i've mentioned a few times here that the MIT guys are pretty much the smartest guys in the room

Global warming is expected to intensify extreme precipitation, but the rate at which it does so in the tropics has remained unclear. Now an MIT study has given an estimate based on model simulations and observations: With every 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature, the study finds, tropical regions will see 10 percent heavier rainfall extremes, with possible impacts for flooding in populous regions.

MIT Study: For Every 1 Degree C Rise In Temperature, Tropical Regions Will See 10 Percent Heavier Rainfall Extremes | ThinkProgress

Sensitivity of tropical precipitation extremes to climate change : Nature Geoscience

I just checked out that article. It's from 2008. And it looks like the main concern was glaciers melting.

But now we know that they aren't melting. They are instead growing back.

And yeah...that whole reduce the Earth's temp by 2 degrees did sound to me like hypocrisy on their part when they claim that the 1/2 degree is so bad.

And of course...there is always the fact that the Earth has been warmer over the last few thousand years, and much colder at times as well. And yet...here we humans are. Even the polar bears somehow made it through the warm times before the Little Ice Age that occurred between 1300 and 1850

Ever notice how alarmists NEVER use the temperature of the Earth between 1300 and 1850?

That's because the Earth started warming up pretty fast after that point. So they always start around 1880 when the warm up was kicking in so they can tie it to "manmade" instead of the Earth warming back up.

I would also like to see the ACTUAL temperature (and not the temp anomaly) of the Earth in the warm Medieval period that brought about the Renaissance and the rise of Europe as a rich and cultural area.

But no matter how much I search...I can't find the actual TEMPERATURE of the Earth (which I would assume they could tell us through various scientific methods) during the warm periods so that we could compare it to the actual temperature now.

Instead all we get are graphs that show temperature anomaly. And the anomaly is from what? What is the "normal" Earth temperature that they are using to measure for the anomaly?

I can't find that either. We just get a graph that is zoomed up big to make 1/2 of one degree look huge when compared to the lower temp which was 1/2 of one degree anomaly below whatever temp it is they are using as "normal"

I'd like more information. But I just can't find it.

I'm simply supposed to toss out everything I ever learned about the Earth's history and BELIEVE in the new religion of making billions of dollars from carbon trading. :(

EDIT: I was referring to the first article you had posted. Not the last couple of posts you made.

That article, as is typical with similar articles that beat us over the head with negatives, left out a major benefit witnessed in the past few decades:

Global Garden Gets Greener : Feature Articles

As ********** would say: "believe NASA!".

And besides that, despite whatever warming we are experiencing, extreme weather is actually decreasing. So that should also be considered a benefit as well.



.

neither of the above posts has anything to do with my point- again, a 1/2 degree C change in temp has far and wide repercussions. it doesn't sound like much, 1 degree, but it is.

again, that has nothing to do with the politics.

actually, after reading this article, this post does pertain, it supports my post that 0.5 degree change is significant. i didn't state any and all changes are dire/negative. i simply stated that 0.5 degree C change is significant.

Exactly. There is no "set" temperature for the Earth and out of the range of known temps that the planet has experienced we are currently closer to the bottom end of the range. The planet, humans and civilization have survived periods of much warmer temps than we have now. This supposed goal of a two degree decrease will return us to conditions of the LIA and do much more damage than a two degree increase.

The anomaly graphs are almost meaningless because .5 degrees is just about the margin of error for terrestrial based temperature data. Besides that there is not sufficient global coverage of reliable ground-based temperature data collection. Over half of it is guess work and predictions based on models that are faulty to begin with.

On top of that NASA and the NOAA have been adjusting the ground-based temperature data record to effectively cool the past and warm the present. Most of the current data is meaningless because it is basically made up.



.

A new analysis has examined the effects of melting polar ice sheets and the subsequent rise in sea levels over the last three million years.

The paper summarizes 30 years of research into the relationships between melting ice sheets, fluctuating sea levels and the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Its most startling conclusion: sea levels have risen by 6 meters (20 feet) multiple times in the past, and this increase was prompted by a rise in global mean temperatures of only 1–2C.

