings in tree trunks can be wider or thinner depending on the climate at the time of growth, so fossilised trees can reveal the length of growing seasons. And fossilised or frozen pollen grains allow scientists to determine what plants were growing in the past, which can give us a good idea of the climate at the time.
Marine sediment cores provide temperature records spanning millions of years. They contain the fossilised shells of tiny marine creatures that preserve a chemical record of the sea temperature when they lived.
To make their temperature reconstructions as accurate as possible scientists have calibrated each proxy by testing how it changes in response to changing temperature. However, the further back in time we look, the more sparse the proxy temperature records become. Therefore the most reliable way to work out past temperatures is to combine different proxies – and to use data from many locations to screen out local temperature fluctuations.

 You just shot down your own argument!
What you posted was about CLIMATE. 
Weather is what we will have tomorrow.

It went over your head once again. What I posted was about how science can and does determine what kind of climate we had in the past.
Because you repeatedly claim there is no reliable info past "about 100 years".
I repeatedly prove that's not true. But you are so stuck in the mud with your theory that we don't know shit about the past I prove we do even knowing it's pointless.



noun: weather
1.
the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.

(07-19-2017, 02:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 02:29 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 09:09 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 06:06 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 04:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: I'm not downplaying anything. I think science is correct is assuming we are experiencing climate change as a result of human activity. 
Back to Chucks post: He reported weather reports in the Bay Area. SF is in the bay area and the record there was hotter than the recent records Chuck reported. They are called WEATHER reports. 
About the hottest years on record being since 2006: Thing is, in terms of CLIMATE that does not tell us all that much. We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years (maybe less). For all we know the hottest years may have been in 1150. WEATHER does cycle and change. 
What forensic climate science does tell us (tree rings, creek banks, etc.) is that in the past the climate has been through significant changes. Scientists speculate as to the causers and may be correct in the conclusions they reach. But that's "water under the bridge" as far as what is happening now because they are almost certain that the changes now are not from some natural occurrence (volcanos for instance, or big rocks from space slamming into us) but from humankind doing things that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  

Chuck reports WEATHER. 

Sceintists report changes in climate. 

But hey, weather reports are fun. Keep 'em coming Chuck.

You know. If I went back on this thread I could find You saying the EXACT SAME THING in response to ME saying YES current record breaking weather events of THIS  frequency do indeed indicate more that you want to just call weather.

You have said this EXACT SAME THING BEFORE........

Wonky.... We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years (maybe less). For all we know the hottest years may have been in 1150.

And you were wrong then as well as now.... Every time you have said We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years I posted information showing otherwise.

 It's like you maybe understood then but your brain keeps resetting to the default position  that we don't have reliable records EXCEPT for about the last 100 years.

Anyway here we go again.


In recent years, scientists have also identified ways to study weather patterns from thousands of years ago. One 2013 study, for example, extended temperatures as far back as the end of the last Ice Age—more than 11,000 years ago—by examining oxygen isotopes in fossilized ocean shells. Bubbles of ancient atmosphere trapped in ice can be used to gauge carbon dioxide levels from millions of years ago; fossilized shells preserve information about ocean conditions; and plant and animal microfossils from oceans can tell scientists a great deal about prehistoric temperatures, ocean currents, and wind patterns.



Cold Climates, Warm Climates: How Can We Tell Past Temperatures?


https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/


For example, ice sheets form as snow builds up, with each year's snowfall preserved as a single, visible layer. There are measurable chemical differences in snow formed at different temperatures, so ice cores provide a record of polar temperature going back around 250,000 years for Greenland and 800,000 years for Antarctica.

Yearly banding is also found in fossilised corals and lake sediment deposits, and each band has a specific chemistry that reflects the temperature when it formed. Growth rings in tree trunks can be wider or thinner depending on the climate at the time of growth, so fossilised trees can reveal the length of growing seasons. And fossilised or frozen pollen grains allow scientists to determine what plants were growing in the past, which can give us a good idea of the climate at the time.
Marine sediment cores provide temperature records spanning millions of years. They contain the fossilised shells of tiny marine creatures that preserve a chemical record of the sea temperature when they lived.
To make their temperature reconstructions as accurate as possible scientists have calibrated each proxy by testing how it changes in response to changing temperature. However, the further back in time we look, the more sparse the proxy temperature records become. Therefore the most reliable way to work out past temperatures is to combine different proxies – and to use data from many locations to screen out local temperature fluctuations.

 You just shot down your own argument!
What you posted was about CLIMATE. 
Weather is what we will have tomorrow.

It went over your head once again. What I posted was about how science can and does determine what kind of climate we had in the past.
Because you repeatedly claim there is no reliable info past "about 100 years".
I repeatedly prove that's not true. But you are so stuck in the mud with your theory that we don't know shit about the past I prove we do even knowing it's pointless.



noun: weather
1.
the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.