Global Temperature Increase of 1 Degree Caused Sea Level Rise of 6 Meters | IFLScience

This page:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
sites
Sea Level Rise
Global Temperature Rise
Warming Oceans
Shrinking Ice Sheets
Declining Arctic Sea Ice
Glacial Retreat
Extreme Events
Ocean Acidification
Decreased Snow cover

So again, are you saying that Nasa is wrong, and you are right? Are you saying that you are smarter than Nasa?

The first thing I saw "wrong" on that page Mark, was them saying that human civilization has only existed 7,000 years.

That has very recently been proven wrong. It's quite a bit older archeologists have found.

Secondly, it's very dated. It's talking about glacier melting. Which is now known to not be happening as the ice is once again expanding.

Do I think I'm smarter than NASA? Hell no.

Do I think I'm smart enough to understand climate changes effect on the world. Hell yes.

Do I think that we can do anything at all to "stop" the Earth from warming up or cooling down. No, I do not believe we have the technology to control the Earth. If we did, we would.

Do I think that this is being used to make money and not addressing the supposed "problem" at all? Hell yes, that is a simple fact.
Is our govt. trying to curb it's GIANT carbon footprint. Hell no.

Now you tell me Mark, who is looking at reality? Me or you?

Yes, during the Eemian it was warmer in some areas but cooler in others and sea levels were much higher than they are now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

But we are nowhere close to matching any of those conditions presently. And that was at the peak of the Eemian. Chances are we have already passed the peak of this current interglacial and we will begin the slow slide back into glaciation.

The .5 degree anomaly that they parrot is based on a "normal" temperature period of about 30 years from the 50's to the 80's. That "normal" temperature is still well below the peak temperatures of this interglacial.

This whole thing is a smoke-and-mirrors poloically driven and motivated shell game.


.

Where did you find that info?

That's something I've been trying to find so I can have a more educated opinion on this. I don't want to be like ********** and not even question what we are being told.

i'm not looking at it politically, and i'm not suggesting temp change is THE catalyst. in fact, i think the politicization of the science went horribly wrong when the politicians tied pollution to temp.

but that's beside the point, the cause and effects of the global climate include wide variances, when there is a small degree in temp change, there are other changes that are significant.

Extreme events?

How do they account for the recent decrease and/or no change in cyclone activity, tornadoes, drought and floods despite year after year of "record" temperatures?


Ocean acidification?

The ocean, for the most part, is still alkaline. A slight decrease in alkalinity does not necessarily make it acidic.

Besides there is much we don't know and not everything is a catastrophic disaster.

For example:


Unusual Coral Reef Thrives in Acidified Waters

Researchers discover sharks thriving in the scalding waters of an underwater volcano


Sea level rise?

Sea level was 20 feet higher than now during the Eemian. We should consider ourselves lucky and stop complaining.


Global temperature rise?

Warm = good. Cold = bad. Compare the diversity of life in warm areas to that of cold area. Life thrives in warmth. If a bit of extra warmth somehow causes problems then we will have to adapt like we always have.



.

The anomalies presented on any given graph and/or study are set relative to a baseline of average temperature from a chosen period. Most are 30 years but some may be longer.

Some info here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/483.htm


.

Ya, I understand what you are getting at.

And to your point about wide variances in the cause/effect of global climate - I'm not so sure that any of the experts have absolutely figured out which is which.


.

The info on that page is dated. My guess is it's an older page that they haven't updated (probably because it doesn't fit the agenda of what the current govt. admin that funds them wants put out there).

As I said earlier...the first mistake on the page is the statement that human civilization is about 7,000 years old. That has been shown to be false in the last few years. Civilizations have now been found that date back 30,000 years.

So then: Nasa is wrong, and you are right. Right?

We can't control the climate, but we already affect it, in a negative way. What we have to do is stop affecting it in the negative way. Wouldn't you agree?


I wouldn't call it simple, but ok, for the sake of argument, let's call it a simple fact. If you think that this is all about making money for green-leaning companies, then you also have to agree that being encouraged not to do anything about it from coal-leaning companies is also about making money. Wouldn't you agree?


When it comes to war, no. But when it comes to incentives, yes. Tax credits for going green is a great example.

And even if they were not doing anything about it, why shouldn't you or me? We can make choices in what we buy, how we live, etc. And if you didn't think that government was doing enough, then you can vote for greener candidates, no?

We both see reality of course - its just hard to see through the fog of misinformation sometimes, that's all.