Right. Weather is what happens at a time a place. When it happened a long time ago and science makes conclusions about information revealed, it was about the climate. 
Now, if science could narrow it down to a week in September 1305, it would be about WEATHER.

(07-19-2017, 02:52 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 02:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 02:29 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 09:09 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 06:06 PM)tvguy Wrote: You know. If I went back on this thread I could find You saying the EXACT SAME THING in response to ME saying YES current record breaking weather events of THIS  frequency do indeed indicate more that you want to just call weather.

You have said this EXACT SAME THING BEFORE........

Wonky.... We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years (maybe less). For all we know the hottest years may have been in 1150.

And you were wrong then as well as now.... Every time you have said We have only been keeping reliable records for about 100 years I posted information showing otherwise.

 It's like you maybe understood then but your brain keeps resetting to the default position  that we don't have reliable records EXCEPT for about the last 100 years.

Anyway here we go again.


In recent years, scientists have also identified ways to study weather patterns from thousands of years ago. One 2013 study, for example, extended temperatures as far back as the end of the last Ice Age—more than 11,000 years ago—by examining oxygen isotopes in fossilized ocean shells. Bubbles of ancient atmosphere trapped in ice can be used to gauge carbon dioxide levels from millions of years ago; fossilized shells preserve information about ocean conditions; and plant and animal microfossils from oceans can tell scientists a great deal about prehistoric temperatures, ocean currents, and wind patterns.



Cold Climates, Warm Climates: How Can We Tell Past Temperatures?


https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/


For example, ice sheets form as snow builds up, with each year's snowfall preserved as a single, visible layer. There are measurable chemical differences in snow formed at different temperatures, so ice cores provide a record of polar temperature going back around 250,000 years for Greenland and 800,000 years for Antarctica.

Yearly banding is also found in fossilised corals and lake sediment deposits, and each band has a specific chemistry that reflects the temperature when it formed. Growth rings in tree trunks can be wider or thinner depending on the climate at the time of growth, so fossilised trees can reveal the length of growing seasons. And fossilised or frozen pollen grains allow scientists to determine what plants were growing in the past, which can give us a good idea of the climate at the time.
Marine sediment cores provide temperature records spanning millions of years. They contain the fossilised shells of tiny marine creatures that preserve a chemical record of the sea temperature when they lived.
To make their temperature reconstructions as accurate as possible scientists have calibrated each proxy by testing how it changes in response to changing temperature. However, the further back in time we look, the more sparse the proxy temperature records become. Therefore the most reliable way to work out past temperatures is to combine different proxies – and to use data from many locations to screen out local temperature fluctuations.

 You just shot down your own argument!
What you posted was about CLIMATE. 
Weather is what we will have tomorrow.

It went over your head once again. What I posted was about how science can and does determine what kind of climate we had in the past.
Because you repeatedly claim there is no reliable info past "about 100 years".
I repeatedly prove that's not true. But you are so stuck in the mud with your theory that we don't know shit about the past I prove we do even knowing it's pointless.



noun: weather
1.
the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.

Right. Weather is what happens at a time a place. When it happened a long time ago and science makes conclusions about information revealed, it was about the climate. 
Now, if science could narrow it down to a week in September 1305, it would be about WEATHER.

Your semantics argument is just stupid.

(07-19-2017, 03:00 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 02:52 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 02:46 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 02:29 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 09:09 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:  You just shot down your own argument!
What you posted was about CLIMATE. 
Weather is what we will have tomorrow.

It went over your head once again. What I posted was about how science can and does determine what kind of climate we had in the past.
Because you repeatedly claim there is no reliable info past "about 100 years".
I repeatedly prove that's not true. But you are so stuck in the mud with your theory that we don't know shit about the past I prove we do even knowing it's pointless.



noun: weather
1.
the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.

Right. Weather is what happens at a time a place. When it happened a long time ago and science makes conclusions about information revealed, it was about the climate. 
Now, if science could narrow it down to a week in September 1305, it would be about WEATHER.

Your semantics argument is just stupid.

When all else fails, suggest the other person is stupid. 

(07-19-2017, 06:38 PM)chuck white Wrote: Climate is just the summation of weather over a long period of time.

(07-19-2017, 07:58 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:

(07-19-2017, 06:38 PM)chuck white Wrote: Climate is just the summation of weather over a long period of time.

Yes. And by extension of that fact, we know that current weather patterns do not necessarily indicate changes in climate. 
But we have to be aware of changes not seen in our time or recent history. Florida is getting wet, Bangladesh is under salt water, Australia is drying up (in SOME places) and so forth. 
Simply put, we have more than likely screwed the pup. An overwhelming number of scientist who have expertise in the study of climate agree that our climate is changing. However, they use forensic models, not current weather reports, to support the argument. Even the huge ice shelf that recently broke off near the Arctic Circle may or may not be the result of a change in climate. 

We are arguing about definitions. And parsing the language is sometimes important. This is one of those times (IMHO).